<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-07">
   <front>
      <title>Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link</title>
      <author initials="C." surname="Villamizar" fullname="Curtis Villamizar">
         </author>
      <author initials="D." surname="McDysan" fullname="Dave McDysan">
         </author>
      <author initials="N." surname="So" fullname="Ning So">
         </author>
      <author initials="A. G." surname="Malis" fullname="Andrew G. Malis">
         </author>
      <author initials="L." surname="Yong" fullname="Lucy Yong">
         </author>
      <date month="June" day="20" year="2012" />
      <abstract>
	 <t>   There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that
   are best provided using parallel links between routers or MPLS LSR.
   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 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 microflow as is current practice.

   Current practice related to multipath is described briefly in an
   appendix.

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-07" />
   
</reference>
