[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 RFC 7226

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]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/