draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-04.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05.txt 
DetNet B. Varga, Ed. DetNet B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Farkas Internet-Draft J. Farkas
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: May 24, 2020 L. Berger Expires: August 6, 2020 L. Berger
D. Fedyk D. Fedyk
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
A. Malis A. Malis
Independent Independent
S. Bryant S. Bryant
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
J. Korhonen J. Korhonen
November 21, 2019 February 3, 2020
DetNet Data Plane: MPLS DetNet Data Plane: MPLS
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-04 draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
operating over an MPLS Packet Switched Networks. operating over an MPLS Packet Switched Networks.
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.
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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 May 24, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
3.2. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. MPLS-Based DetNet Data Plane Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. MPLS-Based DetNet Data Plane Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. DetNet Over MPLS Encapsulation Components . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. DetNet Over MPLS Encapsulation Components . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. DetNet Control Word and the DetNet Sequence Number . 10 4.2.1. DetNet Control Word and the DetNet Sequence Number . 10
4.2.2. S-Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.2. S-Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.3. F-Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.3. F-Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. OAM Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3. OAM Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4. Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4. Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.1. Aggregation Via LSP Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4.1. Aggregation Via LSP Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.2. Aggregating DetNet Flows as a new DetNet flow . . . . 17 4.4.2. Aggregating DetNet Flows as a new DetNet flow . . . . 18
4.5. Service Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.5. Service Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5.1. Edge Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.5.1. Edge Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5.2. Relay Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.5.2. Relay Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.6. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.6.1. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6.1. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.6.2. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6.2. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 21 5. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1. Service Sub-Layer Information Summary . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.1. Service Sub-Layer Information Summary . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1.1. Service Aggregation Information Summary . . . . . . . 22 5.1.1. Service Aggregation Information Summary . . . . . . . 23
5.2. Forwarding Sub-Layer Information Summary . . . . . . . . 23 5.2. Forwarding Sub-Layer Information Summary . . . . . . . . 23
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 3, line 48 skipping to change at page 3, line 48
found in the DetNet Data Plane Framework found in the DetNet Data Plane Framework
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
2.1. Terms Used in This Document 2.1. Terms Used in This Document
This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet
architecture [RFC8655] and the the DetNet Data Plane Framework architecture [RFC8655] and the the DetNet Data Plane Framework
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. The reader is assumed to be [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. The reader is assumed to be
familiar with these documents and any terminology defined therein. familiar with these documents, any terminology defined therein and
basic MPLS related terminologies in [RFC3031].
The following terminology is introduced in this document: The following terminology is introduced in this document:
F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP
used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g.,
a hop-by-hop label used between label switching routers a hop-by-hop label used between label switching routers
(LSR). (LSR).
S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet
nodes that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer nodes that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer
skipping to change at page 9, line 15 skipping to change at page 9, line 15
the use of the Associated Channel method described in [RFC4385]. The the use of the Associated Channel method described in [RFC4385]. The
DetNet sequence number is carried in the DetNet Control word which DetNet sequence number is carried in the DetNet Control word which
carries the Data/OAM discriminator. To simplify implementation and carries the Data/OAM discriminator. To simplify implementation and
to maximize interoperability two sequence number sizes are supported: to maximize interoperability two sequence number sizes are supported:
a 16 bit sequence number and a 28 bit sequence number. The 16 bit a 16 bit sequence number and a 28 bit sequence number. The 16 bit
sequence number is needed to support some types of legacy clients. sequence number is needed to support some types of legacy clients.
The 28 bit sequence number is used in situations where it is The 28 bit sequence number is used in situations where it is
necessary ensure that in high speed networks the sequence number necessary ensure that in high speed networks the sequence number
space does not wrap whilst packets are in flight. space does not wrap whilst packets are in flight.
The LSP used to forward the DetNet packet may be of any type (MPLS- The LSP used to forward the DetNet packet is not restricted regarding
LDP, MPLS-TE, MPLS-TP [RFC5921], or MPLS-SR any method used for establishing that LSP (for example, MPLS-LDP,
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]). The LSP (F-Label) label MPLS-TE, MPLS-TP [RFC5921], MPLS-SR [RFC8660], etc.). The LSP
and/or the S-Label may be used to indicate the queue processing as (F-Label) label and/or the S-Label may be used to indicate the queue
well as the forwarding parameters. Note that the possible use of processing as well as the forwarding parameters. Note that the
Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) means that the S-Label may be the only possible use of Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) means that the S-Label
label received at the terminating DetNet service. may be the only label received at the terminating DetNet service.
4.2. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation 4.2. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation
Figure 4 illustrates a DetNet data plane MPLS encapsulation. The Figure 4 illustrates a DetNet data plane MPLS encapsulation. The
MPLS-based encapsulation of the DetNet flows is well suited for the MPLS-based encapsulation of the DetNet flows is well suited for the
scenarios described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. scenarios described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework].
Furthermore, an end to end DetNet service i.e., native DetNet Furthermore, an end to end DetNet service i.e., native DetNet
deployment (see Section 3.2) is also possible if DetNet end systems deployment (see Section 3.2) is also possible if DetNet end systems
are capable of initiating and termination MPLS encapsulated packets. are capable of initiating and termination MPLS encapsulated packets.
skipping to change at page 10, line 31 skipping to change at page 10, line 31
| Physical | | Physical |
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
Figure 4: Encapsulation of a DetNet App-Flow in an MPLS PSN Figure 4: Encapsulation of a DetNet App-Flow in an MPLS PSN
4.2.1. DetNet Control Word and the DetNet Sequence Number 4.2.1. DetNet Control Word and the DetNet Sequence Number
A DetNet control word (d-CW) conforms to the Generic PW MPLS Control A DetNet control word (d-CW) conforms to the Generic PW MPLS Control
Word (PWMCW) defined in [RFC4385]. The d-CW formatted as shown in Word (PWMCW) defined in [RFC4385]. The d-CW formatted as shown in
Figure 5 MUST be present in all DetNet packets containing app-flow Figure 5 MUST be present in all DetNet packets containing app-flow
data. data. This format of the d-CW was created in order (1) to allow
larger S/N space to avoid S/N rollover frequency in some applications
and (2) to allow non-skip zero S/N what simplifies implementation.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0| Sequence Number | |0 0 0 0| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: DetNet Control Word Figure 5: DetNet Control Word
(bits 0 to 3) (bits 0 to 3)
skipping to change at page 17, line 11 skipping to change at page 17, line 11
As shown in Figure 3 of [RFC5085] when the first nibble of the d-CW As shown in Figure 3 of [RFC5085] when the first nibble of the d-CW
is 0x0 the payload following the d-CW is normal user data. However, is 0x0 the payload following the d-CW is normal user data. However,
when the first nibble of the d-CW is 0X1, the payload that follows when the first nibble of the d-CW is 0X1, the payload that follows
the d-DW is an OAM payload with the OAM type indicated by the value the d-DW is an OAM payload with the OAM type indicated by the value
in the d-CW Channel Type field. in the d-CW Channel Type field.
The reader is referred to [RFC5085] for a more detailed description The reader is referred to [RFC5085] for a more detailed description
of the Associated Channel mechanism, and to the DetNet work on OAM of the Associated Channel mechanism, and to the DetNet work on OAM
for more information DetNet OAM. for more information DetNet OAM.
Additional considerations on DetNet-specific OAM are subjects for
further study.
4.4. Flow Aggregation 4.4. Flow Aggregation
The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated
resource control, into a larger aggregate is an important technique resource control, into a larger aggregate is an important technique
for improving scaling of control in the data, management and control for improving scaling of control in the data, management and control
planes. The DetNet data plane allows for the aggregation of DetNet planes. The DetNet data plane allows for the aggregation of DetNet
flows, to improved scaling. There are two methods of supporting flow flows, to improved scaling. There are two methods of supporting flow
aggregation covered in this section. aggregation covered in this section.
The resource control and management aspects of aggregation (including The resource control and management aspects of aggregation (including
skipping to change at page 24, line 10 skipping to change at page 24, line 19
forwarded as a transit node, or provided to the service sub-layer. forwarded as a transit node, or provided to the service sub-layer.
It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly
provision both flow identification information and the flow specific provision both flow identification information and the flow specific
resources needed to provided the traffic treatment needed to meet resources needed to provided the traffic treatment needed to meet
each flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and each flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and
individual flows. individual flows.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Security considerations for DetNet are described in detail in General security considerations are described in [RFC8655].
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. General security considerations are Additionally, security considerations and a threat analysis are
described in [RFC8655]. This section considers exclusively security described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. This section considers
considerations which are specific to the DetNet MPLS data plane. exclusively security considerations which are specific to the DetNet
MPLS data plane.
Security aspects which are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to Security aspects which are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to
provide the specific quality of service aspects of DetNet, which are provide the specific quality of service aspects of DetNet, which are
primarily to deliver data flows with extremely low packet loss rates primarily to deliver data flows with extremely low packet loss rates
and bounded end-to-end delivery latency. and bounded end-to-end delivery latency.
The primary considerations for the data plane is to maintain The primary considerations for the data plane is to maintain
integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service
traversing the DetNet network. Application flows can be protected traversing the DetNet network. Application flows can be protected
through whatever means is provided by the underlying technology. For through whatever means is provided by the underlying technology. For
skipping to change at page 27, line 5 skipping to change at page 27, line 9
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching [RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[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>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework] [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane
Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-03 Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-03
(work in progress), October 2019. (work in progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP", Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP",
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-03 (work in progress), October 2019. draft-ietf-detnet-ip-04 (work in progress), November 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls] [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over
MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-03 (work in MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-04 (work in
progress), October 2019. progress), November 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn] [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet
Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking
(TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-01 (work in (TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-01 (work in
progress), October 2019. progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security] [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell, Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell,
J., Austad, H., and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking J., Austad, H., and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking
(DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet- (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet-
security-06 (work in progress), November 2019. security-07 (work in progress), January 2020.
[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.
[IEEE802.1AE-2018] [IEEE802.1AE-2018]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC
Security (MACsec)", 2018, Security (MACsec)", 2018,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>. <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>. September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
skipping to change at page 29, line 26 skipping to change at page 29, line 31
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC8306] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ed., Palleti, R., and D. King, [RFC8306] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ed., Palleti, R., and D. King,
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306, Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>. DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Balazs Varga (editor) Balazs Varga (editor)
Ericsson Ericsson
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
Budapest 1117 Budapest 1117
Hungary Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 43 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/