--- 1/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23.txt 2018-10-12 15:13:50.147175013 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24.txt 2018-10-12 15:13:50.239177249 -0700 @@ -1,22 +1,22 @@ Network Working Group D. Farinacci Internet-Draft V. Fuller Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis -Expires: April 6, 2019 Cisco Systems +Expires: April 15, 2019 Cisco Systems A. Cabellos (Ed.) UPC/BarcelonaTech - October 3, 2018 + October 12, 2018 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) - draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 + draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 Abstract This document describes the Data-Plane protocol for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache. @@ -35,21 +35,21 @@ 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 April 6, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 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 @@ -87,45 +87,46 @@ 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 44 - B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 44 - B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 44 - B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 44 + Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 44 + B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 44 + B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 44 + B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 44 + B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 44 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 1. Introduction This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and @@ -315,21 +316,23 @@ LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the edge network from the core network. Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/ down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator - reachability algorithms described in Section 10. + reachability algorithms described in Section 10. An ETR MUST + rate-limit the action it takes when it detects changes in the + Locator-Status-Bits. Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty, one with an encoded Locator count of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database. There are a set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a Negative Map-Reply. @@ -1109,33 +1111,33 @@ controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer- header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no Priority or Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large. Instead of using the Map-Cache or mapping system, RLOC information - MAY be gleaned from received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map- - Request messages. A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the - source RLOC of a received encapsulated packet, is only stored and - used for a few seconds, pending verification. Verification is - performed by sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner- - header IP source address) of the received encapsulated packet. A - reply to this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the - Map-Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the - time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. When a - verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs - for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches the EID- - Prefix of the verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL, - refer to Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism. + MAY be gleaned from received tunneled packets or Map-Request + messages. A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the source + RLOC of a received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a + few seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by + sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP source + address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to this + "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the Map-Cache entry + for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the time indicated + from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. When a verified Map- + Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent + packets that have a source EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the + verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL, refer to + Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism. RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be reachable when the R-bit [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for the Locator record is set to 1. When the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate to the RLOC. Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply nor that stored in the mapping database system provides reachability information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the mapping system and is determined using one or more of the Routing Locator reachability algorithms described in the next section. @@ -1577,22 +1579,22 @@ 20.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf- lisp-6834bis-02 (work in progress), September 2018. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", - draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 (work in progress), - September 2018. + draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 (work in progress), October + 2018. [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, . [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate @@ -1763,201 +1765,218 @@ An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value to the LISP authors. A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a practical and incremental transition for the Internet. - The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people who have - contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this proposal. - They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, Jason Schiller, - Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay Gill, Geoff Huston, - David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted Seely, Mark Townsley, - Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter Lothberg, Dave Thaler, - Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier Bonaventure, Luigi - Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Terry - Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van - Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien - Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David - Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Fred Templin, - Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro Marques, Jari - Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, Xu Xiaohu, - Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John Drake, Dimitri - Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job Snijders, Vina - Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White, Clarence Filsfils, - Alia Atlas, Florin Coras and Alberto Rodriguez. + The original authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people + who have contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this + proposal. They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, + Jason Schiller, Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay + Gill, Geoff Huston, David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted + Seely, Mark Townsley, Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter + Lothberg, Dave Thaler, Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier + Bonaventure, Luigi Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel + Halpern, Terry Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, + Iljitsch van Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc + Woolward, Damien Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap + Lahiri, David Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, + Fred Templin, Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro + Marques, Jari Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, + Xu Xiaohu, Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John + Drake, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job + Snijders, Vina Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White, + Clarence Filsfils, Alia Atlas, Florin Coras and Alberto Rodriguez. This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF. An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working group document that became this RFC. The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs. + The current authors would like to give a sincere thank you to the + people who help put LISP on standards track in the IETF. They + include Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, Deborah Brungard, Fabio Maino, + Scott Bradner, Kyle Rose, Takeshi Takahashi, Sarah Banks, Pete + Resnick, Colin Perkins, Mirja Kuhlewind, Francis Dupont, Benjamin + Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper, + Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed + Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The + contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and + robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols. + Appendix B. Document Change Log [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] -B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 +B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 + + o Posted mid October 2018. + + o Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben. + +B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 o Posted early October 2018. o Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security concerns from Telechat. -B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 +B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 o Posted early October 2018. o Changes to reflect comments post Telechat. -B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 +B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 o Posted late-September 2018. o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat. -B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 +B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 o Posted late-September 2018. o Fix old reference to RFC3168, changed to RFC6040. -B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 +B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 o Posted late-September 2018. o More editorial changes. -B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 +B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 o Posted mid-September 2018. o Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja). -B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 +B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 o Posted September 2018. o Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document has been shortened in length. o Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control. o More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews. -B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 +B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 o Posted late August 2018. o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP for IPv6 for handling MTU issues. -B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 +B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 o Posted August 2018. o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed Standard. o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementers are informed of any changes since the last RFC publication. -B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 +B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 o Posted July 2018 IETF week. o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract. -B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 +B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 o Posted March IETF Week 2018. o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC. o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new OAM document. o Some references changed from normative to informative -B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 +B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 o Posted July 2018. o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status. -B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 +B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 o Posted March 2018. o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM document. -B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 +B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 o Posted March 2018. o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data- Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and weights). o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC probing o Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'. -B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 +B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 o Posted January 2018. o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during encapsulation and decapsulation. o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section from various commenters. o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section. o More editorial changes. o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section. -B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 +B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 o Posted January 2018. o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi Iannone. o Ran IDNITs on the document. -B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 +B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 o Posted November 2017. o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] addresses. -B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 +B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 o Posted October 2017. o Put RTR definition before it is used. o Rename references that are now working group drafts. o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs". @@ -1966,76 +1985,76 @@ o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. o Clarify when private addresses can be used. -B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 +B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 o Posted August 2017. o Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. -B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 +B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 o Posted July 2017. o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936. -B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 +B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 o Posted May 2017. o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA Considerations section to RFC6833bis. -B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 +B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 o Posted April 2017. o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. -B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 +B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 o Posted March 2017. o Include references to new RFCs published. o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section. o Remove references to "experimental". -B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 +B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 o Posted December 2016. o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. Authors' Addresses - Dino Farinacci Cisco Systems Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA EMail: farinacci@gmail.com + Vince Fuller Cisco Systems Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com Dave Meyer Cisco Systems