Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement
RTGWG C. Villamizar, Ed.
Internet-Draft OCCNC, LLC
Intended status: Informational D. McDysan, Ed.
Expires: August 10, 2014 Verizon
S. Ning
Tata Communications
A. Malis
Huawei
L. Yong
Huawei USA
February 06, 2014
Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-16
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 August 10, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 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 . . . . 8
3.3. Component Links with Different Characteristics . . . . . 8
3.4. Considerations for Bidirectional Client LSP . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Multipath Load Balancing Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. General Requirements for Protocol Solutions . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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 flow as is current practice.
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
Numerous forms of multipath exist today including MPLS Link Bundling
[RFC4201], Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX], and various
forms of Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) such as for OSPF ECMP, IS-IS
ECMP, and BGP ECMP. Refer to the Appendices in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases] for a description of existing
techniques and a set of references.
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, in Section 3, that are as independent as
possible of protocol specifications . 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 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
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
b. specific paths across a network to a destination node, or
c. links or paths to an intermediate node used to reach a
common destination.
The paths need not have equal capacity. The paths may or may not
have equal cost in a routing protocol.
Advanced Multipath
Advanced Multipath is a formalization of multipath techniques
that meets the requirements defined in this document. A key
capability of Advanced Multipath is the support of non-
homogeneous component links.
Advanced Multipath Group (AMG)
An Advanced Multipath Group (AMG) is a collection of component
links where Advanced Multipath techniques are applied.
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 is another method of sending traffic over
multiple links. 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 Layer
A client layer is the layer immediately above a server layer.
Server Layer
A server layer is the layer immediately below a client layer.
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
Higher Layers
Relative to a particular layer, a client layer and any layer
above that is considered a higher layer. Upper layer is
synonymous with higher layer.
Lower Layers
Relative to a particular layer, a server layer and any layer
below that is considered a lower layer.
Client LSP
A client LSP is an LSP which has been set up over one or more
lower layers. In the context of this discussion, one type of
client LSP is a LSP which has been set up over an AMG.
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
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
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
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, or over
MPLS server layer LSP.
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.
This document makes no statement on whether Advanced Multipath is
itself a layer or whether an instance of AMG is itself a layer. This
is to avoid engaging in long and pointless discussions about what
consistitutes a proper layer.
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.
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.
FR#1 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.
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
FR#2 An AMG MAY be announced in conjunction with detailed parameters
about its component links, such as bandwidth and latency. The
AMG SHALL behave as a single IGP adjacency.
FR#3 The solution SHALL provide a means to summarize some routing
advertisements regarding the characteristics of an AMG 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#4 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#5 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#6 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#7 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
oscillation may cause reordering, there MUST be means to control
the frequency of changing the component link over which a flow is
placed.
FR#8 Management and diagnostic protocols MUST be able to operate
over AMGs.
Existing scaling techniques used in MPLS networks apply to MPLS
networks which support Advanced Multipath. Scalability and stability
are covered in more detail in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework].
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
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#9 The solution SHALL specify a protocol means to allow a server
layer network to communicate latency to the client layer network.
FR#10 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
component links that connect the same pair of nodes or ultimately
lead to a common destination.
FR#11 In requirements that follow in this document the word
"indicate" is used where information may be provided by either
the combination of link state IGP advertisement and MPLS LSP
signaling or via management plane protocols. In later documents
providing framework and protocol definitions both signaling and
management plane mechanisms MUST be defined.
FR#12 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
indicate a requirement that a client LSP will traverse a
component link with the minimum latency value. This will provide
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
a means by which minimum latency Performance Objectives of flows
within the client LSP can be supported.
FR#13 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
indicate a requirement 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#14 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
indicate a requirement 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 August 10, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
FR#15 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
indicate a requirement that a client LSP be bound to a particular
component link within an AMG. If this option is not exercised,
then a client LSP that is carried over an AMG may be bound to any
component link or set of component links matching all other
signaled requirements, and different directions of a
bidirectional client LSP can be bound to different component
links.
FR#16 The solution MUST support a means for the client layer to
indicate a requirement that for a specific co-routed
bidirectional client LSP both directions of the co-routed
bidirectional client LSP MUST be bound to the same set of nodes.
FR#17 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#18 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
indicate a requirement that a specific client LSP MUST NOT be
split across multiple component links.
FR#19 The solution SHALL provide a means local to a node that
automatically distributes flows across the component links in the
AMG such that Performance Objectives are met as described in
prior requirements in Section 3.3.
FR#20 The solution SHALL measure traffic flows or groups of traffic
flows and dynamically select the component link on which to place
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
this traffic in order to balance the load so that no component
link in the AMG between a pair of nodes is overloaded.
FR#21 When a traffic flow is moved from one component link to another
in the same AMG between a set of nodes, it MUST be done so in a
minimally disruptive manner.
FR#22 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#23 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
indicate a requirement that a specific client LSP contains
traffic whose frequency of component link change due to load
balancing needs to be bounded by a specific value. The solution
MUST provide a means to bound the frequency of component link
change due to load balancing for subsets of traffic flow on AMGs.
FR#24 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 AMG.
FR#25 The solution SHOULD support the use case where an AMG itself is
a component link for a higher order AMG. For example, an AMG
comprised of MPLS-TP bi-directional tunnels viewed as logical
links could then be used as a component link in yet another AMG
that connects MPLS routers.
FR#26 If the total demand offered by traffic flows exceeds the
capacity of the AMG, 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
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
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
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 AMG. 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 AMG are in the same routing
domain, the solution MAY define extensions to the IGP.
GR#5 When the nodes are connected via an AMG are in different MPLS
network topologies, the solution SHALL NOT rely on extensions to
the IGP.
GR#6 The solution SHOULD support AMG 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 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.
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
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 AMG and its individual component links and
support notification of status change.
MR#2 Management Plane MUST be able to activate or de-activate any
component link in an AMG in order to facilitate operation
maintenance tasks. The routers at each end of an AMG 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
AMG 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 AMG performance.
MR#5 Management Plane MUST be able to verify connectivity over each
individual component link within an AMG.
MR#6 Component link fault notification MUST be sent to the
management plane.
MR#7 AMG 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.
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
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.
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.
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
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, "Advanced Multipath Framework in MPLS", draft-
ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-04 (work in progress), July 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases]
Ning, S., Malis, A., McDysan, D., Yong, L., and C.
Villamizar, "Advanced Multipath Use Cases and Design
Considerations", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-05 (work in
progress), November 2013.
[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]
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.
Villamizar, et al. Expires August 10, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements February 2014
[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
Huawei Technologies
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
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 August 10, 2014 [Page 16]
