< draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-04.txt		draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-05.txt >
	IS-IS Working Group J. Tantsura		IS-IS Working Group J. Tantsura
	Internet-Draft Individual		Internet-Draft Individual
	Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri		Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri
	Expires: December 6, 2017 Huawei Technologies		Expires: June 4, 2018 Huawei Technologies
	S. Aldrin		S. Aldrin
	Google, Inc		Google, Inc
	L. Ginsberg		L. Ginsberg
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	June 04, 2017		December 01, 2017
	Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS		Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS
	draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-04		draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document proposes a way to signal Maximum SID Depth (MSD)		This document proposes a way to signal Maximum SID Depth (MSD)
	supported by a node at node and/or link granularity by an IS-IS		supported by a node at node and/or link granularity by an IS-IS
	Router. In a Segment Routing (SR) enabled network a centralized		Router. In a Segment Routing (SR) enabled network a centralized
	controller that programs SR tunnels needs to know the MSD supported		controller that programs SR tunnels needs to know the MSD supported
	by the head-end at node and/or link granularity to push the SID stack		by the head-end at node and/or link granularity to impose the SID
	of an appropriate depth. MSD is relevant to the head-end of a SR		stack of an appropriate depth. MSD is relevant to the head-end of a
	tunnel or Binding-SID anchor node where Binding-SID expansions might		SR tunnel or Binding-SID anchor node where Binding-SID expansions
	result in creation of a new SID stack.		might result in creation of a new SID stack.
	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 http://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 December 6, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2017 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
	(http://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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 29 ¶
	1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Node MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Node MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. LINK MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. LINK MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. Node MSD vs Link MSD conflict resolution . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Node MSD vs Link MSD conflict resolution . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	When Segment Routing tunnels are computed by a centralized		When Segment Routing tunnels are computed by a centralized
	controller, it is critical that the controller learns the MSD		controller, it is critical that the controller learns the MSD
	"Maximum SID Depth" of the node or link SR tunnel exits over, so the		"Maximum SID Depth" of the node or link SR tunnel exits over, so the
	SID stack depth of a path computed doesn't exceed the number of SIDs		SID stack depth of a path computed doesn't exceed the number of SIDs
	skipping to change at page 2, line 52 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 52 ¶
	controller.		controller.
	PCEP SR extensions draft [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] signals MSD		PCEP SR extensions draft [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] signals MSD
	in SR PCE Capability TLV and METRIC Object. However, if PCEP is not		in SR PCE Capability TLV and METRIC Object. However, if PCEP is not
	supported/configured on the head-end of a SR tunnel or a Binding-SID		supported/configured on the head-end of a SR tunnel or a Binding-SID
	anchor node and controller does not participate in IGP routing, it		anchor node and controller does not participate in IGP routing, it
	has no way to learn the MSD of nodes and links which has been		has no way to learn the MSD of nodes and links which has been
	configured. BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines a way to expose topology and		configured. BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines a way to expose topology and
	associated attributes and capabilities of the nodes in that topology		associated attributes and capabilities of the nodes in that topology
	to a centralized controller. MSD signaling by BGP-LS has been		to a centralized controller. MSD signaling by BGP-LS has been
	defined in [I-D.tantsura-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]. Typically,		defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]. Typically,
	BGP-LS is configured on a small number of nodes, that do not		BGP-LS is configured on a small number of nodes, that do not
	necessarily act as head-ends. In order, for BGP-LS to signal MSD for		necessarily act as head-ends. In order, for BGP-LS to signal MSD for
	the all nodes and links in the network MSD is relevant, MSD		the all nodes and links in the network MSD is relevant, MSD
	capabilites SHOULD be distributed to every IS-IS router in the		capabilites SHOULD be distributed to every IS-IS router in the
	network.		network.
	[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] defines Readable Label Depth Capability		[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] defines Readable Label Depth Capability
	(RLDC) that is used by a head-end to insert Entropy Label (EL) at		(RLDC) that is used by a head-end to insert Entropy Label (EL) at
	appropriate depth, so it could be read by transit nodes. MSD in		appropriate depth, so it could be read by transit nodes. MSD in
	contrary signals ability to push SID's stack of a particular depth.		contrary signals ability to impose SID's stack of a particular depth.
	MSD of type 1 (IANA Registry), called Base MSD, is used to signal the		MSD of type 1 (IANA Registry), called Base MSD, is used to signal the
	total number of SIDs a node is capable of imposing, to be used by a		total number of SIDs a node is capable of imposing, to be used by a
	path computation element/controller. In case, there are additional		path computation element/controller. In case, there are additional
	labels (e.g. service) that are to be pushed to the stack - this would		SIDs (e.g. service) that are to be imposed to the stack - this would
	be signaled with an another MSD type (TBD), no adjustment to the Base		be signaled with an another MSD type (TBD), no adjustment to the Base
	MSD should be made. In the future, new MSD types could be defined to		MSD should be made. In the future, new MSD types could be defined to
	signal additional capabilities: entropy labels, labels that can be		signal additional capabilities: entropy labels, SIDs that can be
	pushed thru recirculation, or another dataplane e.g IPv6.		imposed thru recirculation, or another dataplane e.g IPv6.
	1.1. Conventions used in this document		1.1. Conventions used in this document
	1.1.1. Terminology		1.1.1. Terminology
	BGP-LS: Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using Border		BGP-LS: Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using Border
	Gateway Protocol		Gateway Protocol
	IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System		IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System
	skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶
	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 | Sub-Type and Value |		| Type | Length | Sub-Type and Value |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 1: Node MSD Sub-TLV		Figure 1: Node MSD Sub-TLV
	The Type (1 byte) of this sub-TLV is 23 (Suggested value - to be		The Type (1 byte) of this sub-TLV has value of 23.
	assigned by IANA).
	Length is variable (minimum of 2, multiple of 2 octets) and		Length is variable (minimum of 2, multiple of 2 octets) and
	represents the total length of value field.		represents the total length of value field.
	Value field consists of a 1 octet sub-type (IANA Registry) and 1		Value field consists of a 1 octet sub-type (IANA Registry) and 1
	octet value.		octet value.
	Sub-Type 1 (IANA Section), MSD and the Value field contains maximum		Sub-Type 1 (IANA Section), MSD and the Value field contains maximum
	MSD of the router originating the Router Capability TLV. Node		MSD of the router originating the Router Capability TLV. Node
	Maximum MSD is a number in the range of 0-254. 0 represents lack of		Maximum MSD is a number in the range of 0-254. 0 represents lack of
	the ability to push MSD of any depth; any other value represents that		the ability to impose MSD stack of any depth; any other value
	of the node. This value SHOULD represent the lowest value supported		represents that of the node. This value SHOULD represent the lowest
	by node.		value supported by node.
	Other Sub-types other than defined above are reserved for future		Other Sub-types other than defined above are reserved for future
	extensions. This sub-TLV is optional. The scope of the		extensions. This sub-TLV is optional. The scope of the
	advertisement is specific to the deployment.		advertisement is specific to the deployment.
	4. LINK MSD Advertisement		4. LINK MSD Advertisement
	A new sub-TLV - Link MSD sub-TLV is defined for TLVs 22, 23, 141,		A new sub-TLV - Link MSD sub-TLV is defined for TLVs 22, 23, 141,
	222, and 223 to carry the provisioned MSD of the interface associated		222, and 223 to carry the provisioned MSD of the interface associated
	with the link.		with the link.
	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 | Sub-Type and Value |		| Type | Length | Sub-Type and Value |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 2: Link MSD Sub-TLV		Figure 2: Link MSD Sub-TLV
	The Type (1 byte) of this sub-TLV is 15 (Suggested value - to be		The Type (1 byte) of this sub-TLV has value of 15.
	assigned by IANA).
	Length is variable and similar to what is defined in Section 3.		Length is variable and similar to what is defined in Section 3.
	Value field consists of a 1 octet sub-type (IANA Registry) and 1		Value field consists of a 1 octet sub-type (IANA Registry) and 1
	octet value.		octet value.
	Sub-Type 1 (IANA Section), MSD and the Value field contains Link MSD		Sub-Type 1 (IANA Section), MSD and the Value field contains Link MSD
	of the router originating the corresponding TLV's 22, 23, 141, 222,		of the router originating the corresponding TLV's 22, 23, 141, 222,
	and 223. Link MSD is a number in the range of 0-254. 0 represents		and 223. Link MSD is a number in the range of 0-254. 0 represents
	lack of the ability to push MSD of any depth; any other value		lack of the ability to impose MSD stack of any depth; any other value
	represents that of the particular link MSD value.		represents that of the particular link MSD value.
	5. Node MSD vs Link MSD conflict resolution		5. Node MSD vs Link MSD conflict resolution
	When both Node MSD and Link MSD are present, the value in the Link		When both Node MSD and Link MSD are present, the value in the Link
	MSD MUST be used.		MSD MUST be used.
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	This document includes a request to IANA to allocate sub-TLV type		This document includes a request to IANA to allocate sub-TLV type
	codes for the new sub TLV proposed in Section 3 of this document from		codes for the new sub TLV proposed in Section 3 of this document from
	IS-IS Router Capability TLV Registry as defined by [RFC7981].		IS-IS Router Capability TLV Registry as defined by [RFC7981].
	Type: 23 (suggested - to be assigned by IANA)		Following values have been allocated by IANA:
	Description: Node MSD		Value Description Reference
			----- --------------- -------------
			23 Node MSD This document
			15 Link MSD This document
	Also for link MSD, we request IANA to allocate new sub-TLV codes as		Figure 3: MSD Types
			For the Link MSD, we request IANA to allocate new sub-TLV codes as
	defined in Section 4 from Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222 and 223		defined in Section 4 from Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222 and 223
	registry.		registry.
	Type: 15 (suggested - to be assigned by IANA)
	Description: Link MSD
	Per TLV information where LINK MSD sub-TLV can be part of:		Per TLV information where LINK MSD sub-TLV can be part of:
	TLV 22 23 25 141 222 223		TLV 22 23 25 141 222 223
	--------------------		--------------------
	y y y y y y		y y y y y y
	Figure 3: TLVs where LINK MSD Sub-TLV can be present		Figure 4: TLVs where LINK MSD Sub-TLV can be present
	This document requests the creation of a new IANA managed registry to		This document requests the creation of a new IANA managed registry to
	identify MSD types as proposed in Section 3, Section 4. The		identify MSD types as proposed in Section 3, Section 4. The
	registration procedure is "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC5226].		registration procedure is "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC8126].
	Suggested registry name is "MSD Sub-types". Types are an unsigned 8		Suggested registry name is "MSD Sub-types". Types are an unsigned 8
	bit number. The following values are defined by this document		bit number. The following values are defined by this document
	Value Name Reference		Value Name Reference
	----- --------------------- -------------		----- --------------------- -------------
	0 Reserved This document		0 Reserved This document
	1 Base MSD This document		1 Base MSD This document
	2-250 Unassigned This document		2-250 Unassigned This document
	251-254 Experimental This document		251-254 Experimental This document
	255 Reserved This document		255 Reserved This document
	Figure 4: MSD Sub-type Codepoints Registry		Figure 5: MSD Sub-type Codepoints Registry
	7. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	This document describes a mechanism to signal Segment Routing MSD		This document describes a mechanism to signal Segment Routing MSD
	supported at node and/or link granularity through IS-IS LSPs and does		supported at node and/or link granularity through IS-IS LSPs and does
	not introduce any new security issues.		not introduce any new security issues.
	8. Contributors		8. Contributors
	The following people contributed to this document:		The following people contributed to this document:
	skipping to change at page 7, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 6 ¶
	Peter Psenak		Peter Psenak
	Email: ppsenak@cisco.com		Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
	9. Acknowledgements		9. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Stephane Litkowski and Bruno Decraene		The authors would like to thank Stephane Litkowski and Bruno Decraene
	for their reviews and valuable comments.		for their reviews and valuable comments.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. 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,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic		[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
	Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October		Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
	2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.		2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
	[RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions		[RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions
	for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,		for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
			[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]
			Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Mirsky, G., and S. Sivabalan,
			"Signaling Maximum SID Depth using Border Gateway Protocol
			Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-01
			(work in progress), October 2017.
	[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]		[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]
	Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S.		Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S.
	Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using IS-		Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using IS-
	IS", draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-02 (work in progress),		IS", draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-02 (work in progress),
	October 2016.		October 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]		[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
	Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,		Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
	and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",		and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
	draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-09 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11 (work in progress),
	April 2017.		November 2017.
	[I-D.tantsura-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]
	Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Mirsky, G., and S. Sivabalan,
	"Signaling Maximum SID Depth using Border Gateway Protocol
	Link-State", draft-tantsura-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-
	msd-04 (work in progress), March 2017.
	[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and		[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
	dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,		dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
	December 1990, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.		December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
	[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi		[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
	Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to		Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
	Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,		Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
	[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
	[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,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
			[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
			Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
			RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Jeff Tantsura		Jeff Tantsura
	Individual		Individual
	Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com		Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
	Uma Chunduri		Uma Chunduri
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
End of changes. 32 change blocks.
	53 lines changed or deleted		53 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/