<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
    <!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
    <!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;">
    <!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;">
    <!ENTITY wj "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std"
    docName="draft-hu-acn-rocev2-00"
    ipr="trust200902">
    <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt'?>

    <?rfc strict="yes"?>

    <?rfc toc="yes"?>

    <!-- generate a ToC -->
    <?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
    <?rfc compact="yes"?>

    <front>
        <title abbrev="Title">Inter-domain congestion notification for SRv6-based distributed RoCEv2 network</title>

        <author initials="Z" surname="Hu" fullname="Zehua Hu">
            <organization>China Telecom</organization>
            <address>
                <postal>
                    <city>Guangzhou</city>
                    <country>China</country>
                </postal>
                <email>huzh2@chinatelecom.cn</email>
            </address>
        </author>
        
        <author initials="Y" surname="Zhu" fullname="Yongqing Zhu">
            <organization>China Telecom</organization>
            <address>
                <postal>
                    <city>Guangzhou</city>
                    <country>China</country>
                </postal>
                <email>zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn</email>
            </address>
        </author>

        <author initials="X" surname="Geng" fullname="Xuesong Geng">
            <organization>Huawei</organization>      
            <address>
                <postal>
                    <country>China</country>
                </postal>
              <email>gengxuesong@huawei.com</email>
            </address>
        </author>

        <author initials="J" surname="Hu" fullname="Jiayuan Hu">
            <organization>China Telecom</organization>
            <address>
                <postal>
                    <city>Guangzhou</city>
                    <country>China</country>
                </postal>
                <email>hujy5@chinatelecom.cn</email>
            </address>
        </author>

        <author initials="T" surname="Pi" fullname="Tanxin Pi">
            <organization>China Telecom</organization>
            <address>
                <postal>
                    <city>Guangzhou</city>
                    <country>China</country>
                </postal>
                <email>pitx1@chinatelecom.cn</email>
            </address>
        </author>
        <date year="2025" />

        <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

        <area>Routing Area</area>

        <workgroup>RTGWG</workgroup>

        <abstract>
            <t>Some AI services drive the need to transmit RMDA packets across wide area network (WAN) via SRv6 tunnels.
                RoCEv2 is the most popular open standard for achieving RDMA and network offloads over ethernet, with 
                its congestion control based on the combination of PFC and ECN. Due to certain limitations of PFC and ECN, 
                some drafts have been put forward to realize more faster congestion notification (FANTEL). Upon detection of congestion, 
                these drafts proposals directly sending congestion notifications to relevant nodes, enabling near real-time congestion control. 
                However, in SRv6-based WAN environments, congestion notifications cannot be directly delivered from WAN devices to intra-DC devices. 
                This document specifies new SRv6 Segment Identifiers (SIDs) and the corresponding processing rules for device, 
                supporting the forwarding of congestion notification across domains. </t>
        </abstract>

    </front>

    <middle>
        <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
            <t>RDMA (Remote Direct Memory Access) enables direct access to memory locations on remote machines, 
                bypassing the need for CPU involvement in data transfer processes. RDMA results in lower latency, 
                reduced CPU overhead, and increased network throughput, making RDMA particularly beneficial for 
                high-performance computing environments, cloud infrastructure, and storage networks. </t>

            <t>RoCEv2 is an open standard enabling RDMA over ethernet, with its congestion control based on 
                the combination of PFC and ECN. Priority-based Flow Control (PFC) is a data link level flow control mechanism, 
                which can selectively pause traffic according to its priority and eliminate packet loss caused by network congestion. 
                When using it in the WAN, the backpressure from PFC will cause head-of-line blocking and deadlocks, which degrade network throughput. 
                Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) is an extension to network layer protocol and transport layer protocol defined in <xref target="RFC3168" />, 
                which enables the notification of network congestion. 
                <xref target="I-D.geng-fantel-fantel-gap-analysis" /> points out that ECN still relies on end-to-end signaling and lacks precise real-time feedback. </t>

            <t><xref target="I-D.wh-rtgwg-adaptive-routing-arn" /> specifies a UDP-based Adaptive Routing Notification (ARN) mechanism to proactively disseminate congestion and failure notification. 
                <xref target="I-D.hhz-fantel-sar-wan" /> defines a new ICMPv6 message to realize rapid notification in key traffic engineering areas including failure protection, 
                congestion control, and load balancing. These solutions focus on the construction of notification messages, 
                but give little consideration to their delivery process—especially in inter-domain scenarios, leading to difficulties in achieving end-to-end congestion control. </t>

            <t>This document focuses on the scenario of transmitting RDMA packets across multiple DCs over WAN, where SRv6 tunnels are deployed between DCs. 
                It introduces several typical scenarios, and then propuses new SRv6 SIDs and associated processing procedure to enable inter-domain delivery of notification messages. </t>
        </section>

        <section title="Conventions used in this document">
            <section title="Abbreviations">
                <t>DC: Data Center</t>
                <t>CNP: Congestion Notification Packet</t>
                <t>ECN: Explicit Congestion Notification</t>
                <t>PFC: Priority-based Flow Control</t>
                <t>RoCEv2: RDMA over Converged Ethernet version 2</t>
                <t>WAN: wide area network</t>
            </section>

            <section title="Requirements language">
                <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
                    "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
                    document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" /> <xref
                    target="RFC8174" /> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. </t>
            </section>
        </section>

        <section anchor="scen" title="Scenarios for distributed RoCEv2 network">
            <t><xref target="I-D.hzh-fantel-wan-tunnel" />  introduces the main scenarios related to AI services in WAN, 
                as well as the requirements for FANTEL(FAst Notification for Traffic Engineering and Load balancing) in these scenarios. 
            Based on this, this document focuses several key scenarios and how they are carried over SRv6 tunnels in WAN. </t>

            <section title="Scenario 1: Directly transmitting sample data to AI servers">
                <t>When leasing AI facilities in a third-party DC, customers directly upload sample data to the AI servers for model training, 
                    in order to prevent data leakage in the third-party DC storage. </t>
                
                <t>During separated storage and model training, WAN needs to carry sample data from storage clusters to compute clusters through tunnels, 
                    and this data is transmitted using RDMA protocols such as RoCEv2. </t>
            </section>

            <section title="Scenario 2: coordinated model training/inference">
                <t>The computational power growth of a single DC is limited by multiple factors such as space and power consumption. 
                    Therefore, customers are inclined to support large AI model training/inference by coordinating distributed model training/inference across multiple AIDCs. </t>
                
                <t>During distributed model training, WAN needs to carry parameter synchronization data between multiple AIDCs through tunnels, 
                    and this data is transmitted using RDMA protocols such as RoCEv2. </t>
            </section>
            
            <section title="Scenario abstraction">
               
                <figure>
                    <artwork name="fig1"><![CDATA[
                    +--------------------------------------------------+
                    |  H1...H4   H5...H8         H9...H12    H61..H64  |
                    |  |     |   |     |         |     |      |    |   |
                    | ++-----++ ++-----++       ++-----++    ++----++  |
                    | | leaf1 | | leaf2 |       | leaf3 |... |leaf16|  |
                    | ++---+--+ +-+--+--+       +-+---+-+    +--+---+  |
                    |   \   \     |   \          /    |        /   /   |
                    |    \   +----+----\--------/--+  |       /   /    |
                    |     \       |     +------/---+--+--+   /   /     |
                    |      \      |  +--------+    |  |  |  /   /      |
                    |       \     |  |  +----------+--+--+-+   /       |
                    |        \    |  |  |          |  |  |    /        |
                    |         \   |  |  |          |  |  |   /         |
                    |        +-+--+--+--+-+      +-+--+--+--+-+        |
                    |        |   Spine1   |      |   Spine2   |        |
                    |        +-------+----+      +---+--------+        |
                    |                 \             /                  |
                    |                +-+-----------+-+                 |
                    |   DC1          |    gateway    |                 |
                    |                +-------+-------+                 |
                    +------------------------+-------------------------+
                    +------------------------+-------------------------+
                    |   WAN            +-----+----+                    |
                    |           +------+ingress PE+------+             |
                    |           |      +----------+      |             |
                    |           |                        |             |
                    |        +--+---+                 +--+---+         |
                    |        |  R1  +                 +  R2  |         |
                    |        +--+---+\               /+--+---+         |
                    |           |     \             /    |             |
                    |           |      \+---------+/     |             |
                    |           |       +   R5    +      |             |
                    |           |      /+---------+\     |             |
                    |           |     /             \    |             |
                    |        +--+---+/               \+--+---+         |
                    |        |  R3  +                 +  R4  |         |
                    |        +--+---+                 +--+---+         |
                    |           |                        |             |
                    |           |       +---------+      |             |
                    |           +-------+egress PE+------+             |
                    |                   +----+----+                    |
                    +------------------------+-------------------------+
                    +------------------------+-------------------------+
                    |                +-------+-------+                 |
                    |                |    gateway    |                 |
                    |   DC2          +--+---------+--+                 |
                    |                  /           \                   |
                    |        +--------+---+     +--+---------+         |
                    |        |   Spine1   |     |   Spine2   |         |
                    |        +-+--+--+--+-+     +-+--+--+--+-+         |
                    |         /   |  |  |         |  |  |   \          |
                    |        /    |  +--+----+    |  |  |    \         |
                    |       /     |     +-----\---+--+--+-+   \        |
                    |      /    +-+------------\--+  |  |  \   \       |
                    |     /    /  |     +-------\----+  |   \   \      |
                    |    /    /   |    /         \      |    \   \     |
                    |   /    /    |   /           \     |     \   \    |
                    | ++----+-+ +-+--+--+        +-+----++   +-+---++  |
                    | | leaf1 | | leaf2 |        | leaf3 |...|leaf16|  |
                    | ++-----++ ++-----++        ++-----++   ++----++  |
                    |  |     |   |     |          |     |     |    |   |
                    |  H1...H4   H5...H8          H9...H12   H61..H64  |
                    +--------------------------------------------------+
                            Figure 1: Network diagram]]></artwork>
                </figure>

                <t>The scenarios mentioned in Chapter 3 can be summarized as the network diagram shown in Figure 1.
                    In these scenarios, the sender in DC needs to transmit RoCEv2 packets to the receiver in another DC through SRv6 tunnels in WAN, 
                    the process is as follows: </t>

                <list style="symbols">
                    <t>The sender (H1-H64) in DC1 sends RoCEv2 packets to WAN's ingress PE through the leaf, spine, and gateway devices. </t>
                    <t>At the WAN's ingress PE, the RoCEv2 packets are encapsulated according to the SRv6 tunnel protocol. </t>
                    <t>The WAN's transit nodes (R1-R5) transmit the payload from ingress PE to egress PE through SRv6 tunnels. </t>
                    <t>At the WAN's egress PE, the payload are decapsulated to RoCEv2 packets and transmitted to the receiver (H1-H64) in DC2. </t>
                </list>

            </section>
            
        </section>
           

        <section anchor="solution" title="Inter-domain congestion notification">
            <section title="Precise flow control">
                <t>PFC is the feature used in ethernet to prevent data loss due to congestion. 
                    In PFC, traffic is classified into 8 priorities according to the 802.1Q protocol, and each priority maintains its queue. 
                    When the queue length of the router's receive port exceeds a certain threshold, the router sends a PAUSE frame to upstream to stop transmitting traffic. 
                    When the queue length of the router's receive port drops below a certain threshold, the router sends a RESUME frame to upstream to continue transmitting traffic. </t>
                
                <t>Since PFC operates at the data link layer, its use in WAN can cause significant impact on other services if deadlock or storms occur. 
                    Many recent works aim to define new mechanisms at the network layer or transport layer to address these issues, 
                    enabling fine-grained flow control at the service or path level. 
                    These new mechanisms typically rely on IPv6 to convey backpressure information to upstream devices. </t>

                <t>Since standard PFC is still used within DCs, this document defines an SRv6 SID (END.C) to instruct the ingress PE to perform interoperability between PFC and the new mechanisms in WAN. 
                    END.C is a 128-bit value configured on PE and disseminated to other routers via IGP. 
                    The endpoint action associated with END.C is to query the priority mapping between congestion notification and PFC, and send the PAUSE or RESUME frame with the corresponding link priority to upstream device. </t>

                <section title="Process analysis">
                <t>Taking Figure 1 as an example, within DC1 and DC2, PFC is still used to implement the flow control based on port priority. 
                    Within WAN, IPv6-based solutions are used to achieve congestion control at service level or path level, effectively avoiding impact on other services. The congestion handling process is as follows: </t>
                
                <list style="symbols">
                    <t>When WAN devices (R1, R2) detect congestion, they encapsulate an outer IP header (destination address is set to END.C) outside the notification and send it back to the ingress PE. </t>
                    <t>When the ingress PE detects that the destination address of the received packet hits END.C, and it queries the priority mapping between congestion notification and PFC, 
                        and send the PAUSE or RESUME frame with corresponding link priority to gateway. </t>
                    <t>When gateway receives the PAUSE or RESUME frame, it suspend or resume traffic transmission for the corresponding link priority. </t>
                </list>
                </section>

            </section>

            <section title="Explicit congestion notification">
                
                    <t>ECN enables a forwarding element (e.g., a router) to notify the sender for congestion control without having to drop packets <xref target="RFC3168" />. 
                        When a router detects congestion, instead of dropping packets as a signal of congestion, it marks the packets with an ECN codepoint in the IP header. 
                        The marked packets alert the receiver that packet loss is imminent, and then the receiver alerts the sender by sending Congestion Notification Packet (CNP). 
                        After receiving the CNP, the sender knows to slow down the transmission rate temporarily until the flow path is ready to handle a higher rate of traffic. </t>

                    <t> <xref target="RFC7514" /> defines Really Explicit Congestion Notification (RECN), also known as Fast Congestion Notification Packet (Fast CNP). 
                        By extending the RoCEv2 CNP, Fast CNP can be sent by the intermediate router directly to the sender, advising the sender to reduce the transmission rate at which it sends the flow of RoCEv2 data traffic.
                        When transporting RoCEv2 packets through SRv6 tunnels in WAN, intermediate devices are unable to send Fast CNP back to the ingress PE based on the information in RoCEv2 packets. 
                        Additionally, the ingress PE is unable to recognize the Fast CNP and therefore cannot forward them to the sender. </t>

                    <t>Therefore, this document proposes a new SRv6 SID (END.E) to address aforementioned issues. 
                        END.E is a 128-bit value configured on PE and disseminated to other routers via IGP. 
                        The endpoint action associated with END.E is to decapsulate the packet and then look up the routing table for traffic forwarding. </t>

                    <section title="Process analysis">
                        <t>Taking Figure 1 as an example, 
                             when a WAN device detects congestion, it directly sends Fast CNP to the ingress PE for processing, and then the ingress PE forwards it to the sender.
                            The congestion handling process is as follows:</t>

                    <list style="symbols">
                        <t>When WAN devices detect congestion, they encapsulate an outer IP header (destination address is set to END.E) outside the Fast CNP and send it back to the ingress PE. </t>
                        <t>When the ingress PE detects that the destination address of the received packet hits END.E, it decapsulates the Fast CNP and pass it to the sender in DC. </t>
                        <t>When the sender receives Fast CNP, it reduces the transmission rate of the corresponding flow. </t>
                    </list>
                </section>
            </section>
        </section>
        
        <section anchor="advertise" title="Advertising new SRv6 SIDs using IGP">
            <section title="Advertising new SRv6 SIDs Using IS-IS">
                <t>Before advertising END.E and END.C, PE nodes should first inform other nodes whether they have the corresponding congestion handling capabilities.
                    This can be achieved by defining a 1-bit flag (i.e., the C-flag) in the Flags field of the SRv6 Capabilities Sub-TLV. </t>
                <figure>
                    <artwork name="fig2"><![CDATA[
                    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
                    +---------------+---------------+-+-+-+-------------------------+
                    |    TYPE(=25)  |    Length     | |O|C|    Reserved Flags       |
                    +---------------+---------------+-+-+-+-------------------------+
                    |                   Optional Sub-Sub-TLV                        |
                    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
                            Figure 2: C-Flag in SRv6 Capabilities Sub-TLV]]></artwork>
                </figure>
                
                <t>
                    Since both END.C and END.E require specific processing at the node, 
                    they can be advertised to other neighbors via the SRv6 END SID Sub-TLV.
                </t>

                <figure>
                    <artwork name="fig3"><![CDATA[                                                                  
                    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1   
                    +---------------+-----------------------------------------------+  
                    |     Flags     |     Endpoint Behavior                         |  
                    +---------------+-----------------------------------------------+  
                    |                          SID(128bit)                          |  
                    +---------------------------------------------------------------+  
                    |                             ...                               |  
                    +---------------------------------------------------------------+  
                    |                         END.C(128bit)                         |  
                    +---------------------------------------------------------------+  
                    |                         END.E(128bit)                         |  
                    +---------------------------------------------------------------+  
                            Figure 3: new SRv6 SIDs in SRv6 END SID Sub-TLV]]></artwork>
                </figure>
            </section>
            
            <section title="Advertising new SRv6 SIDs Using OSPFv3">
                <t>TBD</t>
            </section>
        </section>

        <section anchor="sec" title="Security Considerations">
            <t>TBD</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
            <t>TBD</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgments">
            <t>TBD</t>
        </section>
        <!---->
    </middle>

    <back>

        <references title="Normative References">
            <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">
                <front>
                    <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
                    <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner" />
                    <date month="March" year="1997" />
                    <abstract>
                        <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the
                            requirements in the
                            specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines
                            these words as they should
                            be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet
                            Best Current Practices for
                            the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
                            improvements.</t>
                    </abstract>
                </front>
                <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14" />
                <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119" />
                <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119" />
            </reference>
            
            <reference anchor="RFC3688" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688">
                <front>
                    <title>The IETF XML Registry</title>
                    <author fullname="M. Mealling" initials="M." surname="Mealling" />
                    <date month="January" year="2004" />
                    <abstract>
                        <t>This document describes an IANA maintained registry for IETF standards
                            which use Extensible Markup
                            Language (XML) related items such as Namespaces, Document Type
                            Declarations (DTDs), Schemas, and
                            Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schemas.</t>
                    </abstract>
                </front>
                <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="81" />
                <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3688" />
                <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3688" />
            </reference>
                                 
            <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">
                <front>
                    <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
                    <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba" />
                    <date month="May" year="2017" />
                    <abstract>
                        <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol
                            specifications. This document
                            aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of
                            the key words have the
                            defined special meanings.</t>
                    </abstract>
                </front>
                <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14" />
                <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174" />
                <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174" />
            </reference>
        </references>

        <references title="Informative References">
            <reference anchor="RFC3168" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168">
                <front>
                    <title>The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP</title>
                    <author fullname="K. Ramakrishnan" initials="K." surname="Ramakrishnan"/>
                    <author fullname="S. Floyd" initials="S." surname="Floyd"/>
                    <author fullname="D. Black" initials="D." surname="Black"/>
                    <date month="September" year="2001"/>
                    <abstract>
                        <t>This memo specifies the incorporation of ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) to TCP and IP, including ECN's use of two bits in the IP header. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
                    </abstract>
                </front>
                <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3168"/>
                <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3168"/>
            </reference>

            <reference anchor="RFC6040" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040">
                <front>
                    <title>Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification</title>
                    <author fullname="B. Briscoe" initials="B." surname="Briscoe"/>
                    <date month="November" year="2010"/>
                    <abstract>
                        <t>This document redefines how the explicit congestion notification (ECN) field of the IP header should be constructed on entry to and exit from any IP-in-IP tunnel. On encapsulation, it updates RFC 3168 to bring all IP-in-IP tunnels (v4 or v6) into line with RFC 4301 IPsec ECN processing. On decapsulation, it updates both RFC 3168 and RFC 4301 to add new behaviours for previously unused combinations of inner and outer headers. The new rules ensure the ECN field is correctly propagated across a tunnel whether it is used to signal one or two severity levels of congestion; whereas before, only one severity level was supported. Tunnel endpoints can be updated in any order without affecting pre-existing uses of the ECN field, thus ensuring backward compatibility. Nonetheless, operators wanting to support two severity levels (e.g., for pre-congestion notification -- PCN) can require compliance with this new specification. A thorough analysis of the reasoning for these changes and the implications is included. In the unlikely event that the new rules do not meet a specific need, RFC 4774 gives guidance on designing alternate ECN semantics, and this document extends that to include tunnelling issues. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
                    </abstract>
                </front>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6040"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6040"/>
            </reference>

            <reference anchor="RFC7514" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7514">
                <front>
                    <title>Really Explicit Congestion Notification (RECN)</title>
                    <author fullname="M. Luckie" initials="M." surname="Luckie"/>
                    <date month="April" year="2015"/>
                    <abstract>
                        <t>This document proposes a new ICMP message that a router or host may use to advise a host to reduce the rate at which it sends, in cases where the host ignores other signals provided by packet loss and Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN).</t>
                    </abstract>
                </front>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7514"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7514"/>
            </reference>

            <reference anchor="I-D.wh-rtgwg-adaptive-routing-arn" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wh-rtgwg-adaptive-routing-arn-03">
                <front>
                    <title>Adaptive Routing Notification</title>
                    <author initials="H." surname="Wang" fullname="Haibo Wang">
                    <organization>Huawei</organization>
                    </author>
                    <author initials="H." surname="Huang" fullname="Hongyi Huang">
                    <organization>Huawei</organization>
                    </author>
                    <author initials="X." surname="Geng" fullname="Xuesong Geng">
                    <organization>Huawei</organization>
                    </author>
                    <author initials="X." surname="Xu" fullname="Xiaohu Xu">
                    <organization>China Mobile</organization>
                    </author>
                    <author initials="Y." surname="Xia" fullname="Yinben Xia">
                    <organization>Tencent</organization>
                    </author>
                    <date month="September" day="13" year="2024"/>
                    <abstract>
                        <t> Large-scale supercomputing and AI data centers utilize multipath to implement load balancing and/or improve transport reliability. Adaptive routing (AR), widely used in direct topologies such as dragonfly, is growing popular in commodity data centers to dynamically adjust routing policies based on path congestion and failures. When congestion or failure occurs, the sensing node can not only apply AR locally but also send the congestion/failure information to other nodes in a timely and accurate manner to enforce AR on other nodes, thus avoiding exacerbating congestion on the reported path. This document specifies Adaptive Routing Notification (ARN), a general mechanism to proactively disseminate congestion detection and congestion elimination information for remote nodes to perform re-routing policies. </t>
                    </abstract>
                </front>
                <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-wh-rtgwg-adaptive-routing-arn-03"/>
            </reference>

            <reference anchor="I-D.geng-fantel-fantel-gap-analysis" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-geng-fantel-fantel-gap-analysis-01">
                <front>
                <title>Gap Analysis of Fast Notification for Traffic Engineering and Load Balancing</title>
                <author initials="X." surname="Geng" fullname="Xuesong Geng">
                <organization>Huawei</organization>
                </author>
                <author initials="P." surname="Huo" fullname="PengFei Huo">
                <organization>ByteDance</organization>
                </author>
                <author initials="W." surname="Cheng" fullname="Weiqiang Cheng">
                <organization>China Mobile</organization>
                </author>
                <author initials="D." surname="Li" fullname="Dan Li">
                <organization>Tsinghua University</organization>
                </author>
                <author initials="Y." surname="Zhu" fullname="Yongqing Zhu">
                <organization>China Telecom</organization>
                </author>
                <author initials="H." surname="Zhengxin" fullname="Han Zhengxin">
                <organization>China Unicom</organization>
                </author>
                <date month="July" day="7" year="2025"/>
                <abstract>
                <t> Modern networks require fast, adaptive Traffic Engineering (TE) to support demanding applications like AI training and real-time services. Existing mechanisms for load balancing, protection, and flow control often lack responsiveness and scalability. This document analyzes key gaps in current TE solutions and proposes fast notification as a low-latency, event-driven enhancement. Fast notification enables real-time network awareness and quicker reactions to dynamic conditions, improving overall network efficiency and reliability. </t>
                </abstract>
                </front>
                <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-geng-fantel-fantel-gap-analysis-01"/>
            </reference>

            <reference anchor="I-D.hhz-fantel-sar-wan" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hhz-fantel-sar-wan-00">
                <front>
                <title>FANTEL scenarios and requirements in Wide Area Network</title>
                <author initials="J." surname="Hu" fullname="Jiayuan Hu">
                <organization>China Telecom</organization>
                </author>
                <author initials="Z." surname="Hu" fullname="Zehua Hu">
                <organization>China Telecom</organization>
                </author>
                <author initials="Y." surname="Zhu" fullname="Yongqing Zhu">
                <organization>China Telecom</organization>
                </author>
                <date month="July" day="6" year="2025"/>
                <abstract>
                <t> This document introduces the main scenarios related to AI services in WAN, as well as the requirements for FANTEL(FAst Notification for Traffic Engineering and Load balancing) in these scenarios. Traditional network management mechanisms are often constrained by slow feedback and high overhead, limiting their ability to react quickly to sudden link failures, congestion, or load imbalances. Therefore, these new AI services need FANTEL to provide real-time and proactive notifications for traffic engineering and load balancing, meeting the ultra-high throughput and lossless data transmission requirements of these AI service scenarios. </t>
                </abstract>
                </front>
                <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-hhz-fantel-sar-wan-00"/>
            </reference>

            <reference anchor="I-D.hzh-fantel-wan-tunnel" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hzh-fantel-wan-tunnel-00">
                <front>
                <title>Fast Notification for Traffic Engineering and Load Balancing for tunnel-based lossless transmission in WAN</title>
                <author initials="Z." surname="Hu" fullname="Zehua Hu">
                <organization>China Telecom</organization>
                </author>
                <author initials="Y." surname="Zhu" fullname="Yongqing Zhu">
                <organization>China Telecom</organization>
                </author>
                <author initials="J." surname="Hu" fullname="Jiayuan Hu">
                <organization>China Telecom</organization>
                </author>
                <author initials="T." surname="Pi" fullname="Tanxin Pi">
                <organization>China Telecom</organization>
                </author>
                <date month="July" day="6" year="2025"/>
                <abstract>
                <t> With the rapid development of large language models, many emerging AI scenarios require tunnel-based lossless transmission of RDMA packets in WAN. To fulfill this requirement, WAN should support the real- time notification of network conditions to ensure high throughput, low latency, and zero packet loss data transmission. The current reactive notification solution is limited by responsiveness, coverage, and operational overhead. Therefore, we need to establish a faster and proactive notification mechanism to implement more responsive Traffic Engineering and Load Balancing. This draft first describes typical scenarios for tunnel-based RDMA lossless transmission in WAN, then specifies the fast notification framework for implementing key TE areas (congestion control, protection, and load balance), and finally analyses the protocol implementation for fast notification. </t>
                </abstract>
                </front>
                <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-hzh-fantel-wan-tunnel-00"/>
            </reference>

        </references>

<!-- appendix -->      
    </back>
</rfc>
