< draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-06.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-07.txt >
Inter-Domain Routing Z. Li Inter-Domain Routing Z. Li
Internet-Draft S. Zhuang Internet-Draft S. Zhuang
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: April 25, 2022 K. Talaulikar, Ed. Expires: October 13, 2022 K. Talaulikar, Ed.
Cisco Systems, Inc. Arrcus Inc
S. Aldrin S. Aldrin
Google, Inc Google, Inc
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Microsoft Microsoft
G. Mirsky G. Mirsky
Ericsson Ericsson
October 22, 2021 April 11, 2022
BGP Link-State Extensions for Seamless BFD BGP Link-State Extensions for Seamless BFD
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-06 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-07
Abstract Abstract
Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) defines a Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) defines a
simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
with large portions of negotiation aspects eliminated, thus providing with large portions of negotiation aspects eliminated, thus providing
benefits such as quick provisioning as well as improved control and benefits such as quick provisioning as well as improved control and
flexibility to network nodes initiating the path monitoring. The flexibility to network nodes initiating the path monitoring. The
link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF) have been extended to link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF) have been extended to
advertise the Seamless BFD (S-BFD) Discriminators. advertise the Seamless BFD (S-BFD) Discriminators.
This draft defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family to This document defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family
carry the S-BFD Discriminators information via BGP. to carry the S-BFD Discriminators' information via BGP.
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 25, 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 13, 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problem and Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. BGP-LS Extensions for S-BFD Discriminator . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. BGP-LS Extensions for S-BFD Discriminator . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) [RFC7880] defines Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) [RFC7880] defines
a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) [RFC5880] with large portions of negotiation aspects (BFD) [RFC5880] with large portions of negotiation aspects
eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as
well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating
the path monitoring. the path monitoring.
For monitoring of a service path end-to-end via S-BFD, the headend For monitoring of a service path end-to-end via S-BFD, the headend
node (i.e. Initiator) needs to know the S-BFD Discriminator of the node (i.e. Initiator) needs to know the S-BFD Discriminator of the
destination/tail-end node (i.e. Responder) of that service. The destination/tail-end node (i.e. Responder) of that service. The
link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and OSPFv3) have been link-state routing protocols (IS-IS [RFC7883] and OSPF [RFC7884])
extended to advertise the S-BFD Discriminators. With this a have been extended to advertise the S-BFD Discriminators. With this,
Initiator can learn the S-BFD discriminator for all Responders within an Initiator can learn the S-BFD discriminator for all Responders
its IGP area/level, or optionally within the domain. With networks within its IGP area/level, or optionally within the domain. With
being divided into multiple IGP domains for scaling and operational networks being divided into multiple IGP domains for scaling and
considerations, the service endpoints that require end to end S-BFD operational considerations, the service endpoints that require end to
monitoring often span across IGP domains. end S-BFD monitoring often span across IGP domains.
BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] enables the collection and BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] enables the collection and
distribution of IGP link-state topology information via BGP sessions distribution of IGP link-state topology information via BGP sessions
across IGP areas/levels and domains. The S-BFD discriminator(s) of a across IGP areas/levels and domains. The S-BFD discriminator(s) of a
node can thus be distributed along with the topology information via node can thus be distributed along with the topology information via
BGP-LS across IGP domains and even across multiple Autonomous Systems BGP-LS across IGP domains and even across multiple Autonomous Systems
(AS) within an administrative domain. (AS) within an administrative domain.
This draft defines extensions to BGP-LS for carrying the S-BFD This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for carrying the S-BFD
Discriminators information. Discriminators information.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
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 BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [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.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7880]. This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7880].
3. Problem and Requirement 3. BGP-LS Extensions for S-BFD Discriminator
Seamless MPLS [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] extends the core domain
and integrates aggregation and access domains into a single MPLS
domain. In a large network, the core and aggregation networks can be
organized as different ASes. Although the core and aggregation
networks are segmented into different ASes, an end-to-end label
switched path (LSP) can be created using hierarchical BGP signaled
LSPs based on internal-BGP (IBGP) labeled unicast within each AS, and
external-BGP (EBGP) labeled unicast to extend the LSP across AS
boundaries. This provides a seamless MPLS transport connectivity for
any two service end-points across the entire domain. In order to
detect failures for such end to end services and trigger faster
protection and/or re-routing, S-BFD MAY be used for the Service Layer
(e.g. for MPLS VPNs, pseudowires, etc. ) or the Transport Layer
monitoring. This creates the need for setting up S-BFD session
spanning across AS domains.
In a similar Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] multi-domain network, an
end to end SR Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] path
may be provisioned between service end-points across domains either
via local provisioning, or by a controller or signalled from a Path
Computation Engine (PCE) [RFC4655] . Monitoring using S-BFD can
similarly be setup for such a SR Policy.
Extending the automatic discovery of S-BFD discriminators of nodes
from within the IGP domain to cross an administrative domain using
BGP-LS enables creating S-BFD sessions on demand across IGP domains.
The S-BFD discriminators for service end point nodes MAY be learnt by
the PCE or a controller via the BGP-LS feed that it gets from across
IGP domains, and it can signal or provision the remote S-BFD
discriminator on the Initiator on demand when S-BFD monitoring is
required. The mechanisms for the signaling of the S-BFD
discriminator from the PCE/controller to the Initiator and setup of
the S-BFD session are outside the scope of this document.
Additionally, the service end-points themselves MAY also learn the
S-BFD discriminator of the remote nodes themselves by receiving the
BGP-LS feed via a route reflector (RR) [RFC4456] or a centralized BGP
Speaker that is consolidating the topology information across the
domains. The Initiator can then itself setup the S-BFD session to
the remote node without a controller/PCE assistance.
While this document takes examples of MPLS and SR paths, the S-BFD
discriminator advertisement mechanism is applicable for any S-BFD
use-case in general.
4. BGP-LS Extensions for S-BFD Discriminator
The BGP-LS [RFC7752] specifies the Node NLRI for advertisement of The BGP-LS [RFC7752] specifies the Node NLRI for the advertisement of
nodes and their attributes using the BGP-LS Attribute. The S-BFD nodes and their attributes using the BGP-LS Attribute. The S-BFD
discriminators of a node are considered as its node level attribute discriminators of a node are considered a node-level attribute and
and advertised as such. advertised as such.
This document defines a new BGP-LS Attribute TLV called the S-BFD This document defines a new BGP-LS Attribute TLV called the S-BFD
Discriminators TLV, and its format is as follows: Discriminators TLV and its format is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Discriminator 1 | | Discriminator 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Discriminator 2 (Optional) | | Discriminator 2 (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 5, line 25 skipping to change at page 4, line 25
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Discriminator n (Optional) | | Discriminator n (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: S-BFD Discriminators TLV Figure 1: S-BFD Discriminators TLV
where: where:
o Type: 1032 (early allocation by IANA) o Type: 1032 (early allocation by IANA)
o Length: variable. Minimum of 4 octets and increments of 4 octets o Length: variable. It MUST be a minimum of 4 octets and increments
there on for each additional discriminator of 4 octets for each additional discriminator.
o Discriminators : multiples of 4 octets, each carrying a S-BFD o Discriminator n: 4 octets each, carrying an S-BFD local
local discriminator value of the node. At least one discriminator discriminator value of the node. At least one discriminator MUST
MUST be included in the TLV. be included in the TLV.
The S-BFD Discriminators TLV can be added to the BGP-LS Attribute The S-BFD Discriminators TLV can be added to the BGP-LS Attribute
associated with the Node NLRI that originates the corresponding associated with the Node NLRI that originates the corresponding
underlying IGP TLV/sub-TLV as described below. This information is underlying IGP TLV/sub-TLV as described below. This information is
derived from the protocol specific advertisements as below.. derived from the protocol specific advertisements as follows:
o IS-IS, as defined by the S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLV in o IS-IS, as defined by the S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLV in
[RFC7883]. [RFC7883].
o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the S-BFD Discriminators TLV in o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the S-BFD Discriminator TLV in
[RFC7884]. [RFC7884].
When the node is not running any of the IGPs but running a protocol 4. IANA Considerations
like BGP, then the locally provisioned S-BFD discriminators of the
node MAY be originated as part of the BGP-LS attribute within the
Node NLRI corresponding to the local node.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP- IANA is requested to permanently allocate the following code-point
LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute from the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor,
TLVs" based on table below which reflects the values assigned via the and Attribute TLVs" registry. The column "IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV" defined
early allocation process. The column "IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV" defined in in the registry does not require any value and should be left empty.
the registry does not require any value and should be left empty.
+---------------+--------------------------+----------+ +---------------+--------------------------+----------+
| Code Point | Description | Length | | Code Point | Description | Length |
+---------------+--------------------------+----------+ +---------------+--------------------------+----------+
| 1032 | S-BFD Discriminators TLV | variable | | 1032 | S-BFD Discriminators TLV | variable |
+---------------+--------------------------+----------+ +---------------+--------------------------+----------+
6. Manageability Considerations Table 1: S-BFD Discriminators TLV Code-Point Allocation
This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706]. 5. Manageability Considerations
The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the
existing IGP topology information that was distributed via [RFC7752]. existing IGP topology information that was distributed via [RFC7752].
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as
discussed in the Manageability Considerations section of [RFC7752]. discussed in the Manageability Considerations section of [RFC7752].
Specifically, the malformed NLRIs attribute tests in the Fault Specifically, the malformed NLRIs attribute tests in the Fault
Management section of [RFC7752] now encompass the new TLVs for the Management section of [RFC7752] now encompasses the new TLV for the
BGP-LS NLRI in this document. BGP-LS NLRI in this document.
6.1. Operational Considerations 6. Security Considerations
No additional operation considerations are defined in this document.
6.2. Management Considerations
No additional management considerations are defined in this document.
7. Security Considerations
The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the
existing IGP topology information that was distributed via [RFC7752]. existing IGP topology information that can be distributed via
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not [RFC7752]. Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this
affect the BGP security model other than as discussed in the Security document do not affect the BGP security model other than as discussed
Considerations section of [RFC7752]. More specifically the aspects in the Security Considerations section of [RFC7752]. More
related to limiting the nodes and consumers with which the topology specifically, the aspects related to limiting the nodes and consumers
information is shared via BGP-LS to trusted entities within an with which the topology information is shared via BGP-LS to trusted
administrative domain. entities within an administrative domain.
The TLV introduced in this document is used to propagate IGP defined
information ([RFC7883] and [RFC7883]). The TLV represents
information used to set up S-BFD sessions. The IGP instances
originating this information are assumed to support any required
security and authentication mechanisms (as described in [RFC7883] and
[RFC7883]) to prevent any security issues when propagating the
information into BGP-LS.
Advertising the S-BFD Discriminators via BGP-LS makes it possible for Advertising the S-BFD Discriminators via BGP-LS makes it possible for
attackers to initiate S-BFD sessions using the advertised attackers to initiate S-BFD sessions using the advertised
information. The vulnerabilities this poses and how to mitigate them information. The vulnerabilities this poses and how to mitigate them
are discussed in [RFC7752]. are discussed in [RFC7880].
8. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Nan Wu for his contributions to this The authors would like to thank Nan Wu for his contributions to this
work and Gunter Van De Velde for his review. The authors would also work and Gunter Van De Velde for his review. The authors would also
like to thank Jeff Haas for his shepherd review of this document. like to thank Jeff Haas for his shepherd review and Alvaro Retana for
his AD review of this document.
9. References 8. References
9.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
skipping to change at page 7, line 46 skipping to change at page 6, line 47
[RFC7884] Pignataro, C., Bhatia, M., Aldrin, S., and T. Ranganath, [RFC7884] Pignataro, C., Bhatia, M., Aldrin, S., and T. Ranganath,
"OSPF Extensions to Advertise Seamless Bidirectional "OSPF Extensions to Advertise Seamless Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Target Discriminators", Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Target Discriminators",
RFC 7884, DOI 10.17487/RFC7884, July 2016, RFC 7884, DOI 10.17487/RFC7884, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7884>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7884>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]
Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz,
M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", draft-
ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2014.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-13 (work in progress),
May 2021.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Zhenbin Li Zhenbin Li
Huawei Huawei
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 22
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Shunwan Zhuang Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei Huawei
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
Ketan Talaulikar (editor) Ketan Talaulikar (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Arrcus Inc
India India
Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
Sam Aldrin Sam Aldrin
Google, Inc Google, Inc
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
160 lines changed or deleted 75 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/