wdiff draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-01.txt draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-02.txt

Network Working Group Z. Li
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen T. Zhou
Expires: February 12, 28 July 2022 Huawei
G. Mirsky
J. Guo
ZTE Corp.
August 11, 2021
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
R. Gandhi
Cisco
24 January 2022

One-way/Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
Measurement on LAG
draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-01
draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-02

Abstract

This document defines extensions to One-way Active Measurement
Protocol (OWAMP), and Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) to
implement performance measurement on every member link of a Link
Aggregation Group (LAG). Knowing the measured metrics of each member
link of a LAG enables operators to enforce a the performance metric-based based
traffic steering policy across the member links.

Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
as shown here.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
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 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 February 12, 28 July 2022.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Problem Statement Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Micro Session on LAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Mirco OWAMP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Micro OWAMP-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Micro OWAMP-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Mirco TWAMP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Micro TWAMP-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Micro TWAMP-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Sender Packet Format and Content . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Sender Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. 7
4.2.3. Reflector Packet Format and Content . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.4. Reflector Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11
5.1. Mico OWAMP-Control Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11
5.2. Mico TWAMP-Control Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1. Problem Statement Introduction

Link Aggregation Group (LAG), as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], provides
mechanisms to combine multiple physical links into a single logical
link. This logical link offers higher bandwidth and better
resiliency, because if one of the physical member links fails, the
aggregate logical link can continue to forward traffic over the
remaining operational physical member links.

Usually, when forwarding traffic over a LAG, a the hash-based or similar mechanism
is used to load balance the traffic across the LAG member links. In some cases, the link delays
Link delay of the each member links are
different link varies because they are over of different transport
paths. To provide low delay latency service to for time sensitive traffic, we have
need to know explicitly steer the link delay of each traffic across the LAG member links
based on the link of a LAG delay, loss and then steer traffic
accordingly. so on. That requires a solution that could to
measure the performance metrics of each every member link of a LAG.

However, when using One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)
[RFC4656], or Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)

OWAMP [RFC4656] and TWAMP [RFC5357] are two active measurement
methods according to measure the performance of a LAG, the LAG is treated as classification given in RFC7799 [RFC7799].
With both methods, running a single
logical link/path. The measured metrics reflect test session over the performance aggregation
without the knowledge of
one each member link or an average would make it impossible to
measure the performance of some/all a given physical member links of the LAG.

In addition, for LAG, using passive or hybrid methods (like
alternative marking[RFC8321] or iOAM [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]) can
only monitor the link crossed by traffic. It means that the link. The
measured metrics can only reflect the performance of some one member links link
or an average of some/all member links of the LAG. Therefore, in order to measure
every link of a LAG, using active methods would be more appropriate.

This document defines extensions to extends OWAMP [RFC4656], and TWAMP
[RFC5357] to implement performance
measurement on every member link of a LAG. The proposed method could
also potentially apply to layer 3 ECMP (Equal Cost Multi-Path), e.g.,
with SR-Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].

2. Micro Session on LAG

This document intends to address the scenario (e.g., Figure 1) where
a LAG (e.g., the LAG includes three member links) directly connects
two nodes (A and B) . The goal is to measure the performance of each
link of the LAG.

+---+ +---+
| |-----------------------| |
| A |-----------------------| B |
| |-----------------------| |
+---+ +---+

Figure 1: PM for LAG

To measure the performance metrics of every member link of a LAG,
multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be
established between the two hosts end points that are connected by the LAG.
These sessions are called micro sessions for in the remainder of this
document.

The micro sessions need to correlate with the corresponding member
links. For example, when the Server/Reflector/Receiver receives a
Control or Test packet, it needs to know from which member link the
packet is received, and correlate it with a micro session.

All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender Address, IP Address and
Receiver IP Address. As for the Sender Port and Receiver UDP Port, the micro sessions may
share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair, or each micro
session is configured with a different Sender Port and Receiver Port
pair. But from simplifying operation the operational point of view, the former is recommended.

In addition, with micro sessions, there needs a way to correlate a
session with a member link. For example, when the Server/Reflector/
Receiver receives a Control or Test packet, it needs to know from
which member link the packet is received, simpler
and correlate it with a
micro session. This is different from the existing OWAMP [RFC4656],
or TWAMP [RFC5357] recommended.

This document defines new command types to indicate that a session is
a micro session. The details are described in Sections 3 and 4 of
this document. Upon receiving a Control/Test packet, the receiver
uses the receiving link's identifier to correlate the packet to a
particular micro session. In addition, Test packets may need to
carry the member link information for validation checking. For
example, when a Session-Sender receives a Test packet, it may need to
check whether the Test packet is from the expected member link.

3. Mirco OWAMP Session

This document assumes that the OWAMP Server and the OWAMP Receiver of
an OWAMP micro session are at the same host. end point.

3.1. Micro OWAMP-Control

To support the micro OWAMP session, a new command, referred to as
Request-OW-Micro-Session Request-OW-Micro-
Session (TBD1), is defined in this document. The
Request-OW-Micro-Session Request-OW-Micro-
Session command is based on the OWAMP Request-
Session Request-Session command, and
uses the message format as described in Section 3.5 of OWAMP
[RFC4656]. Test session creation of micro OWAMP session follows the
same procedure as defined in Section 3.5 of OWAMP [RFC4656] with the
following additions:

When a OWAMP Server receives a Request-OW-Micro-Session command, if
the Session is accepted, the OWAMP Server MUST build an association
between the session and the member link from which the Request-
Session message is received.

3.2. Micro OWAMP-Test

Micro OWAMP-Test reuses the OWAMP-Test packet format and procedures
as defined in Section 4 of OWAMP [RFC4656] with the following
additions:

The micro OWAMP Sender MUST send the micro OWAMP-Test packets over
the member link with which the session is associated. When receives
a Test packet, the micro OWAMP receiver MUST use the member link from
which the Test packet is received to correlate the micro OWAMP
session. If there is no such a session, the Test packet MUST be
discarded.

4. Mirco TWAMP Session

As above, this document assumes that the TWAMP Server and the TWAMP
Session-Reflector of a micro OWAMP session are at the same host. end point.

4.1. Micro TWAMP-Control

To support the micro TWAMP session, a new command, referred to as
Request-TW-Micro-Session Request-TW-Micro-
Session (TBD2), is defined in this document. The
Request-TW-Micro-Session Request-TW-Micro-
Session command is based on the TWAMP Request-
Session Request-Session command, and
uses the message format as described in Section 3.5 of TWAMP
[RFC5357]. Test session creation of micro TWAMP session follows the
same procedure as defined in Section 3.5 of TWAMP [RFC5357] with the
following additions:

When a micro TWAMP Server receives a Request-TW-Micro-Session
command, if the micro TWAMP Session is accepted, the micro TWAMP
Server MUST build an association between the session and the member
link from which the Request-Session message is received.

4.2. Micro TWAMP-Test

The micro TWAMP-Test protocol is based on the TWAMP-Test protocol
[RFC5357] with the following extensions.

4.2.1. Sender Behavior

In addition to inheriting the TWAMP sender behavior as defined
Section 4.1 of [RFC5357], the micro TWAMP Session-Sender MUST send
the micro TWAMP-Test packets over the member link with which the
session is associated.

When sending the Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session-Sender MUST put
the Sender member link identifier that is associated with the micro
TWAMP session in the Sender Member Link ID. If the Session-Sender
knows the Reflector member link identifier, it MUST put it in the
Reflector Member Link ID fields (see Figure 2 and Figure 3).
Otherwise, the Reflector Member Link ID field MUST be set to zero.

The Session-Sender uses the Sender member link identifier to check
whether a reflected Test packet is received from the member link
associated with the correct micro TWAMP session. Therefore, it is
carried in the Sender Member Link ID field of a Test packet and sent
to the Session-Reflector. Then it will be sent back by the Session-
Reflector with the reflected Test packet.

The Reflector member link identifier carried in the Reflector Member
Link ID field is used by the Session-Receiver to check whether a Test
packet is received from the member link associated with the correct
micro TWAMP session. It means that the Session-Sender has to learn
the Reflector member link identifier. Once the Session-Sender knows
the Reflector member link identifier, it MUST put the identifier in
the Reflector Member Link ID field (see Figure 2 or Figure 3) of the
Test packets that will be sent to the Session-Reflector. The
Reflector member link identifier can be obtained from pre-
configuration or learned through the control plane or data plane
(e.g., learned from a reflected Test packet). How to obtain/learn
the Reflector member link identifier is out of the scope of this
document.

When receives a reflected Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session-Sender
MUST use the receiving member link to correlate the reflected Test
packet to a micro TWAMP session. If there is no such a session, the
reflected Test packet MUST be discarded. If a matched session
exists, the Session-Sender MUST use the identifier carried in the
Sender Member Link ID field to validate whether the reflected Test
packet is correctly transmitted over the expected member link. If
the validation failed, the Test packet MUST be discarded.

4.2.1.1. Packet Format and Content

The micro TWAMP Session-Sender packet format is based on the TWAMP
Session-Sender packet format as defined in Section 4.1.2 of
[RFC5357]. Two new fields (Sender Member Link ID and Reflector
Member Link ID) are added to carry the LAG member link identifiers.
The formats are as below:

For unauthenticated mode: mode, the format is as below:

Figure 2: Session-Sender Packet format in Unauthenticated Mode

For authenticated mode: mode, the format is as below:

Except for the Sender/Reflector Member Link ID field, all the other
fields are the same as defined in Section 4.1.2 of TWAMP [RFC5357],
which is defined in Section 4.1.2 of OWAMP [RFC4656]. Therefore, it
follows the same procedure and guidelines as defined in Section 4.1.2
of TWAMP [RFC5357].

* Sender Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to carry
the LAG member link identifier of the Sender side. The value of
the Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the Session-Sender.

* Reflector Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to
carry the LAG member link identifier of the Reflector side. The
value of the Reflector Member ID MUST be unique at the Session-Reflector. Session-
Reflector.

4.2.2. Reflector Sender Behavior

The micro TWAMP Session-Reflector Session-Sender inherits the behaviors of a the TWAMP
Session-Reflector as defined in Section 4.2 4.1 of [RFC5357]. In
addition, when receives a the micro TWAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro TWAMP-
Test packets over the member link with which the session is
associated.

When sending the Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session-
Reflector Session-Sender MUST use put
the receiving Sender member link to correlate identifier that is associated with the Test
packet to a micro
TWAMP session. session in the Sender Member Link ID. If there is no such a session, the
Test packet Session-Sender
knows the Reflector member link identifier, it MUST be discarded. If put it in the
Reflector Member Link ID is not
zero, fields (see Figure 2 and Figure 3).
Otherwise, the Reflector Member Link ID field MUST use the Reflector be set to zero.

A Test packet with Sender member link identifier is sent to
check whether it associates the
Session-Reflector, and then is reflected with the receiving same Sender member link. If it
does not,
link identifier. So the Session-Sender can use the Sender member
link identifier to check whether a reflected Test packet MUST be discarded.

When sends a response to the is received Test packet,
from the member link associated with the correct micro TWAMP
Session-Sender MUST copy the Sender session.

The Reflector member link identifier from the
received Test packet and put it carried in the Sender Reflector Member
Link ID field of is used by the reflected Session-Receiver to check whether a Test
packet (see Figure 4 and Figure 5). In addition, is received from the member link associated with the correct
micro TWAMP Session-Reflector session. It means that the Session-Sender has to learn
the Reflector member link identifier. Once the Session-Sender knows
the Reflector member link identifier, it MUST fill put the identifier in
the Reflector Member Link ID field (see Figure 2 or Figure 3) of the
Test packets that will be sent to the Session-Reflector. The
Reflector member link identifier can be obtained from pre-
configuration or learned through the control plane or data plane
(e.g., learned from a reflected Test packet with packet). How to obtain/learn
the Reflector member link identifier that is associated with out of the scope of this
document.

When receives a reflected Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session-Sender
MUST use the receiving member link to correlate the reflected Test
packet to a micro TWAMP session.

4.2.2.1. If there is no such a session, the
reflected Test packet MUST be discarded. If a matched session
exists, the Session-Sender MUST use the Sender Member Link ID to
validate whether the reflected Test packet is correctly transmitted
over the expected member link. If the validation fails, the Test
packet MUST be discarded. The Session-Sender MUST use the Reflector
Member Link ID to validate the Reflector's behavior.If the validation
fails, the Test packet MUST be discarded.

4.2.3. Reflector Packet Format and Content

The micro TWAMP Session-Reflector packet format is based on the TWAMP
Session-Reflector packet format as defined in Section 4.2.1 of
[RFC5357]. Two new fields (Sender and Reflector Member Link ID) are
added to carry the LAG member link identifiers. The formats are as
below:

For unauthenticated mode: mode, the format is as below:

Figure 4: Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode

For authenticated and encrypted modes: mode, the format is as below:

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Error Estimate | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Member Link ID | Reflector Member Link ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receive Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (8 octets) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Error Estimate | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| MBZ (6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender TTL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
| |
| MBZ (15 octets) |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| HMAC (16 octets) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Packet Padding .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 5: Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode

Except for the Sender/Reflector Member Link ID field, all the other
fields are the same as defined in Section 4.2.1 of TWAMP [RFC5357].
Therefore, it follows the same procedure and guidelines as defined in
Section 4.2.1 of TWAMP [RFC5357].

* Sender Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to carry
the LAG member link identifier of the Sender side. The value of
the Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the Session-Sender.

4.2.4. Reflector Behavior

The micro TWAMP Session-Reflector inherits the behaviors of a TWAMP
Session-Reflector as defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC5357].

In addition, when receiving a Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session-
Reflector MUST use the receiving member link to correlate the Test
packet to a micro TWAMP session. If there is no such a session, the
Test packet MUST be discarded. If the Reflector Member Link ID is
not zero, the Reflector MUST use the Reflector Member Link ID to
validate whether it associates with the receiving member link. If
the validation fails, the Test packet MUST be discarded.

When sending a response to the received Test packet, the micro TWAMP
Session-Sender MUST copy the Sender member link identifier from the
received Test packet and put it in the Sender Member Link ID field of
the reflected Test packet (see Figure 4 and Figure 5). In addition,
the micro TWAMP Session-Reflector MUST fill the Reflector Member Link
ID field (see Figure 2 and Figure 3) of the reflected Test packet
with the member link identifier that is associated with the micro
TWAMP session.

5. IANA Considerations

5.1. Mico OWAMP-Control Command

This document requires the IANA to allocate the following command
type from OWAMP-Control Command Number Registry.

Value Description Semantics Definition
TBD1 Request-OW-Micro-Session This document, Section 3.1

5.2. Mico TWAMP-Control Command

This document requires the IANA to allocate the following command
type from TWAMP-Control Command Number Registry.

Value Description Semantics Definition
TBD1 Request-TW-Micro-Session This document, Section 4.1

6. Security Considerations

This document does not introduce additional security requirements and
mechanisms other than those described in [RFC4656], and [RFC5357].

7. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Min Xiao, Fang Xin for the valuable
comments to this work.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.

[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.

[RFC7130] Bhatia, M., Ed., Chen, M., Ed., Boutros, S., Ed.,
Binderberger, M., Ed., and J. Haas, Ed., "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
Interfaces", RFC 7130, DOI 10.17487/RFC7130, February
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7130>.

[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

8.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S.,

[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-14 (work in
progress), June 2021.
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
routing-policy-14, 25 October 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
segment-routing-policy-14.txt>.

[IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
2008.

[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.

Authors' Addresses

Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
China

Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com

Mach(Guoyi) Chen

Tianran Zhou
Huawei
China

Email: mach.chen@huawei.com

Greg Mirsky zhoutianran@huawei.com

Jun Guo
ZTE Corp.
China

Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn

Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
United States of America

Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com

Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco
Canada

Email: rgandhi@cisco.com