RTGWG C. Villamizar, Ed.
Internet-Draft OCCNC, LLC
Intended status: Informational D. McDysan, Ed.
Expires: January 12, 2014 Verizon
S. Ning
Tata Communications
A. Malis
Verizon
L. Yong
Huawei USA
July 11, 2013
Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-11
Abstract
This document provides a set of requirements for Advanced Multipath
in MPLS Networks.
Advanced Multipath is a formalization of multipath techniques
currently in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to
existing multipath techniques.
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
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 January 12, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Availability, Stability and Transient Response . . . . . . 6
3.2. Component Links Provided by Lower Layer Networks . . . . . 7
3.3. Parallel Component Links with Different Characteristics . 8
4. Derived Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
1. Introduction
There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that
are best provided using parallel links between routers or carrying
traffic over multiple MPLS LSP. 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.
The purpose of this document is to clearly enumerate a set of
requirements related to the protocols and mechanisms that provide
MPLS based Advanced Multipath. The intent is to first provide a set
of functional requirements that are as independent as possible of
protocol specifications (Section 3). For certain functional
requirements this document describes a set of derived protocol
requirements (Section 4) and management requirements (Section 5).
1.1. 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].
Any statement which requires the solution to support some new
functionality through use of [RFC2119] keywords, SHOULD be
interpretted as follows. The implementation either MUST or SHOULD
support the new functionality depending on the use of either MUST or
SHOULD in the requirements statement. The implementation SHOULD in
most or all cases allow any new functionality to be individually
enabled or disabled through configuration. A service provider or
other deployment MAY choose to enable or disable any feature in their
network, subject to implementation limitations on sets of features
which can be disabled.
2. Definitions
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
Multipath
The term multipath includes all techniques in which
1. Traffic can take more than one path from one node to a
destination.
2. Individual packets take one path only. Packets are not
subdivided and reassembled at the receiving end.
3. Packets are not resequenced at the receiving end.
4. The paths may be:
a. parallel links between two nodes, or
b. may be specific paths across a network to a destination
node, or
c. may be links or paths to an intermediate node used to
reach a common destination.
The paths need not have equal capacity. The paths may or may not
have equal cost in a routing protocol.
Advanced Multipath
Advanced Multipath meets the requirements defined in this
document. A key capability of advanced multipath is the support
of non-homogeneous component links.
Composite Link
The term Composite Link had been a registered trademark of Avici
Systems, but was abandoned in 2007. The term composite link is
now defined by the ITU in [ITU-T.G.800]. The ITU definition
includes multipath as defined here, plus inverse multiplexing
which is explicitly excluded from the definition of multipath.
Inverse Multiplexing
Inverse multiplexing either transmits whole packets and
resequences the packets at the receiving end or subdivides
packets and reassembles the packets at the receiving end.
Inverse multiplexing requires that all packets be handled by a
common egress packet processing element and is therefore not
useful for very high bandwidth applications.
Component Link
The ITU definition of composite link in [ITU-T.G.800] and the
IETF definition of link bundling in [RFC4201] both refer to an
individual link in the composite link or link bundle as a
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
component link. The term component link is applicable to all
forms of multipath. The IEEE uses the term member rather than
component link in Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX].
Client LSP
A client LSP is an LSP which has been set up over a server layer.
In the context of this discussion, a client LSP is a LSP which
has been set up over a multipath as opposed to an LSP
representing the multipath itself or any LSP supporting a
component links of that multipath.
Flow
A sequence of packets that should be transferred in order on one
component link of a multipath.
Flow identification
The label stack and other information that uniquely identifies a
flow. Other information in flow identification may include an IP
header, pseudowire (PW) control word, Ethernet MAC address, etc.
Note that a client LSP may contain one or more Flows or a client
LSP may be equivalent to a Flow. Flow identification is used to
locally select a component link, or a path through the network
toward the destination.
Load Balance
Load split, load balance, or load distribution refers to
subdividing traffic over a set of component links such that load
is fairly evenly distributed over the set of component links and
certain packet ordering requirements are met. Some existing
techniques better acheive these objectives than others.
Performance Objective
Numerical values for performance measures, principally
availability, latency, and delay variation. Performance
objectives may be related to Service Level Agreements (SLA) as
defined in RFC2475 or may be strictly internal. Performance
objectives may span links, edge-to-edge, or end-to-end.
Performance objectives may span one provider or may span multiple
providers.
A Component Link may be a point-to-point physical link (where a
"physical link" includes one or more link layer plus a physical
layer) or a logical link that preserves ordering in the steady state.
A component link may have transient out of order events, but such
events must not exceed the network's Performance Objectives. For
example, a compoent link may be comprised of any supportable
combination of link layers over a physical layer or over logical sub-
layers, including those providing physical layer emulation.
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
The ingress and egress of a multipath may be midpoint LSRs with
respect to a given client LSP. A midpoint LSR does not participate
in the signaling of any clients of the client LSP. Therefore, in
general, multipath endpoints cannot determine requirements of clients
of a client LSP through participation in the signaling of the clients
of the client LSP.
The term Advanced Multipath is intended to be used within the context
of this document and the related documents,
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases] and [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework] and
any other related document. Other advanced multipath techniques may
in the future arise. If the capabilities defined in this document
become commonplace, they would no longer be considered "advanced".
Use of the term "advanced multipath" outside this document, if
refering to the term as defined here, should indicate Advanced
Multipath as defined by this document, citing the current document
name. If using another definition of "advanced multipath", documents
may optionally clarify that they are not using the term "advanced
multipath" as defined by this document if clarification is deemed
helpful.
3. Functional Requirements
The Functional Requirements in this section are grouped in
subsections starting with the highest priority.
3.1. Availability, Stability and Transient Response
Limiting the period of unavailability in response to failures or
transient events is extremely important as well as maintaining
stability. The transient period between some service disrupting
event and the convergence of the routing and/or signaling protocols
MUST occur within a time frame specified by Performance Objective
values.
FR#1 An advanced multipath MAY be announced in conjunction with
detailed parameters about its component links, such as
bandwidth and latency. The advanced multipath SHALL behave as
a single IGP adjacency.
FR#2 The solution SHALL provide a means to summarize some routing
advertisements regarding the characteristics of an advanced
multipath such that the updated protocol mechanisms maintain
convergence times within the timeframe needed to meet or no
significantly exceed existing Performance Objective for
convergence on the same network or convergence on a network
with a similar topology.
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
FR#3 The solution SHALL ensure that restoration operations happen
within the timeframe needed to meet existing Performance
Objective for restoration time on the same network or
restoration time on a network with a similar topology.
FR#4 The solution SHALL provide a mechanism to select a path for a
flow across a network that contains a number of paths comprised
of pairs of nodes connected by advanced multipath in such a way
as to automatically distribute the load over the network nodes
connected by advanced multipaths while meeting all of the other
mandatory requirements stated above. The solution SHOULD work
in a manner similar to that of current networks without any
advanced multipath protocol enhancements when the
characteristics of the individual component links are
advertised.
FR#5 If extensions to existing protocols are specified and/or new
protocols are defined, then the solution SHOULD provide a means
for a network operator to migrate an existing deployment in a
minimally disruptive manner.
FR#6 Any load balancing solutions MUST NOT oscillate. Some change
in path MAY occur. The solution MUST ensure that path
stability and traffic reordering continue to meet Performance
Objective on the same network or on a network with a similar
topology. Since oscillation may cause reordering, there MUST
be means to control the frequency of changing the component
link over which a flow is placed.
FR#7 Management and diagnostic protocols MUST be able to operate
over advanced multipaths.
Existing scaling techniques used in MPLS networks apply to MPLS
networks which support Advanced Multipaths. Scalability and
stability are covered in more detail in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework].
3.2. Component Links Provided by Lower Layer Networks
A component link may be supported by a lower layer network. For
example, the lower layer may be a circuit switched network or another
MPLS network (e.g., MPLS-TP)). The lower layer network may change
the latency (and/or other performance parameters) seen by the client
layer. Currently, there is no protocol for the lower layer network
to inform the higher layer network of a change in a performance
parameter. Communication of the latency performance parameter is a
very important requirement. Communication of other performance
parameters (e.g., delay variation) is desirable.
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
FR#8 The solution SHALL specify a protocol means to allow a lower
layer server network to communicate latency to the higher
layer client network.
FR#9 The precision of latency reporting SHOULD be configurable. A
reasonable default SHOULD be provided. Implementations SHOULD
support precision of at least 10% of the one way latencies for
latency of 1 ms or more.
FR#10 The solution SHALL provide a means to limit the latency to
meet a Performance Objective target on a per flow basis or
group of flow basis, where flows or groups of flows are
identifiable in the forwarding plane and are signaled using in
the control plane or set up using the management plane.
The Performance Objectives differ across the services, and
some services have different Performance Objectives for
different QoS classes, for example, one QoS class may have a
much larger latency bound than another. Overload can occur
which would violate a Performance Objective parameter (e.g.,
loss) and some remedy to handle this case for an advanced
multipath is required.
FR#11 If the total demand offered by traffic flows exceeds the
capacity of the advanced multipath, the solution SHOULD define
a means to cause some traffic flows or groups of flows to move
to some other point in the network that is not congested.
These "preempted flows" may not be restored if there is no
uncongested path in the network.
The intent is to measure the predominant latency in uncongested
service provider networks, where geographic delay dominates and is on
the order of milliseconds or more. The argument for including
queuing delay is that it reflects the delay experienced by
applications. The argument against including queuing delay is that
it if used in routing decisions it can result in routing instability.
This tradeoff is discussed in detail in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework].
3.3. Parallel Component Links with Different Characteristics
As one means to provide high availability, network operators deploy a
topology in the MPLS network using lower layer networks that have a
certain degree of diversity at the lower layer(s). Many techniques
have been developed to balance the distribution of flows across
component links that connect the same pair of nodes. When the path
for a flow can be chosen from a set of candidate nodes connected via
advanced multipaths, other techniques have been developed. Refer to
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
the Appendices in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases] for a description of
existing techniques and a set of references.
FR#12 The solution SHALL measure traffic flows or groups of traffic
flows and dynamically select the component link on which to
place this traffic in order to balance the load so that no
component link in the advanced multipath between a pair of
nodes is overloaded.
FR#13 When a traffic flow is moved from one component link to
another in the same advanced multipath between a set of nodes
(or sites), it MUST be done so in a minimally disruptive
manner.
FR#14 Load balancing MAY be used during sustained low traffic
periods to reduce the number of active component links for the
purpose of power reduction.
FR#15 The solution SHALL provide a means to identify flows whose
rearrangement frequency needs to be bounded by a configured
value and MUST provide a means to bound the rearrangement
frequency for these flows.
FR#16 The solution SHALL provide a means that communicates whether
the flows within an client LSP can be split across multiple
component links. The solution SHOULD provide a means to
indicate the flow identification field(s) which can be used
along the flow path which can be used to perform this
function.
FR#17 The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a traffic
flow will traverse a component link with the minimum latency
value.
FR#18 The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a traffic
flow will traverse a component link with a maximum acceptable
latency value as specified by protocol.
FR#19 The solution SHALL provide a means to indicate that a traffic
flow will traverse a component link with a maximum acceptable
delay variation value as specified by protocol.
FR#20 The solution SHALL provide a means local to a node that
automatically distributes flows across the component links in
the advanced multipath such that Performance Objectives are
met as described in prior requirements.
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
FR#21 The solution SHALL provide a means to distribute flows from a
single client LSP across multiple component links to handle at
least the case where the traffic carried in an client LSP
exceeds that of any component link in the advanced multipath.
As defined in Section 2, a flow is a sequence of packets that
should be transferred on one component link and should be
transferred in order.
FR#22 The solution SHOULD support the use case where an advanced
multipath itself is a component link for a higher order
advanced multipath. For example, an advanced multipath
comprised of MPLS-TP bi-directional tunnels viewed as logical
links could then be used as a component link in yet another
advanced multipath that connects MPLS routers.
FR#23 The solution MUST support an optional means for client LSP
signaling to bind a client LSP to a particular component link
within an advanced multipath. If this option is not
exercised, then a client LSP that is bound to an advanced
multipath may be bound to any component link matching all
other signaled requirements, and different directions of a
bidirectional client LSP can be bound to different component
links.
FR#24 The solution MUST support a means to indicate that both
directions of co-routed bidirectional client LSP MUST be bound
to the same component link.
A minimally disruptive change implies that as little disruption as is
practical occurs. Such a change can be achieved with zero packet
loss. A delay discontinuity may occur, which is considered to be a
minimally disruptive event for most services if this type of event is
sufficiently rare. A delay discontinuity is an example of a
minimally disruptive behavior corresponding to current techniques.
A delay discontinuity is an isolated event which may greatly exceed
the normal delay variation (jitter). A delay discontinuity has the
following effect. When a flow is moved from a current link to a
target link with lower latency, reordering can occur. When a flow is
moved from a current link to a target link with a higher latency, a
time gap can occur. Some flows (e.g., timing distribution, PW
circuit emulation) are quite sensitive to these effects. A delay
discontinuity can also cause a jitter buffer underrun or overrun
affecting user experience in real time voice services (causing an
audible click). These sensitivities may be specified in a
Performance Objective.
As with any load balancing change, a change initiated for the purpose
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
of power reduction may be minimally disruptive. Typically the
disruption is limited to a change in delay characteristics and the
potential for a very brief period with traffic reordering. The
network operator when configuring a network for power reduction
should weigh the benefit of power reduction against the disadvantage
of a minimal disruption.
4. Derived Requirements
This section takes the next step and derives high-level requirements
on protocol specification from the functional requirements.
DR#1 The solution SHOULD attempt to extend existing protocols
wherever possible, developing a new protocol only if this adds
a significant set of capabilities.
DR#2 A solution SHOULD extend LDP capabilities to meet functional
requirements (without using TE methods as decided in
[RFC3468]).
DR#3 Coexistence of LDP and RSVP-TE signaled LSPs MUST be supported
on an advanced multipath. Other functional requirements should
be supported as independently of signaling protocol as
possible.
DR#4 When the nodes connected via an advanced multipath are in the
same MPLS network topology, the solution MAY define extensions
to the IGP.
DR#5 When the nodes are connected via an advanced multipath are in
different MPLS network topologies, the solution SHALL NOT rely
on extensions to the IGP.
DR#6 The solution SHOULD support advanced multipath IGP
advertisement that results in convergence time better than that
of advertising the individual component links. The solution
SHALL be designed so that it represents the range of
capabilities of the individual component links such that
functional requirements are met, and also minimizes the
frequency of advertisement updates which may cause IGP
convergence to occur.
Examples of advertisement update triggering events to be
considered include: client LSP establishment/release, changes
in component link characteristics (e.g., latency, up/down
state), and/or bandwidth utilization.
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
DR#7 When a worst case failure scenario occurs, the number of
RSVP-TE client LSPs to be resignaled will cause a period of
unavailability as perceived by users. The resignaling time of
the solution MUST support protocol mechanisms meeting existing
provider Performance Objective for the duration of
unavailability without significantly relaxing those existing
Performance Objectives for the same network or for networks
with similar topology. For example, the processing load due to
IGP readvertisement MUST NOT increase significantly and the
resignaling time of the solution MUST NOT increase
significantly as compared with current methods.
5. Management Requirements
MR#1 Management Plane MUST support polling of the status and
configuration of an advanced multipath and its individual
advanced multipath and support notification of status change.
MR#2 Management Plane MUST be able to activate or de-activate any
component link in an advanced multipath in order to facilitate
operation maintenance tasks. The routers at each end of an
advanced multipath MUST redistribute traffic to move traffic
from a de-activated link to other component links based on the
traffic flow TE criteria.
MR#3 Management Plane MUST be able to configure a client LSP over an
advanced multipath and be able to select a component link for
the client LSP.
MR#4 Management Plane MUST be able to trace which component link a
client LSP is assigned to and monitor individual component link
and advanced multipath performance.
MR#5 Management Plane MUST be able to verify connectivity over each
individual component link within an advanced multipath.
MR#6 Component link fault notification MUST be sent to the
management plane.
MR#7 Advanced multipath fault notification MUST be sent to the
management plane and MUST be distributed via link state message
in the IGP.
MR#8 Management Plane SHOULD provide the means for an operator to
initiate an optimization process.
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
MR#9 An operator initiated optimization MUST be performed in a
minimally disruptive manner as described in Section 3.3.
6. Acknowledgements
Frederic Jounay of France Telecom and Yuji Kamite of NTT
Communications Corporation co-authored a version of this document.
A rewrite of this document occurred after the IETF77 meeting.
Dimitri Papadimitriou, Lou Berger, Tony Li, the former WG chairs John
Scuder and Alex Zinin, the current WG chair Alia Atlas, and others
provided valuable guidance prior to and at the IETF77 RTGWG meeting.
Tony Li and John Drake have made numerous valuable comments on the
RTGWG mailing list that are reflected in versions following the
IETF77 meeting.
Iftekhar Hussain and Kireeti Kompella made comments on the RTGWG
mailing list after IETF82 that identified a new requirement.
Iftekhar Hussain made numerous valuable comments on the RTGWG mailing
list that resulted in improvements to document clarity.
In the interest of full disclosure of affiliation and in the interest
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 Curtis Villamizar occurred while at
Infinera. Infinera continues to sponsor this work on a consulting
basis.
Tom Yu and Francis Dupont provided the SecDir and GenArt reviews
respectively. Both reviews provided useful comments. Lou Berger
provided the RtgDir review which resulted in substantial
clarification of terminology and document wording, particularly in
the Abstract, Introduction, and Definitions sections.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations for MPLS/GMPLS and for MPLS-TP are
documented in [RFC5920] and [RFC6941]. This document does not impact
the security of MPLS, GMPLS, or MPLS-TP.
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
The additional information that this document requires does not
provide significant additional value to an attacker beyond the
information already typically available from attacking a routing or
signaling protocol. If the requirements of this document are met by
extending an existing routing or signaling protocol, the security
considerations of the protocol being extended apply. If the
requirements of this document are met by specifying a new protocol,
the security considerations of that new protocol should include an
evaluation of what level of protection is required by the additional
information specified in this document, such as data origin
authentication.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. 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-01
(work in progress), August 2012.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases]
Ning, S., Malis, A., McDysan, D., Yong, L., and C.
Villamizar, "Composite Link Use Cases and Design
Considerations", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01 (work in
progress), August 2012.
[IEEE-802.1AX]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008 IEEE
Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Link
Aggregation", 2006, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/
download/802.1AX-2008.pdf>.
[ITU-T.G.800]
ITU-T, "Unified functional architecture of transport
networks", 2007, <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G/
recommendation.asp?parent=T-REC-G.800>.
[RFC3468] Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "The Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling
protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003.
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6941] Fang, L., Niven-Jenkins, B., Mansfield, S., and R.
Graveman, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Security
Framework", RFC 6941, April 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Curtis Villamizar (editor)
OCCNC, LLC
Email: curtis@occnc.com
Dave McDysan (editor)
Verizon
22001 Loudoun County PKWY
Ashburn, VA 20147
USA
Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com
So Ning
Tata Communications
Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com
Andrew Malis
Verizon
60 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02451
USA
Phone: +1 781-466-2362
Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Advanced Multipath Requirements July 2013
Lucy Yong
Huawei USA
5340 Legacy Dr.
Plano, TX 75025
USA
Phone: +1 469-277-5837
Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com
Villamizar, et al. Expires January 12, 2014 [Page 16]