< draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-08.txt		draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-09.txt >
	RTGWG C. Villamizar, Ed.		RTGWG C. Villamizar, Ed.
	Internet-Draft OCCNC, LLC		Internet-Draft OCCNC, LLC
	Intended status: Informational D. McDysan, Ed.		Intended status: Informational D. McDysan, Ed.
	Expires: February 13, 2013 Verizon		Expires: August 9, 2013 Verizon
	S. Ning		S. Ning
	Tata Communications		Tata Communications
	A. Malis		A. Malis
	Verizon		Verizon
	L. Yong		L. Yong
	Huawei USA		Huawei USA
	August 12, 2012		February 5, 2013
	Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link		Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link
	draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-08		draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-09
	Abstract		Abstract
	There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that		There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that
	are best provided using parallel links between routers or MPLS LSR.		are best provided using parallel links between routers or MPLS LSR.
	In core networks there is often no alternative since the aggregate		In core networks there is often no alternative since the aggregate
	capacities of core networks today far exceed the capacity of a single		capacities of core networks today far exceed the capacity of a single
	physical link or single packet processing element.		physical link or single packet processing element.
	The presence of parallel links, with each link potentially comprised		The presence of parallel links, with each link potentially comprised
	skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶
	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 February 13, 2013.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 2013.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2012 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
	skipping to change at page 3, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 24 ¶
	4.3. Parallel Component Links with Different Characteristics . 8		4.3. Parallel Component Links with Different Characteristics . 8
	5. Derived Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5. Derived Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6. Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Appendix A. ITU-T G.800 Composite Link Definitions and		Appendix A. ITU-T G.800 Composite Link Definitions and
	Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The purpose of this document is to describe why network operators		The purpose of this document is to describe why network operators
	require certain functions in order to solve certain business problems		require certain functions in order to solve certain business problems
	(Section 2). The intent is to first describe why things need to be		(Section 2). The intent is to first describe why things need to be
	done in terms of functional requirements that are as independent as		done in terms of functional requirements that are as independent as
	possible of protocol specifications (Section 4). For certain		possible of protocol specifications (Section 4). For certain
	functional requirements this document describes a set of derived		functional requirements this document describes a set of derived
	skipping to change at page 4, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 24 ¶
	G.800 terminology used to define a composite link.		G.800 terminology used to define a composite link.
	1.1. Requirements Language		1.1. Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	2. Assumptions		2. Assumptions
	The services supported include L3VPN RFC 4364 [RFC4364], RFC 4797		The services supported include pseudowire based services (RFC 3985
	[RFC4797]L2VPN RFC 4664 [RFC4664] (VPWS, VPLS (RFC 4761 [RFC4761],		[RFC3985]), including VPN services, Internet traffic encapsulated by
	RFC 4762 [RFC4762]) and VPMS VPMS Framework		at least one MPLS label (RFC 3032 [RFC3032]), and dynamically
	[I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements]), Internet traffic		signaled MPLS (RFC 3209 [RFC3209] or RFC 5036 [RFC5036]) or MPLS-TP
	encapsulated by at least one MPLS label (RFC 3032 [RFC3032]), and		LSPs (RFC 5921 [RFC5921]). The MPLS LSPs supporting these services
	dynamically signaled MPLS (RFC 3209 [RFC3209] or RFC 5036 [RFC5036])		may be point-to-point, point-to-multipoint, or multipoint-to-
	or MPLS-TP LSPs (RFC 5921 [RFC5921]) and pseudowires (RFC 3985		multipoint.
	[RFC3985]). The MPLS LSPs supporting these services may be point-to-
	point, point-to-multipoint, or multipoint-to-multipoint.
	The locations in a network where these requirements apply are a Label		The locations in a network where these requirements apply are a Label
	Edge Router (LER) or a Label Switch Router (LSR) as defined in RFC		Edge Router (LER) or a Label Switch Router (LSR) as defined in RFC
	3031 [RFC3031].		3031 [RFC3031].
	The IP DSCP cannot be used for flow identification since L3VPN		The IP DSCP cannot be used for flow identification since L3VPN
	requires Diffserv transparency (see RFC 4031 5.5.2 [RFC4031]), and in		requires Diffserv transparency (see RFC 4031 5.5.2 [RFC4031]), and in
	general network operators do not rely on the DSCP of Internet		general network operators do not rely on the DSCP of Internet
	packets.		packets.
	skipping to change at page 13, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 24 ¶
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements]
	Kamite, Y., JOUNAY, F., Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D.,
	and L. Jin, "Framework and Requirements for Virtual
	Private Multicast Service (VPMS)",
	draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-04 (work in
	progress), July 2011.
	[I-D.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-01		Label Switching (MPLS)", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-01
	(work in progress), August 2012.		(work in progress), August 2012.
	[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases]		[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases]
	Ning, S., Malis, A., McDysan, D., Yong, L., and C.		Ning, S., Malis, A., McDysan, D., Yong, L., and C.
	Villamizar, "Composite Link Use Cases and Design		Villamizar, "Composite Link Use Cases and Design
	Considerations", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01 (work in		Considerations", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01 (work in
	skipping to change at page 14, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 16 ¶
	Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling		Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling
	protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003.		protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003.
	[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-		[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
	Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.		Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
	[RFC4031] Carugi, M. and D. McDysan, "Service Requirements for Layer		[RFC4031] Carugi, M. and D. McDysan, "Service Requirements for Layer
	3 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)",		3 Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)",
	RFC 4031, April 2005.		RFC 4031, April 2005.
	[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
	Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
	[RFC4664] Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
	Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006.
	[RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
	(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",
	RFC 4761, January 2007.
	[RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service
	(VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
	RFC 4762, January 2007.
	[RFC4797] Rekhter, Y., Bonica, R., and E. Rosen, "Use of Provider
	Edge to Provider Edge (PE-PE) Generic Routing
	Encapsulation (GRE) or IP in BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
	Networks", RFC 4797, January 2007.
	[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP		[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
	Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.		Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
	[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L.		[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L.
	Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks",		Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks",
	RFC 5921, July 2010.		RFC 5921, July 2010.
	Appendix A. ITU-T G.800 Composite Link Definitions and Terminology		Appendix A. ITU-T G.800 Composite Link Definitions and Terminology
	Composite Link:		Composite Link:
	skipping to change at page 16, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 24 ¶
	Component Link: A topolological relationship between subnetworks		Component Link: A topolological relationship between subnetworks
	(i.e., a connection between nodes), which may be a wavelength,		(i.e., a connection between nodes), which may be a wavelength,
	circuit, virtual circuit or an MPLS LSP.		circuit, virtual circuit or an MPLS LSP.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Curtis Villamizar (editor)		Curtis Villamizar (editor)
	OCCNC, LLC		OCCNC, LLC
	Email: curtis@occnc.com		Email: curtis@occnc.com
	Dave McDysan (editor)		Dave McDysan (editor)
	Verizon		Verizon
	22001 Loudoun County PKWY		22001 Loudoun County PKWY
	Ashburn, VA 20147		Ashburn, VA 20147
	Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com		Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com
	So Ning		So Ning
	Tata Communications		Tata Communications
	Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com		Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com
	Andrew Malis		Andrew Malis
	Verizon		Verizon
	117 West St.		60 Sylvan Road
	Waltham, MA 02451		Waltham, MA 02451
	Phone: +1 781-466-2362		Phone: +1 781-466-2362
	Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com		Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com
	Lucy Yong		Lucy Yong
	Huawei USA		Huawei USA
	5340 Legacy Dr.		5340 Legacy Dr.
	Plano, TX 75025		Plano, TX 75025
	Phone: +1 469-277-5837		Phone: +1 469-277-5837
	Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com		Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com
End of changes. 12 change blocks.
	43 lines changed or deleted		15 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/