





Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                C. Villamizar, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7226                                    OCCNC, LLC
Category: Informational                                  D. McDysan, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                  Verizon
                                                                 S. Ning
                                                     Tata Communications
                                                                A. Malis
                                                                  Huawei
                                                                 L. Yong
                                                              Huawei USA
                                                                May 2014


          Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS Networks

Abstract

   This document provides a set of requirements for Advanced Multipath
   in MPLS networks.

   Advanced Multipath is a formalization of multipath techniques
   currently in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to
   existing multipath techniques.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7226.












Villamizar, et al.            Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


Copyright Notice

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Availability, Stability, and Transient Response . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Component Links Provided by Lower-Layer Networks  . . . .   7
     3.3.  Component Links with Different Characteristics  . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Considerations for Bidirectional Client LSP . . . . . . .   9
     3.5.  Multipath Load-Balancing Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  General Requirements for Protocol Solutions . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15


















Villamizar, et al.            Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


1.  Introduction

   There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that
   are best provided using parallel links between routers or carrying
   traffic over multiple MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  In core
   networks, there is often no alternative since the aggregate
   capacities of core networks today far exceed the capacity of a single
   physical link or a single packet-processing element.

   The presence of parallel links, with each link potentially comprised
   of multiple layers, has resulted in additional requirements.  Certain
   services may benefit from being restricted to a subset of the
   component links or a specific component link, where component link
   characteristics, such as latency, differ.  Certain services require
   that an LSP be treated as atomic and avoid reordering.  Other
   services will continue to require only that reordering not occur
   within a flow as is current practice.

   Numerous forms of multipath exist today, including MPLS Link Bundling
   [RFC4201], Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX], and various
   forms of Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) such as for OSPF ECMP, IS-IS
   ECMP, and BGP ECMP.  Refer to the appendices in [USE-CASES] for a
   description of existing techniques and a set of references.

   The purpose of this document is to clearly enumerate a set of
   requirements related to the protocols and mechanisms that provide
   MPLS-based Advanced Multipath.  The intent is to first provide a set
   of functional requirements, in Section 3, that are as independent as
   possible of protocol specifications.  A set of general protocol
   requirements are defined in Section 4.  A set of network management
   requirements are defined in Section 5.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   Any statement that requires the solution to support some new
   functionality through use of [RFC2119] keywords should be interpreted
   as follows.  The implementation either MUST or SHOULD support the new
   functionality, depending on the use of either MUST or SHOULD in the
   requirements statement.  The implementation SHOULD, in most or all
   cases, allow any new functionality to be individually enabled or
   disabled through configuration.  A service provider or other
   deployment MAY enable or disable any feature in their network,
   subject to implementation limitations on sets of features that can be
   disabled.



Villamizar, et al.            Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


2.  Definitions

   Multipath
       The term "multipath" includes all techniques in which:

       1.  Traffic can take more than one path from one node to a
           destination.

       2.  Individual packets take one path only.  Packets are not
           subdivided and reassembled at the receiving end.

       3.  Packets are not resequenced at the receiving end.

       4.  The paths may be:

           a.  parallel links between two nodes,

           b.  specific paths across a network to a destination node, or

           c.  links or paths to an intermediate node used to reach a
               common destination.

       The paths need not have equal capacity.  The paths may or may not
       have equal cost in a routing protocol.

   Advanced Multipath
       Advanced Multipath is a formalization of multipath techniques
       that meets the requirements defined in this document.  A key
       capability of Advanced Multipath is the support of non-
       homogeneous component links.

   Advanced Multipath Group (AMG)
       An AMG is a collection of component links where Advanced
       Multipath techniques are applied.

   Composite Link
       The term "composite link" had been a registered trademark of
       Avici Systems, but it was abandoned in 2007.  The term "composite
       link" is now defined by the ITU-T in [ITU-T.G.800].  The ITU-T
       definition includes multipath as defined here, plus inverse
       multiplexing, which is explicitly excluded from the definition of
       multipath.









Villamizar, et al.            Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   Inverse Multiplexing
       Inverse multiplexing is another method of sending traffic over
       multiple links.  Inverse multiplexing either transmits whole
       packets and resequences the packets at the receiving end or
       subdivides packets and reassembles the packets at the receiving
       end.  Inverse multiplexing requires that all packets be handled
       by a common egress packet processing element and is, therefore,
       not useful for very high-bandwidth applications.

   Component Link
       The ITU-T definition of composite link in [ITU-T.G.800] and the
       IETF definition of link bundling in [RFC4201] both refer to an
       individual link in the composite link or link bundle as a
       component link.  The term "component link" is applicable to all
       forms of multipath.  The IEEE uses the term "member" rather than
       "component link" in Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX].

   Client Layer
       A client layer is the layer immediately above a server layer.

   Server Layer
       A server layer is the layer immediately below a client layer.

   Higher Layers
       Relative to a particular layer, a client layer and any layer
       above that is considered a higher layer.  Upper layer is
       synonymous with higher layer.

   Lower Layers
       Relative to a particular layer, a server layer and any layer
       below that is considered a lower layer.

   Client LSP
       A client LSP is an LSP that has been set up over one or more
       lower layers.  In the context of this discussion, one type of
       client LSP is an LSP that has been set up over an AMG.

   Flow
       A sequence of packets that should be transferred in order on one
       component link of a multipath.











Villamizar, et al.            Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   Flow Identification
       The label stack and other information that uniquely identifies a
       flow.  Other information in flow identification may include an IP
       header, pseudowire (PW) control word, Ethernet Media Access
       Control (MAC) address, etc.  Note that a client LSP may contain
       one or more flows, or a client LSP may be equivalent to a flow.
       Flow identification is used to locally select a component link or
       a path through the network toward the destination.

   Load Balance
       Load split, load balance, or load distribution refers to
       subdividing traffic over a set of component links such that load
       is fairly evenly distributed over the set of component links and
       certain packet ordering requirements are met.  Some existing
       techniques better achieve these objectives than others.

   Performance Objective
       Numerical values for performance measures: principally
       availability, latency, and delay variation.  Performance
       objectives may be related to Service Level Agreements (SLAs) as
       defined in [RFC2475] or may be strictly internal.  Performance
       objectives may span links from edge to edge or from end to end.
       Performance objectives may span one provider or multiple
       providers.

   A component link may be a point-to-point physical link (where a
   "physical link" includes one or more link layers, plus a physical
   layer) or a logical link that preserves ordering in the steady state.
   A component link may have transient out-of-order events, but such
   events must not exceed the network's performance objectives.  For
   example, a component link may be comprised of any supportable
   combination of link layers over a physical layer or over logical sub-
   layers -- including those providing physical-layer emulation -- or
   over MPLS server-layer LSP.

   The ingress and egress of a multipath may be midpoint LSRs with
   respect to a given client LSP.  A midpoint LSR does not participate
   in the signaling of any clients of the client LSP.  Therefore, in
   general, multipath endpoints cannot determine requirements of clients
   of a client LSP through participation in the signaling of the clients
   of the client LSP.

   This document makes no statement on whether Advanced Multipath is
   itself a layer or whether an instance of AMG is itself a layer.  This
   is to avoid engaging in long and pointless discussions about what
   constitutes a proper layer.





Villamizar, et al.            Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   The term "Advanced Multipath" is intended to be used within the
   context described in this document and related documents, for
   example, [USE-CASES] and [FRAMEWORK].  Other Advanced Multipath
   techniques may arise in the future.  If the capabilities defined in
   this document become commonplace, they would no longer be considered
   "advanced".  Use of the term "advanced multipath" outside this
   document, if referring to the term as defined here, should indicate
   Advanced Multipath as defined by this document, citing the current
   document name.  If using another definition of "advanced multipath",
   documents may optionally clarify that they are not using the term
   "advanced multipath" as defined by this document if clarification is
   deemed helpful.

3.  Functional Requirements

   The functional requirements in this section are grouped in
   subsections, starting with the highest priority.

3.1.  Availability, Stability, and Transient Response

   In addition to maintaining stability, limiting the period of
   unavailability in response to failures or transient events is
   extremely important.

   FR#1  The transient period between some service disrupting event and
         the convergence of the routing and/or signaling protocols MUST
         occur within a time frame specified by performance objective
         values.

   FR#2  An AMG MAY be announced in conjunction with detailed parameters
         about its component links, such as bandwidth and latency.  The
         AMG SHALL behave as a single IGP adjacency.

   FR#3  The solution SHALL provide a means to summarize some routing
         advertisements regarding the characteristics of an AMG such
         that the updated protocol mechanisms maintain convergence times
         within the time frame needed to meet or not significantly
         exceed existing performance objectives for convergence on the
         same network or convergence on a network with a similar
         topology.

   FR#4  The solution SHALL ensure that restoration operations happen
         within the time frame needed to meet existing performance
         objectives for restoration time on the same network or
         restoration time on a network with a similar topology.






Villamizar, et al.            Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   FR#5  The solution shall provide a mechanism to select a set of paths
         for an LSP across a network in such a way that flows within the
         LSP are distributed across the set of paths, while meeting all
         of the other requirements stated above.  The solution SHOULD
         work in a manner similar to existing multipath techniques,
         except as necessary to accommodate Advanced Multipath
         requirements.

   FR#6  If extensions to existing protocols are specified and/or new
         protocols are defined, then the solution SHOULD provide a means
         for a network operator to migrate an existing deployment in a
         minimally disruptive manner.

   FR#7  Any load-balancing solutions MUST NOT oscillate.  Some change
         in path MAY occur.  The solution MUST ensure that path
         stability and traffic reordering continue to meet performance
         objectives on the same network or on a network with a similar
         topology.  Since oscillation may cause reordering, there MUST
         be means to control the frequency of changing the component
         link over which a flow is placed.

   FR#8  Management and diagnostic protocols MUST be able to operate
         over AMGs.

   Existing scaling techniques used in MPLS networks apply to MPLS
   networks that support Advanced Multipath.  Scalability and stability
   are covered in more detail in [FRAMEWORK].

3.2.  Component Links Provided by Lower-Layer Networks

   A component link may be supported by a lower-layer network.  For
   example, the lower layer may be a circuit-switched network or another
   MPLS network (e.g., MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)).  The lower-
   layer network may change the latency (and/or other performance
   parameters) seen by the client layer.  Currently, there is no
   protocol for the lower-layer network to inform the higher-layer
   network of a change in a performance parameter.  Communication of the
   latency performance parameter is a very important requirement.
   Communication of other performance parameters (e.g., delay variation)
   is desirable.

   FR#9  The solution SHALL specify a protocol means to allow a server-
         layer network to communicate latency to the client-layer
         network.







Villamizar, et al.            Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   FR#10 The precision of latency reporting SHOULD be configurable.  A
         reasonable default SHOULD be provided.  Implementations SHOULD
         support precision of at least 10% of the one-way latencies for
         latency of 1 msec or more.

   The intent is to measure the predominant latency in uncongested
   service-provider networks, where geographic delay dominates and is on
   the order of milliseconds or more.  The argument for including
   queuing delay is that it reflects the delay experienced by
   applications.  The argument against including queuing delay is that
   if used in routing decisions, it can result in routing instability.
   This trade-off is discussed in detail in [FRAMEWORK].

3.3.  Component Links with Different Characteristics

   As one means to provide high availability, network operators deploy a
   topology in the MPLS network using lower-layer networks that have a
   certain degree of diversity at the lower layer(s).  Many techniques
   have been developed to balance the distribution of flows across
   component links that connect the same pair of nodes or ultimately
   lead to a common destination.

   FR#11 In the requirements that follow in this document, the word
         "indicate" is used where information may be provided by either
         the combination of link state IGP advertisement and MPLS LSP
         signaling or via management plane protocols.  In later
         documents, providing framework and protocol definitions, both
         signaling and management plane mechanisms, MUST be defined.

   FR#12 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
         indicate a requirement that a client LSP will traverse a
         component link with the minimum-latency value.  This will
         provide a means by which minimum latency performance objectives
         of flows within the client LSP can be supported.

   FR#13 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
         indicate a requirement that a client LSP will traverse a
         component link with a maximum acceptable latency value as
         specified by protocol.  This will provide a means by which
         bounded latency performance objectives of flows within the
         client LSP can be supported.

   FR#14 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
         indicate a requirement that a client LSP will traverse a
         component link with a maximum acceptable delay variation value
         as specified by protocol.





Villamizar, et al.            Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   The above set of requirements applies to component links with
   different characteristics, regardless of whether those component
   links are provided by parallel physical links between nodes or by
   sets of paths across a network provided by a server-layer LSP.

   Allowing multipath to contain component links with different
   characteristics can improve the overall load balance and can be
   accomplished while still accommodating the more strict requirements
   of a subset of client LSP.

3.4.  Considerations for Bidirectional Client LSP

   Some client LSPs MAY require a path bound to a specific set of
   component links.  This case is most likely to occur in a
   bidirectional client LSP where time synchronization protocols such as
   the Precision Time Protocol (PTP) or the Network Time Protocol (NTP)
   are carried or in any other case where symmetric delay is highly
   desirable.  There may be other uses of this capability.

   Other client LSPs may only require that the LSP serve the same set of
   nodes in both directions.  This is necessary if protocols are carried
   that make use of the reverse direction of the LSP as a back channel
   in cases such Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
   protocols using IPv4 Time to Live (TTL) or IPv4 Hop Limit to monitor
   or diagnose the underlying path.  There may be other uses of this
   capability.

   FR#15 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
         indicate a requirement that a client LSP be bound to a
         particular component link within an AMG.  If this option is not
         exercised, then a client LSP that is carried over an AMG may be
         bound to any component link or set of component links matching
         all other signaled requirements, and different directions of a
         bidirectional client LSP can be bound to different component
         links.

   FR#16 The solution MUST support a means for the client layer to
         indicate a requirement that for a specific co-routed
         bidirectional client LSP, both directions of the co-routed
         bidirectional client LSP MUST be bound to the same set of
         nodes.

   FR#17 A client LSP that is bound to a specific component link SHOULD
         NOT exceed the capacity of a single component link.  This is
         inherent in the assumption that a network SHOULD NOT operate in
         a congested state if congestion is avoidable.





Villamizar, et al.            Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   For some large bidirectional client LSPs, it may not be necessary (or
   possible due to the client LSP capacity) to bind the LSP to a common
   set of component links, but it may be necessary or desirable to
   constrain the path taken by the LSP to the same set of nodes in both
   directions.  Without an entirely new and highly dynamic protocol, it
   is not feasible to constrain such a bidirectional client LSP from
   taking multiple paths and coordinating load balance on each side in
   order to keep both directions of flows within such an LSP on common
   paths.

3.5.  Multipath Load-Balancing Dynamics

   Multipath load balancing attempts to keep traffic levels on all
   component links below congestion levels if possible and preferably
   well balanced.  Load balancing is minimally disruptive (see the
   discussion below this section's list of requirements).  The
   sensitivity to these minimal disruptions of traffic flows within a
   specific client LSP needs to be considered.

   FR#18 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
         indicate a requirement that a specific client LSP MUST NOT be
         split across multiple component links.

   FR#19 The solution SHALL provide a means local to a node that
         automatically distributes flows across the component links in
         the AMG such that performance objectives are met, as described
         in the prior requirements in Section 3.3.

   FR#20 The solution SHALL measure traffic flows or groups of traffic
         flows and dynamically select the component link on which to
         place this traffic in order to balance the load so that no
         component link in the AMG between a pair of nodes is
         overloaded.

   FR#21 When a traffic flow is moved from one component link to another
         in the same AMG between a set of nodes, it MUST be done so in a
         minimally disruptive manner.

   FR#22 Load balancing MAY be used during sustained low-traffic periods
         to reduce the number of active component links for the purpose
         of power reduction.










Villamizar, et al.            Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   FR#23 The solution SHALL provide a means for the client layer to
         indicate a requirement that a specific client LSP contains
         traffic whose frequency of component link change due to load
         balancing needs to be bounded by a specific value.  The
         solution MUST provide a means to bound the frequency of a
         component link change due to load balancing for subsets of
         traffic flow on AMGs.

   FR#24 The solution SHALL provide a means to distribute traffic flows
         from a single client LSP across multiple component links to
         handle at least the case where the traffic carried in a client
         LSP exceeds that of any component link in the AMG.

   FR#25 The solution SHOULD support the use case where an AMG itself is
         a component link for a higher order AMG.  For example, an AMG
         comprised of MPLS-TP bidirectional tunnels viewed as logical
         links could then be used as a component link in yet another AMG
         that connects MPLS routers.

   FR#26 If the total demand offered by traffic flows exceeds the
         capacity of the AMG, the solution SHOULD define a means to
         cause some client LSPs to move to an alternate set of paths
         that are not congested.  These "preempted LSPs" may not be
         restored if there is no uncongested path in the network.

   A minimally disruptive change implies that as little disruption as is
   practical occurs.  Such a change can be achieved with zero packet
   loss.  A delay discontinuity may occur, which is considered to be a
   minimally disruptive event for most services if this type of event is
   sufficiently rare.  A delay discontinuity is an example of a
   minimally disruptive behavior corresponding to current techniques.

   A delay discontinuity is an isolated event that may greatly exceed
   the normal delay variation (jitter).  A delay discontinuity has the
   following effect.  When a flow is moved from a current link to a
   target link with lower latency, reordering can occur.  When a flow is
   moved from a current link to a target link with a higher latency, a
   time gap can occur.  Some flows (e.g., timing distribution and PW
   circuit emulation) are quite sensitive to these effects.  A delay
   discontinuity can also cause a jitter buffer underrun or overrun,
   affecting user experience in real-time voice services (causing an
   audible click).  These sensitivities may be specified in a
   performance objective.

   As with any load-balancing change, a change initiated for the purpose
   of power reduction may be minimally disruptive.  Typically, the
   disruption is limited to a change in delay characteristics and the
   potential for a very brief period with traffic reordering.  When



Villamizar, et al.            Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   configuring a network for power reduction, the network operator
   should weigh the benefit of power reduction against the disadvantage
   of a minimal disruption.

4.  General Requirements for Protocol Solutions

   This section defines requirements for protocol specifications used to
   meet the functional requirements specified in Section 3.

   GR#1  The solution SHOULD extend existing protocols wherever
         possible, developing a new protocol only where doing so adds a
         significant set of capabilities.

   GR#2  A solution SHOULD extend LDP capabilities to meet functional
         requirements.  This MUST be accomplished without defining LDP
         Traffic Engineering (TE) methods as decided in [RFC3468].

   GR#3  Coexistence of LDP- and RSVP-TE-signaled LSPs MUST be supported
         on an AMG.  Function requirements SHOULD, where possible, be
         accommodated in a manner that supports LDP-signaled LSP, RSVP-
         signaled LSP, and LSP setup using management plane mechanisms.

   GR#4  When the nodes connected via an AMG are in the same routing
         domain, the solution MAY define extensions to the IGP.

   GR#5  When the nodes are connected via an AMG are in different MPLS
         network topologies, the solution SHALL NOT rely on extensions
         to the IGP.

   GR#6  The solution SHOULD support AMG IGP advertisement that results
         in convergence time better than that of advertising the
         individual component links.  The solution SHALL be designed so
         that it represents the range of capabilities of the individual
         component links such that functional requirements are met, and
         it also minimizes the frequency of advertisement updates that
         may cause IGP convergence to occur.

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










Villamizar, et al.            Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   GR#7  When a worst-case failure scenario occurs, the number of
         RSVP-TE client LSPs to be resignaled will cause a period of
         unavailability as perceived by users.  The resignaling time of
         the solution MUST support protocol mechanisms meeting existing
         provider performance objectives for the duration of
         unavailability without significantly relaxing those existing
         performance objectives for the same network or for networks
         with similar topology.  For example, the processing load due to
         IGP readvertisement MUST NOT increase significantly, and the
         resignaling time of the solution MUST NOT increase
         significantly as compared with current methods.

5.  Management Requirements

   MR#1  The Management Plane MUST support polling of the status and
         configuration of an AMG and its individual component links and
         support notification of status change.

   MR#2  The Management Plane MUST be able to activate or deactivate any
         component link in an AMG in order to facilitate operation
         maintenance tasks.  The routers at each end of an AMG MUST
         redistribute traffic to move traffic from a deactivated link to
         other component links based on the traffic flow TE criteria.

   MR#3  The Management Plane MUST be able to configure a client LSP
         over an AMG and be able to select a component link for the
         client LSP.

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

   MR#5  The Management Plane MUST be able to verify connectivity over
         each individual component link within an AMG.

   MR#6  Component link fault notification MUST be sent to the
         management plane.

   MR#7  AMG fault notification MUST be sent to the management plane and
         MUST be distributed via a link state message in the IGP.

   MR#8  The Management Plane SHOULD provide the means for an operator
         to initiate an optimization process.

   MR#9  An operator-initiated optimization MUST be performed in a
         minimally disruptive manner, as described in Section 3.5.





Villamizar, et al.            Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


6.  Acknowledgements

   Frederic Jounay of France Telecom and Yuji Kamite of NTT
   Communications Corporation coauthored a version of this document.

   A rewrite of this document occurred after the IETF 77 meeting.
   Dimitri Papadimitriou, Lou Berger, Tony Li, the former WG Chairs John
   Scuder and Alex Zinin, the current WG Chair Alia Atlas, and others
   provided valuable guidance prior to and at the IETF 77 RTGWG meeting.

   Tony Li and John Drake have made numerous valuable comments on the
   RTGWG mailing list that are reflected in versions following the IETF
   77 meeting.

   Iftekhar Hussain and Kireeti Kompella made comments on the RTGWG
   mailing list after the IETF 82 meeting that identified a new
   requirement.  Iftekhar Hussain made numerous valuable comments on the
   RTGWG mailing list that resulted in improvements to the document's
   clarity.

   In the interest of full disclosure of affiliation and in the interest
   of acknowledging sponsorship, past affiliations of authors are noted
   here.  Much of the work done by Ning So and Andrew Malis occurred
   while they were at Verizon.  Much of the work done by Curtis
   Villamizar occurred while he was at Infinera.

   Tom Yu and Francis Dupont provided the SecDir and GenArt reviews,
   respectively.  Both reviews provided useful comments.  The current
   wording of the security section is based on suggested wording from
   Tom Yu.  Lou Berger provided the RtgDir review, which resulted in the
   document being renamed and the substantial clarification of
   terminology and document wording, particularly in the Abstract,
   Introduction, and Definitions sections.

7.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations for MPLS/GMPLS and for MPLS-TP are
   documented in [RFC5920] and [RFC6941].  This document does not impact
   the security of MPLS, GMPLS, or MPLS-TP.

   The additional information that this document requires does not
   provide significant additional value to an attacker beyond the
   information already typically available from attacking a routing or
   signaling protocol.  If the requirements of this document are met by
   extending an existing routing or signaling protocol, the security
   considerations of the protocol being extended apply.  If the
   requirements of this document are met by specifying a new protocol,
   the security considerations of that new protocol should include an



Villamizar, et al.            Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   evaluation of what level of protection is required by the additional
   information specified in this document, such as data origin
   authentication.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

8.2.  Informative References

   [FRAMEWORK]
              Ning, S., McDysan, D., Osborne, E., Yong, L., and C.
              Villamizar, "Advanced Multipath Framework in MPLS", Work
              in Progress, July 2013.

   [IEEE-802.1AX]
              IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008 IEEE
              Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Link
              Aggregation", 2006, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
              download/802.1AX-2008.pdf>.

   [ITU-T.G.800]
              ITU-T, "Unified functional architecture of transport
              networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.800, February 2012,
              <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G/
              recommendation.asp?parent=T-REC-G.800>.

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

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

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

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.

   [RFC6941]  Fang, L., Niven-Jenkins, B., Mansfield, S., and R.
              Graveman, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Security
              Framework", RFC 6941, April 2013.




Villamizar, et al.            Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 7226             Advanced Multipath Requirements            May 2014


   [USE-CASES]
              Ning, S., Malis, A., McDysan, D., Yong, L., and C.
              Villamizar, "Advanced Multipath Use Cases and Design
              Considerations", Work in Progress, November 2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Curtis Villamizar (editor)
   OCCNC, LLC

   EMail: curtis@occnc.com


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

   EMail: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com


   So Ning
   Tata Communications

   EMail: ning.so@tatacommunications.com


   Andrew G. Malis
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   EMail: agmalis@gmail.com


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

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






Villamizar, et al.            Informational                    [Page 17]

