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

Versions: (draft-symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

RTGWG                                                            S. Ning
Internet-Draft                                       Tata Communications
Intended status: Informational                                  A. Malis
Expires: November 15, 2014                                    Consultant
                                                              D. McDysan
                                                                 Verizon
                                                                 L. Yong
                                                              Huawei USA
                                                           C. Villamizar
                                       Outer Cape Cod Network Consulting
                                                            May 14, 2014


         Advanced Multipath Use Cases and Design Considerations
                    draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06

Abstract

   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.

   This document provides a set of use cases and design considerations
   for Advanced Multipath.  Existing practices are described.  Use cases
   made possible through Advanced Multipath extensions are described.

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 November 15, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 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
   2.  Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Multipath Foundation Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Advanced Multipath Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Delay Sensitive Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Large Volume of IP and LDP Traffic  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.3.  Multipath and Packet Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.3.1.  MPLS-TP in network edges only . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.3.2.  Multipath at core LSP ingress/egress  . . . . . . . .  12
       5.3.3.  MPLS-TP as a MPLS client  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  Network Operator Practices and Protocol Usage  . . .  17
   Appendix B.  Existing Multipath Standards and Techniques  . . . .  19
     B.1.  Common Multpath Load Spliting Techniques  . . . . . . . .  19
     B.2.  Static and Dynamic Load Balancing Multipath . . . . . . .  20
     B.3.  Traffic Split over Parallel Links . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     B.4.  Traffic Split over Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Appendix C.  Characteristics of Transport in Core Networks  . . .  22
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction

   Advanced Multipath requirements are specified in [RFC7226].  An
   Advanced Multipath framework is defined in
   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework].

   Multipath techniques have been widely used in IP networks for over
   two decades.  The use of MPLS began more than a decade ago.
   Multipath has been widely used in IP/MPLS networks for over a decade
   with very little protocol support dedicated to effective use of
   multipath.




Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   The state of the art in multipath prior to Advanced Multipath is
   documented in Appendix B.

   Both Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX] and MPLS link bundling
   [RFC4201] have been widely used in today's MPLS networks.  Advanced
   Multipath differs in the following characteristics.

   1.  Advanced Multipath allows bundling of non-homogenous links
       together as a single logical link.

   2.  Advanced Multipath provides more information in the TE-LSDB and
       supports more explicit control over placement of LSP.

2.  Assumptions

   The supported services are, but not limited to, pseudowire (PW) based
   services ([RFC3985]), including Virtual Private Network (VPN)
   services, Internet traffic encapsulated by at least one MPLS label
   ([RFC3032]), and dynamically signaled MPLS ([RFC3209] or [RFC5036])
   or MPLS-TP Label Switched Paths (LSPs) ([RFC5921]).

   The MPLS LSPs supporting these services may be point-to-point, point-
   to-multipoint, or multipoint-to-multipoint.  The MPLS LSPs may be
   signaled using RSVP-TE [RFC3209] or LDP [RFC5036].  With RSVP-TE,
   extensions to Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) may be used,
   specifically to OSPF-TE [RFC3630] or ISIS-TE [RFC5305].

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

   The IP DSCP field [RFC2474] [RFC2475] 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.  Terminology

   Terminology defined in [RFC7226] and [RFC7190] is used in this
   document.

   In addition, the following terms are used:

   classic multipath:
       Classic multipath refers to the most common current practice in
       implementation and deployment of multipath (see Appendix B).  The
       most common current practice when applied to MPLS traffic makes
       use of a hash on the MPLS label stack, and if IPv4 or IPv6 are



Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


       indicated under the label stack, makes use of the IP source and
       destination addresses [RFC4385] [RFC4928].

   classic link bundling:
       Classic link bundling refers to the use of [RFC4201] where the
       "all ones" component is not used.  Where the "all ones" component
       is used, link bundling behaves as classic multipath does.
       Classic link bundling selects a single component link to carry
       all of the traffic for a given LSP.

   Among the important distinctions between classic multipath or classic
   link bundling and Advanced Multipath are:

   1.  Classic multipath has no provision to retain packet order within
       any specific LSP.  Classic link bundling retains packet order
       among any given LSP but as a result does a poor job of splitting
       load among components and therefore is rarely (if ever) deployed.
       Advanced Multipath allows per LSP control of load split
       characteristics.

   2.  Classic multipath and classic link bundling do not provide a
       means to put some LSP on component links with lower delay.
       Advanced Multipath does.

   3.  Classic multipath will provide a load balance for IP and LDP
       traffic.  Classic link bundling will not.  Neither classic
       multipath or classic link bundling will measure IP and LDP
       traffic and reduce the RSVP-TE advertised "Available Bandwidth"
       as a result of that measurement.  Advanced Multipath better
       supports RSVP-TE used with significant traffic levels of native
       IP and native LDP.

   4.  Classic link bundling cannot support an LSP that is greater in
       capacity than any single component link.  Classic multipath
       supports this capability but may reorder traffic on such an LSP.
       Advanced Multipath can retain order of an LSP that is carried
       within an LSP that is greater in capacity than any single
       component link if the contained LSP has such a requirement.

   None of these techniques, classic multipath, classic link bundling,
   or Advanced Multipath, will reorder traffic among IP microflows.
   None of these techniques will reorder traffic among PW, if a PWE3
   Control Word is used [RFC4385].








Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


4.  Multipath Foundation Use Cases

   A simple multipath composed entirely of physical links is illustrated
   in Figure 1, where an multipath is configured between LSR1 and LSR2.
   This multipath has three component links.  Individual component links
   in a multipath may be supported by different transport technologies
   such as SONET, OTN, Ethernet, etc.  Even if the transport technology
   implementing the component links is identical, the characteristics
   (e.g., bandwidth, latency) of the component links may differ.

   The multipath in Figure 1 may carry LSP traffic flows and control
   plane packets.  Control plane packets may appear as IP packets or may
   be carried within a generic associated channel (G-Ach) [RFC5586].  A
   LSP may be established over the link by either RSVP-TE [RFC3209] or
   LDP [RFC5036] signaling protocols.  All component links in a
   multipath are summarized in the same forwarding adjacency LSP (FA-
   LSP) routing advertisement [RFC3945].  The multipath is summarized as
   one TE-Link advertised into the IGP by the multipath end points (the
   LER if the multipath is MPLS based).  This information is used in
   path computation when a full MPLS control plane is in use.

   If Advanced Multipath techniques are used, then the individual
   component links or groups of component links may optionally be
   advertised into the IGP as sub-TLV of the multipath FA advertisement
   to indicate capacity available with various characteristics, such as
   a delay range.

























Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


               Management Plane
           Configuration and Measurement <------------+
                      ^                               |
                      |                               |
              +-------+-+                           +-+-------+
              |       | |                           | |       |
         CP Packets   V |                           | V     CP Packets
              |  V    | |     Component Link 1      | |    ^  |
              |  |    |=|===========================|=|    |  |
              |  +----| |     Component Link 2      | |----+  |
              |       |=|===========================|=|       |
    Aggregated LSPs   | |                           | |       |
             ~|~~~~~~>| |     Component Link 3      | |~~~~>~~|~~
              |       |=|===========================|=|       |
              |       | |                           | |       |
              | LSR1    |                           |    LSR2 |
              +---------+                           +---------+
                      !                               !
                      !                               !
                      !<-------- Multipath ---------->!

      Figure 1: a multipath constructed with multiple physical links
                              between two LSR

   [RFC7226] specifies that component links may themselves be multipath.
   This is true for most implementations even prior to the Advanced
   Multipath work in [RFC7226].  For example, a component of a pre-
   Advanced Multipath MPLS Link Bundle or ISIS or OSPF ECMP could be an
   Ethernet LAG.  In some implementations many other combinations or
   even arbitrary combinations could be supported.  Figure 2 shows three
   three forms of component links which may be deployed in a network.




















Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


    +-------+                 1. Physical Link             +-------+
    |     |-|----------------------------------------------|-|     |
    |     | |                                              | |     |
    |     | |     +------+                     +------+    | |     |
    |     | |     | MPLS |    2. Logical Link  | MPLS |    | |     |
    |     |.|.... |......|.....................|......|....|.|     |
    |     | |-----| LSR3 |---------------------| LSR4 |----| |     |
    |     | |     +------+                     +------+    | |     |
    |     | |                                              | |     |
    |     | |                                              | |     |
    |     | |     +------+                     +------+    | |     |
    |     | |     |GMPLS |    3. Logical Link  |GMPLS |    | |     |
    |     |.|. ...|......|.....................|......|....|.|     |
    |     | |-----| LSR5 |---------------------| LSR6 |----| |     |
    |       |     +------+                     +------+    |       |
    | LSR1  |                                              |  LSR2 |
    +-------+                                              +-------+
          |<---------------- Multipath --------------------->|

          Figure 2: Illustration of Various Component Link Types

   The three forms of component link shown in Figure 2 are:

   1.  The first component link is configured with direct physical media
       plus a link layer protocol.  This case also includes emulated
       physical links, for example using pseudowire emulation.

   2.  The second component link is a TE tunnel that traverses LSR3 and
       LSR4, where LSR3 and LSR4 are the nodes supporting MPLS, but
       supporting few or no GMPLS extensions.

   3.  The third component link is formed by lower layer network that
       has GMPLS enabled.  In this case, LSR5 and LSR6 are not the nodes
       controlled by the MPLS but provide the connectivity for the
       component link.

   A multipath forms one logical link between connected LSR (LSR1 and
   LSR2 in Figure 1 and Figure 2) and is used to carry aggregated
   traffic.  Multipath relies on its component links to carry the
   traffic but must distribute or load balance the traffic.  The
   endpoints of the multipath maps incoming traffic into the set of
   component links.

   For example, LSR1 in Figure 1 distributes the set of traffic flows
   including control plane packets among the set of component links.
   LSR2 in Figure 1 receives the packets from its component links and
   sends them to MPLS forwarding engine with no attempt to reorder
   packets arriving on different component links.  The traffic in the



Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   opposite direction, from LSR2 to LSR1, is distributed across the set
   of component links by the LSR2.

   These three forms of component link are a limited set of very simple
   examples.  Many other examples are possible.  A component link may
   itself be a multipath.  A segment of an LSP (single hop for that LSP)
   may be a multipath.

5.  Advanced Multipath Use Cases

   The following subsections provide some uses of the Advanced Multipath
   extensions.  These are not the only uses, simply a set of examples.

5.1.  Delay Sensitive Applications

   Most applications benefit from lower delay.  Some types of
   applications are far more sensitive than others.  For example, real
   time bidirectional applications such as voice communication or two
   way video conferencing are far more sensitive to delay than
   unidirectional streaming audio or video.  Non-interactive bulk
   transfer is almost insensitive to delay if a large enough TCP window
   is used.

   Some applications are sensitive to delay but users of those
   applications are unwilling to pay extra to insure lower delay.  For
   example, many SIP end users are willing to accept the delay offered
   to best effort services as long as call quality is good most of the
   time.

   Other applications are sensitive to delay and willing to pay extra to
   insure lower delay.  For example, financial trading applications are
   extremely sensitive to delay and with a lot at stake are willing to
   go to great lengths to reduce delay.

   Among the requirements of Advanced Multipath are requirements to
   support non-homogeneous links.  One solution in support of lower
   delay links is to advertise capacity available within configured
   ranges of delay within a given multipath and then support the ability
   to place an LSP only on component links that meeting that LSP's delay
   requirements.

   The Advanced Multipath requirements to accommodate delay sensitive
   applications are analogous to Diffserv requirements to accommodate
   applications requiring higher quality of service on the same
   infrastructure as applications with less demanding requirements.  The
   ability to share capacity with less demanding applications, with best
   effort applications generally being the least demanding, can greatly




Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   reduce the cost of delivering service to the more demanding
   applications.

5.2.  Large Volume of IP and LDP Traffic

   IP and LDP do not support traffic engineering.  Both make use of a
   shortest (lowest routing metric) path, with an option to use equal
   cost multipath (ECMP).  Note that though ECMP is prohibited in LDP
   specifications, it is widely implemented.  Where implemented for LDP,
   ECMP is generally disabled by default for standards compliance, but
   often enabled in LDP deployments.

   Without traffic engineering capability, there must be sufficient
   capacity to accommodate the IP and LDP traffic.  If not, persistent
   queuing delay and loss will occur.  Unlike RSVP-TE, a subset of
   traffic cannot be routed using constraint based routing to avoid a
   congested portion of an infrastructure.

   In existing networks which accommodate IP and/or LDP with RSVP-TE,
   either the IP and LDP can be carried over RSVP-TE, or where the
   traffic contribution of IP and LDP is small, IP and LDP can be
   carried native and the effect on RSVP-TE can be ignored.  Ignoring
   the traffic contribution of IP is valid on high capacity networks
   where a very low volume of native IP is used primarily for control
   and network management and customer IP is carried within RSVP-TE.

   Where it is desirable to carry native IP and/or LDP and IP and/or LDP
   traffic volumes are not negligible, RSVP-TE needs improvement.  An
   enhancement offered by Advanced Multipath is an ability to measure
   the IP and LDP, filter the measurements, and reduce the capacity
   available to RSVP-TE to avoid congestion.  The treatment given to the
   IP or LDP traffic is similar to the treatment when using the "auto-
   bandwidth" feature in some RSVP-TE implementations on that same
   traffic, and giving a higher priority (numerically lower setup
   priority and holding priority value) to the "auto-bandwidth" LSP.
   The difference is that the measurement is made at each hop and the
   reduction in advertised bandwidth is made more directly.

5.3.  Multipath and Packet Ordering

   A strong motivation for multipath is the need to provide LSP capacity
   in IP backbones that exceeds the capacity of single wavelengths
   provided by transport equipment and exceeds the practical capacity
   limits achievable through inverse multiplexing.  Appendix C describes
   characteristics and limitations of transport systems today.
   Section 3 defines the terms "classic multipath" and "classic link
   bundling" used in this section.




Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   For purpose of discussion, consider two very large cities, city A and
   city Z.  For example, in the US high traffic cities might be New York
   and Los Angeles and in Europe high traffic cities might be London and
   Amsterdam.  Two other high volume cities, city B and city Y may share
   common provider core network infrastructure.  Using the same
   examples, the city B and Y may Washington DC and San Francisco or
   Paris and Stockholm.  In the US, the common infrastructure may span
   Denver, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland.  Other major traffic
   contributors on either US coast include Boston, northern Virginia on
   the east coast, and Seattle, and San Diego on the west coast.  The
   capacity of IP/MPLS links within the shared infrastructure, for
   example city to city links in the Denver, Chicago, Detroit, and
   Cleveland path in the US example, have capacities for most of the
   2000s decade that greatly exceeded single circuits available in
   transport networks.

   For a case with four large traffic sources on either side of the
   shared infrastructure, up to sixteen core city to core city traffic
   flows in excess of transport circuit capacity may be accommodated on
   the shared infrastructure.

   Today the most common IP/MPLS core network design makes use of very
   large links which consist of many smaller component links, but use
   classic multipath techniques.  A component link typically corresponds
   to the largest circuit that the transport system is capable of
   providing (or the largest cost effective circuit).  IP source and
   destination address hashing is used to distribute flows across the
   set of component links as described in Appendix B.3.

   Classic multipath can handle large LSP up to the total capacity of
   the multipath (within limits, see Appendix B.2).  A disadvantage of
   classic multipath is the reordering among traffic within a given core
   city to core city LSP.  While there is no reordering within any
   microflow and therefore no customer visible issue, MPLS-TP cannot be
   used across an infrastructure where classic multipath is in use,
   except within pseudowires.

   Capacity issues force the use of classic multipath today.  Classic
   multipath excludes a direct use of MPLS-TP.  The desire for OAM,
   offered by MPLS-TP, is in conflict with the use of classic multipath.
   There are a number of alternatives that satisfy both requirements.
   Some alternatives are described below.

   MPLS-TP in network edges only

       A simple approach which requires no change to the core is to
       disallow MPLS-TP across the core unless carried within a
       pseudowire (PW).  MPLS-TP may be used within edge domains where



Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


       classic multipath is not used.  PW may be signaled end to end
       using single segment PW (SS-PW), or stitched across domains using
       multisegment PW (MS-PW).  The PW and anything carried within the
       PW may use OAM as long as fat-PW [RFC6391] load splitting is not
       used by the PW.

   Advanced Multipath at core LSP ingress/egress

       The interior of the core network may use classic link bundling,
       with the limitation that no LSP can exceed the capacity of a
       single circuit.  Larger non-MPLS-TP LSP can be configured using
       multiple ingress to egress component MPLS-TP LSP.  This can be
       accomplished using existing IP source and destination address
       hashing configured at LSP ingress and egress.  Each component
       LSP, if constrained to be no larger than the capacity of a single
       circuit, can make use of MPLS-TP and offer OAM for all top level
       LSP across the core.

   MPLS-TP as a MPLS client

       A third approach involves making use of Entropy Labels [RFC6790]
       on all MPLS-TP LSP such that the entire MPLS-TP LSP is treated as
       a microflow by midpoint LSR, even if further encapsulated in very
       large server layer MPLS LSP.

   The above list of alternatives allow packet ordering within an LSP to
   be maintained in some circumstances and allow very large LSP
   capacities.  Each of these alternatives are discussed further in the
   following subsections.

5.3.1.  MPLS-TP in network edges only

   Classic MPLS link bundling is defined in [RFC4201] and has existed
   since early in the 2000s decade.  Classic MPLS link bundling place
   any given LSP entirely on a single component link.  Classic MPLS link
   bundling is not in widespread use as the means to accommodate large
   link capacities in core networks due to the simplicity and better
   multiplexing gain, and therefore lower network cost of classic
   multipath.

   If MPLS-TP OAM capability in the IP/MPLS network core LSP is not
   required, then there is no need to change existing network designs
   which use classic multipath and both label stack and IP source and
   destination address based hashing as a basis for load splitting.

   If MPLS-TP is needed for a subset of LSP, then those LSP can be
   carried within pseudowires.  The pseudowires adds a thin layer of
   encapsulation and therefore a small overhead.  If only a subset of



Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   LSP need MPLS-TP OAM, then some LSP must make use of the pseudowires
   and other LSP avoid them.  A straightforward way to accomplish this
   is with administrative attributes [RFC3209].

5.3.2.  Multipath at core LSP ingress/egress

   Multipath can be configured for large LSP that are made of smaller
   MPLS-TP component LSP.  Some implementations already support this
   capability, though until Advanced Multipath no IETF document required
   it.  This approach is capable of supporting MPLS-TP OAM over the
   entire set of component link LSP and therefore the entire set of top
   level LSP traversing the core.

   There are two primary disadvantage of this approach.  One is the
   number of top level LSP traversing the core can be dramatically
   increased.  The other disadvantage is the loss of multiplexing gain
   that results from use of classic link bundling within the interior of
   the core network.

   If component LSP use MPLS-TP, then no component LSP can exceed the
   capacity of a single circuit.  For a given multipath LSP there can
   either be a number of equal capacity component LSP or some number of
   full capacity component links plus one LSP carrying the excess.  For
   example, a 350 Gb/s multipath LSP over a 100 Gb/s infrastructure may
   use five 70 Gb/s component LSP or three 100 Gb/s LSP plus one 50 Gb/s
   LSP.  Classic MPLS link bundling is needed to support MPLS-TP and
   suffers from a bin packing problem even if LSP traffic is completely
   predictable, which it never is in practice.

   The common means of setting very large LSP link bandwidth parameters
   uses long term statistical measures.  For example, at one time many
   providers based their LSP bandwidth parameters on the 95th percentile
   of carried traffic as measured over the prior one week period.  It is
   common to add 10-30% to the 95th percentile value measured over the
   prior week and adjust bandwidth parameters of LSP weekly.  It is also
   possible to measure traffic flow at the LSR and adjust bandwidth
   parameters somewhat more dynamically.  This is less common in
   deployments and where deployed, makes use of filtering to track very
   long term trends in traffic levels.  In either case, short term
   variation of traffic levels relative to signaled LSP capacity are
   common.  Allowing a large over allocation of LSP bandwidth parameters
   (ie: adding 30% or more) avoids over utilization of any given LSP,
   but increases unused network capacity and increases network cost.
   Allowing a small over allocation of LSP bandwidth parameters (ie:
   10-20% or less) results in both underutilization and over utilization
   but statistically results in a total utilization within the core that
   is under capacity most or all of the time.




Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   The classic multipath solution accommodates the situation in which
   some very large LSP are under utilizing their signaled capacity and
   others are over utilizing their capacity with the need for far less
   unused network capacity to accommodate variation in actual traffic
   levels.  If the actual traffic levels of LSP can be described by a
   probability distribution, the variation of the sum of LSP is less
   than the variation of any given LSP for all but a constant traffic
   level (where the variation of the sum and the variation of the
   components are both zero).

   Splitting very large LSP at the ingress and carrying those large LSP
   within smaller MPLS-TP component LSP and then using classic link
   bundling to carry the MPLS-TP LSP is a viable approach.  However this
   approach loses the statistical gain discussed in the prior
   paragraphs.  Losing this statistical gain drives up network costs
   necessary to acheive the same very low probability of only mild
   congestion that is expected of provider networks.

   There are two situations which can motivate the use of this approach.
   This design is favored if the provider values MPLS-TP OAM across the
   core more than efficiency (or is unaware of the efficiency issue).
   This design can also make sense if transport equipment or very low
   cost core LSR are available which support only classic link bundling
   and regardless of loss of multiplexing gain, are more cost effective
   at carrying transit traffic than using equipment which supports IP
   source and destination address hashing.

5.3.3.  MPLS-TP as a MPLS client

   Accommodating MPLS-TP as a MPLS client requires the small change to
   forwarding behavior necessary to support [RFC6790] and is therefore
   most applicable to major network overbuilds or new deployments.  This
   approach is described in [RFC7190] and makes use of Entropy Labels
   [RFC6790] to prevent reordering of MPLS-TP LSP or any other LSP which
   requires that its traffic not be reordered for OAM or other reasons.

   The advantage of this approach is an ability to accommodate MPLS-TP
   as a client LSP but retain the high multiplexing gain and therefore
   efficiency and low network cost of a pure MPLS deployment.  The
   disadvantage is the need for a small change in forwarding to support
   [RFC6790].

6.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.






Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


7.  Security Considerations

   This document is a use cases document.  Existing protocols are
   referenced such as MPLS.  Existing techniques such as MPLS link
   bundling and multipath techniques are referenced.  These protocols
   and techniques are documented elsewhere and contain security
   considerations which are unchanged by this document.

   This document also describes use cases for multipath and Advanced
   Multipath.  Advanced Multipath requirements are defined in [RFC7226].
   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework] defines a framework for Advanced
   Multipath.  Advanced Multipath bears many similarities to MPLS link
   bundling and multipath techniques used with MPLS.  Additional
   security considerations, if any, beyond those already identified for
   MPLS, MPLS link bundling and multipath techniques, will be documented
   in the framework document if specific to the overall framework of
   Advanced Multipath, or in protocol extensions if specific to a given
   protocol extension defined later to support Advanced Multipath.

8.  Acknowledgments

   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.

9.  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.

   [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.694.2]
              ITU-T, "Spectral grids for WDM applications: CWDM
              wavelength grid", 2003,
              <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.694.2-200312-I>.

   [RFC1717]  Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., and D. Carr, "The
              PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC 1717, November 1994.



Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December
              1998.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC2597]  Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
              "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.

   [RFC2615]  Malis, A. and W. Simpson, "PPP over SONET/SDH", RFC 2615,
              June 1999.

   [RFC2991]  Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and
              Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, November 2000.

   [RFC2992]  Hopps, C., "Analysis of an Equal-Cost Multi-Path
              Algorithm", RFC 2992, November 2000.

   [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.

   [RFC3260]  Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
              Diffserv", RFC 3260, April 2002.

   [RFC3270]  Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
              P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
              Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
              2003.

   [RFC3809]  Nagarajan, A., "Generic Requirements for Provider
              Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPN)", RFC 3809,
              June 2004.




Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   [RFC3945]  Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.

   [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.

   [RFC4124]  Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
              Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, June
              2005.

   [RFC4201]  Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
              in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.

   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.

   [RFC4928]  Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
              Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, RFC
              4928, June 2007.

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

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
              Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.

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

   [RFC6391]  Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan,
              J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires
              over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391, November
              2011.

   [RFC6790]  Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
              L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
              RFC 6790, November 2012.





Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   [RFC7190]  Villamizar, C., "Use of Multipath with MPLS and MPLS
              Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)", RFC 7190, March 2014.

   [RFC7226]  Villamizar, C., McDysan, D., Ning, S., Malis, A., and L.
              Yong, "Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS
              Networks", RFC 7226, May 2014.

Appendix A.  Network Operator Practices and Protocol Usage

   Often, network operators have a contractual Service Level Agreement
   (SLA) with customers for services that are comprised of numerical
   values for performance measures, principally availability, latency,
   delay variation.  Additionally, network operators may have
   performance objectives for internal use by the operator.  See
   RFC3809, Section 4.9 [RFC3809] for examples of the form of such SLA
   and performance objective specifications.  In this document we use
   the term Performance Objective as defined in [RFC7226].  Applications
   and acceptable user experience have an important relationship to
   these performance parameters.

   Consider latency as an example.  In some cases, minimizing latency
   relates directly to the best customer experience (for example, in
   interactive applications closer is faster).  In other cases, user
   experience is relatively insensitive to latency, up to a specific
   limit at which point user perception of quality degrades
   significantly (e.g., interactive human voice and multimedia
   conferencing).  A number of Performance Objectives have a bound on
   point-to-point latency and as long as this bound is met the
   Performance Objective is met; decreasing the latency is not
   necessary.  In some Performance Objectives, if the specified latency
   is not met, the user considers the service as unavailable.  An
   unprotected LSP can be manually provisioned on a set of links to meet
   this type of Performance Objective, but this lowers availability
   since an alternate route that meets the latency Performance Objective
   cannot be determined.

   Historically, when an IP/MPLS network was operated over a lower layer
   circuit switched network (e.g., SONET rings), a change in latency
   caused by the lower layer network (e.g., due to a maintenance action
   or failure) was not known to the MPLS network.  This resulted in
   latency affecting end user experience, sometimes violating
   Performance Objectives or resulting in user complaints.

   A response to this problem was to provision IP/MPLS networks over
   unprotected circuits and set the metric and/or TE-metric proportional
   to latency.  This resulted in traffic being directed over the least
   latency path, even if this was not needed to meet an Performance
   Objective or meet user experience objectives.  This results in



Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   reduced flexibility and increased cost for network operators.  Some
   providers perfer to use lower layer networks to provide restoration
   and grooming, but the inability to communicate performance
   parameters, in particular latency, from the lower layer network to
   the higher layer network is an important problem to be solved before
   this can be done.

   Latency Performance Objectives for point-to-point services are often
   tied closely to geographic locations, while latency for multipoint
   services may be based upon a worst case within a region.

   The time frames for restoration (i.e., as implemented by
   predetermined protection, convergence of routing protocols and/or
   signaling) for services range from on the order of 100 ms or less
   (e.g., for VPWS to emulate classical SDH/SONET protection switching),
   to several minutes (e.g., to allow BGP to reconverge for L3VPN) and
   may differ among the set of customers within a single service.

   The presence of only three Traffic Class (TC) bits (previously known
   as EXP bits) in the MPLS shim header is limiting when a network
   operator needs to support QoS classes for multiple services (e.g.,
   L2VPN VPWS, VPLS, L3VPN and Internet), each of which has a set of QoS
   classes that need to be supported and where the operator prefers to
   use only E-LSP [RFC3270].  In some cases one bit is used to indicate
   conformance to some ingress traffic classification, leaving only two
   bits for indicating the service QoS classes.  One approach that has
   been taken is to aggregate these QoS classes into similar sets on
   LER-LSR and LSR-LSR links and continue to use only E-LSP.  Another
   approach is to use L-LSP as defined in [RFC3270] or use the Class-
   Type as defined in [RFC4124] to support up to eight mappings of TC
   into Per-Hop Behavior (PHB).

   The IP DSCP cannot be used for flow identification.  The use of IP
   DSCP for flow identification is incompatible with Assured Forwarding
   services [RFC2597] or any other service which may use more than one
   DSCP code point to carry traffic for a given microflow.  In general
   network operators do not rely on the DSCP of Internet packets in core
   networks but must preserve DSCP values for use closer to network
   edges.

   A label is pushed onto Internet packets when they are carried along
   with L2VPN or L3VPN packets on the same link or lower layer network
   provides a mean to distinguish between the QoS class for these
   packets.

   Operating an MPLS-TE network involves a different paradigm from
   operating an IGP metric-based LDP signaled MPLS network.  The
   multipoint-to-point LDP signaled MPLS LSPs occur automatically, and



Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   balancing across parallel links occurs if the IGP metrics are set
   "equally" (with equality a locally definable relation) and if ECMP is
   enabled for LDP, which network operators generally do in large
   networks.

   Traffic is typically comprised of large (some very large) flows and a
   much larger number of small flows.  In some cases, separate LSPs are
   established for very large flows.  Very large microflows can occur
   even if the IP header information is inspected by a LSR.  For example
   an IPsec tunnel that carries a large amount of traffic must be
   carried as a single large flow.  An important example of large flows
   is that of a L2VPN or L3VPN customer who has an access line bandwidth
   comparable to a client-client component link bandwidth -- there could
   be flows that are on the order of the access line bandwidth.

Appendix B.  Existing Multipath Standards and Techniques

   Today the requirement to handle large aggregations of traffic, much
   larger than a single component link, can be handled by a number of
   techniques which we will collectively call multipath.  Multipath
   applied to parallel links between the same set of nodes includes
   Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX], link bundling [RFC4201], or
   other aggregation techniques some of which may be vendor specific.
   Multipath applied to diverse paths rather than parallel links
   includes Equal Cost MultiPath (ECMP) as applied to OSPF, ISIS, LDP,
   or even BGP, and equal cost LSP, as described in Appendix B.4.
   Various multipath techniques have strengths and weaknesses.

   Existing multipath techniques solve the problem of large aggregations
   of traffic, without addressing the other requirements outlined in
   this document, particularly those described in Section 5.

B.1.  Common Multpath Load Spliting Techniques

   Identical load balancing techniques are used for multipath both over
   parallel links and over diverse paths.

   Large aggregates of IP traffic do not provide explicit signaling to
   indicate the expected traffic loads.  Large aggregates of MPLS
   traffic are carried in MPLS tunnels supported by MPLS LSP.  LSP which
   are signaled using RSVP-TE extensions do provide explicit signaling
   which includes the expected traffic load for the aggregate.  LSP
   which are signaled using LDP do not provide an expected traffic load.

   MPLS LSP may contain other MPLS LSP arranged hierarchically.  When an
   MPLS LSR serves as a midpoint LSR in an LSP carrying client LSP as
   payload, there is no signaling associated with these client LSP.
   Therefore even when using RSVP-TE signaling there may be insufficient



Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   information provided by signaling to adequately distribute load based
   solely on signaling.

   Generally a set of label stack entries that is unique across the
   ordered set of label numbers in the label stack can safely be assumed
   to contain a group of flows.  The reordering of traffic can therefore
   be considered to be acceptable unless reordering occurs within
   traffic containing a common unique set of label stack entries.
   Existing load splitting techniques take advantage of this property in
   addition to looking beyond the bottom of the label stack and
   determining if the payload is IPv4 or IPv6 to load balance traffic
   accordingly.

   MPLS-TP OAM violates the assumption that it is safe to reorder
   traffic within an LSP.  If MPLS-TP OAM is to be accommodated, then
   existing multipath techniques must be modified.  [RFC6790] and
   [RFC7190] provide a solution but require a small forwarding change.

   For example, a large aggregate of IP traffic may be subdivided into a
   large number of groups of flows using a hash on the IP source and
   destination addresses.  This is as described in [RFC2475] and
   clarified in [RFC3260].  For MPLS traffic carrying IP, a similar hash
   can be performed on the set of labels in the label stack.  These
   techniques are both examples of means to subdivide traffic into
   groups of flows for the purpose of load balancing traffic across
   aggregated link capacity.  The means of identifying a group of flows
   should not be confused with the definition of a flow.

   Discussion of whether a hash based approach provides a sufficiently
   even load balance using any particular hashing algorithm or method of
   distributing traffic across a set of component links is outside of
   the scope of this document.

   The current load balancing techniques are referenced in [RFC4385] and
   [RFC4928].  The use of three hash based approaches are described in
   [RFC2991] and [RFC2992].  A mechanism to identify flows within PW is
   described in [RFC6391].  The use of hash based approaches is
   mentioned as an example of an existing set of techniques to
   distribute traffic over a set of component links.  Other techniques
   are not precluded.

B.2.  Static and Dynamic Load Balancing Multipath

   Static multipath generally relies on the mathematical probability
   that given a very large number of small microflows, these microflows
   will tend to be distributed evenly across a hash space.  Early very
   static multipath implementations assumed that all component links are
   of equal capacity and perform a modulo operation across the hashed



Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   value.  An alternate static multipath technique uses a table
   generally with a power of two size, and distributes the table entries
   proportionally among component links according to the capacity of
   each component link.

   Static load balancing works well if there are a very large number of
   small microflows (i.e., microflow rate is much less than component
   link capacity).  However, the case where there are even a few large
   microflows is not handled well by static load balancing.

   A dynamic load balancing multipath technique is one where the traffic
   bound to each component link is measured and the load split is
   adjusted accordingly.  As long as the adjustment is done within a
   single network element, then no protocol extensions are required and
   there are no interoperability issues.

   Note that if the load balancing algorithm and/or its parameters is
   adjusted, then packets in some flows may be briefly delivered out of
   sequence, however in practice such adjustments can be made very
   infrequent.

B.3.  Traffic Split over Parallel Links

   The load splitting techniques defined in Appendix B.1 and
   Appendix B.2 are both used in splitting traffic over parallel links
   between the same pair of nodes.  The best known technique, though far
   from being the first, is Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX].
   This same technique had been applied much earlier using OSPF or ISIS
   Equal Cost MultiPath (ECMP) over parallel links between the same
   nodes.  Multilink PPP [RFC1717] uses a technique that provides
   inverse multiplexing, however a number of vendors had provided
   proprietary extensions to PPP over SONET/SDH [RFC2615] that predated
   Ethernet Link Aggregation but are no longer used.

   Link bundling [RFC4201] provides yet another means of handling
   parallel LSP.  RFC4201 explicitly allow a special value of all ones
   to indicate a split across all members of the bundle.  This "all
   ones" component link is signaled in the MPLS RESV to indicate that
   the link bundle is making use of classic multipath techniques.

B.4.  Traffic Split over Multiple Paths

   OSPF or ISIS Equal Cost MultiPath (ECMP) is a well known form of
   traffic split over multiple paths that may traverse intermediate
   nodes.  ECMP is often incorrectly equated to only this case, and
   multipath over multiple diverse paths is often incorrectly equated to
   ECMP.




Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   Many implementations are able to create more than one LSP between a
   pair of nodes, where these LSP are routed diversely to better make
   use of available capacity.  The load on these LSP can be distributed
   proportionally to the reserved bandwidth of the LSP.  These multiple
   LSP may be advertised as a single PSC FA and any LSP making use of
   the FA may be split over these multiple LSP.

   Link bundling [RFC4201] component links may themselves be LSP.  When
   this technique is used, any LSP which specifies the link bundle may
   be split across the multiple paths of the component LSP that comprise
   the bundle.

Appendix C.  Characteristics of Transport in Core Networks

   The characteristics of primary interest are the capacity of a single
   circuit and the use of wave division multiplexing (WDM) to provide a
   large number of parallel circuits.

   Wave division multiplexing (WDM) supports multiple independent
   channels (independent ignoring crosstalk noise) at slightly different
   wavelengths of light, multiplexed onto a single fiber.  Typical in
   the early 2000s was 40 wavelengths of 10 Gb/s capacity per
   wavelength.  These wavelengths are in the C-band range, which is
   about 1530-1565 nm, though some work has been done using the L-band
   1565-1625 nm.

   The C-band has been carved up using a 100 GHz spacing from 191.7 THz
   to 196.1 THz by [ITU-T.G.694.2].  This yields 44 channels.  If the
   outermost channels are not used, due to poorer transmission
   characteristics, then typically 40 are used.  For practical reasons,
   a 50 GhZ or 25 GHz spacing is used by more recent equipment,
   yielding. 80 or 160 channels in practice.

   The early optical modulation techniques used within a single channel
   yielded 2.5Gb/s and 10 Gb/s capacity per channel.  As modulation
   techniques have improved 40 Gb/s and 100 Gb/s per channel have been
   achieved.

   The 40 channels of 10 Gb/s common in the mid 2000s yields a total of
   400 Gb/s.  Tighter spacing and better modulations are yielding up to
   8 Tb/s or more in more recent systems.

   Over the optical modulation is an electrical encoding.  In the 1990s
   this was typically Synchronous Optical Networking (SONET) or
   Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH), with a maximum defined circuit
   capacity of 40 Gb/s (OC-768), though the 10 Gb/s OC-192 is more
   common.  More recently the low level electrical encoding has been
   Optical Transport Network (OTN) defined by ITU-T.  OTN currently



Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   defines circuit capacities up to a nominal 100 Gb/s (ODU4).  Both
   SONET/SDH and OTN make use of time division multiplexing (TDM) where
   the a higher capacity circuit such as a 100 Gb/s ODU4 in OTN may be
   subdivided into lower fixed capacity circuits such as ten 10 Gb/s
   ODU2.

   In the 1990s, all IP and later IP/MPLS networks either used a
   fraction of maximum circuit capacity, or at most the full circuit
   capacity toward the end of the decade, when full circuit capacity was
   2.5 Gb/s or 10 Gb/s.  Beyond 2000, the TDM circuit multiplexing
   capability of SONET/SDH or OTN was rarely used.

   Early in the 2000s both transport equipment and core LSR offered 40
   Gb/s SONET OC-768.  However 10 Gb/s transport equipment was
   predominantly deployed throughout the decade, partially because LSR
   10GbE ports were far more cost effective than either OC-192 or OC-768
   and 10GbE became practical in the second half of the decade.

   Entering the 2010 decade, LSR 40GbE and 100GbE are expected to become
   widely available and cost effective.  Slightly preceding this
   transport equipment making use of 40 Gb/s and 100 Gb/s modulations
   are becoming available.  This transport equipment is capable or
   carrying 40 Gb/s ODU3 and 100 Gb/s ODU4 circuits.

   Early in the 2000s decade IP/MPLS core networks were making use of
   single 10 Gb/s circuits.  Capacity grew quickly in the first half of
   the decade but more IP/MPLS core networks had only a small number of
   IP/MPLS links requiring 4-8 parallel 10 Gb/s circuits.  However, the
   use of multipath was necessary, was deemed the simplest and most cost
   effective alternative, and became thoroughly entrenched.  By the end
   of the 2000s decade nearly all major IP/MPLS core service provider
   networks and a few content provider networks had IP/MPLS links which
   exceeded 100 Gb/s, long before 40GbE was available and 40 Gb/s
   transport in widespread use.

   It is less clear when IP/MPLS LSP exceeded 10 Gb/s, 40 Gb/s, and 100
   Gb/s.  By 2010, many service providers have LSP in excess of 100 Gb/
   s, but few are willing to disclose how many LSP have reached this
   capacity.

   By 2012 40GbE and 100GbE LSR products had become available, but were
   mostly still being evaluated or in trial use by service providers and
   contect providers.  The cost of components required to deliver 100GbE
   products remained high making these products less cost effective.
   This is expected to change within years.

   The important point is that IP/MPLS core network links have long ago
   exceeded 100 Gb/s and some may have already exceeded a Tb/s and a



Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft        Advanced Multipath Use Cases              May 2014


   small number of IP/MPLS LSP exceed 100 Gb/s.  By the time 100 Gb/s
   circuits are widely deployed, many IP/MPLS core network links are
   likely to exceed 1 Tb/s and many IP/MPLS LSP capacities are likely to
   exceed 100 Gb/s.  The growth in service provider traffic has
   consistently outpaced growth in DWDM channel capacities and the
   growth in capacity of single interfaces and is expected to continue
   to do so.  Therefore multipath techniques are likely here to stay.

Authors' Addresses

   So Ning
   Tata Communications

   Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com


   Andrew Malis
   Consultant

   Email: agmalis@gmail.com


   Dave McDysan
   Verizon
   22001 Loudoun County PKWY
   Ashburn, VA  20147
   USA

   Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com


   Lucy Yong
   Huawei USA
   5340 Legacy Dr.
   Plano, TX  75025
   USA

   Phone: +1 469-277-5837
   Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com


   Curtis Villamizar
   Outer Cape Cod Network Consulting

   Email: curtis@occnc.com






Ning, et al.            Expires November 15, 2014              [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/