< draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-06.txt   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-07.txt >
Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed. Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed. Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: April 16, 2016 B. Decraene Expires: June 17, 2016 B. Decraene
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
R. Shakir R. Shakir
Individual Jive Communications
October 14, 2015 December 15, 2015
Segment Routing Architecture Segment Routing Architecture
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-06 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-07
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node
steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called
segments. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or segments. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
service-based. A segment can have a local semantic to an SR node or service-based. A segment can have a local semantic to an SR node or
global within an SR domain. SR allows to enforce a flow through any global within an SR domain. SR allows to enforce a flow through any
topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state
only at the ingress node to the SR domain. only at the ingress node to the SR domain.
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
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 http://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 16, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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 (http://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 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 23
either be used in isolation (one single segment defines the source either be used in isolation (one single segment defines the source
route of the packet) or in combination (these segments are part of an route of the packet) or in combination (these segments are part of an
ordered list of segments that define the source route of the packet). ordered list of segments that define the source route of the packet).
1.1. Companion Documents 1.1. Companion Documents
This document defines the SR architecture, its routing model, the This document defines the SR architecture, its routing model, the
IGP-based segments, the BGP-based segments and the service segments. IGP-based segments, the BGP-based segments and the service segments.
Use cases are described in [I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement], Use cases are described in [I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement],
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-central-epe], [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe],
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-msdc], [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc],
[I-D.filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect], [I-D.filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect],
[I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases], [I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases],
[I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases], [I-D.geib-spring-oam-usecase] [I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases], [I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase]
and [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement]. and [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement].
Segment Routing for MPLS dataplane is documented in Segment Routing for MPLS dataplane is documented in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls].
Segment Routing for IPv6 dataplane is documented in Segment Routing for IPv6 dataplane is documented in
[I-D.previdi-6man-segment-routing-header]. [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
IGP protocol extensions for Segment Routing are described in IGP protocol extensions for Segment Routing are described in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] referred in this [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] referred in this
document as "IGP SR extensions documents". document as "IGP SR extensions documents".
The FRR solution for SR is documented in The FRR solution for SR is documented in
[I-D.francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]. [I-D.francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa].
The PCEP protocol extensions for Segment Routing are defined in The PCEP protocol extensions for Segment Routing are defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
The interaction between SR/MPLS with other MPLS Signaling planes is The interaction between SR/MPLS with other MPLS Signaling planes is
documented in [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]. documented in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
Segment: an instruction a node executes on the incoming packet (e.g.: Segment: an instruction a node executes on the incoming packet (e.g.:
forward packet according to shortest path to destination, or, forward forward packet according to shortest path to destination, or, forward
packet through a specific interface, or, deliver the packet to a packet through a specific interface, or, deliver the packet to a
given application/service instance). given application/service instance).
SID: a Segment Identifier. Examples of SIDs are: a MPLS label, an SID: a Segment Identifier. Examples of SIDs are: a MPLS label, an
index value in a MPLS label space, an IPv6 address. Other types of index value in a MPLS label space, an IPv6 address. Other types of
SIDs can be defined in the future. SIDs can be defined in the future.
Segment List: ordered list of SID's encoding the topological and Segment List: ordered list of SID's encoding the topological and
service source route of the packet. It is a stack of labels in the service source route of the packet. It is a stack of labels in the
MPLS architecture. It is an ordered list of IPv6 addresses in the MPLS architecture. It is an ordered list of IPv6 addresses in the
IPv6 architecture. IPv6 architecture.
Segment Routing Domain (SR Domain): the set of nodes participating
into the source based routing model. These nodes may be connected to
the same physical infrastructure (e.g.: a Service Provider's network)
as well as nodes remotely connected to each other (e.g.: an
enterprise VPN or an overlay). Note that a SR domain may also be
confined within an IGP instance, in which case it is named SR-IGP
Domain.
Active segment: the segment that MUST be used by the receiving router Active segment: the segment that MUST be used by the receiving router
to process the packet. In the MPLS dataplane is the top label. In to process the packet. In the MPLS dataplane is the top label. In
the IPv6 dataplane is the destination address of a packet having the the IPv6 dataplane is the destination address of a packet having the
Segment Routing Header as defined in Segment Routing Header as defined in
[I-D.previdi-6man-segment-routing-header]. [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header].
PUSH: the insertion of a segment at the head of the Segment list. PUSH: the insertion of a segment at the head of the Segment list.
NEXT: the active segment is completed, the next segment becomes NEXT: the active segment is completed, the next segment becomes
active. active.
CONTINUE: the active segment is not completed and hence remains CONTINUE: the active segment is not completed and hence remains
active. The CONTINUE instruction is implemented as the SWAP active. The CONTINUE instruction is implemented as the SWAP
instruction in the MPLS dataplane. In IPv6, this is the plain IPv6 instruction in the MPLS dataplane. In IPv6, this is the plain IPv6
forwarding action of a regular IPv6 packet according to its forwarding action of a regular IPv6 packet according to its
skipping to change at page 16, line 13 skipping to change at page 16, line 13
defined in IGP SR extensions documents. defined in IGP SR extensions documents.
3.6. Binding Segment 3.6. Binding Segment
3.6.1. Mapping Server 3.6.1. Mapping Server
A Remote-Binding SID S advertised by the mapping server M for remote A Remote-Binding SID S advertised by the mapping server M for remote
prefix R attached to non-SR-capable node N signals the same prefix R attached to non-SR-capable node N signals the same
information as if N had advertised S as a Prefix-SID. Further information as if N had advertised S as a Prefix-SID. Further
details are described in the SR/LDP interworking procedures details are described in the SR/LDP interworking procedures
([I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]. ([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop].
The segment allocation and SRGB Maintenance rules are the same as The segment allocation and SRGB Maintenance rules are the same as
those defined for Prefix-SID. those defined for Prefix-SID.
3.6.2. Tunnel Headend 3.6.2. Tunnel Headend
The segment allocation and SRGB Maintenance rules are the same as The segment allocation and SRGB Maintenance rules are the same as
those defined for Adj-SID. A tunnel attached to a head-end H acts as those defined for Adj-SID. A tunnel attached to a head-end H acts as
an adjacency attached to H. an adjacency attached to H.
skipping to change at page 17, line 26 skipping to change at page 17, line 26
according to the active segment (Node-SID(150)). Forwarding according to the active segment (Node-SID(150)). Forwarding
continues across area borders, using the same Node-SID(150), until continues across area borders, using the same Node-SID(150), until
the packet reaches its destination. the packet reaches its destination.
When an ABR propagates a prefix from one area to another it MUST set When an ABR propagates a prefix from one area to another it MUST set
the R-Flag. the R-Flag.
4. BGP Peering Segments 4. BGP Peering Segments
In the context of BGP Egress Peer Engineering (EPE), as described in In the context of BGP Egress Peer Engineering (EPE), as described in
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-central-epe], an EPE enabled [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe], an EPE enabled Egress
Egress PE node MAY advertise segments corresponding to its attached PE node MAY advertise segments corresponding to its attached peers.
peers. These segments are called BGP peering segments or BGP Peering These segments are called BGP peering segments or BGP Peering SIDs.
SIDs. They enable the expression of source-routed inter-domain They enable the expression of source-routed inter-domain paths.
paths.
An ingress border router of an AS may compose a list of segments to An ingress border router of an AS may compose a list of segments to
steer a flow along a selected path within the AS, towards a selected steer a flow along a selected path within the AS, towards a selected
egress border router C of the AS and through a specific peer. At egress border router C of the AS and through a specific peer. At
minimum, a BGP Peering Engineering policy applied at an ingress PE minimum, a BGP Peering Engineering policy applied at an ingress PE
involves two segments: the Node SID of the chosen egress PE and then involves two segments: the Node SID of the chosen egress PE and then
the BGP Peering Segment for the chosen egress PE peer or peering the BGP Peering Segment for the chosen egress PE peer or peering
interface. interface.
Hereafter, we will define three types of BGP peering segments/SID's: Hereafter, we will define three types of BGP peering segments/SID's:
skipping to change at page 19, line 16 skipping to change at page 19, line 16
This document does not require any action from IANA. This document does not require any action from IANA.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document doesn't introduce new security considerations when This document doesn't introduce new security considerations when
applied to the MPLS dataplane. applied to the MPLS dataplane.
There are a number of security concerns with source routing at the There are a number of security concerns with source routing at the
IPv6 dataplane [RFC5095]. The new IPv6-based segment routing header IPv6 dataplane [RFC5095]. The new IPv6-based segment routing header
defined in [I-D.previdi-6man-segment-routing-header] and its defined in [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] and its associated
associated security measures address these concerns. The IPv6 security measures address these concerns. The IPv6 Segment Routing
Segment Routing Header is defined in a way that blind attacks are Header is defined in a way that blind attacks are never possible,
never possible, i.e., attackers will be unable to send source routed i.e., attackers will be unable to send source routed packets that get
packets that get successfully processed, without being part of the successfully processed, without being part of the negations for
negations for setting up the source routes or being able to eavesdrop setting up the source routes or being able to eavesdrop legitimate
legitimate source routed packets. In some networks this base level source routed packets. In some networks this base level security may
security may be complemented with other mechanisms, such as packet be complemented with other mechanisms, such as packet filtering,
filtering, cryptographic security, etc. cryptographic security, etc.
9. Contributors 9. Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to the definition The following people have substantially contributed to the definition
of the Segment Routing architecture and to the editing of this of the Segment Routing architecture and to the editing of this
document: document:
Ahmed Bashandy Ahmed Bashandy
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: bashandy@cisco.com Email: bashandy@cisco.com
skipping to change at page 20, line 47 skipping to change at page 20, line 47
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect] [I-D.filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect]
Filsfils, C., Cai, D., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., Filsfils, C., Cai, D., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W.,
Shakir, R., Cooper, D., Ferguson, F., Laberge, T., Lin, Shakir, R., Cooper, D., Ferguson, F., Laberge, T., Lin,
S., Decraene, B., and L. Jalil, "Interconnecting Millions S., Decraene, B., Jalil, L., and J. Tantsura,
Of Endpoints With Segment Routing", draft-filsfils-spring- "Interconnecting Millions Of Endpoints With Segment
large-scale-interconnect-00 (work in progress), July 2015. Routing", draft-filsfils-spring-large-scale-
interconnect-01 (work in progress), November 2015.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Patel, K., Shaw, S., Ginsburg,
D., and D. Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized Egress
Peer Engineering", draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-
central-epe-05 (work in progress), August 2015.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing interoperability with LDP", draft-
filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-03 (work in
progress), March 2015.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-msdc]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Mitchell, J., Lapukhov, P.,
Gaya, G., Afanasiev, D., Laberge, T., Nkposong, E.,
Nanduri, M., Uttaro, J., and S. Ray, "BGP-Prefix Segment
in large-scale data centers", draft-filsfils-spring-
segment-routing-msdc-03 (work in progress), July 2015.
[I-D.francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] [I-D.francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., and B. Decraene, Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., and B. Decraene,
"Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing", "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing",
draft-francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00 (work in draft-francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00 (work in
progress), August 2015. progress), August 2015.
[I-D.geib-spring-oam-usecase] [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
Geib, R., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., and N. Kumar, "Use Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Field, B., Leung, I., Linkova,
case for a scalable and topology aware MPLS data plane J., Kosugi, T., Vyncke, E., and D. Lebrun, "IPv6 Segment
monitoring system", draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase-06 (work Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
in progress), July 2015. header-00 (work in progress), December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-isis-prefix-attributes] [I-D.ietf-isis-prefix-attributes]
Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S.,
Previdi, S., Xu, X., and U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Previdi, S., Xu, X., and U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix
Attributes for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability", draft- Attributes for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability", draft-
ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-01 (work in progress), June ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-02 (work in progress),
2015. December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-
routing-extensions-05 (work in progress), June 2015. routing-extensions-06 (work in progress), December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3 Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
segment-routing-extensions-03 (work in progress), June segment-routing-extensions-03 (work in progress), June
2015. 2015.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
skipping to change at page 22, line 30 skipping to change at page 22, line 11
Lopez, V., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, Lopez, V., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick,
"PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-pce- "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-pce-
segment-routing-06 (work in progress), August 2015. segment-routing-06 (work in progress), August 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases] [I-D.ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases]
Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Leung, I., Previdi, S., Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Leung, I., Previdi, S.,
Townsley, W., Martin, C., Filsfils, C., and R. Maglione, Townsley, W., Martin, C., Filsfils, C., and R. Maglione,
"IPv6 SPRING Use Cases", draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use- "IPv6 SPRING Use Cases", draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-
cases-05 (work in progress), September 2015. cases-05 (work in progress), September 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase]
Geib, R., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., and N. Kumar, "Use
Case for a Scalable and Topology-Aware Segment Routing
MPLS Data Plane Monitoring System", draft-ietf-spring-oam-
usecase-01 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement] [I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "SPRING Problem Statement Horneffer, M., and r. rjs@rob.sh, "SPRING Problem
and Requirements", draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-04 Statement and Requirements", draft-ietf-spring-problem-
(work in progress), April 2015. statement-06 (work in progress), December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases] [I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases]
Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir, Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., and r.
"Use-cases for Resiliency in SPRING", draft-ietf-spring- rjs@rob.sh, "Use-cases for Resiliency in SPRING", draft-
resiliency-use-cases-01 (work in progress), March 2015. ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-02 (work in progress),
December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsburg, D., and D. Afanasiev,
"Segment Routing Centralized Egress Peer Engineering",
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-00 (work in
progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interoperability with LDP",
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-00 (work in
progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R., Tantsura, J., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., rjs@rob.sh, r., Tantsura,
and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing with MPLS data plane", J., and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing with MPLS data plane",
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-01 (work in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-02 (work in
progress), May 2015. progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Mitchell, J., and P. Lapukhov,
"BGP-Prefix Segment in large-scale data centers", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-00 (work in progress),
October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement] [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement]
Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Geib, R., Mirsky, G., Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Geib, R., Mirsky, G.,
and S. Litkowski, "OAM Requirements for Segment Routing and S. Litkowski, "OAM Requirements for Segment Routing
Network", draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement-00 (work in Network", draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement-00 (work in
progress), June 2015. progress), June 2015.
[I-D.previdi-6man-segment-routing-header]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Field, B., Leung, I., Linkova,
J., Kosugi, T., Vyncke, E., and D. Lebrun, "IPv6 Segment
Routing Header (SRH)", draft-previdi-6man-segment-routing-
header-08 (work in progress), October 2015.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P. [RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF", Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007, RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC5095, December 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5095>.
skipping to change at page 24, line 17 skipping to change at page 24, line 17
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Stephane Litkowski Stephane Litkowski
Orange Orange
FR FR
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Rob Shakir Rob Shakir
Individual Jive Communications, Inc.
1275 West 1600 North, Suite 100
Orem, UT 84057
Email: rjs@rob.sh Email: rjs@rob.sh
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
75 lines changed or deleted 83 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/