draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-12.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13.txt 
OSPF Working Group X. Xu OSPF Working Group X. Xu
Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc
Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini
Expires: April 27, 2020 Expires: October 19, 2020
P. Psenak P. Psenak
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Bocci M. Bocci
Nokia Nokia
October 25, 2019 April 17, 2020
Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label-stack Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth
Depth Using OSPF Using OSPF
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-12 draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13
Abstract Abstract
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load- Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load-
balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label
Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a
given tunnel unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated
has the capability to process ELs, referred to as Entropy Label via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to
Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition, it would be useful as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition,
for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability of reading the maximum it would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for
label stack depth and performing EL-based load-balancing, referred to reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-
as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This document defines a balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This
mechanism to signal these two capabilities using OSPF and OSPFv3. document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using
These mechanism is particularly useful in the environment where OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
Segment Routing (SR) is used, where label advertisements are done via
protocols like OSPF and OSPFv3.
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 April 27, 2020.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC6790] describes a method to load-balance Multiprotocol Label [RFC6790] describes a method to load-balance Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). It also Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). It also
introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines
the signaling of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols. the signaling of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols.
Recently, mechanisms have been defined to signal labels via link- Recently, mechanisms have been defined to signal labels via link-
state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as OSPF state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as OSPFv2 [RFC8665] and
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]. In such scenarios, the OSPFv3 [RFC8666]. This draft defines a mechanism to signal the ELC
signaling mechanisms defined in [RFC6790] are inadequate. This draft using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
defines a mechanism to signal the ELC using OSPF. This mechanism is
useful when the label advertisement is also done via OSPF.
In addition, in the cases where stacked LSPs are used for whatever In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be
reasons (e.g., SR-MPLS [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]), it useful for ingress LSRs to know each intermediate LSR's capability of
would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each intermediate LSR's reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-
capability of reading the maximum label stack depth and performing balancing. This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label
EL-based load-balancing. This capability, referred to as Entropy Depth (ERLD) as defined in [RFC8662] may be used by ingress LSRs to
Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as defined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] may be used by ingress LSRs to
determine the position of the EL label in the stack, and whether it's determine the position of the EL label in the stack, and whether it's
necessary to insert multiple ELs at different positions in the label necessary to insert multiple ELs at different positions in the label
stack. stack.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790], [RFC7770] This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790], and [RFC8662].
and [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label].
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 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
[BCP14] [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.
The key word OSPF is used throughout the document to refer to both
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF 3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF
Even though ELC is a property of the node, in some cases it is Even though ELC is a property of the node, in some cases it is
advantageous to associate and advertise the ELC with the prefix. In advantageous to associate and advertise the ELC with a prefix. In
multi-area networks, routers may not know the identity of the prefix multi-area networks, routers may not know the identity of the prefix
originator in a remote area, or may not know the capabilities of such originator in a remote area, or may not know the capabilities of such
originator. Similarly, in a multi domain network, the identity of originator. Similarly, in a multi domain network, the identity of
the prefix originator and its capabilities may not be known to the the prefix originator and its capabilities may not be known to the
ingress LSR. ingress LSR.
If a router has multiple line cards, the router MUST NOT announce ELC If a router has multiple interfaces, the router MUST NOT announce ELC
unless all of its line-cards are capable of processing ELs. unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing ELs.
If the router supports ELs on all of its line cards, it SHOULD If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD
advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.
When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) advertises the prefix to the When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) distributes information between
connected area based on the intra-area or inter-area prefix that is connected areas it MUST preserve the ELC setting.
reachable in some other area, it MUST preserve the ELC signalling for
such prefix.
When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a
the prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other protocol,
protocol, it SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix. The it SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix. The exact
exact mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances on mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances on the ASBR
the ASBR is outside of the scope of this document and is is outside of the scope of this document.
implementation specific.
3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2 3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2
[RFC7684] defines the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV to advertise [RFC7684] defines the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV to advertise
additional attributes associated with a prefix. The OSPFv2 Extended additional attributes associated with a prefix. The OSPFv2 Extended
Prefix TLV includes a one octet Flags field. A new flag in the Flags Prefix TLV includes a one octet Flags field. A new flag in the Flags
field is used to signal the ELC for the prefix: field is used to signal the ELC for the prefix:
0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag): Set by the advertising router to 0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag): Set by the advertising router to
indicate that the prefix originator is capable of processing ELs. indicate that the prefix originator is capable of processing ELs.
3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3 3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3
[RFC5340] defines the OSPFv3 PrefixOptions that are advertised along [RFC5340] defines the OSPFv3 PrefixOptions field to indicate
with the prefix. A new bit in the OSPFV3 PrefixOptions is used to capabilities associated with a prefix. A new bit in the OSPFv3
signal the ELC for the prefix: PrefixOptions is used to signal the ELC for the prefix:
0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag): Set by the advertising router to 0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag): Set by the advertising router to
indicate that the prefix originator is capable of processing ELs. indicate that the prefix originator is capable of processing ELs.
4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF 4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF
A new MSD (Maximum SID Depth) type of the Node MSD sub-TLV [RFC8476], The ERLD is advertised in a Node MSD sub-TLV [RFC8476] using the
called ERLD is defined to advertise the ERLD of a given router. The ERLD-MSD type defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].
scope of the advertisement depends on the application.
Assignment of a MSD-Type for ERLD is defined in
[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].
If a router has multiple line-cards with different capabilities for If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of
reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the
smallest one. smallest one.
The absence of ERLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the
advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability.
When the ERLD MSD-Type is received in the OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 Link MSD When the ERLD MSD-Type is received in the OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 Link MSD
Sub-TLV, it MUST be ignored. Sub-TLV, it MUST be ignored.
The considerations for advertising the ERLD are specified in
[RFC8662].
5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS 5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS
The OSPF extensions defined in this document can be advertised via The OSPF extensions defined in this document can be advertised via
BGP-LS [RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs. BGP-LS [RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs.
The ELC Flag included in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV and the The ELC is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV as defined
OSPFv3 PrefixOptions, as defined in Section 3, is advertised using in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].
the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV (TLV 1170) of the BGP-LS IPv4/IPv6
Prefix NLRI Attribute as defined in section 2.3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].
The ERLD MSD-type introduced for OSPF in Section 4 is advertised
using the Node MSD TLV (TLV 266) of the BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute as
defined in section 3 of [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd].
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee
Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura , Bruno
Decraene and Carlos Pignataro for their valuable comments.
7. IANA Considerations The ERLD-MSD is advertised using the Node MSD TLV as defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd].
This document requests IANA to allocate one flag from the OSPFv2 6. IANA Considerations
Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry:
0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag) Early allocation has been done by IANA for this document as follows:
This document requests IANA to allocate one flag from the OSPFv3 - Flag 0x20 in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry has
Prefix Options registry: been assigned to the E-Flag (ELC Flag). IANA is asked to update
the registry to reflect the name used in this document: E-Flag
(ELC Flag).
0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag) - Bit 0x04 in the "OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits)" registry has
been assigned to the E-Flag (ELC Flag). IANA is asked to update
the registry to reflect the name used in this document: E-Flag
(ELC Flag).
8. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
The security considerations as described in [RFC7770] and This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node
[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] are applicable to this document. capabilities using OSPF and BGP-LS. As such, the security
considerations as described in [RFC5340], [RFC7770], [RFC7752],
[RFC7684], [RFC8476], [RFC8662],
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] and
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] are applicable to this
document.
Incorrectly setting the E flag (ELC capable) (during origination, Incorrectly setting the E flag during origination, propagation or
inter-area advertisement or redistribution) may lead to black-holing redistribution may lead to black-holing of the traffic on the egress
of the traffic on the egress node. node.
Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor load-balancing Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor or no load-
of the traffic. balancing of the traffic.
9. Contributors 8. Contributors
The following people contributed to the content of this document and The following people contributed to the content of this document and
should be considered as co-authors: should be considered as co-authors:
Gunter Van de Velde (editor) Gunter Van de Velde (editor)
Nokia Nokia
Antwerp Antwerp
BE BE
Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com
skipping to change at page 6, line 24 skipping to change at page 6, line 24
Belgium Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Keyur Patel Keyur Patel
Arrcus Arrcus
USA USA
Email: keyur@arrcus.com Email: keyur@arrcus.com
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee
Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura , Bruno
Decraene and Carlos Pignataro for their valuable comments.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[BCP14] , <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16 Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
(work in progress), June 2019. (work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G.,
and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth)
using Border Gateway Protocol Link-State", draft-ietf-idr- using Border Gateway Protocol - Link State", draft-ietf-
bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-09 (work in progress), October idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16 (work in progress),
2019. March 2020.
[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]
Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S.,
and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and
Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf- Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-
isis-mpls-elc-10 (work in progress), October 2019. isis-mpls-elc-11 (work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]
Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy label for SPRING
tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12 (work in
progress), July 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22
(work in progress), May 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>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
skipping to change at page 8, line 10 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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>.
[RFC8662] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
routing-extensions-27 (work in progress), December 2018. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
[RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu Xiaohu Xu
Alibaba Inc Alibaba Inc
Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com
Sriganesh Kini Sriganesh Kini
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
116 lines changed or deleted 117 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/