RTGWG C. Villamizar, Ed.
Internet-Draft OCCNC, LLC
Intended status: Informational D. McDysan, Ed.
Expires: July 28, 2014 Verizon
S. Ning
Tata Communications
A. Malis
Consultant
L. Yong
Huawei USA
January 25, 2014
Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-14
Abstract
This document provides a set of requirements for Advanced Multipath
in MPLS Networks.
Advanced Multipath is a formalization of multipath techniques
currently in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to
existing multipath techniques.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 28, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Availability, Stability and Transient Response . . . . . 6
3.2. Component Links Provided by Lower Layer Networks . . . . 7
3.3. Component Links with Different Characteristics . . . . . 7
3.4. Considerations for Bidirectional Client LSP . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Multipath Load Balancing Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. General Requirements for Protocol Solutions . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that
are best provided using parallel links between routers or carrying
traffic over multiple MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs). In core
networks there is often no alternative since the aggregate capacities
of core networks today far exceed the capacity of a single physical
link or single packet processing element.
The presence of parallel links, with each link potentially comprised
of multiple layers has resulted in additional requirements. Certain
services may benefit from being restricted to a subset of the
component links or a specific component link, where component link
characteristics, such as latency, differ. Certain services require
that an LSP be treated as atomic and avoid reordering. Other
services will continue to require only that reordering not occur
within a microflow as is current practice.
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
The purpose of this document is to clearly enumerate a set of
requirements related to the protocols and mechanisms that provide
MPLS based Advanced Multipath. The intent is to first provide a set
of functional requirements that are as independent as possible of
protocol specifications in Section 3. A set of general protocol
requirements are defined in Section 4. A set of network management
requirements are defined in Section 5.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Any statement which requires the solution to support some new
functionality through use of [RFC2119] keywords, SHOULD be
interpreted as follows. The implementation either MUST or SHOULD
support the new functionality depending on the use of either MUST or
SHOULD in the requirements statement. The implementation SHOULD in
most or all cases allow any new functionality to be individually
enabled or disabled through configuration. A service provider or
other deployment MAY choose to enable or disable any feature in their
network, subject to implementation limitations on sets of features
which can be disabled.
2. Definitions
Multipath
The term multipath includes all techniques in which
1. Traffic can take more than one path from one node to a
destination.
2. Individual packets take one path only. Packets are not
subdivided and reassembled at the receiving end.
3. Packets are not resequenced at the receiving end.
4. The paths may be:
a. parallel links between two nodes, or
b. may be specific paths across a network to a destination
node, or
c. may be links or paths to an intermediate node used to
reach a common destination.
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
The paths need not have equal capacity. The paths may or may not
have equal cost in a routing protocol.
Advanced Multipath
Advanced Multipath meets the requirements defined in this
document. A key capability of advanced multipath is the support
of non-homogeneous component links.
Composite Link
The term Composite Link had been a registered trademark of Avici
Systems, but was abandoned in 2007. The term composite link is
now defined by the ITU-T in [ITU-T.G.800]. The ITU-T definition
includes multipath as defined here, plus inverse multiplexing
which is explicitly excluded from the definition of multipath.
Inverse Multiplexing
Inverse multiplexing either transmits whole packets and
resequences the packets at the receiving end or subdivides
packets and reassembles the packets at the receiving end.
Inverse multiplexing requires that all packets be handled by a
common egress packet processing element and is therefore not
useful for very high bandwidth applications.
Component Link
The ITU-T definition of composite link in [ITU-T.G.800] and the
IETF definition of link bundling in [RFC4201] both refer to an
individual link in the composite link or link bundle as a
component link. The term component link is applicable to all
forms of multipath. The IEEE uses the term member rather than
component link in Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX].
Client LSP
A client LSP is an LSP which has been set up over a server layer.
In the context of this discussion, a client LSP is a LSP which
has been set up over a multipath as opposed to an LSP
representing the multipath itself or any LSP supporting a
component links of that multipath.
Flow
A sequence of packets that should be transferred in order on one
component link of a multipath.
Flow identification
The label stack and other information that uniquely identifies a
flow. Other information in flow identification may include an IP
header, pseudowire (PW) control word, Ethernet MAC address, etc.
Note that a client LSP may contain one or more Flows or a client
LSP may be equivalent to a Flow. Flow identification is used to
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
locally select a component link, or a path through the network
toward the destination.
Load Balance
Load split, load balance, or load distribution refers to
subdividing traffic over a set of component links such that load
is fairly evenly distributed over the set of component links and
certain packet ordering requirements are met. Some existing
techniques better achieve these objectives than others.
Performance Objective
Numerical values for performance measures, principally
availability, latency, and delay variation. Performance
objectives may be related to Service Level Agreements (SLA) as
defined in RFC2475 or may be strictly internal. Performance
objectives may span links, edge-to-edge, or end-to-end.
Performance objectives may span one provider or may span multiple
providers.
A Component Link may be a point-to-point physical link (where a
"physical link" includes one or more link layer plus a physical
layer) or a logical link that preserves ordering in the steady state.
A component link may have transient out of order events, but such
events must not exceed the network's Performance Objectives. For
example, a component link may be comprised of any supportable
combination of link layers over a physical layer or over logical sub-
layers, including those providing physical layer emulation.
The ingress and egress of a multipath may be midpoint LSRs with
respect to a given client LSP. A midpoint LSR does not participate
in the signaling of any clients of the client LSP. Therefore, in
general, multipath endpoints cannot determine requirements of clients
of a client LSP through participation in the signaling of the clients
of the client LSP.
The term Advanced Multipath is intended to be used within the context
of this document and the related documents,
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases] and [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework] and
any other related document. Other advanced multipath techniques may
in the future arise. If the capabilities defined in this document
become commonplace, they would no longer be considered "advanced".
Use of the term "advanced multipath" outside this document, if
referring to the term as defined here, should indicate Advanced
Multipath as defined by this document, citing the current document
name. If using another definition of "advanced multipath", documents
may optionally clarify that they are not using the term "advanced
multipath" as defined by this document if clarification is deemed
helpful.
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
3. Functional Requirements
The Functional Requirements in this section are grouped in
subsections starting with the highest priority.
3.1. Availability, Stability and Transient Response
Limiting the period of unavailability in response to failures or
transient events is extremely important as well as maintaining
stability. The transient period between some service disrupting
event and the convergence of the routing and/or signaling protocols
MUST occur within a time frame specified by Performance Objective
values.
FR#1 An advanced multipath MAY be announced in conjunction with
detailed parameters about its component links, such as bandwidth
and latency. The advanced multipath SHALL behave as a single IGP
adjacency.
FR#2 The solution SHALL provide a means to summarize some routing
advertisements regarding the characteristics of an advanced
multipath such that the updated protocol mechanisms maintain
convergence times within the timeframe needed to meet or not
significantly exceed existing Performance Objective for
convergence on the same network or convergence on a network with
a similar topology.
FR#3 The solution SHALL ensure that restoration operations happen
within the timeframe needed to meet existing Performance
Objective for restoration time on the same network or restoration
time on a network with a similar topology.
FR#4 The solution shall provide a mechanism to select a set of paths
for an LSP across a network in such a way that flows within the
LSP are distributed across the set of paths while meeting all of
the other requirements stated above. The solution SHOULD work in
a manner similar to existing multipath techniques except as
necessary to accommodate advanced multipath requirements.
FR#5 If extensions to existing protocols are specified and/or new
protocols are defined, then the solution SHOULD provide a means
for a network operator to migrate an existing deployment in a
minimally disruptive manner.
FR#6 Any load balancing solutions MUST NOT oscillate. Some change
in path MAY occur. The solution MUST ensure that path stability
and traffic reordering continue to meet Performance Objective on
the same network or on a network with a similar topology. Since
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
oscillation may cause reordering, there MUST be means to control
the frequency of changing the component link over which a flow is
placed.
FR#7 Management and diagnostic protocols MUST be able to operate
over advanced multipaths.
Existing scaling techniques used in MPLS networks apply to MPLS
networks which support Advanced Multipaths. Scalability and
stability are covered in more detail in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework].
3.2. Component Links Provided by Lower Layer Networks
A component link may be supported by a lower layer network. For
example, the lower layer may be a circuit switched network or another
MPLS network (e.g., MPLS-TP)). The lower layer network may change
the latency (and/or other performance parameters) seen by the client
layer. Currently, there is no protocol for the lower layer network
to inform the higher layer network of a change in a performance
parameter. Communication of the latency performance parameter is a
very important requirement. Communication of other performance
parameters (e.g., delay variation) is desirable.
FR#8 The solution SHALL specify a protocol means to allow a lower
layer server network to communicate latency to the higher layer
client network.
FR#9 The precision of latency reporting SHOULD be configurable. A
reasonable default SHOULD be provided. Implementations SHOULD
support precision of at least 10% of the one way latencies for
latency of 1 msec or more.
The intent is to measure the predominant latency in uncongested
service provider networks, where geographic delay dominates and is on
the order of milliseconds or more. The argument for including
queuing delay is that it reflects the delay experienced by
applications. The argument against including queuing delay is that
if used in routing decisions it can result in routing instability.
This tradeoff is discussed in detail in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework].
3.3. Component Links with Different Characteristics
As one means to provide high availability, network operators deploy a
topology in the MPLS network using lower layer networks that have a
certain degree of diversity at the lower layer(s). Many techniques
have been developed to balance the distribution of flows across
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
component links that connect the same pair of nodes. When the path
for a flow can be chosen from a set of candidate nodes connected via
advanced multipaths, other techniques have been developed. Refer to
the Appendices in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases] for a description of
existing techniques and a set of references.
FR#10 The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a client
LSP will traverse a component link with the minimum latency
value. This will provide a means by which minimum latency
Performance Objectives of flows within the client LSP can be
supported.
FR#11 The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a client
LSP will traverse a component link with a maximum acceptable
latency value as specified by protocol. This will provide a
means by which bounded latency Performance Objectives of flows
within the client LSP can be supported.
FR#12 The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a client
LSP will traverse a component link with a maximum acceptable
delay variation value as specified by protocol.
The above set of requirements apply to component links with different
characteristics regardless as to whether those component links are
provided by parallel physical links between nodes or provided by sets
of paths across a network provided by server layer LSP.
Allowing multipath to contain component links with different
characteristics can improve the overall load balance and can be
accomplished while still accommodating the more strict requirements
of a subset of client LSP.
3.4. Considerations for Bidirectional Client LSP
Some client LSP MAY require a path bound to a specific set of
component links. This case is most likely to occur in bidirectional
client LSP where time synchronization protocols such as Precision
Time Protocol (PTP) or Network Time Protocol (NTP) are carried, or in
any other case where symmetric delay is highly desirable. There may
be other uses of this capability.
Other client LSP may only require that the LSP path serve the same
set of nodes in both directions. This is necessary if protocols are
carried which make use of the reverse direction of the LSP as a back
channel in cases such OAM protocols using IPv4 Time to Live (TTL) or
IPv4 Hop Limit to monitor or diagnose the underlying path. There may
be other uses of this capability.
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
FR#13 The solution MUST support an optional means for client LSP
signaling to bind a client LSP to a particular component link
within an advanced multipath. If this option is not exercised,
then a client LSP that is bound to an advanced multipath may be
bound to any component link matching all other signaled
requirements, and different directions of a bidirectional client
LSP can be bound to different component links.
FR#14 The solution MUST support a means to indicate that both
directions of co-routed bidirectional client LSP MUST be bound to
the same set of nodes.
FR#15 A client LSP which is bound to a specific component link SHOULD
NOT exceed the capacity of a single component link. This is
inherent in the assumption that a network SHOULD NOT operate in a
congested state if congestion is avoidable.
For some large bidirectional client LSP it may not be necessary (or
possible due to the client LSP capacity) to bind the LSP to a common
set of component links but may be necessary or desirable to constrain
the path taken by the LSP to the same set of nodes in both
directions. Without an entirely new and highly dynamic protocol, it
is not feasible to constrain such an bidirectional client LSP to take
multiple paths and coordinate load balance on each side to keep both
directions of flows within such an LSP on common paths.
3.5. Multipath Load Balancing Dynamics
Multipath load balancing attempts to keep traffic levels on all
component links below congestion levels if possible and preferably
well balanced. Load balancing is minimally disruptive (see
discussion below this section's list of requirements). The
sensitivity to these minimal disruptions of traffic flows within
specific client LSP needs to be considered.
FR#16 The solution SHALL provide a means that indicates whether any
of the LSP within an client LSP MUST NOT be split across multiple
component links.
FR#17 The solution SHALL provide a means local to a node that
automatically distributes flows across the component links in the
advanced multipath such that Performance Objectives are met as
described in prior requirements in Section 3.3.
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
FR#18 The solution SHALL measure traffic flows or groups of traffic
flows and dynamically select the component link on which to place
this traffic in order to balance the load so that no component
link in the advanced multipath between a pair of nodes is
overloaded.
FR#19 When a traffic flow is moved from one component link to another
in the same advanced multipath between a set of nodes, it MUST be
done so in a minimally disruptive manner.
FR#20 Load balancing MAY be used during sustained low traffic periods
to reduce the number of active component links for the purpose of
power reduction.
FR#21 The solution SHALL provide a means to identify client LSPs
containing traffic flows whose rearrangement frequency needs to
be bounded by a specific value and MUST provide a means to bound
the rearrangement frequency for traffic flows within these client
LSP.
FR#22 The solution SHALL provide a means to distribute traffic flows
from a single client LSP across multiple component links to
handle at least the case where the traffic carried in an client
LSP exceeds that of any component link in the advanced multipath.
FR#23 The solution SHOULD support the use case where an advanced
multipath itself is a component link for a higher order advanced
multipath. For example, an advanced multipath comprised of MPLS-
TP bi-directional tunnels viewed as logical links could then be
used as a component link in yet another advanced multipath that
connects MPLS routers.
FR#24 If the total demand offered by traffic flows exceeds the
capacity of the advanced multipath, the solution SHOULD define a
means to cause some client LSP to move to an alternate set of
paths that are not congested. These "preempted LSP" may not be
restored if there is no uncongested path in the network.
A minimally disruptive change implies that as little disruption as is
practical occurs. Such a change can be achieved with zero packet
loss. A delay discontinuity may occur, which is considered to be a
minimally disruptive event for most services if this type of event is
sufficiently rare. A delay discontinuity is an example of a
minimally disruptive behavior corresponding to current techniques.
A delay discontinuity is an isolated event which may greatly exceed
the normal delay variation (jitter). A delay discontinuity has the
following effect. When a flow is moved from a current link to a
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
target link with lower latency, reordering can occur. When a flow is
moved from a current link to a target link with a higher latency, a
time gap can occur. Some flows (e.g., timing distribution, PW
circuit emulation) are quite sensitive to these effects. A delay
discontinuity can also cause a jitter buffer underrun or overrun
affecting user experience in real time voice services (causing an
audible click). These sensitivities may be specified in a
Performance Objective.
As with any load balancing change, a change initiated for the purpose
of power reduction may be minimally disruptive. Typically the
disruption is limited to a change in delay characteristics and the
potential for a very brief period with traffic reordering. The
network operator when configuring a network for power reduction
should weigh the benefit of power reduction against the disadvantage
of a minimal disruption.
4. General Requirements for Protocol Solutions
This section defines requirements for protocol specification used to
meet the functional requirements specified in Section 3.
GR#1 The solution SHOULD extend existing protocols wherever
possible, developing a new protocol only where doing so adds a
significant set of capabilities.
GR#2 A solution SHOULD extend LDP capabilities to meet functional
requirements. This MUST be accomplished without defining LDP
Traffic Engineering (TE) methods as decided in [RFC3468]).
GR#3 Coexistence of LDP and RSVP-TE signaled LSPs MUST be supported
on an advanced multipath. Function requirements SHOULD, where
possible, be accommodated in a manner that supports LDP signaled
LSP, RSVP signaled LSP, and LSP set up using management plane
mechanisms.
GR#4 When the nodes connected via an advanced multipath are in the
same MPLS network topology, the solution MAY define extensions to
the IGP.
GR#5 When the nodes are connected via an advanced multipath are in
different MPLS network topologies, the solution SHALL NOT rely on
extensions to the IGP.
GR#6 The solution SHOULD support advanced multipath IGP
advertisement that results in convergence time better than that
of advertising the individual component links. The solution
SHALL be designed so that it represents the range of capabilities
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
of the individual component links such that functional
requirements are met, and also minimizes the frequency of
advertisement updates which may cause IGP convergence to occur.
Examples of advertisement update triggering events to be
considered include: client LSP establishment/release, changes in
component link characteristics (e.g., latency, up/down state),
and/or bandwidth utilization.
GR#7 When a worst case failure scenario occurs, the number of RSVP-
TE client LSPs to be resignaled will cause a period of
unavailability as perceived by users. The resignaling time of
the solution MUST support protocol mechanisms meeting existing
provider Performance Objective for the duration of unavailability
without significantly relaxing those existing Performance
Objectives for the same network or for networks with similar
topology. For example, the processing load due to IGP
readvertisement MUST NOT increase significantly and the
resignaling time of the solution MUST NOT increase significantly
as compared with current methods.
5. Management Requirements
MR#1 Management Plane MUST support polling of the status and
configuration of an advanced multipath and its individual
advanced multipath and support notification of status change.
MR#2 Management Plane MUST be able to activate or de-activate any
component link in an advanced multipath in order to facilitate
operation maintenance tasks. The routers at each end of an
advanced multipath MUST redistribute traffic to move traffic from
a de-activated link to other component links based on the traffic
flow TE criteria.
MR#3 Management Plane MUST be able to configure a client LSP over an
advanced multipath and be able to select a component link for the
client LSP.
MR#4 Management Plane MUST be able to trace which component link a
client LSP is assigned to and monitor individual component link
and advanced multipath performance.
MR#5 Management Plane MUST be able to verify connectivity over each
individual component link within an advanced multipath.
MR#6 Component link fault notification MUST be sent to the
management plane.
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
MR#7 Advanced multipath fault notification MUST be sent to the
management plane and MUST be distributed via link state message
in the IGP.
MR#8 Management Plane SHOULD provide the means for an operator to
initiate an optimization process.
MR#9 An operator initiated optimization MUST be performed in a
minimally disruptive manner as described in Section 3.5.
6. Acknowledgements
Frederic Jounay of France Telecom and Yuji Kamite of NTT
Communications Corporation co-authored a version of this document.
A rewrite of this document occurred after the IETF77 meeting.
Dimitri Papadimitriou, Lou Berger, Tony Li, the former WG chairs John
Scuder and Alex Zinin, the current WG chair Alia Atlas, and others
provided valuable guidance prior to and at the IETF77 RTGWG meeting.
Tony Li and John Drake have made numerous valuable comments on the
RTGWG mailing list that are reflected in versions following the
IETF77 meeting.
Iftekhar Hussain and Kireeti Kompella made comments on the RTGWG
mailing list after IETF82 that identified a new requirement.
Iftekhar Hussain made numerous valuable comments on the RTGWG mailing
list that resulted in improvements to document clarity.
In the interest of full disclosure of affiliation and in the interest
of acknowledging sponsorship, past affiliations of authors are noted.
Much of the work done by Ning So occurred while Ning was at Verizon.
Much of the work done by Curtis Villamizar occurred while at
Infinera. Much of the work done by Andy Malis occurred while Andy
was at Verizon.
Tom Yu and Francis Dupont provided the SecDir and GenArt reviews
respectively. Both reviews provided useful comments. The current
wording of the security section is based on suggested wording from
Tom Yu. Lou Berger provided the RtgDir review which resulted in the
document being renamed and substantial clarification of terminology
and document wording, particularly in the Abstract, Introduction, and
Definitions sections.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations for MPLS/GMPLS and for MPLS-TP are
documented in [RFC5920] and [RFC6941]. This document does not impact
the security of MPLS, GMPLS, or MPLS-TP.
The additional information that this document requires does not
provide significant additional value to an attacker beyond the
information already typically available from attacking a routing or
signaling protocol. If the requirements of this document are met by
extending an existing routing or signaling protocol, the security
considerations of the protocol being extended apply. If the
requirements of this document are met by specifying a new protocol,
the security considerations of that new protocol should include an
evaluation of what level of protection is required by the additional
information specified in this document, such as data origin
authentication.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework]
Ning, S., McDysan, D., Osborne, E., Yong, L., and C.
Villamizar, "Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS)", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-01
(work in progress), August 2012.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases]
Ning, S., Malis, A., McDysan, D., Yong, L., and C.
Villamizar, "Composite Link Use Cases and Design
Considerations", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01 (work in
progress), August 2012.
[IEEE-802.1AX]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008 IEEE
Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Link
Aggregation", 2006, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.1AX-2008.pdf>.
[ITU-T.G.800]
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
ITU-T, "Unified functional architecture of transport
networks", 2007, <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G/
recommendation.asp?parent=T-REC-G.800>.
[RFC3468] Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "The Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling
protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6941] Fang, L., Niven-Jenkins, B., Mansfield, S., and R.
Graveman, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Security
Framework", RFC 6941, April 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Curtis Villamizar (editor)
OCCNC, LLC
Email: curtis@occnc.com
Dave McDysan (editor)
Verizon
22001 Loudoun County PKWY
Ashburn, VA 20147
USA
Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com
So Ning
Tata Communications
Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com
Andrew Malis
Consultant
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements January 2014
Lucy Yong
Huawei USA
5340 Legacy Dr.
Plano, TX 75025
USA
Phone: +1 469-277-5837
Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com
Villamizar, et al. Expires July 28, 2014 [Page 16]