draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-00.txt   draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 16 skipping to change at page 1, line 16
Expires: February 13, 2013 D. McDysan Expires: February 13, 2013 D. McDysan
Verizon Verizon
L. Yong L. Yong
Huawei USA Huawei USA
C. Villamizar C. Villamizar
Outer Cape Cod Network Outer Cape Cod Network
Consulting Consulting
August 12, 2012 August 12, 2012
Composite Link Use Cases and Design Considerations Composite Link Use Cases and Design Considerations
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-00 draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01
Abstract Abstract
This document provides a set of use cases and design considerations This document provides a set of use cases and design considerations
for composite links. for composite links.
Composite link is a formalization of multipath techniques currently Composite link is a formalization of multipath techniques currently
in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to multipath in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to multipath
techniques. techniques.
skipping to change at page 2, line 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Composite Link Foundation Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Composite Link Foundation Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Delay Sensitive Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Delay Sensitive Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Large Volume of IP and LDP Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Large Volume of IP and LDP Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Composite Link and Packet Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Composite Link and Packet Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. MPLS-TP in network edges only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. MPLS-TP in network edges only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Composite Link at core LSP ingress/egress . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. Composite Link at core LSP ingress/egress . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. MPLS-TP as a MPLS client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.3. MPLS-TP as a MPLS client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. More Details on Existing Network Operator Appendix A. More Details on Existing Network Operator
Practices and Protocol Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Practices and Protocol Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. Existing Multipath Standards and Techniques . . . . . 17 Appendix B. Existing Multipath Standards and Techniques . . . . . 17
B.1. Common Multpath Load Spliting Techniques . . . . . . . . . 18 B.1. Common Multpath Load Spliting Techniques . . . . . . . . . 18
B.2. Simple and Adaptive Load Balancing Multipath . . . . . . . 19 B.2. Simple and Adaptive Load Balancing Multipath . . . . . . . 19
B.3. Traffic Split over Parallel Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B.3. Traffic Split over Parallel Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
B.4. Traffic Split over Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B.4. Traffic Split over Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix C. Characteristics of Transport in Core Networks . . . . 20 Appendix C. Characteristics of Transport in Core Networks . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Composite link requirements are specified in Composite link requirements are specified in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. A composite link framework is [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. A composite link framework is
defined in [I-D.so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework]. defined in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework].
Multipath techniques have been widely used in IP networks for over Multipath techniques have been widely used in IP networks for over
two decades. The use of MPLS began more than a decade ago. 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 Multipath has been widely used in IP/MPLS networks for over a decade
with very little protocol support dedicated to effective use of with very little protocol support dedicated to effective use of
multipath. multipath.
The state of the art in multipath prior to composite links is The state of the art in multipath prior to composite links is
documented in Appendix B. documented in Appendix B.
skipping to change at page 12, line 34 skipping to change at page 12, line 34
microprogrammed hardware, may be able to accomodate this forwarding microprogrammed hardware, may be able to accomodate this forwarding
change. Providing support in new hardware is not difficult, a much change. Providing support in new hardware is not difficult, a much
smaller change than, for example, changes required to disable PHP in smaller change than, for example, changes required to disable PHP in
an environment where LSP hierarchy is used. an environment where LSP hierarchy is used.
The advantage of this approach is an ability to accommodate MPLS-TP The advantage of this approach is an ability to accommodate MPLS-TP
as a client LSP but retain the high multiplexing gain and therefore as a client LSP but retain the high multiplexing gain and therefore
efficency and low network cost of a pure MPLS deployment. The efficency and low network cost of a pure MPLS deployment. The
disadvantage is the need for a small change in forwarding. disadvantage is the need for a small change in forwarding.
7. Security Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations
This document is a use cases document. Existing protocols are This document is a use cases document. Existing protocols are
referenced such as MPLS. Existing techniques such as MPLS link referenced such as MPLS. Existing techniques such as MPLS link
bundling and multipath techniques are referenced. These protocols bundling and multipath techniques are referenced. These protocols
and techniques are documented elsewhere and contain security and techniques are documented elsewhere and contain security
considerations which are unchanged by this document. considerations which are unchanged by this document.
This document also describes use cases for Composite Link, which is a This document also describes use cases for Composite Link, which is a
work-in-progress. Composite Link requirements are defined in work-in-progress. Composite Link requirements are defined in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. [I-D.so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework] [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework]
defines a framework for Composite Link. Composite Link bears many defines a framework for Composite Link. Composite Link bears many
similarities to MPLS link bundling and multipath techniques used with similarities to MPLS link bundling and multipath techniques used with
MPLS. Aditional security considerations, if any, beyond those MPLS. Aditional security considerations, if any, beyond those
already identified for MPLS, MPLS link bundling and multipath already identified for MPLS, MPLS link bundling and multipath
techniques, will be documented in the framework document if specific techniques, will be documented in the framework document if specific
to the overall framework of Composite Link, or in protocol extensions to the overall framework of Composite Link, or in protocol extensions
if specific to a given protocol extension defined later to support if specific to a given protocol extension defined later to support
Composite Link. Composite Link.
8. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank [ no one so far ] for their reviews and Authors would like to thank [ no one so far ] for their reviews and
great suggestions. great suggestions.
In the interest of full disclosure of affiliation and in the interest In the interest of full disclosure of affiliation and in the interest
of acknowledging sponsorship, past affiliations of authors are noted. 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 Ning So occurred while Ning was at Verizon.
Much of the work done by Curtis Villamizar occurred while at Much of the work done by Curtis Villamizar occurred while at
Infinera. Infinera continues to sponsor this work on a consulting Infinera. Infinera continues to sponsor this work on a consulting
basis. basis.
9. References 10. References
9.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework]
Ning, S., McDysan, D., Osborne, E., Yong, L., and C.
Villamizar, "Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS)", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-00
(work in progress), August 2012.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement] [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]
Villamizar, C., McDysan, D., Ning, S., Malis, A., and L. Villamizar, C., McDysan, D., Ning, S., Malis, A., and L.
Yong, "Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link", Yong, "Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link",
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-04 (work in progress), draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-07 (work in progress),
March 2011. June 2012.
[I-D.so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework]
So, N., Malis, A., McDysan, D., Yong, L., Villamizar, C.,
and T. Li, "Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS)",
draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework-04 (work in progress),
June 2011.
[IEEE-802.1AX] [IEEE-802.1AX]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008 IEEE IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008 IEEE
Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Link Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Link
Aggregation", 2006, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/ Aggregation", 2006, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.1AX-2008.pdf>. download/802.1AX-2008.pdf>.
[ITU-T.G.694.2] [ITU-T.G.694.2]
ITU-T, "Spectral grids for WDM applications: CWDM ITU-T, "Spectral grids for WDM applications: CWDM
wavelength grid", 2003, wavelength grid", 2003,
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
22 lines changed or deleted 26 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/