< draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-00.txt		draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01.txt >
	skipping to change at page 1, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 16 ¶
	Expires: February 13, 2013 D. McDysan		Expires: February 13, 2013 D. McDysan
	Verizon		Verizon
	L. Yong		L. Yong
	Huawei USA		Huawei USA
	C. Villamizar		C. Villamizar
	Outer Cape Cod Network		Outer Cape Cod Network
	Consulting		Consulting
	August 12, 2012		August 12, 2012
	Composite Link Use Cases and Design Considerations		Composite Link Use Cases and Design Considerations
	draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-00		draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document provides a set of use cases and design considerations		This document provides a set of use cases and design considerations
	for composite links.		for composite links.
	Composite link is a formalization of multipath techniques currently		Composite link is a formalization of multipath techniques currently
	in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to multipath		in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to multipath
	techniques.		techniques.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 25 ¶
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Composite Link Foundation Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Composite Link Foundation Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Delay Sensitive Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. Delay Sensitive Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Large Volume of IP and LDP Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. Large Volume of IP and LDP Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. Composite Link and Packet Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. Composite Link and Packet Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6.1. MPLS-TP in network edges only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.1. MPLS-TP in network edges only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.2. Composite Link at core LSP ingress/egress . . . . . . . . 11		6.2. Composite Link at core LSP ingress/egress . . . . . . . . 11
	6.3. MPLS-TP as a MPLS client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.3. MPLS-TP as a MPLS client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
			10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Appendix A. More Details on Existing Network Operator		Appendix A. More Details on Existing Network Operator
	Practices and Protocol Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Practices and Protocol Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Appendix B. Existing Multipath Standards and Techniques . . . . . 17		Appendix B. Existing Multipath Standards and Techniques . . . . . 17
	B.1. Common Multpath Load Spliting Techniques . . . . . . . . . 18		B.1. Common Multpath Load Spliting Techniques . . . . . . . . . 18
	B.2. Simple and Adaptive Load Balancing Multipath . . . . . . . 19		B.2. Simple and Adaptive Load Balancing Multipath . . . . . . . 19
	B.3. Traffic Split over Parallel Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		B.3. Traffic Split over Parallel Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	B.4. Traffic Split over Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		B.4. Traffic Split over Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	Appendix C. Characteristics of Transport in Core Networks . . . . 20		Appendix C. Characteristics of Transport in Core Networks . . . . 20
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Composite link requirements are specified in		Composite link requirements are specified in
	[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. A composite link framework is		[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. A composite link framework is
	defined in [I-D.so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework].		defined in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework].
	Multipath techniques have been widely used in IP networks for over		Multipath techniques have been widely used in IP networks for over
	two decades. The use of MPLS began more than a decade ago.		two decades. The use of MPLS began more than a decade ago.
	Multipath has been widely used in IP/MPLS networks for over a decade		Multipath has been widely used in IP/MPLS networks for over a decade
	with very little protocol support dedicated to effective use of		with very little protocol support dedicated to effective use of
	multipath.		multipath.
	The state of the art in multipath prior to composite links is		The state of the art in multipath prior to composite links is
	documented in Appendix B.		documented in Appendix B.
	skipping to change at page 12, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 34 ¶
	microprogrammed hardware, may be able to accomodate this forwarding		microprogrammed hardware, may be able to accomodate this forwarding
	change. Providing support in new hardware is not difficult, a much		change. Providing support in new hardware is not difficult, a much
	smaller change than, for example, changes required to disable PHP in		smaller change than, for example, changes required to disable PHP in
	an environment where LSP hierarchy is used.		an environment where LSP hierarchy is used.
	The advantage of this approach is an ability to accommodate MPLS-TP		The advantage of this approach is an ability to accommodate MPLS-TP
	as a client LSP but retain the high multiplexing gain and therefore		as a client LSP but retain the high multiplexing gain and therefore
	efficency and low network cost of a pure MPLS deployment. The		efficency and low network cost of a pure MPLS deployment. The
	disadvantage is the need for a small change in forwarding.		disadvantage is the need for a small change in forwarding.
	7. Security Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
			This memo includes no request to IANA.
			8. Security Considerations
	This document is a use cases document. Existing protocols are		This document is a use cases document. Existing protocols are
	referenced such as MPLS. Existing techniques such as MPLS link		referenced such as MPLS. Existing techniques such as MPLS link
	bundling and multipath techniques are referenced. These protocols		bundling and multipath techniques are referenced. These protocols
	and techniques are documented elsewhere and contain security		and techniques are documented elsewhere and contain security
	considerations which are unchanged by this document.		considerations which are unchanged by this document.
	This document also describes use cases for Composite Link, which is a		This document also describes use cases for Composite Link, which is a
	work-in-progress. Composite Link requirements are defined in		work-in-progress. Composite Link requirements are defined in
	[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. [I-D.so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework]		[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]. [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework]
	defines a framework for Composite Link. Composite Link bears many		defines a framework for Composite Link. Composite Link bears many
	similarities to MPLS link bundling and multipath techniques used with		similarities to MPLS link bundling and multipath techniques used with
	MPLS. Aditional security considerations, if any, beyond those		MPLS. Aditional security considerations, if any, beyond those
	already identified for MPLS, MPLS link bundling and multipath		already identified for MPLS, MPLS link bundling and multipath
	techniques, will be documented in the framework document if specific		techniques, will be documented in the framework document if specific
	to the overall framework of Composite Link, or in protocol extensions		to the overall framework of Composite Link, or in protocol extensions
	if specific to a given protocol extension defined later to support		if specific to a given protocol extension defined later to support
	Composite Link.		Composite Link.
	8. Acknowledgments		9. Acknowledgments
	Authors would like to thank [ no one so far ] for their reviews and		Authors would like to thank [ no one so far ] for their reviews and
	great suggestions.		great suggestions.
	In the interest of full disclosure of affiliation and in the interest		In the interest of full disclosure of affiliation and in the interest
	of acknowledging sponsorship, past affiliations of authors are noted.		of acknowledging sponsorship, past affiliations of authors are noted.
	Much of the work done by Ning So occurred while Ning was at Verizon.		Much of the work done by Ning So occurred while Ning was at Verizon.
	Much of the work done by Curtis Villamizar occurred while at		Much of the work done by Curtis Villamizar occurred while at
	Infinera. Infinera continues to sponsor this work on a consulting		Infinera. Infinera continues to sponsor this work on a consulting
	basis.		basis.
	9. References		10. References
	9.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	9.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
			[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework]
			Ning, S., McDysan, D., Osborne, E., Yong, L., and C.
			Villamizar, "Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol
			Label Switching (MPLS)", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-00
			(work in progress), August 2012.
	[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]		[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]
	Villamizar, C., McDysan, D., Ning, S., Malis, A., and L.		Villamizar, C., McDysan, D., Ning, S., Malis, A., and L.
	Yong, "Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link",		Yong, "Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link",
	draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-04 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-07 (work in progress),
	March 2011.		June 2012.
	[I-D.so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework]
	So, N., Malis, A., McDysan, D., Yong, L., Villamizar, C.,
	and T. Li, "Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol
	Label Switching (MPLS)",
	draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework-04 (work in progress),
	June 2011.
	[IEEE-802.1AX]		[IEEE-802.1AX]
	IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008 IEEE		IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008 IEEE
	Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Link		Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Link
	Aggregation", 2006, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/		Aggregation", 2006, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
	download/802.1AX-2008.pdf>.		download/802.1AX-2008.pdf>.
	[ITU-T.G.694.2]		[ITU-T.G.694.2]
	ITU-T, "Spectral grids for WDM applications: CWDM		ITU-T, "Spectral grids for WDM applications: CWDM
	wavelength grid", 2003,		wavelength grid", 2003,
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	22 lines changed or deleted		26 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/