SPRING Problem Statement and Requirements
draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-01
Network Working Group S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: September 29, 2014 B. Decraene
S. Litkowski
Orange
M. Horneffer
R. Geib
Deutsche Telekom
R. Shakir
British Telecom
R. Raszuk
Individual
March 28, 2014
SPRING Problem Statement and Requirements
draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-01
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.
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/.
Previdi, et al. Expires September 29, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SPRING Problem Statement March 2014
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
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 September 29, 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.
Previdi, et al. Expires September 29, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SPRING Problem Statement March 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Dataplanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IGP-based MPLS Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Example of IGP-based MPLS Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Fast Reroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Examples of Traffic Engineering Use Cases . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1. Traffic Engineering without Bandwidth Admission
Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.2. Traffic Engineering with Bandwidth Admission
Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Interoperability with non-SPRING nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Show full document text