| < draft-li-rtgwg-enhanced-ti-lfa-05.txt | draft-li-rtgwg-enhanced-ti-lfa-06.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTGWG Working Group C. Li | RTGWG Working Group C. Li | |||
| Internet-Draft Z. Hu | Internet-Draft Z. Hu | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies | Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies | |||
| Expires: April 24, 2022 Y. Zhu | Expires: 24 October 2022 Y. Zhu | |||
| China Telecom | China Telecom | |||
| S. Hegde | S. Hegde | |||
| Juniper Networks Inc. | Juniper Networks Inc. | |||
| October 21, 2021 | 22 April 2022 | |||
| Enhanced Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast Re-route | Enhanced Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast Re-route | |||
| draft-li-rtgwg-enhanced-ti-lfa-05 | draft-li-rtgwg-enhanced-ti-lfa-06 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast Re-route (TI-LFA) aims | Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast Re-route (TI-LFA) aims | |||
| at providing protection of node and adjacency segments within the | at providing protection of node and adjacency segments within the | |||
| Segment Routing (SR) framework. A key aspect of TI-LFA is the FRR | Segment Routing (SR) framework. A key aspect of TI-LFA is the FRR | |||
| path selection approach establishing protection over the expected | path selection approach establishing protection over the expected | |||
| post-convergence paths from the point of local repair. However, the | post-convergence paths from the point of local repair. However, the | |||
| TI-LFA FRR path may skip the node even if it is specified in the SID | TI-LFA FRR path may skip the node even if it is specified in the SID | |||
| list to be traveled. | list to be traveled. | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶ | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2022. | This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 October 2022. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | |||
| (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | |||
| carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components | |||
| to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as | |||
| include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are | |||
| the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. | |||
| described in the Simplified BSD License. | ||||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
| 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 3. Overview of Enhanced TI-LFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 3. Overview of Enhanced TI-LFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 4. IGP Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 4. IGP Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 4.1. IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 4.1. IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 4.2. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.2. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 5. Flags in SRH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 5. Flags in SRH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 5.1. No-bypass Flag in SRH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 5.1. No-bypass Flag in SRH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 5.2. No-FRR Flag in SRH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5.2. No-FRR Flag in SRH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Segment Routing [RFC8402] enables to steer packets by explicitly | Segment Routing [RFC8402] enables to steer packets by explicitly | |||
| encoding instructions in the data packets at the source node to | encoding instructions in the data packets at the source node to | |||
| support services like traffic engineer. Relying on SR, | support services like traffic engineer. Relying on SR, | |||
| [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] defines Topology Independent | [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] defines Topology Independent | |||
| Loop-free Alternate Fast Re-route (TI-LFA), a local repair mechanism | Loop-free Alternate Fast Re-route (TI-LFA), a local repair mechanism | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 11 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 16 ¶ | |||
| Instead, in TI-LFA+, when generating repair SID list for a SID, the | Instead, in TI-LFA+, when generating repair SID list for a SID, the | |||
| node should consider whether the SID endpoint can be baseed or not, | node should consider whether the SID endpoint can be baseed or not, | |||
| which is explicitly encoded in IGP messages. If the node that | which is explicitly encoded in IGP messages. If the node that | |||
| segment points to can not be bypassed, then the repair SID MUST lead | segment points to can not be bypassed, then the repair SID MUST lead | |||
| the packets to that node. This document defines a No-bypass flag for | the packets to that node. This document defines a No-bypass flag for | |||
| segments in IS-IS and OSPF. Details will be discussed in section 4. | segments in IS-IS and OSPF. Details will be discussed in section 4. | |||
| A node should advertise two kinds of segment to meet various service | A node should advertise two kinds of segment to meet various service | |||
| policy requirements. | policy requirements. | |||
| o Bypassing capable segment with No-bypass flag unset | * Bypassing capable segment with No-bypass flag unset | |||
| o No-bypassing segment with No-bypass flag set. | * No-bypassing segment with No-bypass flag set. | |||
| A controller or control plane should choose specific segment | A controller or control plane should choose specific segment | |||
| according to the service policy. | according to the service policy. | |||
| [Editors' note] If the TI-LFA result is generated based on Locator | [Editors' note] If the TI-LFA result is generated based on Locator | |||
| route instead of SIDs, then the No-bypass Flag can be applied to the | route instead of SIDs, then the No-bypass Flag can be applied to the | |||
| Locator. | Locator. | |||
| Also, this document defines No-bypass flag and No-FRR flag in SRH to | Also, this document defines No-bypass flag and No-FRR flag in SRH to | |||
| indicate not to bypass nodes and not to perform FRR on all the nodes | indicate not to bypass nodes and not to perform FRR on all the nodes | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 37 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 42 ¶ | |||
| 4. IGP Protocol Extensions | 4. IGP Protocol Extensions | |||
| 4.1. IS-IS | 4.1. IS-IS | |||
| [RFC8667] describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be | [RFC8667] describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be | |||
| introduced for Segment Routing.[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] | introduced for Segment Routing.[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] | |||
| defines the IS-IS extensions required to support Segment Routing over | defines the IS-IS extensions required to support Segment Routing over | |||
| an IPv6 data plane. This documment defines a No-bypass flag in flag | an IPv6 data plane. This documment defines a No-bypass flag in flag | |||
| filed of the following IS-IS sub-TLV/TLV. | filed of the following IS-IS sub-TLV/TLV. | |||
| o Prefix Segment Identifier sub-TLV (Prefix-SID sub-TLV) [RFC8667] | * Prefix Segment Identifier sub-TLV (Prefix-SID sub-TLV) [RFC8667] | |||
| o Adjacency Segment Identifier sub- TLV (Adj-SID sub-TLV).[RFC8667] | * Adjacency Segment Identifier sub- TLV (Adj-SID sub-TLV).[RFC8667] | |||
| o Locator entry in SRv6 Locator TLV | * Locator entry in SRv6 Locator TLV | |||
| [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] | [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] | |||
| The following figures are included here for reference and will be | The following figures are included here for reference and will be | |||
| deleted in the future version. | deleted in the future version. | |||
| 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 | Flags | Algorithm | | | Type | Length | Flags | Algorithm | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 35 ¶ | |||
| bypassed. | bypassed. | |||
| 4.2. OSPF | 4.2. OSPF | |||
| [RFC8665] describes the necessary OSPF extensions that need to be | [RFC8665] describes the necessary OSPF extensions that need to be | |||
| introduced for Segment Routing.[I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] | introduced for Segment Routing.[I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] | |||
| defines the OSPF extensions required to support Segment Routing over | defines the OSPF extensions required to support Segment Routing over | |||
| an IPv6 data plane. This documment defines a No-bypass flag in flag | an IPv6 data plane. This documment defines a No-bypass flag in flag | |||
| filed of the following OSPF sub-TLV/TLV. | filed of the following OSPF sub-TLV/TLV. | |||
| o Prefix SID Sub-TLV [RFC8665] | * Prefix SID Sub-TLV [RFC8665] | |||
| o Adj-SID sub-TLV [RFC8665] | * Adj-SID sub-TLV [RFC8665] | |||
| o SRv6 Node SID TLV [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] | * SRv6 Node SID TLV [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] | |||
| o SRv6 SID Link Attribute Sub-TLV | * SRv6 SID Link Attribute Sub-TLV | |||
| [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] | [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] | |||
| The following figures are included here for reference and will be | The following figures are included here for reference and will be | |||
| deleted in the future version. | deleted in the future version. | |||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Type | Length | | | Type | Length | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 42 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 18 ¶ | |||
| 5.1. No-bypass Flag in SRH | 5.1. No-bypass Flag in SRH | |||
| This document defines a No-bypass Flag in SRH [RFC8754]. | This document defines a No-bypass Flag in SRH [RFC8754]. | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| |NB| | | | | | | | | |NB| | | | | | | | | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| o NB Flag: No-Bypass flag, when the flag is set, the repair segment | * NB Flag: No-Bypass flag, when the flag is set, the repair segment | |||
| endpoint nodes MUST NOT bypass any nodes when link or node | endpoint nodes MUST NOT bypass any nodes when link or node | |||
| failures occur. When a link is down, the packet MUST be forwarded | failures occur. When a link is down, the packet MUST be forwarded | |||
| to the next segment endpoint node through the repair path. When | to the next segment endpoint node through the repair path. When | |||
| the node identified by the active SID in IPv6 destination address | the node identified by the active SID in IPv6 destination address | |||
| is down, the SID can not be skipped, and the traffic MUST be | is down, the SID can not be skipped, and the traffic MUST be | |||
| forwarded to the node. | forwarded to the node. | |||
| The flag can be set when the SID list containing service SIDs like | The flag can be set when the SID list containing service SIDs like | |||
| firewall SID, so that the traffic will not bypass the service nodes. | firewall SID, so that the traffic will not bypass the service nodes. | |||
| 5.2. No-FRR Flag in SRH | 5.2. No-FRR Flag in SRH | |||
| This document defines a No-FRR Flag in SRH [RFC8754]. | This document defines a No-FRR Flag in SRH [RFC8754]. | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| | |NF| | | | | | | | | |NF| | | | | | | | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| o NF Flag: No-FRR flag, when the flag is set, the FRR is disable for | * NF Flag: No-FRR flag, when the flag is set, the FRR is disable for | |||
| the packet, thus the packet will not be protected by the Local | the packet, thus the packet will not be protected by the Local | |||
| protection mechanism, such as TI-LFA. | protection mechanism, such as TI-LFA. | |||
| The flag can be set when the SID list containing service SIDs like | The flag can be set when the SID list containing service SIDs like | |||
| firewall SID, so that the traffic will not bypass the service nodes. | firewall SID, so that the traffic will not bypass the service nodes. | |||
| In this case, E2E protection mechanism should be deployed. | In this case, E2E protection mechanism should be deployed. | |||
| 6. IANA Considerations | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
| TBD. | TBD. | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 19 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 41 ¶ | |||
| [RFC6571] Filsfils, C., Ed., Francois, P., Ed., Shand, M., Decraene, | [RFC6571] Filsfils, C., Ed., Francois, P., Ed., Shand, M., Decraene, | |||
| B., Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free | B., Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free | |||
| Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP) | Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP) | |||
| Networks", RFC 6571, DOI 10.17487/RFC6571, June 2012, | Networks", RFC 6571, DOI 10.17487/RFC6571, June 2012, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6571>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6571>. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] | [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] | |||
| Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P., | Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P., | |||
| Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast | Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast | |||
| Reroute using Segment Routing", draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment- | Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress, | |||
| routing-ti-lfa-07 (work in progress), June 2021. | Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa- | |||
| 08, 21 January 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/ | ||||
| draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-08.txt>. | ||||
| [RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., | [RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., | |||
| Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header | Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header | |||
| (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020, | (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>. | |||
| 8.2. Informative References | 8.2. Informative References | |||
| [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation | [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J.L. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation | |||
| Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic | Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic | |||
| Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September | Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September | |||
| 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>. | 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>. | |||
| [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, | [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, | |||
| "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the | "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the | |||
| Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", | Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", | |||
| RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, | RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 35 ¶ | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>. | |||
| [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, | [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, | |||
| H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF | H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF | |||
| Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, | Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] | [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] | |||
| Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak, | Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak, | |||
| "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-lsr- | "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet- | |||
| ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02 (work in progress), February | Draft, draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-03, 19 | |||
| 2021. | November 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft- | |||
| ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-03.txt>. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] | [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] | |||
| Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and | Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and | |||
| Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over | Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over | |||
| IPv6 Dataplane", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-18 | IPv6 Dataplane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | |||
| (work in progress), October 2021. | ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-18, 20 October 2021, | |||
| <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6- | ||||
| extensions-18.txt>. | ||||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Cheng Li | Cheng Li | |||
| Huawei Technologies | Huawei Technologies | |||
| Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. | Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. | |||
| Beijing 100095 | ||||
| China | ||||
| Beijing | ||||
| 100095 | ||||
| China | ||||
| Email: c.l@huawei.com | Email: c.l@huawei.com | |||
| Zhibo Hu | Zhibo Hu | |||
| Huawei Technologies | Huawei Technologies | |||
| Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. | Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. | |||
| Beijing 100095 | Beijing | |||
| 100095 | ||||
| China | China | |||
| Email: huzhibo@huawei.com | Email: huzhibo@huawei.com | |||
| Yongqing Zhu | Yongqing Zhu | |||
| China Telecom | China Telecom | |||
| Email: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn | Email: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn | |||
| Shraddha Hegde | Shraddha Hegde | |||
| Juniper Networks Inc. | Juniper Networks Inc. | |||
| India | India | |||
| Email: shraddha@juniper.net | Email: shraddha@juniper.net | |||
| End of changes. 30 change blocks. | ||||
| 43 lines changed or deleted | 47 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/ | ||||