SPRING Problem Statement and Requirements
draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (spring WG)
Authors Stefano Previdi  , Clarence Filsfils  , Bruno Decraene  , Stephane Litkowski  , Martin Horneffer  , Rob Shakir 
Last updated 2014-10-01
Replaces draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state In WG Last Call
Document shepherd Alvaro Retana
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                    S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                          C. Filsfils, Ed.
Intended status: Informational                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: April 4, 2015                                       B. Decraene
                                                            S. Litkowski
                                                                  Orange
                                                            M. Horneffer
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                               R. Shakir
                                                         British Telecom
                                                         October 1, 2014

               SPRING Problem Statement and Requirements
                 draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-02

Abstract

   The ability for a node to specify a forwarding path, other than the
   normal shortest path, that a particular packet will traverse,
   benefits a number of network functions.  Source-based routing
   mechanisms have previously been specified for network protocols, but
   have not seen widespread adoption.  In this context, the term
   'source' means 'the point at which the explicit route is imposed'.

   This document outlines various use cases, with their requirements,
   that need to be taken into account by the Source Packet Routing in
   Networking (SPRING) architecture for unicast traffic.  Multicast use-
   cases and requirements are out of scope of this document.

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

Previdi, et al.           Expires April 4, 2015                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          SPRING Problem Statement            October 2014

   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 4, 2015.

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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Dataplanes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  IGP-based MPLS Tunneling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Example of IGP-based MPLS Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Fast Reroute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Examples of Traffic Engineering Use Cases . . . . . . . .   6
       5.1.1.  Traffic Engineering without Bandwidth Admission
               Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.1.2.  Traffic Engineering with Bandwidth Admission Control   10
   6.  Interoperability with non-SPRING nodes  . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   12. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
Show full document text