draft-ietf-idr-large-community-12.txt   rfc8092.txt 
IDR J. Heitz, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Heitz, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Request for Comments: 8092 Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track J. Snijders, Ed. Category: Standards Track J. Snijders, Ed.
Expires: July 9, 2017 NTT ISSN: 2070-1721 NTT
K. Patel K. Patel
Arrcus Arrcus
I. Bagdonas I. Bagdonas
Equinix Equinix
N. Hilliard N. Hilliard
INEX INEX
January 5, 2017 February 2017
BGP Large Communities BGP Large Communities Attribute
draft-ietf-idr-large-community-12
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the BGP Large Communities attribute, an This document describes the BGP Large Communities attribute, an
extension to BGP-4. This attribute provides a mechanism to signal extension to BGP-4. This attribute provides a mechanism to signal
opaque information within separate namespaces to aid in routing opaque information within separate namespaces to aid in routing
management. The attribute is suitable for use with all Autonomous management. The attribute is suitable for use with all Autonomous
System Numbers including four-octet Autonomous System Numbers. System Numbers (ASNs) including four-octet ASNs.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2017. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8092.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
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
2. BGP Large Communities Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language ...........................................3
3. Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. BGP Large Communities Attribute .................................3
4. Canonical Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Aggregation .....................................................4
5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Canonical Representation ........................................4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Error Handling ..................................................5
7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 5 7. Security Considerations .........................................5
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. IANA Considerations .............................................6
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. References ......................................................6
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.1. Normative References .......................................6
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.2. Informative References .....................................6
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Acknowledgments ....................................................7
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Contributors .......................................................7
11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses .................................................8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
BGP [RFC4271] implementations typically support a routing policy BGP [RFC4271] implementations typically support a routing policy
language to control the distribution of routing information. Network language to control the distribution of routing information. Network
operators attach BGP communities to routes to associate particular operators attach BGP communities to routes to associate particular
properties with these routes. These properties may include properties with these routes. These properties may include
information such as the route origin location, or specification of a information such as the route origin location, or specification of a
routing policy action to be taken, or one that has been taken, and is routing policy action to be taken, or one that has been taken, and is
applied to all routes contained in a BGP Update Message where the applied to all routes contained in a BGP Update Message where the
Communities Attribute is included. Because BGP communities are Communities Attribute is included. Because BGP communities are
optional transitive BGP attributes, BGP communities may be acted upon optional transitive BGP attributes, BGP communities may be acted upon
or otherwise used by routing policies in other Autonomous Systems or otherwise used by routing policies in other Autonomous Systems
(ASes) on the Internet. (ASes) on the Internet.
BGP Communities attributes are a variable length attribute consisting A BGP Communities attribute is a variable-length attribute consisting
of a set of one or more four-octet values, each of which specify a of a set of one or more four-octet values, each of which specify a
community [RFC1997]. Common use of the individual values of this community [RFC1997]. Common use of the individual values of this
attribute type split this single 32-bit value into two 16-bit values. attribute type split this single 32-bit value into two 16-bit values.
The most significant word is interpreted as an Autonomous System The most significant word is interpreted as an Autonomous System
Number (ASN) and the least significant word is a locally defined Number (ASN), and the least significant word is a locally defined
value whose meaning is assigned by the operator of the Autonomous value whose meaning is assigned by the operator of the AS in the most
System in the most significant word. significant word.
Since the adoption of four-octet ASNs [RFC6793], the BGP Communities Since the adoption of four-octet ASNs [RFC6793], the BGP Communities
attribute can no longer accommodate the above encoding, as a two- attribute can no longer accommodate the above encoding, as a two-
octet word cannot fit a four-octet ASN. The BGP Extended Communities octet word cannot fit a four-octet ASN. The BGP Extended Communities
attribute [RFC4360] is also unsuitable. The six-octet length of the attribute [RFC4360] is also unsuitable. The six-octet length of the
Extended Community value precludes the common operational practise of Extended Community value precludes the common operational practice of
encoding four-octet ASNs in both the Global Administrator and the encoding four-octet ASNs in both the Global Administrator and the
Local Administrator sub-fields. Local Administrator sub-fields.
To address these shortcomings, this document defines a BGP Large To address these shortcomings, this document defines a BGP Large
Communities attribute encoded as an unordered set of one or more Communities attribute encoded as an unordered set of one or more
twelve-octet values, each consisting of a four-octet Global twelve-octet values, each consisting of a four-octet Global
Administrator field and two four-octet operator-defined fields, each Administrator field and two four-octet operator-defined fields, each
of which can be used to denote properties or actions significant to of which can be used to denote properties or actions significant to
the operator of the Autonomous System assigning the values. the operator of the AS assigning the values.
2. BGP Large Communities Attribute 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. BGP Large Communities Attribute
This document defines the BGP Large Communities attribute as an This document defines the BGP Large Communities attribute as an
optional transitive path attribute of variable length. All routes optional transitive path attribute of variable length. All routes
with the BGP Large Communities attribute belong to the communities with the BGP Large Communities attribute belong to the communities
specified in the attribute. specified in the attribute.
Each BGP Large Community value is encoded as a 12-octet quantity, as Each BGP Large Community value is encoded as a 12-octet quantity, as
follows: follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 4, line 7 skipping to change at page 4, line 24
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Data Part 2 | | Local Data Part 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Global Administrator: A four-octet namespace identifier. Global Administrator: A four-octet namespace identifier.
Local Data Part 1: A four-octet operator-defined value. Local Data Part 1: A four-octet operator-defined value.
Local Data Part 2: A four-octet operator-defined value. Local Data Part 2: A four-octet operator-defined value.
The Global Administrator field is intended to allow different The Global Administrator field is intended to allow different ASes to
Autonomous Systems to define BGP Large Communities without collision. define BGP Large Communities without collision. This field SHOULD be
This field SHOULD be an Autonomous System Number (ASN), in which case an ASN, in which case the Local Data Parts are to be interpreted as
the Local Data Parts are to be interpreted as defined by the owner of defined by the owner of the ASN. The use of Reserved ASNs (0
the ASN. The use of Reserved ASNs (0 [RFC7607], 65535 and 4294967295 [RFC7607], 65535 and 4294967295 [RFC7300]) is NOT RECOMMENDED.
[RFC7300]) is NOT RECOMMENDED.
There is no significance to the order in which twelve-octet Large There is no significance to the order in which twelve-octet Large
Community Attribute values are encoded in a Large Communities Community Attribute values are encoded in a Large Communities
attribute, A BGP speaker can transmit them in any order. attribute, A BGP speaker can transmit them in any order.
Duplicate BGP Large Community values MUST NOT be transmitted. A Duplicate BGP Large Community values MUST NOT be transmitted. A
receiving speaker MUST silently remove redundant BGP Large Community receiving speaker MUST silently remove redundant BGP Large Community
values from a BGP Large Community attribute. values from a BGP Large Community attribute.
3. Aggregation 4. Aggregation
If a range of routes is aggregated, then the resulting aggregate If a range of routes is aggregated, then the resulting aggregate
should have a BGP Large Communities attribute which contains all of should have a BGP Large Communities attribute that contains all of
the BGP Large Communities attributes from all of the aggregated the BGP Large Communities attributes from all of the aggregated
routes. routes.
4. Canonical Representation 5. Canonical Representation
The canonical representation of BGP Large Communities is three The canonical representation of BGP Large Communities is three
separate unsigned integers in decimal notation in the following separate unsigned integers in decimal notation in the following
order: Global Administrator, Local Data 1, Local Data 2. Numbers order: Global Administrator, Local Data 1, Local Data 2. Numbers
MUST NOT contain leading zeros; a zero value MUST be represented with MUST NOT contain leading zeros; a zero value MUST be represented with
a single zero. Each number is separated from the next by a single a single zero. Each number is separated from the next by a single
colon. For example: 64496:4294967295:2, 64496:0:0. colon. For example: 64496:4294967295:2, 64496:0:0.
BGP Large Communities SHOULD be represented in the canonical BGP Large Communities SHOULD be represented in the canonical
representation. representation.
5. Error Handling 6. Error Handling
The error handling of BGP Large Communities is as follows: The error handling of BGP Large Communities is as follows:
o A BGP Large Communities attribute SHALL be considered malformed if o A BGP Large Communities attribute SHALL be considered malformed if
the length of the BGP Large Communities Attribute value, expressed the length of the BGP Large Communities Attribute value, expressed
in octets, is not a non-zero multiple of 12. in octets, is not a non-zero multiple of 12.
o A BGP Large Communities attribute SHALL NOT be considered o A BGP Large Communities attribute SHALL NOT be considered
malformed due solely to presence of duplicate community values. malformed due to presence of duplicate Large Community values.
o A BGP UPDATE message with a malformed BGP Large Communities o A BGP UPDATE message with a malformed BGP Large Communities
attribute SHALL be handled using the approach of "treat-as- attribute SHALL be handled using the approach of "treat-as-
withdraw" as described in section 2 [RFC7606]. withdraw" as described in Section 2 of [RFC7606].
The BGP Large Communities Global Administrator field may contain any The BGP Large Communities Global Administrator field may contain any
value, and a BGP Large Communities attribute MUST NOT be considered value, and a BGP Large Communities attribute MUST NOT be considered
malformed if the Global Administrator field contains an unallocated, malformed if the Global Administrator field contains an unallocated,
unassigned or reserved ASN. unassigned, or reserved ASN.
6. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document does not change any underlying security issues This document does not change any underlying security issues
associated with any other BGP Communities mechanism. Specifically, associated with any other BGP Communities mechanism. Specifically,
an AS relying on the BGP Large Communities attribute carried in BGP an AS relying on the BGP Large Communities attribute carried in BGP
must have trust in every other AS in the path, as any intermediate must have trust in every other AS in the path, as any intermediate AS
Autonomous System in the path may have added, deleted, or altered the in the path may have added, deleted, or altered the BGP Large
BGP Large Communities attribute. Specifying the mechanism to provide Communities attribute. Specifying the mechanism to provide such
such trust is beyond the scope of this document. trust is beyond the scope of this document.
BGP Large Communities do not protect the integrity of each community BGP Large Communities do not protect the integrity of each community
value. Operators should be aware that it is possible for a BGP value. Operators should be aware that it is possible for a BGP
speaker to alter BGP Large Community Attribute values in a BGP Update speaker to alter BGP Large Community Attribute values in a BGP Update
Message. Protecting the integrity of the transitive handling of BGP Message. Protecting the integrity of the transitive handling of BGP
Large Community attributes in a manner consistent with the intent of Large Community attributes in a manner consistent with the intent of
expressed BGP routing policies falls within the broader scope of expressed BGP routing policies falls within the broader scope of
securing BGP, and is not specifically addressed here. securing BGP, and is not specifically addressed here.
Network administrators should note the recommendations in Section 11 Network administrators should note the recommendations in Section 11
of BGP Operations and Security [RFC7454]. of "BGP Operations and Security" [RFC7454].
7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC7942. The
description of implementations in this section is intended to assist
the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs.
Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here
does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has
been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied
by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be
construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
As of today these vendors have produced an implementation of BGP
Large Communities:
o Cisco IOS XR
o ExaBGP
o GoBGP
o BIRD
o OpenBGPD
o pmacct
o Quagga
The latest implementation news is tracked at
http://largebgpcommunities.net/ [1].
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
IANA has made an Early Allocation of the value 32 (LARGE_COMMUNITY) IANA has assigned the value 32 (LARGE_COMMUNITY) in the "BGP Path
in the "BGP Path Attributes" registry under the "Border Gateway Attributes" subregistry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group and is now asked to make that Parameters" registry.
Permanent.
9. Contributors
The following people contributed significantly to the content of the
document:
John Heasley
NTT Communications
Email: heas@shrubbery.net
Adam Simpson
Nokia
Email: adam.1.simpson@nokia.com
10. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ruediger Volk, Russ White, Acee
Lindem, Shyam Sethuram, Jared Mauch, Joel M. Halpern, Jeffrey Haas,
Gunter van de Velde, Marco Marzetti, Eduardo Ascenco Reis, Mark
Schouten, Paul Hoogsteder, Martijn Schmidt, Greg Hankins, Bertrand
Duvivier, Barry O'Donovan, Grzegorz Janoszka, Linda Dunbar, Marco
Davids, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Jeff Tantsura, Teun Vink, Adam
Davenport, Theodore Baschak, Pier Carlo Chiodi, Nabeel Cocker, Ian
Dickinson, Jan Baggen, Duncan Lockwood, David Farmer, Randy Bush, Wim
Henderickx, Stefan Plug, Kay Rechthien, Rob Shakir, Warren Kumari,
Gert Doering, Thomas King, Mikael Abrahamsson, Wesley Steehouwer,
Sander Steffann, Brad Dreisbach, Martin Millnert, Christopher Morrow,
Jay Borkenhagen, Arnold Nipper, Joe Provo, Niels Bakker, Bill Fenner,
Tom Daly, Ben Maddison, Alexander Azimov, Brian Dickson, Peter van
Dijk, Julian Seifert, Tom Petch, Tom Scholl, Arjen Zonneveld, Remco
van Mook, Adam Chappell, Jussi Peltola, Kristian Larsson, Markus
Hauschild, Richard Steenbergen, David Freedman, Richard Hartmann,
Geoff Huston, Mach Chen, and Alvaro Retana for their support,
insightful review and comments.
11. References 9. References
11.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. [RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015, RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
11.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities [RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996, Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>. February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
[RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
skipping to change at page 8, line 14 skipping to change at page 7, line 10
[RFC7454] Durand, J., Pepelnjak, I., and G. Doering, "BGP Operations [RFC7454] Durand, J., Pepelnjak, I., and G. Doering, "BGP Operations
and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454, and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454,
February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>. February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>.
[RFC7607] Kumari, W., Bush, R., Schiller, H., and K. Patel, [RFC7607] Kumari, W., Bush, R., Schiller, H., and K. Patel,
"Codification of AS 0 Processing", RFC 7607, "Codification of AS 0 Processing", RFC 7607,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7607, August 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7607, August 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7607>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7607>.
11.3. URIs Acknowledgments
[1] http://largebgpcommunities.net The authors would like to thank Ruediger Volk, Russ White, Acee
Lindem, Shyam Sethuram, Jared Mauch, Joel M. Halpern, Jeffrey Haas,
Gunter van de Velde, Marco Marzetti, Eduardo Ascenco Reis, Mark
Schouten, Paul Hoogsteder, Martijn Schmidt, Greg Hankins, Bertrand
Duvivier, Barry O'Donovan, Grzegorz Janoszka, Linda Dunbar, Marco
Davids, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Jeff Tantsura, Teun Vink, Adam
Davenport, Theodore Baschak, Pier Carlo Chiodi, Nabeel Cocker, Ian
Dickinson, Jan Baggen, Duncan Lockwood, David Farmer, Randy Bush, Wim
Henderickx, Stefan Plug, Kay Rechthien, Rob Shakir, Warren Kumari,
Gert Doering, Thomas King, Mikael Abrahamsson, Wesley Steehouwer,
Sander Steffann, Brad Dreisbach, Martin Millnert, Christopher Morrow,
Jay Borkenhagen, Arnold Nipper, Joe Provo, Niels Bakker, Bill Fenner,
Tom Daly, Ben Maddison, Alexander Azimov, Brian Dickson, Peter van
Dijk, Julian Seifert, Tom Petch, Tom Scholl, Arjen Zonneveld, Remco
van Mook, Adam Chappell, Jussi Peltola, Kristian Larsson, Markus
Hauschild, Richard Steenbergen, David Freedman, Richard Hartmann,
Geoff Huston, Mach Chen, and Alvaro Retana for their support,
insightful review, and comments.
Contributors
The following people contributed significantly to the content of the
document:
John Heasley
NTT Communications
Email: heas@shrubbery.net
Adam Simpson
Nokia
Email: adam.1.simpson@nokia.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jakob Heitz (editor) Jakob Heitz (editor)
Cisco Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive 170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95054 San Jose, CA 95054
USA United States of America
Email: jheitz@cisco.com Email: jheitz@cisco.com
Job Snijders (editor) Job Snijders (editor)
NTT Communications NTT Communications
Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 Theodorus Majofskistraat 100
Amsterdam 1065 SZ Amsterdam 1065 SZ
The Netherlands The Netherlands
Email: job@ntt.net Email: job@ntt.net
Keyur Patel Keyur Patel
Arrcus, Inc Arrcus, Inc.
Email: keyur@arrcus.com Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Ignas Bagdonas Ignas Bagdonas
Equinix Equinix
80 Cheapside 80 Cheapside
London EC2V 6EE London EC2V 6EE
United Kingdom United Kingdom
Email: ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com Email: ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 8, line 35
Email: keyur@arrcus.com Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Ignas Bagdonas Ignas Bagdonas
Equinix Equinix
80 Cheapside 80 Cheapside
London EC2V 6EE London EC2V 6EE
United Kingdom United Kingdom
Email: ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com Email: ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com
Nick Hilliard Nick Hilliard
INEX INEX
4027 Kingswood Road 4027 Kingswood Road
Dublin 24 Dublin 24
IE Ireland
Email: nick@inex.ie Email: nick@inex.ie
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
148 lines changed or deleted 103 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/