< draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-09.txt   draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-10.txt >
IS-IS Working Group J. Tantsura IS-IS Working Group J. Tantsura
Internet-Draft Individual Internet-Draft Nuage Networks
Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri
Expires: July 14, 2018 Huawei Technologies Expires: October 11, 2018 Huawei Technologies
S. Aldrin S. Aldrin
Google, Inc Google, Inc
L. Ginsberg L. Ginsberg
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
January 10, 2018 April 09, 2018
Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-09 draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-10
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a way for an IS-IS Router to advertise multiple This document defines a way for an IS-IS Router to advertise multiple
types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link
granularity. Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized granularity. Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized
controllers) to determine whether a particular SID stack is controllers) to determine whether a particular SID stack can be
supportable in a given network. This document only defines one type supported in a given network. This document only defines one type of
of MSD (maximum label imposition) - but defines an encoding which can MSD maximum label imposition, but defines an encoding that can
support other MSD types. support other MSD types.
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 July 14, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 11, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Node MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Link MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Node MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Link MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Base MPLS Imposition MSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Base MPLS Imposition MSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
When Segment Routing(SR) paths are computed by a centralized When Segment Routing(SR) paths are computed by a centralized
controller, it is critical that the controller learns the Maximum SID controller, it is critical that the controller learns the Maximum SID
Depth(MSD) which can be imposed at the node/link a given SR path is Depth(MSD) that can be imposed at each node/link a given SR path to
applied so as to insure that the SID stack depth of a computed path insure that the SID stack depth of a computed path doesn't exceed the
doesn't exceed the number of SIDs the node is capable of imposing. number of SIDs the node is capable of imposing.
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.ietf-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
all the nodes and links in the network MSD is relevant, MSD all the nodes and links in the network MSD is relevant, MSD
capabilites should be advertised to every IS-IS router in the capabilites should be advertised to every IS-IS router in the
network. network.
Other types of MSD are known to be useful. For example, Other types of MSD are known to be useful. For example,
[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 an Entropy Label (EL) at
appropriate depth, so it could be read by transit nodes. a depth, that could be read by transit nodes.
This document defines an extension to IS-IS used to advertise one or This document defines an extension to IS-IS used to advertise one or
more types of MSD at node and/or link granularity. It also creates more types of MSD at node and/or link granularity. It also creates
an IANA registry for assigning MSD type identifiers. It also defines an IANA registry for assigning MSD type identifiers. It also defines
one MSD type called Base MPLS Imposition MSD. In the future it is the Base MPLS Imposition MSD type. In the future it is expected,
expected that new MSD types will be defined to signal additional that new MSD types will be defined to signal additional capabilities
capabilities e.g., entropy labels, SIDs that can be imposed through e.g., entropy labels, SIDs that can be imposed through recirculation,
recirculation, or SIDs associated with another dataplane e.g., IPv6. or SIDs associated with 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
BMI: Base MPLS Imposition is the number of MPLS labels which can be BMI: Base MPLS Imposition is the number of MPLS labels which can be
imposed inclusive of any service/transport labels imposed inclusive of any service/transport labels
skipping to change at page 3, line 48 skipping to change at page 3, line 48
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol
SID: Segment Identifier SID: Segment Identifier
SR: Segment Routing SR: Segment Routing
1.2. Requirements Language 1.2. 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP14 [RFC2119], [RFC8174] when, and only when they appear in all
capitals, as shown here .
2. Node MSD Advertisement 2. Terminology
A new sub-TLV "Node MSD sub-TLV" is defined within the body of the This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC4970].
IS-IS Router Capability TLV [RFC7981], to carry the provisioned
MSD(s) of the router originating the Router Capability TLV. Node MSD 3. Node MSD Advertisement
is the lowest MSD supported by the node on any interface. MSD values
may be learned via a hardware API or may be provisioned. The node MSD sub-TLV is defined within the body of the IS-IS Router
Capability TLV [RFC7981], to carry the provisioned SID depth of the
router originating the Router Capability TLV. Node MSD is the
minimum MSD supported by the node on any interface. MSD values may
be learned via a hardware API or may be provisioned.
0 1 0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD-Type | MSD Value | | MSD-Type | MSD Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// ................... // // ................... //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD-Type | MSD Value | | MSD-Type | MSD Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Node MSD Sub-TLV Figure 1: Node MSD Sub-TLV
The Type (1 byte) of this sub-TLV has value of 23. The Type: TBD1
Length is variable (minimum of 2, multiple of 2 octets) and Length: variable (minimum of 2, multiple of 2 octets) and represents
represents the total length of value field. the total length of value field.
Value field consists of one or more pairs of a 1 octet MSD-Type (IANA Value: field consists of one or more pairs of a 1 octet MSD-Type
Registry) and 1 octet Value. (IANA Registry) and 1 octet Value.
Node MSD value is a number in the range of 0-255. 0 represents lack Node MSD value is a number in the range of 0-255. 0 represents lack
of the ability to support SID stack of any depth; any other value of the ability to support SID stack of any depth; any other value
represents that of the node. This value MUST represent the lowest represents that of the node. This value MUST represent the lowest
value supported by any link associated with the node. value supported by any link associated with the node.
This sub-TLV is optional. The scope of the advertisement is specific This sub-TLV is optional. The scope of the advertisement is specific
to the deployment. to the deployment.
3. Link MSD Advertisement 4. Link MSD Advertisement
A new sub-TLV - Link MSD sub-TLV is defined for TLVs 22, 23, 141, The link MSD sub-TLV is defined for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 to
222, and 223 to carry the MSD of the interface associated with the carry the MSD of the interface associated with the link. MSD values
link. MSD values may be learned via a hardware API or may be may be learned via a hardware API or may be provisioned.
provisioned.
0 1 0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD-Type | MSD Value | | MSD-Type | MSD Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// ................... // // ................... //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD-Type | MSD Value | | MSD-Type | MSD Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Link MSD Sub-TLV Figure 2: Link MSD Sub-TLV
The Type (1 byte) of this sub-TLV has value of 15. The Type: TBD2
Length is variable (minimum of 2, multiple of 2 octets) and Length: variable (minimum of 2, multiple of 2 octets) and represents
represents the total length of value field. the total length of value field.
Value field consists of one or more pairs of a 1 octet MSD-Type (IANA Value: consists of one or more pairs of a 1 octet MSD-Type (IANA
Registry) and 1 octet Value. Registry) and 1 octet Value.
Link MSD value is a number in the range of 0-255. 0 represents lack Link MSD value is a number in the range of 0-255. 0 represents lack
of the ability to support SID stack of any depth; any other value of the ability to support SID stack of any depth; any other value
represents that of the link when used as an outgoing link. represents that of the link when used as an outgoing link.
This sub-TLV is optional. The scope of the advertisement is specific This sub-TLV is optional. The scope of the advertisement is specific
to the deployment. to the deployment.
4. Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements 5. Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements
When Link MSD is present for a given MSD type, the value of the Link When Link MSD is present for a given MSD type, the value of the Link
MSD MUST be used in preference to the Node MSD. MSD MUST take preference over the Node MSD.
The meaning of the absence of both Node and Link MSD advertisements The meaning of the absence of both Node and Link MSD advertisements
for a given MSD type is specific to the MSD type. Generally it can for a given MSD type is specific to the MSD type. Generally it can
only be inferred that the advertising node does not support only be inferred that the advertising node does not support
advertisement of that MSD type. However, in some cases the lack of advertisement of that MSD type. However, in some cases the lack of
advertisement might imply that the functionality associated with the advertisement might imply that the functionality associated with the
MSD type is not supported. The correct interpretation MUST be MSD type is not supported. The correct interpretation MUST be
specified when an MSD type is defined. specified when an MSD type is defined.
5. Base MPLS Imposition MSD 6. Base MPLS Imposition MSD
Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of MPLS
labels a node is capable of imposing, including any service/transport labels a node is capable of imposing, including any service/transport
labels. labels.
Absence of BMI-MSD advertisements indicates only that the advertising Absence of BMI-MSD advertisements indicates solely that the
node does not support advertisement of this capability. advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability.
6. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to allocate a sub-TLV type code for the This document requests IANA to allocate a sub-TLV type (TBD1) for the
new sub TLV proposed in Section 2 of this document from IS-IS Router new sub TLV proposed in Section 3 of this document from IS-IS Router
Capability TLV Registry as defined by [RFC7981]. Capability TLV Registry as defined by [RFC7981].
The following value has been allocated by IANA: IANA has allocated the following value through the early assignment
process:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
----- --------------- ------------- ----- --------------- -------------
23 Node MSD This document 23 Node MSD This document
Figure 3: Node MSD Figure 3: Node MSD
This document requests IANA to allocate a sub-TLV type code as This document requests IANA to allocate a sub-TLV type (TBD2) as
defined in Section 3 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.
The following value has been allocated by IANA: IANA has allocated the following value through the early assignment
process:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
----- --------------- ------------- ----- --------------- -------------
15 Link MSD This document 15 Link MSD This document
Figure 4: Link MSD Figure 4: 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 5: TLVs where LINK MSD Sub-TLV can be present Figure 5: TLVs where LINK MSD Sub-TLV can be present
This document requests creation of a new IANA managed registry under This document requests creation of an IANA managed registry under a
a new category of "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA new category of "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA
registries to identify MSD types as proposed in Section 2 and registries to identify MSD types as proposed in Section 3 and
Section 3. The registration procedure is "Expert Review" as defined Section 4. The registration procedure is "Expert Review" as defined
in [RFC8126]. Suggested registry name is "MSD types". Types are an in [RFC8126]. Suggested registry name is "MSD types". Types are an
unsigned 8 bit number. The following values are defined by this unsigned 8 bit number. The following values are defined by this
document document
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
----- --------------------- ------------- ----- --------------------- -------------
0 Reserved This document 0 Reserved This document
1 Base MPLS Imposition MSD This document 1 Base MPLS Imposition 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 6: MSD Types Codepoints Registry Figure 6: MSD Types Codepoints Registry
7. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
Security considerations, as specified by [RFC7981] are applicable to Security considerations, as specified by [RFC7981] are applicable to
this document this document
8. Contributors 9. Contributors
The following people contributed to this document: The following people contributed to this document:
Peter Psenak Peter Psenak
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
9. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Stephane Litkowski and Bruno Decraene
for their reviews and valuable comments.
10. References The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Stephane Litkowski and
Bruno Decraene for their reviews and valuable comments.
10.1. Normative References 11. References
11.1. 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>.
[RFC4970] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, DOI 10.17487/RFC4970, July
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4970>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.
10.2. Informative References [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>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Mirsky, G., and S. Sivabalan, Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Mirsky, G., and S. Sivabalan,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth using Border Gateway Protocol "Signaling Maximum SID Depth using Border Gateway Protocol
Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-01 Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-01
(work in progress), October 2017. (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 and Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and
skipping to change at page 8, line 39 skipping to change at page 9, line 13
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Individual Nuage Networks
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Uma Chunduri Uma Chunduri
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com
Sam Aldrin Sam Aldrin
Google, Inc Google, Inc
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Les Ginsberg Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
 End of changes. 41 change blocks. 
79 lines changed or deleted 96 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/