< draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-02.txt		draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-03.txt >
	LSVR K. Patel		LSVR K. Patel
	Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc.		Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc.
	Intended status: Informational A. Lindem		Intended status: Informational A. Lindem
	Expires: November 2, 2019 Cisco Systems		Expires: May 5, 2020 Cisco Systems
	S. Zandi		S. Zandi
	G. Dawra		G. Dawra
	Linkedin		Linkedin
	May 1, 2019		November 2, 2019
	Usage and Applicability of Link State Vector Routing in Data Centers		Usage and Applicability of Link State Vector Routing in Data Centers
	draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-02.txt		draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document discusses the usage and applicability of Link State		This document discusses the usage and applicability of Link State
	Vector Routing (LSVR) extensions in data center networks utilizing		Vector Routing (LSVR) extensions in data center networks utilizing
	CLOS or Fat-Tree topologies. The document is intended to provide a		CLOS or Fat-Tree topologies. The document is intended to provide a
	simplified guide for the deployment of LSVR extensions.		simplified guide for the deployment of LSVR extensions.
	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 November 2, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 5, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 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 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶
	6.1. Usage of BGP-LS SPF SAFI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6.1. Usage of BGP-LS SPF SAFI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6.1.1. Relationship to Other BGP AFI/SAFI Tuples . . . . . . 6		6.1.1. Relationship to Other BGP AFI/SAFI Tuples . . . . . . 6
	6.2. Peering Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6.2. Peering Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6.2.1. Sparse Peering Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6.2.1. Sparse Peering Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6.2.2. Bi-Connected Graph Heuristic . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6.2.2. Bi-Connected Graph Heuristic . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6.3. BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6.3. BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6.4. BGP Peer Discovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6.4. BGP Peer Discovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6.5. BGP Peer Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.5. BGP Peer Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.5.1. BGP Peer Discovery Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.5.1. BGP Peer Discovery Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.5.2. Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability . . . . 9		6.5.2. Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability . . . . 9
	6.6. Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability . . . . . . . . 10		6.6. Non-Transit Node Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			6.7. Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability . . . . . . . . 10
	7. BGP Policy Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. BGP Policy Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document complements [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] by discussing the		This document complements [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] by discussing the
	applicability of the technology in a simple and fairly common		applicability of the technology in a simple and fairly common
	deployment scenario, which is described in Section 4.		deployment scenario, which is described in Section 4.
	skipping to change at page 7, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 39 ¶
	establishment is allowed. However, BGP speaker will never actively		establishment is allowed. However, BGP speaker will never actively
	establish an east-west BGP session unless it can't establish two		establish an east-west BGP session unless it can't establish two
	northbound BGP sessions.		northbound BGP sessions.
	6.3. BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy		6.3. BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy
	One of the advantages of using BGP SPF as the underlay protocol is		One of the advantages of using BGP SPF as the underlay protocol is
	that BGP policy can be applied at any level. In Spine/Leaf		that BGP policy can be applied at any level. In Spine/Leaf
	topologies, it is not necessary to advertise BGP-LS NLRI received by		topologies, it is not necessary to advertise BGP-LS NLRI received by
	leaves northbound to the spine nodes at the level above. If a common		leaves northbound to the spine nodes at the level above. If a common
	AS is used for the spine nodes, This can easily be accomplished with		AS is used for the spine nodes, this can easily be accomplished with
	EBGP and a simple policy to filter advertisements from the leaves to		EBGP and a simple policy to filter advertisements from the leaves to
	the spine if the first AS in the AS path is the spine AS.		the spine if the first AS in the AS path is the spine AS.
	In the figure below, the leaves would not advertise any NLRI with AS		In the figure below, the leaves would not advertise any NLRI with AS
	64512 as the first AS in the AS path.		64512 as the first AS in the AS path.
	+--------+ +--------+ +--------+		+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
	AS 64512 | | | | | |		AS 64512 | | | | | |
	for Spine | Spine1 +----+ Spine2 +- ......... -+ SpineN |		for Spine | Spine 1+----+ Spine 2+- ......... -+ Spine N|
	Nodes at | | | | | |		Nodes at | | | | | |
	this Level +-+-+-+-++ ++-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-++		this Level +-+-+-+-++ ++-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-++
	+------+ | | | | | | | | | | |		+------+ | | | | | | | | | | |
	| +-----|-|-|------+ | | | | | | |		| +-----|-|-|------+ | | | | | | |
	| | +--|-|-|--------+-|-|-----------------+ | | |		| | +--|-|-|--------+-|-|-----------------+ | | |
	| | | | | | +---+ | | | | |		| | | | | | +---+ | | | | |
	| | | | | | | +--|-|-------------------+ | |		| | | | | | | +--|-|-------------------+ | |
	| | | | | | | | | | +------+ +----+		| | | | | | | | | | +------+ +----+
	| | | | | | | | | +--------------|----------+ |		| | | | | | | | | +--------------|----------+ |
	| | | | | | | | +-------------+ | | |		| | | | | | | | +-------------+ | | |
	| | | | | +----|--|----------------|--|--------+ | |		| | | | | +----|--|----------------|--|--------+ | |
	| | | | +------|--|--------------+ | | | | |		| | | | +------|--|--------------+ | | | | |
	| | | +------+ | | | | | | | |		| | | +------+ | | | | | | | |
	++--+--++ +-+-+--++ ++-+--+-+ ++-+--+-+		++--+--++ +-+-+--++ ++-+--+-+ ++-+--+-+
	| Leaf1 |~~~~~~| Leaf2 | ........ | LeafX | | LeafY |		| Leaf 1|~~~~~~| Leaf 2| ........ | Leaf X| | Leaf Y|
	+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+		+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
	Figure 2: Spine/Leaf Topology Policy		Figure 2: Spine/Leaf Topology Policy
	6.4. BGP Peer Discovery Requirements		6.4. BGP Peer Discovery Requirements
	The most basic requirement is to be able to discover the address of a		The most basic requirement is to be able to discover the address of a
	single-hop peer without pre-configuration. This is being		single-hop peer without pre-configuration. This is being
	accomplished today with using IPv6 Router Advertisements (RA)		accomplished today with using IPv6 Router Advertisements (RA)
	[RFC4861] and assuming that a BGP sessions is desired with any		[RFC4861] and assuming that a BGP sessions is desired with any
	skipping to change at page 9, line 6 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 6 ¶
	o Session Policy Identifier - A group number or name used to		o Session Policy Identifier - A group number or name used to
	associate common session parameters with the peer. For example,		associate common session parameters with the peer. For example,
	in a data center, BGP sessions with a Top of Rack (ToR) device		in a data center, BGP sessions with a Top of Rack (ToR) device
	could have parameters than BGP sessions between leaf and spine.		could have parameters than BGP sessions between leaf and spine.
	In a data center fabric, it is often useful to know whether a peer is		In a data center fabric, it is often useful to know whether a peer is
	southbound (towards the servers) or northbound (towards the spine or		southbound (towards the servers) or northbound (towards the spine or
	super-spine), e.g., Section 6.2.2. A potential requirement would be		super-spine), e.g., Section 6.2.2. A potential requirement would be
	to determine this dynamically. One mechanism, without specifying all		to determine this dynamically. One mechanism, without specifying all
	the details, might be for the ToRs to be identified when installed		the details, might be for the ToR switches to be identified when
	and for the others switches in the fabric to determine their level		installed and for the others switches in the fabric to determine
	based on the distance from the closest ToR.		their level based on the distance from the closest ToR switch.
	If there are multiple links between BGP speakers or the links between		If there are multiple links between BGP speakers or the links between
	BGP speakers are unnumbered, it is also useful to be able to		BGP speakers are unnumbered, it is also useful to be able to
	establish multi-hop sessions using the loopback addresses. This will		establish multi-hop sessions using the loopback addresses. This will
	often require the discovery protocol to install route(s) toward the		often require the discovery protocol to install route(s) toward the
	potential peer loopback addresses prior to BGP session establishment.		potential peer loopback addresses prior to BGP session establishment.
	Finally, a simple BGP discovery protocol could also be used to		Finally, a simple BGP discovery protocol could also be used to
	establish a multi-hop session with one or more controllers by		establish a multi-hop session with one or more controllers by
	advertising connectivity to one or more controllers. However, once		advertising connectivity to one or more controllers. However, once
	skipping to change at page 10, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 5 ¶
	The BGP discovery mechanisms under consideration are		The BGP discovery mechanisms under consideration are
	[I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery],		[I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery],
	[I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery], and [I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl].		[I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery], and [I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl].
	6.5.2. Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability		6.5.2. Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability
	Since BGP SPF is to be used for the routing underlay and DCI gateway		Since BGP SPF is to be used for the routing underlay and DCI gateway
	boxes typically have direct or very simple connectivity, BGP external		boxes typically have direct or very simple connectivity, BGP external
	sessions would typically not include the BGP SPF SAFI.		sessions would typically not include the BGP SPF SAFI.
	6.6. Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability		6.6. Non-Transit Node Capability
			In certain scenarios, a BGP node wishes to participate in the BGP SPF
			topology but never be used for transit traffic. These in include
			situations where a server wants to make application services
			available to clients homed at subnets throughout the BGP SPF domain
			but doesn't ever want to be used as a router (i.e., carry transit
			traffic). Another specific instance is where a controller is
			resident on a server and direct connectivity to the controller is
			required throughout the entire domain. This can readily be
			accomplished using the BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV as
			described in [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf].
			6.7. Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability
	The BGP SPF extensions [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] can be used in other		The BGP SPF extensions [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] can be used in other
	topologies and avail the inherent convergence improvements.		topologies and avail the inherent convergence improvements.
	Additionally, sparse peering techniques may be utilized Section 6.2.		Additionally, sparse peering techniques may be utilized Section 6.2.
	However, determining whether or to establish a BGP session is more		However, determining whether or to establish a BGP session is more
	complex and the heuristic described in Section 6.2.2 cannot be used.		complex and the heuristic described in Section 6.2.2 cannot be used.
	In such topologies, other techniques such as those described in		In such topologies, other techniques such as those described in
	[I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding] may be employed. One potential		[I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding] may be employed. One potential
	deployment would be the underlay for a Service Provider (SP) backbone		deployment would be the underlay for a Service Provider (SP) backbone
	where usage of a single protocol, i.e., BGP, is desired.		where usage of a single protocol, i.e., BGP, is desired.
	skipping to change at page 11, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 23 ¶
	The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana and Yan Filyurin for		The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana and Yan Filyurin for
	the review and comments.		the review and comments.
	11. References		11. References
	11.1. Normative References		11.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]		[I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]
	Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and W. Henderickx,		Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and W. Henderickx,
	"Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol",		"Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol",
	draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-04 (work in progress), December		draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-06 (work in progress), September
	2018.		2019.
	[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, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[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>.
	11.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
	[CLOS] "A Study of Non-Blocking Switching Networks", The Bell		[CLOS] "A Study of Non-Blocking Switching Networks", The Bell
	System Technical Journal, Vol. 32(2), DOI		System Technical Journal, Vol. 32(2), DOI
	10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x, March 1953.		10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x, March 1953.
	[I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery]		[I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery]
	Lindem, A., Patel, K., Zandi, S., Haas, J., and X. Xu,		Lindem, A., Patel, K., Zandi, S., Haas, J., and X. Xu,
	"BGP Logical Link Discovery Protocol (LLDP) Peer		"BGP Logical Link Discovery Protocol (LLDP) Peer
	Discovery", draft-acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery-04 (work in		Discovery", draft-acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery-05 (work in
	progress), December 2018.		progress), July 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding]		[I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding]
	Li, T., Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Przygienda, T., Cooper,		Li, T., Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Chen, H., Przygienda,
	D., Jalil, L., and S. Dontula, "Dynamic Flooding on Dense		T., Cooper, D., Jalil, L., and S. Dontula, "Dynamic
	Graphs", draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-00 (work in		Flooding on Dense Graphs", draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
	progress), February 2019.		flooding-03 (work in progress), June 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl]		[I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl]
	Bush, R., Austein, R., and K. Patel, "Layer 3 Discovery		Bush, R., Austein, R., and K. Patel, "Layer 3 Discovery
	and Liveness", draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-00 (work in progress),		and Liveness", draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-02 (work in progress),
	April 2019.		July 2019.
	[I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery]		[I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery]
	Xu, X., Talaulikar, K., Bi, K., Tantsura, J., and N.		Xu, X., Talaulikar, K., Bi, K., Tantsura, J., and N.
	Triantafillis, "BGP Neighbor Discovery", draft-xu-idr-		Triantafillis, "BGP Neighbor Discovery", draft-xu-idr-
	neighbor-autodiscovery-11 (work in progress), April 2019.		neighbor-autodiscovery-11 (work in progress), April 2019.
	[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,		[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
	editor.org/info/rfc2328>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
	[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A		[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
	Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,		Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
	editor.org/info/rfc4271>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
	[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,		[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
	"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,		"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
	editor.org/info/rfc4760>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
	[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,		[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
	"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,		"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
	editor.org/info/rfc4861>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
	[RFC4957] Krishnan, S., Ed., Montavont, N., Njedjou, E., Veerepalli,		[RFC4957] Krishnan, S., Ed., Montavont, N., Njedjou, E., Veerepalli,
	S., and A. Yegin, Ed., "Link-Layer Event Notifications for		S., and A. Yegin, Ed., "Link-Layer Event Notifications for
	Detecting Network Attachments", RFC 4957,		Detecting Network Attachments", RFC 4957,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4957, August 2007, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC4957, August 2007,
	editor.org/info/rfc4957>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4957>.
	[RFC5580] Tschofenig, H., Ed., Adrangi, F., Jones, M., Lior, A., and		[RFC5580] Tschofenig, H., Ed., Adrangi, F., Jones, M., Lior, A., and
	B. Aboba, "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and		B. Aboba, "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and
	Diameter", RFC 5580, DOI 10.17487/RFC5580, August 2009,		Diameter", RFC 5580, DOI 10.17487/RFC5580, August 2009,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5580>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5580>.
	[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP		[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
	Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,		Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
	June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.		June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
	[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, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
	editor.org/info/rfc7752>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
	[RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of		[RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
	BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,		BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
	editor.org/info/rfc7938>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.
	[RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.		[RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.
	Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177,		Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017,
	editor.org/info/rfc8177>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8177>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Keyur Patel		Keyur Patel
	Arrcus, Inc.		Arrcus, Inc.
	2077 Gateway Pl		2077 Gateway Pl
	San Jose, CA 95110		San Jose, CA 95110
	USA		USA
	Email: keyur@arrcus.com		Email: keyur@arrcus.com
End of changes. 26 change blocks.
	44 lines changed or deleted		58 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/