draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-03.txt   draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-04.txt 
RTGWG S. Ning RTGWG S. Ning
Internet-Draft Tata Communications Internet-Draft Tata Communications
Intended status: Informational A. Malis Intended status: Informational A. Malis
Expires: December 17, 2013 D. McDysan Expires: January 14, 2014 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
June 15, 2013 July 13, 2013
Composite Link Use Cases and Design Considerations Advannced Multipath Use Cases and Design Considerations
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-03 draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-04
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 Advanced Multipath.
Composite link is a formalization of multipath techniques currently Advanced Multipath is a formalization of multipath techniques
in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to existing currently in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to
multipath techniques. existing multipath techniques.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Composite Link Foundation Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Multipath Foundation Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Delay Sensitive Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Delay Sensitive Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Large Volume of IP and LDP Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Large Volume of IP and LDP Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Composite Link and Packet Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Multipath and Packet Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. MPLS-TP in network edges only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. MPLS-TP in network edges only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Composite Link at core LSP ingress/egress . . . . . . . . 11 7.2. Multipath at core LSP ingress/egress . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. MPLS-TP as a MPLS client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.3. MPLS-TP as a MPLS client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix B. Existing Multipath Standards and Techniques . . . . . 18 Appendix B. Existing Multipath Standards and Techniques . . . . . 19
B.1. Common Multpath Load Spliting Techniques . . . . . . . . . 18 B.1. Common Multpath Load Spliting Techniques . . . . . . . . . 19
B.2. Static and Dynamic Load Balancing Multipath . . . . . . . 19 B.2. Static and Dynamic Load Balancing Multipath . . . . . . . 21
B.3. Traffic Split over Parallel Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B.3. Traffic Split over Parallel Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
B.4. Traffic Split over Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B.4. Traffic Split over Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix C. Characteristics of Transport in Core Networks . . . . 21 Appendix C. Characteristics of Transport in Core Networks . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Composite link requirements are specified in Advanced Multipath requirements are specified in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. A composite link framework is [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. An Advanced Multipath framework is
defined in [I-D.ietf-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 Advanced Multipath is
documented in Appendix B. documented in Appendix B.
Both Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX] and MPLS link bundling Both Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX] and MPLS link bundling
[RFC4201] have been widely used in today's MPLS networks. Composite [RFC4201] have been widely used in today's MPLS networks. Advanced
link differs in the following characteristics. Multipath differs in the following characteristics.
1. A composite link allows bundling of non-homogenous links together 1. Advanced Multipath allows bundling of non-homogenous links
as a single logical link. together as a single logical link.
2. A composite link provides more information in the TE-LSDB and 2. Advanced Multipath provides more information in the TE-LSDB and
supports more explicit control over placement of LSP. supports more explicit control over placement of LSP.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Assumptions
2.1. Terminology 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 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement] is used in Terminology defined in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement] is used in
this document. this document.
In addition, the following terms are used: In addition, the following terms are used:
classic multipath: classic multipath:
Classic multipath refers to the most common current practice in Classic multipath refers to the most common current practice in
implementation and deployment of multipath (see Appendix B). The implementation and deployment of multipath (see Appendix B). The
most common current practice makes use of a hash on the MPLS most common current practice makes use of a hash on the MPLS
skipping to change at page 4, line 7 skipping to change at page 4, line 28
[RFC4385] [RFC4928]. [RFC4385] [RFC4928].
classic link bundling: classic link bundling:
Classic link bundling refers to the use of [RFC4201] where the Classic link bundling refers to the use of [RFC4201] where the
"all ones" component is not used. Where the "all ones" component "all ones" component is not used. Where the "all ones" component
is used, link bundling behaves as classic multipath does. is used, link bundling behaves as classic multipath does.
Classic link bundling selects a single component link to carry Classic link bundling selects a single component link to carry
all of the traffic for a given LSP. all of the traffic for a given LSP.
Among the important distinctions between classic multipath or classic Among the important distinctions between classic multipath or classic
link bundling and Composite Link are: link bundling and Advanced Multipath are:
1. Classic multipath has no provision to retain packet order within 1. Classic multipath has no provision to retain packet order within
any specific LSP. Classic link bundling retains packet order any specific LSP. Classic link bundling retains packet order
among any given LSP but as a result does a poor job of splitting among any given LSP but as a result does a poor job of splitting
load among components and therefore is rarely (if ever) deployed. load among components and therefore is rarely (if ever) deployed.
Composite Link allows per LSP control of load split Advanced Multipath allows per LSP control of load split
characteristics. characteristics.
2. Classic multipath and classic link bundling do not provide a 2. Classic multipath and classic link bundling do not provide a
means to put some LSP on component links with lower delay. means to put some LSP on component links with lower delay.
Composite Link does. Advanced Multipath does.
3. Classic multipath will provide a load balance for IP and LDP 3. Classic multipath will provide a load balance for IP and LDP
traffic. Classic link bundling will not. Neither classic traffic. Classic link bundling will not. Neither classic
multipath or classic link bundling will measure IP and LDP multipath or classic link bundling will measure IP and LDP
traffic and reduce the advertised "Available Bandwidth" as a traffic and reduce the advertised "Available Bandwidth" as a
result of that measurement. Composite Link better supports result of that measurement. Advanced Multipath better supports
RSVP-TE used with significant traffic levels of native IP and RSVP-TE used with significant traffic levels of native IP and
native LDP. native LDP.
4. Classic link bundling cannot support an LSP that is greater in 4. Classic link bundling cannot support an LSP that is greater in
capacity than any single component link. Classic multipath capacity than any single component link. Classic multipath
supports this capability but may reorder traffic on such an LSP. supports this capability but may reorder traffic on such an LSP.
Composite Link can retain order of an LSP that is carried within Advanced Multipath can retain order of an LSP that is carried
an LSP that is greater in capacity than any single component link within an LSP that is greater in capacity than any single
if the contained LSP has such a requirement. component link if the contained LSP has such a requirement.
None of these techniques, classic multipath, classic link bundling, None of these techniques, classic multipath, classic link bundling,
or Composite Link, will reorder traffic among IP microflows. None of or Advanced Multipath, will reorder traffic among IP microflows.
these techniques will reorder traffic among PW, if a PWE3 Control None of these techniques will reorder traffic among PW, if a PWE3
Word is used [RFC4385]. Control Word is used [RFC4385].
3. Composite Link Foundation Use Cases 4. Multipath Foundation Use Cases
A simple composite link composed entirely of physical links is A simple multipath composed entirely of physical links is illustrated
illustrated in Figure 1, where a composite link is configured between in Figure 1, where an multipath is configured between LSR1 and LSR2.
LSR1 and LSR2. This composite link has three component links. This multipath has three component links. Individual component links
Individual component links in a composite link may be supported by in a multipath may be supported by different transport technologies
different transport technologies such as SONET, OTN, Ethernet, etc. such as SONET, OTN, Ethernet, etc. Even if the transport technology
Even if the transport technology implementing the component links is implementing the component links is identical, the characteristics
identical, the characteristics (e.g., bandwidth, latency) of the (e.g., bandwidth, latency) of the component links may differ.
component links may differ.
The composite link in Figure 1 may carry LSP traffic flows and The multipath in Figure 1 may carry LSP traffic flows and control
control plane packets. Control plane packets may appear as IP plane packets. Control plane packets may appear as IP packets or may
packets or may be carried within a generic associated channel (G-Ach) be carried within a generic associated channel (G-Ach) [RFC5586]. A
[RFC5586]. A LSP may be established over the link by either RSVP-TE LSP may be established over the link by either RSVP-TE [RFC3209] or
[RFC3209] or LDP [RFC5036] signaling protocols. All component links LDP [RFC5036] signaling protocols. All component links in a
in a composite link are summarized in the same forwarding adjacency multipath are summarized in the same forwarding adjacency LSP (FA-
LSP (FA-LSP) routing advertisement [RFC3945]. The composite link is LSP) routing advertisement [RFC3945]. The multipath is summarized as
summarized as one TE-Link advertised into the IGP by the composite one TE-Link advertised into the IGP by the multipath end points (the
link end points. This information is used in path computation when a LER if the multipath is MPLS based). This information is used in
full MPLS control plane is in use. The individual component links or path computation when a full MPLS control plane is in use.
groups of component links may optionally be advertised into the IGP
as sub-TLV of the composite link advertisement to indicate capacity If Advanced Multipath techniques are used, then the individual
available with various characteristics, such as a delay range. 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.
Management Plane Management Plane
Configuration and Measurement <------------+ Configuration and Measurement <------------+
^ | ^ |
| | | |
+-------+-+ +-+-------+ +-------+-+ +-+-------+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
CP Packets V | | V CP Packets CP Packets V | | V CP Packets
| V | | Component Link 1 | | ^ | | V | | Component Link 1 | | ^ |
| | |=|===========================|=| | | | | |=|===========================|=| | |
| +----| | Component Link 2 | |----+ | | +----| | Component Link 2 | |----+ |
| |=|===========================|=| | | |=|===========================|=| |
Aggregated LSPs | | | | | Aggregated LSPs | | | | |
~|~~~~~~>| | Component Link 3 | |~~~~>~~|~~ ~|~~~~~~>| | Component Link 3 | |~~~~>~~|~~
| |=|===========================|=| | | |=|===========================|=| |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| LSR1 | | LSR2 | | LSR1 | | LSR2 |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!<------ Composite Link ------->! !<-------- Multipath ---------->!
Figure 1: a composite link constructed with multiple physical links Figure 1: a multipath constructed with multiple physical links
between two LSR between two LSR
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement] specifies that component links may [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement] specifies that component links may
themselves be composite links. Figure 2 shows three three forms of themselves be multipath. This is true for most implementations even
component links which may be deployed in a network. prior to the Advanced Multipath work in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. 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.
+-------+ 1. Physical Link +-------+ +-------+ 1. Physical Link +-------+
| |-|----------------------------------------------|-| | | |-|----------------------------------------------|-| |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | +------+ +------+ | | | | | | +------+ +------+ | | |
| | | | MPLS | 2. Logical Link | MPLS | | | | | | | | MPLS | 2. Logical Link | MPLS | | | |
| |.|.... |......|.....................|......|....|.| | | |.|.... |......|.....................|......|....|.| |
| | |-----| LSR3 |---------------------| LSR4 |----| | | | | |-----| LSR3 |---------------------| LSR4 |----| | |
| | | +------+ +------+ | | | | | | +------+ +------+ | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | +------+ +------+ | | | | | | +------+ +------+ | | |
| | | |GMPLS | 3. Logical Link |GMPLS | | | | | | | |GMPLS | 3. Logical Link |GMPLS | | | |
| |.|. ...|......|.....................|......|....|.| | | |.|. ...|......|.....................|......|....|.| |
| | |-----| LSR5 |---------------------| LSR6 |----| | | | | |-----| LSR5 |---------------------| LSR6 |----| | |
| | +------+ +------+ | | | | +------+ +------+ | |
| LSR1 | | LSR2 | | LSR1 | | LSR2 |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|<------------- Composite Link ------------------->| |<---------------- Multipath --------------------->|
Figure 2: Illustration of Various Component Link Types Figure 2: Illustration of Various Component Link Types
The three forms of component link shown in Figure 2 are: The three forms of component link shown in Figure 2 are:
1. The first component link is configured with direct physical media 1. The first component link is configured with direct physical media
plus a link layer protocol. This case also includes emulated plus a link layer protocol. This case also includes emulated
physical links, for example using pseudowire emulation. physical links, for example using pseudowire emulation.
2. The second component link is a TE tunnel that traverses LSR3 and 2. The second component link is a TE tunnel that traverses LSR3 and
LSR4, where LSR3 and LSR4 are the nodes supporting MPLS, but LSR4, where LSR3 and LSR4 are the nodes supporting MPLS, but
supporting few or no GMPLS extensions. supporting few or no GMPLS extensions.
3. The third component link is formed by lower layer network that 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 has GMPLS enabled. In this case, LSR5 and LSR6 are not the nodes
controlled by the MPLS but provide the connectivity for the controlled by the MPLS but provide the connectivity for the
component link. component link.
A composite link forms one logical link between connected LSR (LSR1 A multipath forms one logical link between connected LSR (LSR1 and
and LSR2 in Figure 1 and Figure 2) and is used to carry aggregated LSR2 in Figure 1 and Figure 2) and is used to carry aggregated
traffic [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. Composite link relies on traffic. Multipath relies on its component links to carry the
its component links to carry the traffic over the composite link. traffic but must distribute or load balance the traffic. The
The endpoints of the composite link maps incoming traffic into the endpoints of the multipath maps incoming traffic into the set of
set of component links. component links.
For example, LSR1 in Figure 1 distributes the set of traffic flows For example, LSR1 in Figure 1 distributes the set of traffic flows
including control plane packets among the set of component links. including control plane packets among the set of component links.
LSR2 in Figure 1 receives the packets from its component links and LSR2 in Figure 1 receives the packets from its component links and
sends them to MPLS forwarding engine with no attempt to reorder sends them to MPLS forwarding engine with no attempt to reorder
packets arriving on different component links. The traffic in the packets arriving on different component links. The traffic in the
opposite direction, from LSR2 to LSR1, is distributed across the set opposite direction, from LSR2 to LSR1, is distributed across the set
of component links by the LSR2. of component links by the LSR2.
These three forms of component link are a limited set of very simple These three forms of component link are a limited set of very simple
examples. Many other examples are possible. A component link may examples. Many other examples are possible. A component link may
itself be a composite link. A segment of an LSP (single hop for that itself be a multipath. A segment of an LSP (single hop for that LSP)
LSP) may be a composite link. may be a multipath.
4. Delay Sensitive Applications 5. Delay Sensitive Applications
Most applications benefit from lower delay. Some types of Most applications benefit from lower delay. Some types of
applications are far more sensitive than others. For example, real applications are far more sensitive than others. For example, real
time bidirectional applications such as voice communication or two time bidirectional applications such as voice communication or two
way video conferencing are far more sensitive to delay than way video conferencing are far more sensitive to delay than
unidirectional streaming audio or video. Non-interactive bulk unidirectional streaming audio or video. Non-interactive bulk
transfer is almost insensitive to delay if a large enough TCP window transfer is almost insensitive to delay if a large enough TCP window
is used. is used.
Some applications are sensitive to delay but users of those Some applications are sensitive to delay but users of those
applications are unwilling to pay extra to insure lower delay. For applications are unwilling to pay extra to insure lower delay. For
example, many SIP end users are willing to accept the delay offered 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 to best effort services as long as call quality is good most of the
time. time.
Other applications are sensitive to delay and willing to pay extra to Other applications are sensitive to delay and willing to pay extra to
insure lower delay. For example, financial trading applications are insure lower delay. For example, financial trading applications are
extremely sensitive to delay and with a lot at stake are willing to extremely sensitive to delay and with a lot at stake are willing to
go to great lengths to reduce delay. go to great lengths to reduce delay.
Among the requirements of Composite Link are requirements to Among the requirements of Advanced Multipath are requirements to
advertise capacity available within configured ranges of delay within support non-homogeneous links. One solution in support of lower
a given composite link and the support the ability to place an LSP delay links is to advertise capacity available within configured
only on component links that meeting that LSP's delay requirements. ranges of delay within a given multipath and the support the ability
to place an LSP only on component links that meeting that LSP's delay
requirements.
The Composite Link requirements to accommodate delay sensitive The Advanced Multipath requirements to accommodate delay sensitive
applications are analogous to Diffserv requirements to accommodate applications are analogous to Diffserv requirements to accommodate
applications requiring higher quality of service on the same applications requiring higher quality of service on the same
infrastructure as applications with less demanding requirements. The infrastructure as applications with less demanding requirements. The
ability to share capacity with less demanding applications, with best ability to share capacity with less demanding applications, with best
effort applications being the least demanding, can greatly reduce the effort applications being the least demanding, can greatly reduce the
cost of delivering service to the more demanding applications. cost of delivering service to the more demanding applications.
5. Large Volume of IP and LDP Traffic 6. Large Volume of IP and LDP Traffic
IP and LDP do not support traffic engineering. Both make use of a IP and LDP do not support traffic engineering. Both make use of a
shortest (lowest routing metric) path, with an option to use equal shortest (lowest routing metric) path, with an option to use equal
cost multipath (ECMP). Note that though ECMP is prohibited in LDP cost multipath (ECMP). Note that though ECMP is prohibited in LDP
specifications, it is widely implemented. Where implemented for LDP, specifications, it is widely implemented. Where implemented for LDP,
ECMP is generally disabled by default for standards compliance, but ECMP is generally disabled by default for standards compliance, but
often enabled in LDP deployments. often enabled in LDP deployments.
Without traffic engineering capability, there must be sufficient Without traffic engineering capability, there must be sufficient
capacity to accommodate the IP and LDP traffic. If not, persistent capacity to accommodate the IP and LDP traffic. If not, persistent
skipping to change at page 8, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 30
In existing networks which accommodate IP and/or LDP with RSVP-TE, 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 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 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 carried native and the effect on RSVP-TE can be ignored. Ignoring
the traffic contribution of IP is certainly valid on high capacity the traffic contribution of IP is certainly valid on high capacity
networks where native IP is used primarily for control and network networks where native IP is used primarily for control and network
management and customer IP is carried within RSVP-TE. 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 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 traffic volumes are not negligible, RSVP-TE needs improvement. An
enhancement offered by Composite Link is an ability to measure the IP enhancement offered by Advanced Multipath is an ability to measure
and LDP, filter the measurements, and reduce the capacity available the IP and LDP, filter the measurements, and reduce the capacity
to RSVP-TE to avoid congestion. The treatment given to the IP or LDP available to RSVP-TE to avoid congestion. The treatment given to the
traffic is similar to the treatment when using the "auto-bandwidth" IP or LDP traffic is similar to the treatment when using the "auto-
feature in some RSVP-TE implementations on that same traffic, and bandwidth" feature in some RSVP-TE implementations on that same
giving a higher priority (numerically lower setup priority and traffic, and giving a higher priority (numerically lower setup
holding priority value) to the "auto-bandwidth" LSP. The difference priority and holding priority value) to the "auto-bandwidth" LSP.
is that the measurement is made at each hop and the reduction in The difference is that the measurement is made at each hop and the
advertised bandwidth is made more directly. reduction in advertised bandwidth is made more directly.
6. Composite Link and Packet Ordering 7. Multipath and Packet Ordering
A strong motivation for Composite Link is the need to provide LSP A strong motivation for multipath is the need to provide LSP capacity
capacity in IP backbones that exceeds the capacity of single in IP backbones that exceeds the capacity of single wavelengths
wavelengths provided by transport equipment and exceeds the practical provided by transport equipment and exceeds the practical capacity
capacity limits achievable through inverse multiplexing. Appendix C limits achievable through inverse multiplexing. Appendix C describes
describes characteristics and limitations of transport systems today. characteristics and limitations of transport systems today.
Section 2 defines the terms "classic multipath" and "classic link Section 3 defines the terms "classic multipath" and "classic link
bundling" used in this section. bundling" used in this section.
For purpose of discussion, consider two very large cities, city A and 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 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 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 Amsterdam. Two other high volume cities, city B and city Y may share
common provider core network infrastructure. Using the same common provider core network infrastructure. Using the same
examples, the city B and Y may Washington DC and San Francisco or examples, the city B and Y may Washington DC and San Francisco or
Paris and Stockholm. In the US, the common infrastructure may span Paris and Stockholm. In the US, the common infrastructure may span
Denver, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland. Other major traffic Denver, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland. Other major traffic
skipping to change at page 9, line 21 skipping to change at page 10, line 25
2000s decade that greatly exceeded single circuits available in 2000s decade that greatly exceeded single circuits available in
transport networks. transport networks.
For a case with four large traffic sources on either side of the For a case with four large traffic sources on either side of the
shared infrastructure, up to sixteen core city to core city traffic shared infrastructure, up to sixteen core city to core city traffic
flows in excess of transport circuit capacity may be accommodated on flows in excess of transport circuit capacity may be accommodated on
the shared infrastructure. the shared infrastructure.
Today the most common IP/MPLS core network design makes use of very Today the most common IP/MPLS core network design makes use of very
large links which consist of many smaller component links, but use large links which consist of many smaller component links, but use
classic multipath techniques rather than classic link bundling or classic multipath techniques. A component link typically corresponds
Composite Link. A component link typically corresponds to the to the largest circuit that the transport system is capable of
largest circuit that the transport system is capable of providing (or providing (or the largest cost effective circuit). IP source and
the largest cost effective circuit). IP source and destination destination address hashing is used to distribute flows across the
address hashing is used to distribute flows across the set of set of component links as described in Appendix B.3.
component links as described in Appendix B.3.
Classic multipath can handle large LSP up to the total capacity of Classic multipath can handle large LSP up to the total capacity of
the multipath (within limits, see Appendix B.2). A disadvantage of the multipath (within limits, see Appendix B.2). A disadvantage of
classic multipath is the reordering among traffic within a given core classic multipath is the reordering among traffic within a given core
city to core city LSP. While there is no reordering within any city to core city LSP. While there is no reordering within any
microflow and therefore no customer visible issue, MPLS-TP cannot be microflow and therefore no customer visible issue, MPLS-TP cannot be
used across an infrastructure where classic multipath is in use, used across an infrastructure where classic multipath is in use,
except within pseudowires. except within pseudowires.
These capacity issues force the use of classic multipath today. Capacity issues force the use of classic multipath today. Classic
Classic multipath excludes a direct use of MPLS-TP. The desire for multipath excludes a direct use of MPLS-TP. The desire for OAM,
OAM, offered by MPLS-TP, is in conflict with the use of classic offered by MPLS-TP, is in conflict with the use of classic multipath.
multipath. There are a number of alternatives that satisfy both There are a number of alternatives that satisfy both requirements.
requirements. Some alternatives are described below. Some alternatives are described below.
MPLS-TP in network edges only MPLS-TP in network edges only
A simple approach which requires no change to the core is to A simple approach which requires no change to the core is to
disallow MPLS-TP across the core unless carried within a disallow MPLS-TP across the core unless carried within a
pseudowire (PW). MPLS-TP may be used within edge domains where pseudowire (PW). MPLS-TP may be used within edge domains where
classic multipath is not used. PW may be signaled end to end classic multipath is not used. PW may be signaled end to end
using single segment PW (SS-PW), or stitched across domains using using single segment PW (SS-PW), or stitched across domains using
multisegment PW (MS-PW). The PW and anything carried within the 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 PW may use OAM as long as fat-PW [RFC6391] load splitting is not
used by the PW. used by the PW.
Composite Link at core LSP ingress/egress Advanced Multipath at core LSP ingress/egress
The interior of the core network may use classic link bundling, The interior of the core network may use classic link bundling,
with the limitation that no LSP can exceed the capacity of a with the limitation that no LSP can exceed the capacity of a
single circuit. Larger non-MPLS-TP LSP can be configured using single circuit. Larger non-MPLS-TP LSP can be configured using
multiple ingress to egress component MPLS-TP LSP. This can be multiple ingress to egress component MPLS-TP LSP. This can be
accomplished using existing IP source and destination address accomplished using existing IP source and destination address
hashing configured at LSP ingress and egress, or using Composite hashing configured at LSP ingress and egress. Each component
Link configured at ingress and egress. Each component LSP, if LSP, if constrained to be no larger than the capacity of a single
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 circuit. can make use of MPLS-TP and offer OAM for all top level
LSP across the core. LSP across the core.
MPLS-TP as a MPLS client MPLS-TP as a MPLS client
A third approach involves modifying the behavior of LSR in the A third approach involves making use of Entropy Labels [RFC6790]
interior of the network core, such that MPLS-TP can be used on a on all MPLS-TP LSP such that the entire MPLS-TP LSP is treated as
subset of LSP, where the capacity of any one LSP within that a microflow by midpoint LSR, even if further encapsulated in very
MPLS-TP subset of LSP is not larger than the capacity of a single large server layer MPLS LSP.
circuit. This requirement is accommodated through a combination
of signaling to indicate LSP for which traffic splitting needs to
be constrained, the ability to constrain the depth of the label
stack over which traffic splitting can be applied on a per LSP
basis, and the ability to constrain the use of IP addresses below
the label stack for traffic splitting also on a per LSP basis.
The above list of alternatives allow packet ordering within an LSP to The above list of alternatives allow packet ordering within an LSP to
be maintained in some circumstances and allow very large LSP be maintained in some circumstances and allow very large LSP
capacities. Each of these alternatives are discussed further in the capacities. Each of these alternatives are discussed further in the
following subsections. following subsections.
6.1. MPLS-TP in network edges only 7.1. MPLS-TP in network edges only
Classic MPLS link bundling is defined in [RFC4201] and has existed Classic MPLS link bundling is defined in [RFC4201] and has existed
since early in the 2000s decade. Classic MPLS link bundling place since early in the 2000s decade. Classic MPLS link bundling place
any given LSP entirely on a single component link. Classic MPLS link any given LSP entirely on a single component link. Classic MPLS link
bundling is not in widespread use as the means to accommodate large bundling is not in widespread use as the means to accommodate large
link capacities in core networks due to the simplicity and better link capacities in core networks due to the simplicity and better
multiplexing gain, and therefore lower network cost of classic multiplexing gain, and therefore lower network cost of classic
multipath. multipath.
If MPLS-TP OAM capability in the IP/MPLS network core LSP is not If MPLS-TP OAM capability in the IP/MPLS network core LSP is not
skipping to change at page 11, line 9 skipping to change at page 12, line 6
which use classic multipath and both label stack and IP source and which use classic multipath and both label stack and IP source and
destination address based hashing as a basis for load splitting. 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 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 carried within pseudowires. The pseudowires adds a thin layer of
encapsulation and therefore a small overhead. If only a subset of encapsulation and therefore a small overhead. If only a subset of
LSP need MPLS-TP OAM, then some LSP must make use of the pseudowires 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 and other LSP avoid them. A straightforward way to accomplish this
is with administrative attributes [RFC3209]. is with administrative attributes [RFC3209].
6.2. Composite Link at core LSP ingress/egress 7.2. Multipath at core LSP ingress/egress
Composite Link can be configured for large LSP that are made of Multipath can be configured for large LSP that are made of smaller
smaller MPLS-TP component LSP. This approach is capable of MPLS-TP component LSP. Some implementations already support this
supporting MPLS-TP OAM over the entire set of component link LSP and capability, though until Advanced Multipath no IETF document required
therefore the entire set of top level LSP traversing the core. 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 There are two primary disadvantage of this approach. One is the
number of top level LSP traversing the core can be dramatically number of top level LSP traversing the core can be dramatically
increased. The other disadvantage is the loss of multiplexing gain increased. The other disadvantage is the loss of multiplexing gain
that results from use of classic link bundling within the interior of that results from use of classic link bundling within the interior of
the core network. the core network.
If component LSP use MPLS-TP, then no component LSP can exceed the If component LSP use MPLS-TP, then no component LSP can exceed the
capacity of a single circuit. For a given composite LSP there can 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 either be a number of equal capacity component LSP or some number of
full capacity component links plus one LSP carrying the excess. For full capacity component links plus one LSP carrying the excess. For
example, a 350 Gb/s composite LSP over a 100 Gb/s infrastructure may 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 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 LSP. Classic MPLS link bundling is needed to support MPLS-TP and
suffers from a bin packing problem even if LSP traffic is completely suffers from a bin packing problem even if LSP traffic is completely
predictable, which it never is in practice. predictable, which it never is in practice.
The common means of setting composite link bandwidth parameters uses The common means of setting very large LSP link bandwidth parameters
long term statistical measures. For example, many providers base uses long term statistical measures. For example, at one time many
their LSP bandwidth parameters on the 95th percentile of carried providers based their LSP bandwidth parameters on the 95th percentile
traffic as measured over a one week period. It is common to add of carried traffic as measured over the prior one week period. It is
10-30% to the 95th percentile value measured over the prior week and common to add 10-30% to the 95th percentile value measured over the
adjust bandwidth parameters of LSP weekly. It is also possible to prior week and adjust bandwidth parameters of LSP weekly. It is also
measure traffic flow at the LSR and adjust bandwidth parameters possible to measure traffic flow at the LSR and adjust bandwidth
somewhat more dynamically. This is less common in deployments and parameters somewhat more dynamically. This is less common in
where deployed, make use of filtering to track very long term trends deployments and where deployed, makes use of filtering to track very
in traffic levels. In either case, short term variation of traffic long term trends in traffic levels. In either case, short term
levels relative to signaled LSP capacity are common. Allowing a variation of traffic levels relative to signaled LSP capacity are
large over allocation of LSP bandwidth parameters (ie: adding 30% or common. Allowing a large over allocation of LSP bandwidth parameters
more) avoids over utilization of any given LSP, but increases unused (ie: adding 30% or more) avoids over utilization of any given LSP,
network capacity and increases network cost. Allowing a small over but increases unused network capacity and increases network cost.
allocation of LSP bandwidth parameters (ie: 10-20% or less) results Allowing a small over allocation of LSP bandwidth parameters (ie:
in both underutilization and over utilization but statistically 10-20% or less) results in both underutilization and over utilization
results in a total utilization within the core that is under capacity but statistically results in a total utilization within the core that
most or all of the time. is under capacity most or all of the time.
The classic multipath solution accommodates the situation in which The classic multipath solution accommodates the situation in which
some composite LSP are under utilizing their signaled capacity and some very large LSP are under utilizing their signaled capacity and
others are over utilizing their capacity with the need for far less others are over utilizing their capacity with the need for far less
unused network capacity to accommodate variation in actual traffic unused network capacity to accommodate variation in actual traffic
levels. If the actual traffic levels of LSP can be described by a levels. If the actual traffic levels of LSP can be described by a
probability distribution, the variation of the sum of LSP is less probability distribution, the variation of the sum of LSP is less
than the variation of any given LSP for all but a constant traffic than the variation of any given LSP for all but a constant traffic
level (where the variation of the sum and the components are both level (where the variation of the sum and the variation of the
zero). 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. 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 This design is favored if the provider values MPLS-TP OAM across the
core more than efficiency (or is unaware of the efficiency issue). core more than efficiency (or is unaware of the efficiency issue).
This design can also make sense if transport equipment or very low This design can also make sense if transport equipment or very low
cost core LSR are available which support only classic link bundling cost core LSR are available which support only classic link bundling
and regardless of loss of multiplexing gain, are more cost effective and regardless of loss of multiplexing gain, are more cost effective
at carrying transit traffic than using equipment which supports IP at carrying transit traffic than using equipment which supports IP
source and destination address hashing. source and destination address hashing.
6.3. MPLS-TP as a MPLS client 7.3. MPLS-TP as a MPLS client
Accommodating MPLS-TP as a MPLS client requires a small change to Accommodating MPLS-TP as a MPLS client requires the small change to
forwarding behavior and is therefore most applicable to major network forwarding behavior necessary to support [RFC6790] and is therefore
overbuilds or new deployments. This approach is described in most applicable to major network overbuilds or new deployments. This
[I-D.ietf-mpls-multipath-use] and makes use of Entropy Labels approach is described in [I-D.ietf-mpls-multipath-use] and makes use
[RFC6790]. 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 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
efficiency and low network cost of a pure MPLS deployment. The efficiency 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 to support
[RFC6790].
7. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA. This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations 9. 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. Composite This document also describes use cases for multipath and Advanced
Link requirements are defined in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. Multipath. Advanced Multipath requirements are defined in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework] defines a framework for Composite Link. [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework]
defines a framework for Advanced Multipath. Advanced Multipath bears
Composite Link bears many similarities to MPLS link bundling and many similarities to MPLS link bundling and multipath techniques used
multipath techniques used with MPLS. Additional security with MPLS. Additional security considerations, if any, beyond those
considerations, if any, beyond those already identified for MPLS, already identified for MPLS, MPLS link bundling and multipath
MPLS link bundling and multipath techniques, will be documented in techniques, will be documented in the framework document if specific
the framework document if specific to the overall framework of to the overall framework of Advanced Multipath, or in protocol
Composite Link, or in protocol extensions if specific to a given extensions if specific to a given protocol extension defined later to
protocol extension defined later to support Composite Link. support Advanced Multipath.
9. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
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.
basis.
10. Informative References 11. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-multipath-use] [I-D.ietf-mpls-multipath-use]
Villamizar, C., "Use of Multipath with MPLS-TP and MPLS", Villamizar, C., "Use of Multipath with MPLS-TP and MPLS",
draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-00 (work in progress), draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-00 (work in progress),
February 2013. February 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework] [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework]
Ning, S., McDysan, D., Osborne, E., Yong, L., and C. Ning, S., McDysan, D., Osborne, E., Yong, L., and C.
Villamizar, "Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol Villamizar, "Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS)", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-02 Label Switching (MPLS)", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-03
(work in progress), October 2012. (work in progress), June 2013.
[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 Composite Links in MPLS Networks", Yong, "Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-10 (work in progress), Networks", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-11 (work in
March 2013. progress), July 2013.
[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,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.694.2-200312-I>. <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.694.2-200312-I>.
[ITU-T.G.800]
ITU-T, "Unified functional architecture of transport
networks", 2007,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.800-200709-I>.
[ITU-T.Y.1540]
ITU-T, "Internet protocol data communication service - IP
packet transfer and availability performance parameters",
2007, <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1540/en>.
[ITU-T.Y.1541]
ITU-T, "Network performance objectives for IP-based
services", 2006, <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1541/en>.
[RFC1717] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., and D. Carr, "The [RFC1717] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., and D. Carr, "The
PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC 1717, November 1994. PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC 1717, November 1994.
[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., [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998. Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski, [RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
"Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999. "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.
[RFC2615] Malis, A. and W. Simpson, "PPP over SONET/SDH", RFC 2615, [RFC2615] Malis, A. and W. Simpson, "PPP over SONET/SDH", RFC 2615,
June 1999. June 1999.
[RFC2991] Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and [RFC2991] Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and
Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, November 2000. Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, November 2000.
[RFC2992] Hopps, C., "Analysis of an Equal-Cost Multi-Path [RFC2992] Hopps, C., "Analysis of an Equal-Cost Multi-Path
Algorithm", RFC 2992, November 2000. 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., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3260] Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for [RFC3260] Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
Diffserv", RFC 3260, April 2002. Diffserv", RFC 3260, April 2002.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen, [RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi- P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, May 2002. 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 [RFC3809] Nagarajan, A., "Generic Requirements for Provider
Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPN)", RFC 3809, Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPN)", RFC 3809,
June 2004. June 2004.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. (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 [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
June 2005. June 2005.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling [RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005. in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, [RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006. Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal [RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, June 2007. RFC 4928, June 2007.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007. 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 [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. 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, [RFC6391] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan,
J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires
over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391, over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391,
November 2011. November 2011.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, November 2012. RFC 6790, November 2012.
Appendix A. More Details on Existing Network Operator Practices and Appendix A. More Details on Existing Network Operator Practices and
Protocol Usage Protocol Usage
Often, network operators have a contractual Service Level Agreement Often, network operators have a contractual Service Level Agreement
(SLA) with customers for services that are comprised of numerical (SLA) with customers for services that are comprised of numerical
values for performance measures, principally availability, latency, values for performance measures, principally availability, latency,
delay variation. Additionally, network operators may have Service delay variation. Additionally, network operators may have
Level Specification (SLS) that is for internal use by the operator. performance objectives for internal use by the operator. See
See [ITU-T.Y.1540], [ITU-T.Y.1541], RFC3809, Section 4.9 [RFC3809] RFC3809, Section 4.9 [RFC3809] for examples of the form of such SLA
for examples of the form of such SLA and SLS specifications. In this and performance objective specifications. In this document we use
document we use the term Network Performance Objective (NPO) as the term Performance Objective as defined in
defined in section 5 of [ITU-T.Y.1541] since the SLA and SLS measures [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. Applications and acceptable user
have network operator and service specific implications. Note that experience have an important relationship to these performance
the numerical NPO values of Y.1540 and Y.1541 span multiple networks parameters.
and may be looser than network operator SLA or SLS objectives.
Applications and acceptable user experience have an important
relationship to these performance parameters.
Consider latency as an example. In some cases, minimizing latency Consider latency as an example. In some cases, minimizing latency
relates directly to the best customer experience (e.g., in TCP closer relates directly to the best customer experience (for example, in
is faster). In other cases, user experience is relatively interactive applications closer is faster). In other cases, user
insensitive to latency, up to a specific limit at which point user experience is relatively insensitive to latency, up to a specific
perception of quality degrades significantly (e.g., interactive human limit at which point user perception of quality degrades
voice and multimedia conferencing). A number of NPOs have. a bound significantly (e.g., interactive human voice and multimedia
on point-to-point latency, and as long as this bound is met, the NPO conferencing). A number of Performance Objectives have. a bound on
is met -- decreasing the latency is not necessary. In some NPOs, if point-to-point latency, and as long as this bound is met, the
the specified latency is not met, the user considers the service as Performance Objective is met -- decreasing the latency is not
unavailable. An unprotected LSP can be manually provisioned on a set necessary. In some Performance Objectives, if the specified latency
of links to meet this type of NPO, but this lowers availability since is not met, the user considers the service as unavailable. An
an alternate route that meets the latency NPO cannot be determined. 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 Historically, when an IP/MPLS network was operated over a lower layer
circuit switched network (e.g., SONET rings), a change in latency circuit switched network (e.g., SONET rings), a change in latency
caused by the lower layer network (e.g., due to a maintenance action 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 or failure) was not known to the MPLS network. This resulted in
latency affecting end user experience, sometimes violating NPOs or latency affecting end user experience, sometimes violating
resulting in user complaints. Performance Objectives or resulting in user complaints.
A response to this problem was to provision IP/MPLS networks over A response to this problem was to provision IP/MPLS networks over
unprotected circuits and set the metric and/or TE-metric proportional unprotected circuits and set the metric and/or TE-metric proportional
to latency. This resulted in traffic being directed over the least to latency. This resulted in traffic being directed over the least
latency path, even if this was not needed to meet an NPO or meet user latency path, even if this was not needed to meet an Performance
experience objectives. This results in reduced flexibility and Objective or meet user experience objectives. This results in
increased cost for network operators. Using lower layer networks to reduced flexibility and increased cost for network operators. Some
provide restoration and grooming is expected to be more efficient, providers perfer to use lower layer networks to provide restoration
but the inability to communicate performance parameters, in and grooming, but the inability to communicate performance
particular latency, from the lower layer network to the higher layer parameters, in particular latency, from the lower layer network to
network is an important problem to be solved before this can be done. the higher layer network is an important problem to be solved before
this can be done.
Latency NPOs for point-to-point services are often tied closely to Latency Performance Objectives for point-to-point services are often
geographic locations, while latency for multipoint services may be tied closely to geographic locations, while latency for multipoint
based upon a worst case within a region. services may be based upon a worst case within a region.
Section 7 of [ITU-T.Y.1540] defines availability for an IP service in The time frames for restoration (i.e., as implemented by
terms of loss exceeding a threshold for a period on the order of 5 predetermined protection, convergence of routing protocols and/or
minutes. However, the time frames for restoration (i.e., as signaling) for services range from on the order of 100 ms or less
implemented by predetermined protection, convergence of routing (e.g., for VPWS to emulate classical SDH/SONET protection switching),
protocols and/or signaling) for services range from on the order of to several minutes (e.g., to allow BGP to reconverge for L3VPN) and
100 ms or less (e.g., for VPWS to emulate classical SDH/SONET may differ among the set of customers within a single service.
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 The presence of only three Traffic Class (TC) bits (previously known
as EXP bits) in the MPLS shim header is limiting when a network as EXP bits) in the MPLS shim header is limiting when a network
operator needs to support QoS classes for multiple services (e.g., 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 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 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 use only E-LSP [RFC3270]. In some cases one bit is used to indicate
conformance to some ingress traffic classification, leaving only two conformance to some ingress traffic classification, leaving only two
bits for indicating the service QoS classes. One approach that has bits for indicating the service QoS classes. One approach that has
been taken is to aggregate these QoS classes into similar sets on 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 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- 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 Type as defined in [RFC4124] to support up to eight mappings of TC
into Per-Hop Behavior (PHB). into Per-Hop Behavior (PHB).
Labeled LSPs and use of link layer encapsulation have been
standardized in order to provide a means to meet these needs.
The IP DSCP cannot be used for flow identification. The use of IP The IP DSCP cannot be used for flow identification. The use of IP
DSCP for flow identification is incompatible with Assured Forwarding DSCP for flow identification is incompatible with Assured Forwarding
services [RFC2597] or any other service which may use more than one services [RFC2597] or any other service which may use more than one
DSCP code point to carry traffic for a given microflow. In general 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 network operators do not rely on the DSCP of Internet packets in core
networks but must preserve DSCP values for use closer to network networks but must preserve DSCP values for use closer to network
edges. edges.
A label is pushed onto Internet packets when they are carried along A label is pushed onto Internet packets when they are carried along
with L2/L3VPN packets on the same link or lower layer network with L2/L3VPN packets on the same link or lower layer network
provides a mean to distinguish between the QoS class for these provides a mean to distinguish between the QoS class for these
packets. packets.
Operating an MPLS-TE network involves a different paradigm from Operating an MPLS-TE network involves a different paradigm from
operating an IGP metric-based LDP signaled MPLS network. The operating an IGP metric-based LDP signaled MPLS network. The
multipoint-to-point LDP signaled MPLS LSPs occur automatically, and multipoint-to-point LDP signaled MPLS LSPs occur automatically, and
balancing across parallel links occurs if the IGP metrics are set balancing across parallel links occurs if the IGP metrics are set
"equally" (with equality a locally definable relation). "equally" (with equality a locally definable relation) and if ECMP is
enabled for LDP, which it large network operators generally do.
Traffic is typically comprised of a few large (some very large) flows Traffic is typically comprised of large (some very large) flows and a
and many small flows. In some cases, separate LSPs are established much larger number of small flows. In some cases, separate LSPs are
for very large flows. This can occur even if the IP header established for very large flows. Very large microflows can occur
information is inspected by a LSR, for example an IPsec tunnel that even if the IP header information is inspected by a LSR. For example
carries a large amount of traffic. An important example of large an IPsec tunnel that carries a large amount of traffic must be
flows is that of a L2/L3 VPN customer who has an access line carried as a single large flow. An important example of large flows
bandwidth comparable to a client-client composite link bandwidth -- is that of a L2/L3 VPN customer who has an access line bandwidth
there could be flows that are on the order of the access line comparable to a client-client component link bandwidth -- there could
bandwidth. be flows that are on the order of the access line bandwidth.
Appendix B. Existing Multipath Standards and Techniques Appendix B. Existing Multipath Standards and Techniques
Today the requirement to handle large aggregations of traffic, much Today the requirement to handle large aggregations of traffic, much
larger than a single component link, can be handled by a number of larger than a single component link, can be handled by a number of
techniques which we will collectively call multipath. Multipath techniques which we will collectively call multipath. Multipath
applied to parallel links between the same set of nodes includes applied to parallel links between the same set of nodes includes
Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX], link bundling [RFC4201], or Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX], link bundling [RFC4201], or
other aggregation techniques some of which may be vendor specific. other aggregation techniques some of which may be vendor specific.
Multipath applied to diverse paths rather than parallel links Multipath applied to diverse paths rather than parallel links
includes Equal Cost MultiPath (ECMP) as applied to OSPF, ISIS, or includes Equal Cost MultiPath (ECMP) as applied to OSPF, ISIS, LDP,
even BGP, and equal cost LSP, as described in Appendix B.4. Various or even BGP, and equal cost LSP, as described in Appendix B.4.
multipath techniques have strengths and weaknesses. Various multipath techniques have strengths and weaknesses.
the term Composite Link is more general than terms such as Link Existing multipath techniques solve the problem of large aggregations
Aggregation which is generally considered to be specific to Ethernet of traffic, without addressing the other requirements outlined in
and its use here is consistent with the broad definition in this document, particularly those described in Section 5 and
[ITU-T.G.800]. The term multipath excludes inverse multiplexing and Section 6.
refers to techniques which only solve the problem of large
aggregations of traffic, without addressing the other requirements
outlined in this document, particularly those described in Section 4
and Section 5.
B.1. Common Multpath Load Spliting Techniques B.1. Common Multpath Load Spliting Techniques
Identical load balancing techniques are used for multipath both over Identical load balancing techniques are used for multipath both over
parallel links and over diverse paths. parallel links and over diverse paths.
Large aggregates of IP traffic do not provide explicit signaling to Large aggregates of IP traffic do not provide explicit signaling to
indicate the expected traffic loads. Large aggregates of MPLS indicate the expected traffic loads. Large aggregates of MPLS
traffic are carried in MPLS tunnels supported by MPLS LSP. LSP which traffic are carried in MPLS tunnels supported by MPLS LSP. LSP which
are signaled using RSVP-TE extensions do provide explicit signaling are signaled using RSVP-TE extensions do provide explicit signaling
which includes the expected traffic load for the aggregate. LSP which includes the expected traffic load for the aggregate. LSP
which are signaled using LDP do not provide an expected traffic load. which are signaled using LDP do not provide an expected traffic load.
MPLS LSP may contain other MPLS LSP arranged hierarchically. When an MPLS LSP may contain other MPLS LSP arranged hierarchically. When an
MPLS LSR serves as a midpoint LSR in an LSP carrying other LSP as MPLS LSR serves as a midpoint LSR in an LSP carrying client LSP as
payload, there is no signaling associated with these inner LSP. payload, there is no signaling associated with these client LSP.
Therefore even when using RSVP-TE signaling there may be insufficient Therefore even when using RSVP-TE signaling there may be insufficient
information provided by signaling to adequately distribute load based information provided by signaling to adequately distribute load based
solely on signaling. solely on signaling.
Generally a set of label stack entries that is unique across the 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 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 to contain a group of flows. The reordering of traffic can therefore
be considered to be acceptable unless reordering occurs within be considered to be acceptable unless reordering occurs within
traffic containing a common unique set of label stack entries. traffic containing a common unique set of label stack entries.
Existing load splitting techniques take advantage of this property in Existing load splitting techniques take advantage of this property in
addition to looking beyond the bottom of the label stack and addition to looking beyond the bottom of the label stack and
determining if the payload is IPv4 or IPv6 to load balance traffic determining if the payload is IPv4 or IPv6 to load balance traffic
accordingly. accordingly.
MPLS-TP OAM violates the assumption that it is safe to reorder 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 traffic within an LSP. If MPLS-TP OAM is to be accommodated, then
existing multipath techniques must be modified. Such modifications existing multipath techniques must be modified. [RFC6790] and
are outside the scope of this document. [I-D.ietf-mpls-multipath-use] provide a solution but require a small
forwarding change.
For example,a large aggregate of IP traffic may be subdivided into a 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 large number of groups of flows using a hash on the IP source and
destination addresses. This is as described in [RFC2475] and destination addresses. This is as described in [RFC2475] and
clarified in [RFC3260]. For MPLS traffic carrying IP, a similar hash clarified in [RFC3260]. For MPLS traffic carrying IP, a similar hash
can be performed on the set of labels in the label stack. These can be performed on the set of labels in the label stack. These
techniques are both examples of means to subdivide traffic into techniques are both examples of means to subdivide traffic into
groups of flows for the purpose of load balancing traffic across groups of flows for the purpose of load balancing traffic across
aggregated link capacity. The means of identifying a set of flows aggregated link capacity. The means of identifying a group of flows
should not be confused with the definition of a flow. should not be confused with the definition of a flow.
Discussion of whether a hash based approach provides a sufficiently Discussion of whether a hash based approach provides a sufficiently
even load balance using any particular hashing algorithm or method of even load balance using any particular hashing algorithm or method of
distributing traffic across a set of component links is outside of distributing traffic across a set of component links is outside of
the scope of this document. the scope of this document.
The current load balancing techniques are referenced in [RFC4385] and The current load balancing techniques are referenced in [RFC4385] and
[RFC4928]. The use of three hash based approaches are described in [RFC4928]. The use of three hash based approaches are described in
[RFC2991] and [RFC2992]. A mechanism to identify flows within PW is [RFC2991] and [RFC2992]. A mechanism to identify flows within PW is
skipping to change at page 20, line 52 skipping to change at page 22, line 23
Many implementations are able to create more than one LSP between a Many implementations are able to create more than one LSP between a
pair of nodes, where these LSP are routed diversely to better make pair of nodes, where these LSP are routed diversely to better make
use of available capacity. The load on these LSP can be distributed use of available capacity. The load on these LSP can be distributed
proportionally to the reserved bandwidth of the LSP. These multiple 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 LSP may be advertised as a single PSC FA and any LSP making use of
the FA may be split over these multiple LSP. the FA may be split over these multiple LSP.
Link bundling [RFC4201] component links may themselves be LSP. When Link bundling [RFC4201] component links may themselves be LSP. When
this technique is used, any LSP which specifies the link bundle may this technique is used, any LSP which specifies the link bundle may
be split across the multiple paths of the LSP that comprise the be split across the multiple paths of the component LSP that comprise
bundle. the bundle.
Appendix C. Characteristics of Transport in Core Networks Appendix C. Characteristics of Transport in Core Networks
The characteristics of primary interest are the capacity of a single The characteristics of primary interest are the capacity of a single
circuit and the use of wave division multiplexing (WDM) to provide a circuit and the use of wave division multiplexing (WDM) to provide a
large number of parallel circuits. large number of parallel circuits.
Wave division multiplexing (WDM) supports multiple independent Wave division multiplexing (WDM) supports multiple independent
channels (independent ignoring crosstalk noise) at slightly different channels (independent ignoring crosstalk noise) at slightly different
wavelengths of light, multiplexed onto a single fiber. Typical in wavelengths of light, multiplexed onto a single fiber. Typical in
skipping to change at page 21, line 36 skipping to change at page 23, line 9
The early optical modulation techniques used within a single channel The early optical modulation techniques used within a single channel
yielded 2.5Gb/s and 10 Gb/s capacity per channel. As modulation 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 techniques have improved 40 Gb/s and 100 Gb/s per channel have been
achieved. achieved.
The 40 channels of 10 Gb/s common in the mid 2000s yields a total of 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 400 Gb/s. Tighter spacing and better modulations are yielding up to
8 Tb/s or more in more recent systems. 8 Tb/s or more in more recent systems.
Over the optical is an electrical encoding. In the 1990s this was Over the optical modulation is an electrical encoding. In the 1990s
typically Synchronous Optical Networking (SONET) or Synchronous this was typically Synchronous Optical Networking (SONET) or
Digital Hierarchy (SDH), with a maximum defined circuit capacity of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH), with a maximum defined circuit
40 Gb/s (OC-768), though the 10 Gb/s OC-192 is more common. More capacity of 40 Gb/s (OC-768), though the 10 Gb/s OC-192 is more
recently the low level electrical encoding has been Optical Transport common. More recently the low level electrical encoding has been
Network (OTN) defined by ITU-T. OTN currently defines circuit Optical Transport Network (OTN) defined by ITU-T. OTN currently
capacities up to a nominal 100 Gb/s (ODU4). Both SONET/SDH and OTN defines circuit capacities up to a nominal 100 Gb/s (ODU4). Both
make use of time division multiplexing (TDM) where the a higher SONET/SDH and OTN make use of time division multiplexing (TDM) where
capacity circuit such as a 100 Gb/s ODU4 in OTN may be subdivided the a higher capacity circuit such as a 100 Gb/s ODU4 in OTN may be
into lower fixed capacity circuits such as ten 10 Gb/s ODU2. 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 In the 1990s, all IP and later IP/MPLS networks either used a
fraction of maximum circuit capacity, or at most the full circuit fraction of maximum circuit capacity, or at most the full circuit
capacity toward the end of the decade, when full circuit capacity was 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 2.5 Gb/s or 10 Gb/s. Beyond 2000, the TDM circuit multiplexing
capability of SONET/SDH or OTN was rarely used. capability of SONET/SDH or OTN was rarely used.
Early in the 2000s both transport equipment and core LSR offered 40 Early in the 2000s both transport equipment and core LSR offered 40
Gb/s SONET OC-768. However 10 Gb/s transport equipment was Gb/s SONET OC-768. However 10 Gb/s transport equipment was
predominantly deployed throughout the decade, partially because LSR predominantly deployed throughout the decade, partially because LSR
10GbE ports were far more cost effective than either OC-192 or OC-768 10GbE ports were far more cost effective than either OC-192 or OC-768
and became practical in the second half of the decade. and 10GbE became practical in the second half of the decade.
Entering the 2010 decade, LSR 40GbE and 100GbE are expected to become Entering the 2010 decade, LSR 40GbE and 100GbE are expected to become
widely available and cost effective. Slightly preceding this widely available and cost effective. Slightly preceding this
transport equipment making use of 40 Gb/s and 100 Gb/s modulations transport equipment making use of 40 Gb/s and 100 Gb/s modulations
are becoming available. This transport equipment is capable or are becoming available. This transport equipment is capable or
carrying 40 Gb/s ODU3 and 100 Gb/s ODU4 circuits. carrying 40 Gb/s ODU3 and 100 Gb/s ODU4 circuits.
Early in the 2000s decade IP/MPLS core networks were making use of 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 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 the decade but more IP/MPLS core networks had only a small number of
skipping to change at page 22, line 34 skipping to change at page 24, line 6
of the 2000s decade nearly all major IP/MPLS core service provider of the 2000s decade nearly all major IP/MPLS core service provider
networks and a few content provider networks had IP/MPLS links which 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 exceeded 100 Gb/s, long before 40GbE was available and 40 Gb/s
transport in widespread use. transport in widespread use.
It is less clear when IP/MPLS LSP exceeded 10 Gb/s, 40 Gb/s, and 100 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. 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 Gb/s, but few are willing to disclose how many LSP have reached this
capacity. capacity.
At the time of writing 40GbE and 100GbE LSR products are being By 2012 40GbE and 100GbE LSR products had become available, but were
evaluated by service providers and contect providers and are in use mostly still being evaluated or in trial use by service providers and
in network trials. The cost of components required to deliver 100GbE contect providers. The cost of components required to deliver 100GbE
products remains high making these products less cost effective. products remained high making these products less cost effective.
This is expected to change within years. This is expected to change within years.
The important point is that IP/MPLS core network links have long ago The important point is that IP/MPLS core network links have long ago
exceeded 100 Gb/s and a small number of IP/MPLS LSP exceed 100 Gb/s. exceeded 100 Gb/s and some may have already exceeded a Tb/s and a
By the time 100 Gb/s circuits are widely deployed, IP/MPLS core small number of IP/MPLS LSP exceed 100 Gb/s. By the time 100 Gb/s
network links are likely to exceed 1 Tb/s and many IP/MPLS LSP circuits are widely deployed, many IP/MPLS core network links are
capacities are likely to exceed 100 Gb/s. Therefore multipath likely to exceed 1 Tb/s and many IP/MPLS LSP capacities are likely to
techniques are likely here to stay. 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 Authors' Addresses
So Ning So Ning
Tata Communications Tata Communications
Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com
Andrew Malis Andrew Malis
Verizon Verizon
60 Sylvan Road 60 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02451 Waltham, MA 02451
USA
Phone: +1 781-466-2362 Phone: +1 781-466-2362
Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com
Dave McDysan Dave McDysan
Verizon Verizon
22001 Loudoun County PKWY 22001 Loudoun County PKWY
Ashburn, VA 20147 Ashburn, VA 20147
USA
Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com
Lucy Yong Lucy Yong
Huawei USA Huawei USA
5340 Legacy Dr. 5340 Legacy Dr.
Plano, TX 75025 Plano, TX 75025
USA
Phone: +1 469-277-5837 Phone: +1 469-277-5837
Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com
Curtis Villamizar Curtis Villamizar
Outer Cape Cod Network Consulting Outer Cape Cod Network Consulting
Email: curtis@occnc.com Email: curtis@occnc.com
 End of changes. 92 change blocks. 
301 lines changed or deleted 351 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/