draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-04.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt 
IDR Working Group J. Tantsura IDR Working Group J. Tantsura
Internet-Draft Apstra, Inc. Internet-Draft Apstra, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri
Expires: August 23, 2019 Huawei USA Expires: December 3, 2019 Futurewei Technologies
K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
G. Mirsky G. Mirsky
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
S. Sivabalan
Cisco
N. Triantafillis N. Triantafillis
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
February 19, 2019 June 1, 2019
Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using Border Gateway Protocol Link- Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using Border Gateway Protocol Link-
State State
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-04 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a way for a Border Gateway Protocol Link-State This document defines a way for a Border Gateway Protocol Link-State
(BGP-LS) speaker to advertise multiple types of supported Maximum SID (BGP-LS) speaker to advertise multiple types of supported Maximum SID
Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity. Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity.
Such advertisements allow logically centralized entities (e.g., Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to
centralized controllers) to determine whether a particular SID stack determine whether a particular Segment Identifier (SID) stack can be
can be supported in a given network. supported in a given network.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Advertisement of MSD via BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. MSD supported by a node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Node MSD TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. MSD supported on a link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Link MSD TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
When Segment Routing tunnels are computed by a centralized When Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] paths are computed by a
controller, it is critical that the controller learns the MSD centralized controller, it is critical that the controller learns the
"Maximum SID Depth" of the node or link SR tunnel exits over, so the Maximum SID Depth (MSD) that can be imposed at each node/link on a
SID stack depth of a path computed doesn't exceed the number of SIDs given SR path. This ensures that the Segment Identifier (SID) stack
the node is capable of imposing. This document describes how to use depth of a computed path doesn't exceed the number of SIDs the node
BGP-LS to signal the MSD of a node or link to a centralized is capable of imposing.
controller.
PCEP SR extensions draft [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] signals MSD [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines how to signal MSD in the Path
in SR PCE Capability TLV and METRIC Object. However, if PCEP is not Computation Element Protocol (PCEP). The OSPF and IS-IS extensions
supported/configured on the head-end of a SR tunnel or a Binding-SID for signaling of MSD are defined in [RFC8476] and [RFC8491]
anchor node and controller does not participate in IGP routing, it respectively.
has no way to learn the MSD of nodes and links which has been
configured. BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines a way to expose topology and However, if PCEP is not supported/configured on the head-end of a SR
associated attributes and capabilities of the nodes in that topology tunnel or a Binding-SID anchor node, and controller does not
to a centralized controller. participate in IGP routing, it has no way of learning the MSD of
nodes and links. BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines a way to advertise
topology and associated attributes and capabilities of the nodes in
that topology to a centralized controller. This document defines
extensions to BGP-LS to advertise one or more types of MSDs at node
and/or link granularity.
Other types of MSD are known to be useful. For example, Other types of MSD are known to be useful. For example,
[I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] and [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] define Readable [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] and [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] define Readable
Label Depth Capability (RLDC) that is used by a head-end to insert an Label Depth Capability (RLDC) that is used by a head-end to insert an
Entropy Label (EL) at a depth that can be read by transit nodes. Entropy Label (EL) at a depth that can be read by transit nodes.
In the future, it is expected that new MSD-Types will be defined to
signal additional capabilities, e.g., ELs, SIDs that can be imposed
through recirculation, or SIDs associated with another data plane
such as IPv6. MSD advertisements MAY be useful even if SR itself is
not enabled. For example, in a non-SR MPLS network, MSD defines the
maximum label depth.
1.1. Conventions used in this document 1.1. Conventions used in this document
1.1.1. Terminology 1.1.1. Terminology
BGP-LS: Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using Border BGP-LS: Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using Border
Gateway Protocol Gateway Protocol
MSD: Maximum SID Depth MSD: Maximum SID Depth
PCC: Path Computation Client PCC: Path Computation Client
PCE: Path Computation Element PCE: Path Computation Element
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol
SID: Segment Identifier SID: Segment Identifier
SR: Segment routing SR: Segment routing
Label Imposition: Imposition is the act of modifying and/or adding
labels to the outgoing label stack associated with a packet. This
includes:
o replacing the label at the top of the label stack with a new
label.
o pushing one or more new labels onto the label stack The number of
labels imposed is then the sum of the number of labels that are
replaced and the number of labels that are pushed. See [RFC3031]
for further details.
1.1.2. Requirements Language 1.1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here . capitals, as shown here .
2. Problem Statement 2. Advertisement of MSD via BGP-LS
In existing technology only PCEP has extension to signal the MSD (SR This document describes extensions that enable BGP-LS speakers to
PCE Capability TLV/ METRIC Object as defined in signal the MSD capabilities of nodes and their links in a network to
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing],If PCEP is not supported by the node a BGP-LS consumer of network topology such as a centralized
(head-end of the SR tunnel) controller has no way to learn the MSD of controller. The centralized controller can leverage this information
the node/link configured. OSPF and IS-IS extensions are defined in: in computation of SR paths and their instantiation on network nodes
based on their MSD capabilities. When a BGP-LS speaker is
originating the topology learnt via link-state routing protocols like
OSPF or IS-IS, the MSD information for the nodes and their links is
sourced from the underlying extensions as defined in [RFC8476] and
[RFC8491] respectively. The BGP-LS speaker may also advertise the
MSD information for the local node and its links when not running any
link-state IGP protocol e.g. when running BGP as the only routing
protocol.
[RFC8476], [RFC8491] The extensions introduced in this document allow for advertisement of
different MSD-Types. This document does not define these MSD-Types
but leverages the definition, guidelines and the code-point registry
specified in [RFC8491]. This enables sharing of MSD-Types that may
be defined in the future by the IGPs in BGP-LS.
3. MSD supported by a node 3. Node MSD TLV
Node MSD is encoded in a new Node Attribute TLV, as defined in Node MSD is encoded in a new Node Attribute TLV [RFC7752] using the
[RFC7752] following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
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 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 | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type and Value ... | MSD-Type | MSD-Value | MSD-Type... | MSD-Value... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Node attribute format Figure 1: Node MSD TLV Format
Type : A 2-octet field specifying code-point of the new TLV type. Where:
Code-point:(TBD1) from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor,
Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry
Length: A 2-octet field that indicates the length of the value o Type: 266
portion
Sub-Type and value fields are as defined in corresponding OSPF o Length: variable (multiple of 2); represents the total length of
[RFC8476] and IS-IS [RFC8491] extensions. the value field in octets.
4. MSD supported on a link o Value : consists of one or more pairs of a 1-octet MSD-Type and
1-octet MSD-Value.
Link MSD is encoded in a New Link Attribute TLV, as defined in * MSD-Type : one of the values defined in the IANA registry
[RFC7752] titled "IGP MSD-Types" under the "Interior Gateway Protocol
(IGP) Parameters" registry created by [RFC8491].
* MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255. For all MSD-Types,
0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any
depth; any other value represents that of the node. This value
MUST represent the lowest value supported by any link
configured for use by the advertising protocol instance.
4. Link MSD TLV
Link MSD is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752] using the
following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
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 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 | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type and Value ... | MSD-Type | MSD-Value | MSD-Type... | MSD-Value... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Link attribute format Figure 2: Link MSD TLV Format
Type : A 2-octet field specifying code-point of the new TLV type. Where:
Code-point:(TBD2) from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor,
Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry
Length: A 2-octet field that indicates the length of the value o Type: 267
portion o Length: variable (multiple of 2); represents the total length of
Sub-Type and value fields are as defined in corresponding OSPF the value field in octets.
[RFC8476] and IS-IS [RFC8491] extensions.
o Value : consists of one or more pairs of a 1-octet MSD-Type and
1-octet MSD-Value.
* MSD-Type : one of the values defined in the IANA registry
titled "IGP MSD-Types" under the "Interior Gateway Protocol
(IGP) Parameters" registry created by [RFC8491].
* MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255. For all MSD-Types,
0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any
depth; any other value represents that of the link when used as
an outgoing interface.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
We request IANA assign code points from the registry BGP-LS Node This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP-
Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs, LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
as follows: TLV Code Point Description IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV Reference TLVs" based on table below. Early allocation for these code-points
TBD1 Node MSD 242/23 (this document) TBD2 Link MSD have been done by IANA.
(22,23,25,141,222,223)/15 (this document)
+------------+-----------------+---------------------------+
| Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV |
+------------+-----------------+---------------------------+
| 266 | Node MSD | 242/23 |
| 267 | Link MSD | (22,23,25,141,222,223)/15 |
+------------+-----------------+---------------------------+
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The advertisement of an incorrect MSD value may have negative The advertisement of an incorrect MSD value may have negative
consequences. If the value is smaller than supported, path consequences. If the value is smaller than supported, path
computation may fail to compute a viable path. If the value is computation may fail to compute a viable path. If the value is
larger than supported, an attempt to instantiate a path that can't be larger than supported, an attempt to instantiate a path that can't be
supported by the head-end (the node performing the SID imposition) supported by the head-end (the node performing the SID imposition)
may occur. The presence of this information may also inform an may occur. The presence of this information may also inform an
attacker of how to induce any of the aforementioned conditions. attacker of how to induce any of the aforementioned conditions.
This document does not introduce security issues beyond those This document does not introduce security issues beyond those
discussed in [RFC7752], [RFC8476] and [RFC8491] discussed in [RFC7752], [RFC8476] and [RFC8491]
7. Acknowledgements 7. Contributors
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems Inc.
Canada
We like to thank Acee Lindem, Ketan Talaulikar, Stephane Litkowski Email: msiva@cisco.com
and Bruno Decraene for their reviews and valuable comments.
8. References 8. Acknowledgements
8.1. Normative References We like to thank Acee Lindem, Stephane Litkowski and Bruno Decraene
for their reviews and valuable comments.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] 9. References
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", 9.1. Normative References
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-15 (work in progress),
February 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
skipping to change at page 6, line 25 skipping to change at page 7, line 44
[RFC8476] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak, [RFC8476] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8476>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8476>.
[RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, [RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491>.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]
Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S. Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., and S.
Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy
Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-mpls- Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-mpls-
elc-06 (work in progress), September 2018. elc-07 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for
Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
extensions-22 (work in progress), December 2018.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc]
Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S. Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., and S.
Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy
Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf- Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf-
mpls-elc-07 (work in progress), September 2018. mpls-elc-08 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16 (work in progress),
routing-extensions-27 (work in progress), December 2018. March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-18 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
(work in progress), December 2018.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Uma Chunduri Uma Chunduri
Huawei USA Futurewei Technologies
Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com Email: umac.ietf@gmail.com
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
Email: ketant@cisco.com
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco
Email: msiva@cisco.com
Nikos Triantafillis Nikos Triantafillis
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
Email: nikos@apstra.com Email: nikos@apstra.com
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
112 lines changed or deleted 171 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/