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

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

RTGWG                                                 C. Villamizar, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                OCCNC, LLC
Intended status: Informational                           D. McDysan, Ed.
Expires: December 9, 2012                                        Verizon
                                                                 S. Ning
                                                     Tata Communications
                                                                A. Malis
                                                                 Verizon
                                                                 L. Yong
                                                              Huawei USA
                                                            June 7, 2012


              Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link
                   draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-06

Abstract

   There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that
   are best provided using parallel links between routers or MPLS LSR.
   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.

   Current practice related to multipath is described briefly in an
   appendix.

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



Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


   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 December 9, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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.
































Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Assumptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Network Operator Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Availability, Stability and Transient Response . . . . . .  5
     4.2.  Component Links Provided by Lower Layer Networks . . . . .  6
     4.3.  Parallel Component Links with Different Characteristics  .  8
   5.  Derived Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Management Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix A.  ITU-T G.800 Composite Link Definitions and
                Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15






























Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


1.  Introduction

   The purpose of this document is to describe why network operators
   require certain functions in order to solve certain business problems
   (Section 2).  The intent is to first describe why things need to be
   done in terms of functional requirements that are as independent as
   possible of protocol specifications (Section 4).  For certain
   functional requirements this document describes a set of derived
   protocol requirements (Section 5).  Appendix A provides a summary of
   G.800 terminology used to define a composite link.

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].


2.  Assumptions

   The services supported include L3VPN RFC 4364 [RFC4364], RFC 4797
   [RFC4797]L2VPN RFC 4664 [RFC4664] (VPWS, VPLS (RFC 4761 [RFC4761],
   RFC 4762 [RFC4762]) and VPMS VPMS Framework
   [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements]), Internet traffic
   encapsulated by at least one MPLS label (RFC 3032 [RFC3032]), and
   dynamically signaled MPLS (RFC 3209 [RFC3209] or RFC 5036 [RFC5036])
   or MPLS-TP LSPs (RFC 5921 [RFC5921]) and pseudowires (RFC 3985
   [RFC3985]).  The MPLS LSPs supporting these services may be point-to-
   point, point-to-multipoint, or multipoint-to-multipoint.

   The locations in a network where these requirements apply are a Label
   Edge Router (LER) or a Label Switch Router (LSR) as defined in RFC
   3031 [RFC3031].

   The IP DSCP cannot be used for flow identification since L3VPN
   requires Diffserv transparency (see RFC 4031 5.5.2 [RFC4031]), and in
   general network operators do not rely on the DSCP of Internet
   packets.


3.  Definitions

   ITU-T G.800 Based Composite and Component Link Definitions:
       Section 6.9.2 of ITU-T-G.800 [ITU-T.G.800] defines composite and
       component links as summarized in Appendix A.  The following
       definitions for composite and component links are derived from
       and intended to be consistent with the cited ITU-T G.800
       terminology.



Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


       Composite Link:  A composite link is a logical link composed of a
           set of parallel point-to-point component links, where all
           links in the set share the same endpoints.  A composite link
           may itself be a component of another composite link, but only
           a strict hierarchy of links is allowed.

       Component Link:  A point-to-point physical link (including one or
           more link 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
           specific NPO.  Examples of a physical link are: any set of
           link layers over a WDM wavelength or any supportable
           combination of Ethernet PHY, PPP, SONET or OTN over a
           physical link.  Examples of a logical link are: MPLS LSP,
           Ethernet VLAN, MPLS-TP LSP.  A set of link layers supported
           over pseudowire is a logical link that appears to the client
           to be a physical link.

   Flow:  A sequence of packets that must be transferred in order on one
       component link.

   Flow identification:  The label stack and other information that
       uniquely identifies a flow.  Other information in flow
       identification may include an IP header, PW control word,
       Ethernet MAC address, etc.  Note that an LSP may contain one or
       more Flows or an 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.

   Network Performance Objective (NPO):  Numerical values for
       performance measures, principally availability, latency, and
       delay variation.  See [I-D.symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases] for more
       details.


4.  Network Operator Functional Requirements

   The Functional Requirements in this section are grouped in
   subsections starting with the highest priority.

4.1.  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 NPO values.
   [I-D.symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases] provides references and a summary of



Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


   service types requiring a range of restoration times.

   FR#1  The solution SHALL provide a means to summarize some routing
         advertisements regarding the characteristics of a composite
         link such that the routing protocol converges within the
         timeframe needed to meet the network performance objective.  A
         composite link CAN be announced in conjunction with detailed
         parameters about its component links, such as bandwidth and
         latency.  The composite link SHALL behave as a single IGP
         adjacency.

   FR#2  The solution SHALL ensure that all possible restoration
         operations happen within the timeframe needed to meet the NPO.
         The solution may need to specify a means for aggregating
         signaling to meet this requirement.

   FR#3  The solution SHALL provide a mechanism to select a path for a
         flow across a network that contains a number of paths comprised
         of pairs of nodes connected by composite links in such a way as
         to automatically distribute the load over the network nodes
         connected by composite links while meeting all of the other
         mandatory requirements stated above.  The solution SHOULD work
         in a manner similar to that of current networks without any
         composite link protocol enhancements when the characteristics
         of the individual component links are advertised.

   FR#4  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#5  Any automatic LSP routing and/or load balancing solutions MUST
         not oscillate such that performance observed by users changes
         such that an NPO is violated.  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#6  Management and diagnostic protocols MUST be able to operate
         over composite links.

   Existing scaling techniques used in MPLS networks apply to MPLS
   networks which support Composite Links.  Scalability and stability
   are covered in more detail in [I-D.so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework].

4.2.  Component Links Provided by Lower Layer Networks

   Case 3 as defined in [ITU-T.G.800] involves a component link
   supporting an MPLS layer network over another lower layer network



Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


   (e.g., circuit switched or another MPLS network (e.g., MPLS-TP)).
   The lower layer network may change the latency (and/or other
   performance parameters) seen by the MPLS layer network.  Network
   Operators have NPOs of which some components are based on performance
   parameters.  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#7   In order to support network NPOs and provide acceptable user
          experience, the solution SHALL specify a protocol means to
          allow a lower layer server network to communicate latency to
          the higher layer client network.

   FR#8   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 ms or more.

   FR#9   The solution SHALL provide a means to limit the latency on a
          per LSP basis between nodes within a network to meet an NPO
          target when the path between these nodes contains one or more
          pairs of nodes connected via a composite link.

          The NPOs differ across the services, and some services have
          different NPOs for different QoS classes, for example, one QoS
          class may have a much larger latency bound than another.
          Overload can occur which would violate an NPO parameter (e.g.,
          loss) and some remedy to handle this case for a composite link
          is required.

   FR#10  If the total demand offered by traffic flows exceeds the
          capacity of the composite link, the solution SHOULD define a
          means to cause the LSPs for some traffic flows to move to some
          other point in the network that is not congested.  These
          "preempted LSPs" may not be restored if there is no
          uncongested path in the network.

   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
   it if used in routing decisions it can result in routing instability.
   This tradeoff is discussed in detail in
   [I-D.so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework].




Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


4.3.  Parallel Component Links with Different Characteristics

   Corresponding to Case 1 of [ITU-T.G.800], 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.  When the path for a flow can be
   chosen from a set of candidate nodes connected via composite links,
   other techniques have been developed.  Refer to the Appendices in
   [I-D.symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases] for a description of existing
   techniques and a set of references.

   FR#11  The solution SHALL measure traffic on a labeled traffic flow
          and dynamically select the component link on which to place
          this flow in order to balance the load so that no component
          link in the composite link between a pair of nodes is
          overloaded.

   FR#12  When a traffic flow is moved from one component link to
          another in the same composite link between a set of nodes (or
          sites), it MUST be done so in a minimally disruptive manner.

   FR#13  The solution SHALL provide a means to identify flows whose
          rearrangement frequency needs to be bounded by a configured
          value.

   FR#14  The solution SHALL provide a means that communicates whether
          the flows within an LSP can be split across multiple component
          links.  The solution SHOULD provide a means to indicate the
          flow identification field(s) which can be used along the flow
          path which can be used to perform this function.

   FR#15  The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a traffic
          flow shall select a component link with the minimum latency
          value.

   FR#16  The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a traffic
          flow shall select a component link with a maximum acceptable
          latency value as specified by protocol.

   FR#17  The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a traffic
          flow shall select a component link with a maximum acceptable
          delay variation value as specified by protocol.







Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


   FR#18  The solution SHALL provide a means local to a node that
          automatically distributes flows across the component links in
          the composite link such that NPOs are met.

   FR#19  The solution SHALL provide a means to distribute flows from a
          single LSP across multiple component links to handle at least
          the case where the traffic carried in an LSP exceeds that of
          any component link in the composite link.  As defined in
          section 3, a flow is a sequence of packets that must be
          transferred on one component link.

   FR#20  The solution SHOULD support the use case where a composite
          link itself is a component link for a higher order composite
          link.  For example, a composite link comprised of MPLS-TP bi-
          directional tunnels viewed as logical links could then be used
          as a component link in yet another composite link that
          connects MPLS routers.

   FR#21  The solution MUST support an optional means for LSP signaling
          to bind an LSP to a particular component link within a
          composite link.  If this option is not exercised, then an LSP
          that is bound to a composite link may be bound to any
          component link matching all other signaled requirements, and
          different directions of a bidirectional LSP can be bound to
          different component links.

   FR#22  The solution MUST support a means to indicate that both
          directions of co-routed bidirectional LSP MUST be bound to the
          same component link.

   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
   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 an NPO.




Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


5.  Derived Requirements

   This section takes the next step and derives high-level requirements
   on protocol specification from the functional requirements.

   DR#1  The solution SHOULD attempt to extend existing protocols
         wherever possible, developing a new protocol only if this adds
         a significant set of capabilities.

   DR#2  A solution SHOULD extend LDP capabilities to meet functional
         requirements (without using TE methods as decided in
         [RFC3468]).

   DR#3  Coexistence of LDP and RSVP-TE signaled LSPs MUST be supported
         on a composite link.  Other functional requirements should be
         supported as independently of signaling protocol as possible.

   DR#4  When the nodes connected via a composite link are in the same
         MPLS network topology, the solution MAY define extensions to
         the IGP.

   DR#5  When the nodes are connected via a composite link are in
         different MPLS network topologies, the solution SHALL NOT rely
         on extensions to the IGP.

   DR#6  The solution SHOULD support composite link 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.

         Examples of advertisement update triggering events to be
         considered include: LSP establishment/release, changes in
         component link characteristics (e.g., latency, up/down state),
         and/or bandwidth utilization.

   DR#7  When a worst case failure scenario occurs, the number of
         RSVP-TE LSPs to be resignaled will cause a period of
         unavailability as perceived by users.  The resignaling time of
         the solution MUST meet the NPO objective for the duration of
         unavailability.  The resignaling time of the solution MUST not
         increase significantly as compared with current methods.







Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


6.  Management Requirements

   MR#1  Management Plane MUST support polling of the status and
         configuration of a composite link and its individual composite
         link and support notification of status change.

   MR#2  Management Plane MUST be able to activate or de-activate any
         component link in a composite link in order to facilitate
         operation maintenance tasks.  The routers at each end of a
         composite link 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 LSP over a
         composite link and be able to select a component link for the
         LSP.

   MR#4  Management Plane MUST be able to trace which component link a
         LSP is assigned to and monitor individual component link and
         composite link performance.

   MR#5  Management Plane MUST be able to verify connectivity over each
         individual component link within a composite link.

   MR#6  Management Plane SHOULD provide the means for an operator to
         initiate an optimization process.

   MR#7  Any statement which requires the solution to support some new
         functionality through use of the words new functionality,
         SHOULD be interpretted 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.


7.  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 WG chairs John Scuder
   and Alex Zinin, 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



Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


   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.  Infinera continues to sponsor this work on a consulting
   basis.


8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.


9.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies a set of requirements.  The requirements
   themselves do not pose a security threat.  If these requirements are
   met using MPLS signaling as commonly practiced today with
   authenticated but unencrypted OSPF-TE, ISIS-TE, and RSVP-TE or LDP,
   then the requirement to provide additional information in this
   communication presents additional information that could conceivably
   be gathered in a man-in-the-middle confidentiality breach.  Such an
   attack would require a capability to monitor this signaling either
   through a provider breach or access to provider physical transmission
   infrastructure.  A provider breach already poses a threat of numerous
   tpes of attacks which are of far more serious consequence.  Encrption
   of the signaling can prevent or render more difficult any
   confidentiality breach that otherwise might occur by means of access
   to provider physical transmission infrastructure.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.






Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements]
              Kamite, Y., JOUNAY, F., Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D.,
              and L. Jin, "Framework and Requirements for Virtual
              Private Multicast Service (VPMS)",
              draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-04 (work in
              progress), July 2011.

   [I-D.so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework]
              So, N., McDysan, D., Osborne, E., Yong, L., and C.
              Villamizar, "Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol
              Label Switching (MPLS)",
              draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework-05 (work in progress),
              March 2012.

   [I-D.symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases]
              Malis, A., Villamizar, C., McDysan, D., Yong, L., and N.
              So, "Composite Link USe Cases and Design Considerations",
              draft-symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-00 (work in progress),
              February 2012.

   [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>.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3468]  Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "The Multiprotocol Label
              Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling
              protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003.

   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
              Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.

   [RFC4031]  Carugi, M. and D. McDysan, "Service Requirements for Layer
              3 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)",
              RFC 4031, April 2005.



Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

   [RFC4664]  Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
              Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006.

   [RFC4761]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
              (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",
              RFC 4761, January 2007.

   [RFC4762]  Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service
              (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
              RFC 4762, January 2007.

   [RFC4797]  Rekhter, Y., Bonica, R., and E. Rosen, "Use of Provider
              Edge to Provider Edge (PE-PE) Generic Routing
              Encapsulation (GRE) or IP in BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks", RFC 4797, January 2007.

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
              Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.

   [RFC5921]  Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L.
              Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks",
              RFC 5921, July 2010.


Appendix A.  ITU-T G.800 Composite Link Definitions and Terminology

   Composite Link:
       Section 6.9.2 of ITU-T-G.800 [ITU-T.G.800] defines composite link
       in terms of three cases, of which the following two are relevant
       (the one describing inverse (TDM) multiplexing does not apply).
       Note that these case definitions are taken verbatim from section
       6.9, "Layer Relationships".

       Case 1:  "Multiple parallel links between the same subnetworks
           can be bundled together into a single composite link.  Each
           component of the composite link is independent in the sense
           that each component link is supported by a separate server
           layer trail.  The composite link conveys communication
           information using different server layer trails thus the
           sequence of symbols crossing this link may not be preserved.
           This is illustrated in Figure 14."







Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


       Case 3:  "A link can also be constructed by a concatenation of
           component links and configured channel forwarding
           relationships.  The forwarding relationships must have a 1:1
           correspondence to the link connections that will be provided
           by the client link.  In this case, it is not possible to
           fully infer the status of the link by observing the server
           layer trails visible at the ends of the link.  This is
           illustrated in Figure 16."

   Subnetwork:  A set of one or more nodes (i.e., LER or LSR) and links.
       As a special case it can represent a site comprised of multiple
       nodes.

   Forwarding Relationship:  Configured forwarding between ports on a
       subnetwork.  It may be connectionless (e.g., IP, not considered
       in this draft), or connection oriented (e.g., MPLS signaled or
       configured).

   Component Link:  A topolological relationship between subnetworks
       (i.e., a connection between nodes), which may be a wavelength,
       circuit, virtual circuit or an MPLS LSP.


Authors' Addresses

   Curtis Villamizar (editor)
   OCCNC, LLC

   Email: curtis@occnc.com


   Dave McDysan (editor)
   Verizon
   22001 Loudoun County PKWY
   Ashburn, VA  20147

   Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com


   So Ning
   Tata Communications

   Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com








Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         Composite Link Requirements             June 2012


   Andrew Malis
   Verizon
   117 West St.
   Waltham, MA  02451

   Phone: +1 781-466-2362
   Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com


   Lucy Yong
   Huawei USA
   1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500
   Plano, TX  75075

   Phone: +1 469-229-5387
   Email: lucyyong@huawei.com



































Villamizar, et al.      Expires December 9, 2012               [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/