



Network Working Group                                       J. Dong, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational                           M. McBride, Ed.
Expires: 9 November 2026                                       Futurewei
                                                            F. Clad, Ed.
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                                Z. Zhang
                                                                     HPE
                                                                  Y. Zhu
                                                           China Telecom
                                                                   X. Xu
                                                               R. Zhuang
                                                            China Mobile
                                                                 R. Pang
                                                            China Unicom
                                                                   H. Lu
                                                                  Y. Liu
                                                                 Tencent
                                                            L. Contreras
                                                              Telefonica
                                                               M. Durmus
                                                                Turkcell
                                                               R. Rahman
                                                                 Equinix
                                                              8 May 2026


              Fast Network Notifications Problem Statement
                    draft-ietf-rtgwg-net-notif-ps-02

Abstract

   Many network applications, ranging from Artificial Intelligence (AI)
   /Machine Learning (ML) training or inference to cloud services,
   require high bandwidth, low delay, low jitter and minimal packet loss
   in data transfer, which requires that the networks can be adaptive in
   the presence of faults, degradations, or congestion.  However,
   existing traffic management mechanisms often face limitations in
   responsiveness, coverage, and operational complexity, particularly in
   high-speed and large-scale network environments.  A good and timely
   understanding of network operational status can help to enable faster
   response to critical events, so as to enable the selection of paths
   with reduced latency and improve network utilization.  This document
   describes the existing problems and the need for fast network
   notification.






Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


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 https://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 9 November 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Glossary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Why Fast Network Notification is Needed . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  The Problem with Existing Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Example: AI Training Cluster with Fiber Link Failure  . .   7
       4.1.1.  Limitations of Existing Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.1.2.  How Fast Network Notifications Help . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Fast Network Notifications Problem Statement  . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Information of Fast Network Notifications . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  Recipients of Fast Network Notifications  . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  Delivery of Fast Network Notifications  . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.4.  Actions to Fast Network Notifications . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.5.  Scaling Concerns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14



Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   Many network applications, ranging from AI/ML training or inference
   to cloud services, require high bandwidth, low delay, low jitter and
   minimal packet loss in data transfer, which requires that the
   networks can be adaptive in the presence of faults, degradations, or
   congestion.  To meet these requirements, networks employ mechanisms
   such as traffic engineering (TE), load balancing, flow control, and
   protection switching.  However, existing solutions often face
   limitations in responsiveness, coverage, and operational complexity,
   particularly in high-speed and large-scale environments.

   Many network devices are capable of detecting link congestion,
   microbursts, queue buildup and other localized impairments at fine-
   grained time scales, ranging from microseconds to sub-millisecond,
   depending on hardware capabilities and deployment requirements.
   These detection capabilities substantially outpace the time required
   for such information to be disseminated to other relevant nodes for
   their actions, creating a gap between what the detecting node can
   observe and when recipients can react.  Fast network notification
   identifies the need for complementary mechanisms that enable low-
   latency notification of network conditions, allowing actions taken in
   the data plane to more closely align with the capabilities of
   contemporary forwarding hardware.  The information delivered by fast
   network notification may also be used for actions taken in the
   control plane or management plane.

   This document summarizes the limitations of existing mechanisms that
   prevent them being used for fast notification of critical network
   events, including link or node failure and congestion.  It also
   identifies the need for fast network notification which is critical
   for enabling fast reaction.  In the context of this document, fast
   does not imply a single, rigid numerical time threshold.  Instead, it
   characterizes a class of mechanisms to minimize the notification
   delivery time so that the latency of the notification is in the order
   of sub-milliseconds or milliseconds, depending on the operational
   objective and the range of the network domain, and can be
   substantially shorter than the Round-Trip-Time (RTT) of the network
   traffic involved.  The scope of this work is limited to fast
   notification of network conditions.  Improvements such as reduced



Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


   packet loss or faster mitigation are possible results of the actions
   consuming such notifications, but are not themselves goals or
   requirements of the notification mechanism.

   [I-D.geng-fantel-fantel-gap-analysis] provides a gap analysis of
   existing solutions and where they are deficient in supporting high
   demand services.  This document describes the set of problems which
   the a network notification solution needs to address.  The problems
   described in this document apply across a range of network scenarios
   and topologies.  However, the mechanisms used to provide
   notifications, and the feasibility of meeting specific timeliness
   requirements, may differ depending on topology and deployment
   context.  Further discussions of the requirements for a Fast Network
   Notification system can be found in
   [I-D.geng-fantel-fantel-requirements].  This document does not assume
   one-size-fits-all.

2.  Glossary

   BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880]

   ECN: Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168]

   FRR: Fast Re-Route [RFC4090] [RFC5714]

   IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance [RFC9197]

3.  Why Fast Network Notification is Needed

   Current network mechanisms were not designed for the responsiveness
   and scale required by todays' dynamic environments.  Techniques such
   as load balancing, protection switching, and flow control rely on
   feedback loops that are often too slow, too coarse, or too resource-
   intensive.  This results in performance bottlenecks, delayed
   recovery, and inefficiencies in large-scale AI, cloud, and WAN
   deployments.  A fast network notification mechanism could help to
   address these gaps by providing lightweight, real-time, actionable
   alerts that complement existing tools and enable faster, more
   accurate traffic manipulation decisions.

   In particular, the detection and propagation of network events (e.g.,
   link or node failure, congestion or state change) must occur within a
   timeframe short enough to meaningfully influence traffic engineering
   and load-balancing decisions before congestion or micro-loops occur
   or develop.  In backbone or data center networks, this typically
   implies a target of notification delivery in the order of
   milliseconds, with some environments requiring sub-millisecond
   performance.  The precise requirement is driven by:



Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


   *  The speed at which traffic shifts can induce overload.

   *  The granularity of TE tuning (fine-grained vs.  coarse-grained).

   *  The propagation diameter of the network notification.

   *  The responsiveness of the control-plane and forwarding-plane
      components.

   *  The number of network nodes which generate the notification, and
      the number of nodes which need to receive the information.

   *  The volume of information that needs to be reported, and the rate
      of change of the information.

   Therefore, this document focuses on notification mechanisms capable
   of operating within these millisecond/sub-millisecond ranges, rather
   than mechanisms whose latency spans tens or hundreds of milliseconds,
   which are insufficient for preventing transient overload under rapid
   traffic transitions.

4.  The Problem with Existing Mechanisms

   Current network traffic manipulation mechanisms such as TE, load
   balancing, flow control, and protection, have deficiencies in
   providing the low-latency, high-granularity responsiveness needed in
   modern, dynamic networks, at least in part due to the lack of dynamic
   network state information.  This results in suboptimal performance,
   low reliability and delayed recovery.  Fast network notification is a
   set of solutions to address this by enabling real-time, lightweight
   notifications that enhance the responsiveness for traffic
   engineering, congestion mitigation, and failure protection.  There is
   a demonstrable need for a standardized framework to define these fast
   network notification mechanisms, requirements and integration
   strategies.

   There follows a summary of the limitations of existing mechanisms:

   *  Slow Dissemination: Existing control protocols (e.g., routing
      protocol, etc.) may be used for dissemination of dynamic network
      state information, while they usually rely on control plane based
      hop-by-hop distribution, which causes delay when the recipient is
      multiple hops away.  With modern high-throughput environments (AI/
      ML clusters, multi-DC WANs), this delay is often prohibitive.
      Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] needs congestion
      signals to be sent back to the sender, which introduces Round-
      Trip-Time (RTT) delay and can be slow if the source node is far
      away, and it relies on the source node to take action in the



Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


      transport layer.  What is needed is a lightweight signaling method
      that can provide real-time alerts (e.g., at the sub-milliseconds
      level or in the order of a few milliseconds) on failures,
      congestion, or threshold breaches, enabling prompt actions (e.g.,
      in the range of one millisecond to tens of milliseconds) in the
      network layer.

   *  Coarse-Grained Signals: Classic ECN [RFC3168] uses a 2-bit field
      in packet header to convey the ECN capability and congestion
      indication, which inherently limits the information it can report
      to the receiving nodes.  What would be useful is a set of
      notifications that aren't just "on-off" state reports, but can
      also convey more information like congestion level/utilization
      information, latency spikes, queue buildup or flow
      characteristics, so that it can trigger precise responses like
      rerouting, rate adjustment, or protection switching for specific
      flows.

   *  Limited Visibility on Network Conditions: Current load-balancing,
      flow-control, and FRR techniques are limited by their lack of
      visibility over downstream or cross-domain network conditions,
      reducing their effectiveness and leading to suboptimal decisions.
      For example, the Point of Local Repair (PLR) executing FRR makes
      its decision based on its local view of the topology and network
      status.  It may switch traffic to a backup path and cause
      cascading congestion on that path, as it lacks visibility into the
      state of the entire backup path.  Similarly, traditional load-
      balancing is based on local link utilization information, which
      may cause some paths overloaded while others remain underutilized.
      This local view of network status prevents precise and optimized
      decisions and adjustments.  It would be helpful to send fast
      network notifications to upstream nodes so that they can perform
      action based on a wider view of network conditions.


















Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


   *  Overhead and Scalability Challenges: The distribution of high-
      volume network operational status information or frequent
      signaling introduces bandwidth and processing overhead.  At scale,
      this becomes a bottleneck rather than a solution.  IOAM [RFC9197]
      and similar tools provide detailed telemetry information, but the
      collection and feedback loops are controller-centric.  They cannot
      be used to deliver lightweight, rapid alerts for immediate action
      on specific network nodes.  Carrying dynamic network state
      information in control protocols (e.g., routing protocols) also
      increases the overhead and churn of the control plane, which may
      have negative impact to the core functionality of the protocol.
      It would be useful to have solutions designed to avoid the
      overhead and churn introduced by telemetry flooding or route
      distribution, so it can adapt to large-scale networks and dynamic
      traffic patterns (e.g., AI workloads, cloud WAN bursts).

4.1.  Example: AI Training Cluster with Fiber Link Failure

   Consider a large-scale AI training job distributed across multiple
   data centers.  These clusters exchange terabits of data per second
   between Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) nodes, requiring ultra-low
   latency and high throughput to maintain synchronization.

    +-------------------------+       +------------------------+
    |   Data Center A (GPUs)  |       |   Data Center B (GPUs) |
    +----------+--------------+       +----------+-------------+
               |                                 |
         ------|---------------------------------|-------
        |      |     +---+                       |       |
        |      |     | R |-----------------\     |       |
        |      |    /+---+\                 \    |       |
        |      |   /       \                 \   |       |
        |    +-+-+/         +---+   Failure   \+-+-+     |
        |    | R +----------+ R +-----X--------+ R |     |
        |    +---+\         +---+             /+---+     |
        |          \       /                 /           |
        |           \+---+/                 /            |
        |            | R |-----------------/             |
        |            +---+                               |
         ------------------------------------------------

     Figure 1: Distributed AI Training Clusters with Fiber Link Failure

   As depicted in the above figure, a single fiber link failure event
   can disrupt the entire training run, leading to:

   *  Delays in job completion (hours to days for large models)




Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


   *  Massive energy and compute cost waste due to resynchronization

   *  Degraded convergence accuracy if synchronization windows are
      missed

4.1.1.  Limitations of Existing Mechanisms

   Today's mechanisms provide partial solutions but are not fast or
   precise enough for these scenarios:

   *  BFD [RFC5880]: Provides fast fault detection in the bidirectional
      path between two forwarding engines.  BFD can be one of the
      detection mechanisms for link or path failures, while it is not
      used to notify the failure to nodes other than the BFD endpoints
      in the network.  BFD is preconfigured with periodic message
      exchange, while fast network notifications needs to be event-
      driven.

   *  FRR [RFC4090][RFC5714] /Route convergence: Without fast
      notification, the failure detection can take tens of milliseconds,
      followed by either local repair (FRR) or route convergence.  The
      former lacks visibility of the global network situation and thus
      may cause congestion on the backup paths, while the latter may
      breach strict synchronization requirements of the AI/ML
      application.

   In practice, this means that by the time a fiber link failure is
   detected and recovery mechanisms are invoked, critical GPU
   synchronization barriers may already have been missed, forcing
   rollbacks or restarts of the training process.

4.1.2.  How Fast Network Notifications Help

   Fast network notification mechanisms could improve the response to
   fiber link failures and congestion in distributed AI/ML clusters:

   *  Real-Time Alerts: Nodes adjacent to the failure or congestion
      could react in the order of sub-millisecond or milliseconds to
      send lightweight notifications to nodes whose forwarding paths
      might be affected.

   *  Action-Oriented Response: Upon receiving the notification, routing
      and load balancing mechanisms could very quickly shift traffic to
      backup paths or alternative DC interconnects.







Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


   *  Granularity: Notifications could carry more detailed information
      than "link failure/congestion," e.g., indicating specific link
      utilization, queue buildup or microburst congestion, allowing
      differentiated responses to different traffic flows.

   *  Complementary: The fast network notification mechanisms are
      complementary to OAM mechanisms and the control plane or
      management plane information collection mechanisms, such as BFD,
      IGP and Telemetry, it would bridge the time gap between event
      onset and slower control plane or telemetry-driven responses, and
      enable network-wide optimization.

   By deploying fast network notifications, large AI/ML workloads can
   maintain synchronization across data centers even during transient
   failures or congestion, protecting job completion time and resource
   utilization.

   Existing Approach:

   *  BFD detects failure after tens of ms

   *  FRR may cause congestion on backup paths

   *  Reroute/convergence delays impact GPU sync

   *  Result: Training stalls, compute resources wasted, job completion
      delayed

   Fast Notifications Approach:

   *  Device hardware detects failure at the level of sub-millisecond

   *  Fast network notification alerts upstream nodes of failure or
      congestion in real time

   *  Regional or global TE steers traffic quickly to alternate link/
      path without causing new congestion

   *  Result: Training continues with minimal disruption

5.  Fast Network Notifications Problem Statement

   A set of problems which need to be considered for fast network
   notifications are described in the following subsections.







Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


5.1.  Information of Fast Network Notifications

   The information carried in the fast network notifications, by the
   originating node, can be one or multiple of the following:

   *  Event Type: This can be used to indicate the type of events (e.g.,
      failure, congestion, performance degradation, etc.).

   *  Location of Event: This can be used to indicate the location where
      the event occurred in the network (e.g., the identifier of the
      link, the node, or the queue, etc.).

   *  Fine-grained Network Status information: This can include
      quantifiable network metrics like link utilization, queue length,
      level of congestion, link or node delay, jitter, packet loss, etc.

   *  Path Identification information: This can be used to indicate the
      path which is affected by the event.

   *  Flow/service Identification information: This can include the
      5-tuple of a flow or the identification of a service which is
      affected by the event.

   Other information related to the network status change and need to be
   actioned in a timely manner may also be carried in the fast network
   notifications.  For a specific network scenario, some of the
   information are mandatory, while others may be optional.  There is a
   need to work on the information model of fast network notifications
   to better understand what needs to be carried in the notifications.

5.2.  Recipients of Fast Network Notifications

   The primary purpose of fast network notification is to enable
   recipient nodes to take prompt actions.  Information delivered by
   fast network notification can be used by recipient nodes to trigger
   actions in the data plane, and may also be used for actions in the
   control plane or management plane.  The specific mechanisms for
   realizing such actions are out of the scope of this document.
   Table 1 provides some illustrative examples of potential recipients
   of fast network notifications and describes how they may benefit from
   the information received.










Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


     +==================+======================+=======================+
     | Recipient Type   | Role                 | Example Benefit       |
     +==================+======================+=======================+
     | Adjacent Routers | Data-plane neighbors | Enable local repair   |
     | / Switches       | that forward packets | (e.g., FRR, ECMP      |
     |                  |                      | adjustments)          |
     +------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
     | Non-Adjacent     | Remote upstream      | Accelerated awareness |
     | Routers /        | forwarding elements  | of failure/congestions|
     | Switches         |                      | on specific nodes     |
     +------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
     | Ingress Routers  | Traffic entry points | Re-map affected flows |
     | / Switches       | of a network         | before forwarding     |
     |                  | domain               | into failed regions   |
     +------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
     | End Hosts / Edge | Origin of traffic    | Adapt sending rate,   |
     | Nodes            | flows                | select alternate      |
     |                  |                      | uplinks               |
     +------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
     |Network Controller| Global optimization  | Accelerated awareness |
     |                  | of TE or LB paths    | of failure/congestion |
     |                  |                      | for global TE/LB      |
     +------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
                        Table 1: Recipient Types

   Table 1 has three columns.  The fist column lists the type of
   recipients.  The second column shows the example of the role that the
   node is responsible for within the network that could benefit from
   fast network notifications.  The third column indicates examples of
   how fast notification could benefit the node in fulfilling its role.
   It should be noted that for different network scenarios, different
   recipient types may be involved.  For a specific scenario, the
   recipients of fast network notifications may be determined by the
   reporting node via configuration or signaling mechanisms.  In some
   cases, the recipients may subscribe to specific types of
   notifications based on their roles or interests.  A subscription-
   based approach allows that each recipient receives only the
   information relevant to its function, thus may reduce unnecessary
   overhead.

5.3.  Delivery of Fast Network Notifications

   Depending on the position and number of the recipient nodes, fast
   network notifications may be sent via one of the following delivery
   modes:

   *  Unicast directly to the recipient node




Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


   *  Multicast to a group of recipient nodes

   *  Hop-by-hop to a series of receipt nodes along a specified path

   *  Flooding in a specified range of the network

   The mechanisms to support the above delivery mode needs to make sure
   the notification is sent to the recipient nodes in a timely manner.
   It could be based on existing messaging and transport mechanisms, or
   a new protocol may be introduced.  It should be noted that for
   different network scenarios, different delivery modes may be used.

5.4.  Actions to Fast Network Notifications

   Once a fast network notification is received, the recipient needs to
   take appropriate actions to help mitigating the event reported in the
   fast network notification.  The action can be based on the
   information carried in the fast network notification, or it can be
   based on both the information in the notification and the information
   obtained by the recipient in other ways.  The action to be performed
   by the recipient may be explicitly indicated in the notification, or
   it may be implicitly determined by the type of information carried in
   the notification.  How the actions are performed will be described in
   other documents produced by the working groups that develop the
   associated protocols.  The possible actions in response to the
   notification can be, but not limited, to one or multiple of the
   following:

   *  Switches all traffic from a path to other available paths

   *  Steers specific traffic flows to alternate links or paths

   *  Modifies the load balancing ratio among a group of paths

   *  Sends the notification further to other recipients

   Whether the actions need to be explicitly indicated in the
   notification, and if so, which ones, requires further consideration.
   It is noted that in some of the cases as described in Section 5.2,
   multiple recipients may receive the same notification, then some
   action may be taken by multiple recipients.  The sender of the fast
   network notification needs to take this into consideration if some
   coordination in the actions is needed.  The mechanism for action
   coordination is for further study and is out of the scope of this
   document.






Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


5.5.  Scaling Concerns

   The challenges of a fast notification system are exacerbated by the
   size of the network (number of nodes and links to report issues), the
   volume of information that needs to be reported, the number of nodes
   that need to receive the information, and the rate of change of the
   information.

   *  Network size is directly related to the amount of information that
      may need to be reported because each node or link in the network
      may generate the information described in Section 5.1.  The system
      that is built needs to be able to handle the total data set that
      could be generated in the network.

   *  The volume of information that is generated is directly related to
      the type of information gathered (see Section 5.1), the size of
      the network (as previously mentioned), and the number of issues
      that need to be reported.  It should be assumed in the design
      stage that if anything can go wrong, it will.  Thus the system
      must be able to cope with issues reported by a high percentage of
      the network's nodes and links.

   *  As noted in Section 5.2 , notifications may need to be delivered
      to a number of points in the network.  This has a direct impact on
      the load placed on the network by reporting the information, and
      combined with the two previous points, this can introduce loading
      stress on the parts of the network responsible for forwarding and
      processing notifications.

   *  Finally, it is important to understand where in the notification
      system is responsible for handling the effects of rapid changes in
      the issues that need to be reported.  For example, in the case of
      a link that is "flapping" (going down and up again in a quick
      cycle) it is crucial to design whether the reports are "damped" at
      the reporting node, are filtered at some transit node, or are
      required to reach the receivers.  In the case that some node that
      is not the receiver is required to reduce the notification
      reports, it is important to clearly specify how this is done and
      how it is controlled.  For example, a device could be configured
      to only report a degradation at once, but to delay reporting an
      improvement for a number of seconds to check that it is stable.










Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


6.  Operational Considerations

   Fast network notifications introduce additional traffic to the
   network.  During network events such as failures or congestion, the
   notification system itself must not exacerbate the situation;
   instead, it should actively assist in mitigating the impact.
   Mechanisms such as rate limiting and traffic prioritization for fast
   network notifications should be considered.  Depending on the
   operational requirements, fast network notifications should be
   configurable to be triggered for specific event types, so that it
   aligns with the network operation policies.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

8.  Security Considerations

   Fast network notifications, if not properly authenticated and rate-
   limited, could be exploited as a vector for Denial-of-Service (DoS)
   attacks.  An attacker able to inject or flood spurious notifications
   may trigger unnecessary re-convergence, path changes or repeated
   state updates, overwhelming both recipient nodes and higher-level
   applications.  An attacker may cause the sender of fast network
   notifications overwhelmed by making some network state flapping, so
   that the node is busy with sending notifications.  Fast network
   notifications may reveal sensitive information about the network, in
   some scenarios such information may be made visible to external
   entities, either by inspecting the notifications, or by registering
   as a consumer of the notifications.  Implementations must therefore
   ensure integrity protection, origin authentication, and appropriate
   rate controls on sending and receiving fast network notification
   messages.  In different scenarios, the trade-offs between
   notification latency and the strength of security needs to be
   considered.

   This document does not specify security mechanisms, but highlights
   that any solution must consider trust boundaries around notification
   subscriptions, authorization of notification sources and protection
   of potentially sensitive operational data.  These aspects are
   expected to be addressed by solution proposals based on deployment
   requirements and threat models.

9.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank Alia Atlas, David Black, Jeffrey
   Haas, Tony Li, Carlos J.  Bernardos, Fan Zhang, Adrian Farrel, Joel
   Halpern and Dan for their valuable comments and discussion.



Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


10.  Contributors

   The following people contributed substantially to the content of this
   document.

   Zafar Ali
   Cisco
   zali@cisco.com

   Tianran Zhou
   Huawei
   zhoutianran@huawei.com

   Xuesong Geng
   Huawei
   gengxuesong@huawei.com

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.geng-fantel-fantel-gap-analysis]
              Geng, X., Dong, J., Cheng, W., Li, D., Zhu, Y., and H.
              Zhengxin, "Gap Analysis of Fast Notification for Traffic
              Engineering and Load Balancing", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-geng-fantel-fantel-gap-analysis-02,
              26 February 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-geng-fantel-fantel-gap-analysis-02>.

   [I-D.geng-fantel-fantel-requirements]
              Geng, X., Dong, J., Zhu, Y., Li, D., Cheng, W., and C.
              Liu, "Requirements of Fast Notification for Traffic
              Engineering and Load Balancing", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-geng-fantel-fantel-requirements-03,
              26 February 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-geng-fantel-fantel-requirements-03>.




Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
              Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.

   [RFC5714]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
              RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.

   [RFC9197]  Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
              Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
              and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
              May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.

Authors' Addresses

   Jie Dong (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: jie.dong@huawei.com


   Mike McBride (editor)
   Futurewei
   Email: mmcbride7@gmail.com


   Francois Clad (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Email: fclad.ietf@gmail.com


   Jeffrey Zhang
   HPE
   Email: zhaohui.zhang@hpe.com


   Yongqing Zhu
   China Telecom
   Email: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn



Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           FANN Problem Statement                 May 2026


   Xiaohu Xu
   China Mobile
   Email: xuxiaohu_ietf@hotmail.com


   Rui Zhuang
   China Mobile
   Email: zhuangruiyjy@chinamobile.com


   Ran Pang
   China Unicom
   Email: pangran@chinaunicom.cn


   Hao Lu
   Tencent
   Email: vickkylu@tencent.com


   Yadong Liu
   Tencent
   Email: zeepliu@tencent.com


   Luis M. Contreras
   Telefonica
   Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com


   Mehmet Durmus
   Turkcell
   Email: mehmet.durmus@turkcell.com.tr


   Reshad Rahman
   Equinix
   Email: reshad@yahoo.com













Dong, Ed., et al.        Expires 9 November 2026               [Page 17]
