idnits 2.17.1 draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (January 9, 2017) is 2664 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC4657' is mentioned on line 458, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC2702' is mentioned on line 432, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC3031' is mentioned on line 437, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC3346' is mentioned on line 442, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC3630' is mentioned on line 448, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC4655' is mentioned on line 453, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC5305' is mentioned on line 463, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC5394' is mentioned on line 467, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC5557' is mentioned on line 472, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 385, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2205' is defined on line 390, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3209' is defined on line 395, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4090' is defined on line 400, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5088' is defined on line 405, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5089' is defined on line 410, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5511' is defined on line 425, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-pce-association-group-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-21) exists of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 21 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCE Working Group H. Ananthakrishnan 3 Internet-Draft Packet Design 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan 5 Expires: July 13, 2017 Cisco 6 C. Barth 7 R. Torvi 8 Juniper Networks 9 I. Minei 10 Google, Inc 11 E. Crabbe 12 January 9, 2017 14 PCEP Extensions for MPSL-TE LSP Path Protection with stateful PCE 15 draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection-02 17 Abstract 19 A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of computing as 20 well as controlling via Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) 21 Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering Label Switched 22 Paths (MPLS LSP). Furthermore, it is also possible for a stateful 23 PCE to create, maintain, and delete LSPs. This document describes 24 PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end 25 path protection. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 13, 2017. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 3.1. Path Protection Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 3.2. Path Protection Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 4.1. PCE Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 4.2. PCC Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 4.3. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 4.4. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 5.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 5.2. PPAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 5.3. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 77 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 78 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 79 8.2. Information References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 80 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 82 1. Introduction 84 [RFC5440] describes PCEP for communication between a Path Computation 85 Client (PCC) and a PCE or between one a pair of PCEs. A PCE computes 86 paths for MPLS-TE LSPs based on various constraints and optimization 87 criteria. 89 Stateful pce [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of 90 extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of paths such as MPLS 91 TE LSPs between and across PCEP sessions in compliance with 92 [RFC4657]. It includes mechanisms to effect LSP state 93 synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, delegation of control of LSPs 94 to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations 95 within and across PCEP sessions and focuses on a model where LSPs are 96 configured on the PCC and control over them is delegated to the PCE. 98 Furthermore, a mechanism to dynamically instantiate LSPs on a PCC 99 based on the requests from a stateful PCE or a controller using 100 stateful PCE is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 102 Path protection refers to a paradigm in which the working LSP is 103 protected by one or more protection LSP(s). When the working LSP 104 fails, protection LSP(s) is/are activated. When the working LSPs are 105 computed and controlled by the PCE, there is benefit in a mode of 106 operation where protection LSPs are as well. 108 This document specifies a stateful PCEP extension to associate two or 109 more LSPs for the purpose of setting up path protection. The 110 proposed extension covers the following scenarios: 112 1. A protection LSP is initiated on a PCC by a stateful PCE which 113 retains the control of the LSP. The PCE is responsible for 114 computing the path of the LSP and updating the PCC with the 115 information about the path. 117 2. A PCC initiates a protection LSP and retains the control of the 118 LSP. The PCC computes the path and updates the PCE with the 119 information about the path as long as it controls the LSP. 121 3. A PCC initiates a protection LSP and delegates the control of the 122 LSP to a stateful PCE. The PCE may compute the path for the LSP 123 and update the PCC with the information about the path as long as 124 it controls the LSP. 126 Note that protection LSP can be established prior to the failure (in 127 which case the LSP is said to me in standby mode) or post failure of 128 the corresponding working LSP according to the operator choice/ 129 policy. 131 2. Terminology 133 The following terminologies are used in this document: 135 AGID: Association Group ID. 137 ERO: Explicit Route Object. 139 LSP: Label Switched Path. 141 PCC: Path Computation Client. 143 PCE: Path Computation Element 145 PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol. 147 PPAG: Path Protection Association Group. 149 TLV: Type, Length, and Value. 151 3. PCEP Extensions 153 3.1. Path Protection Association Type 155 LSPs are not associated by listing the other LSPs with which they 156 interact, but rather by making them belong to an association group 157 referred to as "Path Protection Association Group" (PPAG) in this 158 document. All LSPs join a PPAG individually. PPAG is based on the 159 generic Association object used to associate two or more LSPs 160 specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. A member of a PPAG 161 can take the role of working or protection LSP. This document 162 defines a new association type called "Path Protection Association 163 Type" of value TBD1. A PPAG can have one working LSP and/or one or 164 more protection LSPs. The source and destination of all LSPs within 165 a PPAG MUST be the same. 167 The format of the Association object used for PPAG is specified in 168 [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and replicatd in this document for 169 easy reference in Figure 1 and Figure 2. 171 0 1 2 3 172 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 1 173 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 174 | Reserved | Flags |R| 175 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 176 | Association type = TBD1 | Association | 177 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 178 | IPv4 Association Source | 179 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 180 // Optional TLVs // 181 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 183 Figure 1: PPAG IPv4 ASSOCIATION Object format 185 0 1 2 3 186 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 1 187 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 188 | Reserved | Flags |R| 189 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 190 | Association Type = TBD1 | Association | 191 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 192 | | 193 | IPv6 Association Source | 194 | | 195 | | 196 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 197 // Optional TLVs // 198 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 200 Figure 2: PPAG IPv6 ASSOCIATION Object format 202 This document defines a new Association type, the Path Protection 203 Association type, value will be assigned by IANA (TBD1). 205 3.2. Path Protection Association TLV 207 The Path Protection Association TLV is an optional TLV for use with 208 the Path Protection Association Object Type. The Path Protection 209 Association TLV MUST NOT be present more than once. If it appears 210 more than once, only the first occurrence is processed and any others 211 MUST be ignored. 213 The Path Protection Association TLV follows the PCEP TLV format of 214 [RFC5440]. 216 The type (16 bits) of the TLV is to be assigned by IANA. The length 217 field is 16 bit-long and has a fixed value of 4. 219 The value comprises a single field, the Path Protection Association 220 Flags (32 bits), where each bit represents a flag option. 222 The format of the Path Protection Association TLV (Figure 3) is as 223 follows: 225 0 1 2 3 226 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 1 227 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 228 | Type = TBD2 | Length | 229 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 230 | Path Protection Association Flags |S|P| 231 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 233 Figure 3: Path Protection Association TLV format 235 P (PROTECTION-LSP 1 bit) - Indicates whether the LSP associated with 236 the PPAG is working or protection LSP. If this flag is set, the LSP 237 is a protection LSP. 239 S (STANDBY 1 bit)- When the P flag is set, the S flag indcates 240 whether the protection LSP associated with the PPAG is in standby 241 mode. The S flag is ignored if the P flag is not set. 243 If the Path Protection Association TLV is missing, it means the LSP 244 is the working LSP. 246 4. Operation 248 4.1. PCE Initiated LSPs 250 A PCE can create/update working and protection LSPs independently. 251 As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], Association Groups 252 can be created by both PCE and PCC. 254 A PCE can remove a protection LSP from a PPAG as specified in 255 [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. 257 4.2. PCC Initiated LSPs 259 A PCC can associate a set of LSPs under its control for path 260 protection purpose. Similarly, the PCC can remove on or more LSPs 261 under its control from the corresponding PPAG. In both cases, the 262 PCC must report the change in association to PCE(s) via PCRpt 263 message. 265 A stateless PCC can request protection to a PCE thorugh PCReq 266 message. 268 4.3. State Synchronization 270 During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing path 271 protection association groups as well as any path protection flags to 272 PCE(s). Following the state synchronization, the PCE MUST remove all 273 stale path protection associations. 275 4.4. Error Handling 277 All LSPs (working or protection) within a PPAG MUST have the same 278 source and destination. If a PCE attempts to add an LSP to a PPAG 279 and the source and/or destination of the LSP is/are different from 280 the LSP(s) in the PPAG, the PCC MUST send PCErr with Error-Type= TBD3 281 (Path Protection Association Error) and Error-Value = 1 (End points 282 mismatch). 284 There MUST be only one working LSP within a PPAG. If a PCEP Speaker 285 attempts to add another working LSP, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr 286 with Error-Type=TBD3(Path Protection Association Error) and Error- 287 Value = 2 (Attempt to add another working LSP). 289 5. IANA considerations 291 5.1. Association Type 293 This document defines a new association type for path protection as 294 follows: 296 +-------------------------+-------------------------+---------------+ 297 | Association Type Value | Association Name | Reference | 298 +-------------------------+-------------------------+---------------+ 299 | TBD1 (Suggested value - | Path Protection | This | 300 | 1) | Association | document | 301 +-------------------------+-------------------------+---------------+ 303 5.2. PPAG TLV 305 This document defines a new TLV for carrying additional information 306 of LSPs within a path protection association group as follows: 308 +-----------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+ 309 | TLV Type Value | TLV Name | Reference | 310 +-----------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+ 311 | TBD2 (suggested Value | Path Protection Association | This | 312 | - 29) | Group TLV | document | 313 +-----------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+ 314 This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "Path 315 protection Association Group TLV Flag Field", is created within the 316 "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage 317 the Flag field in the Path Protection Association Group TLV. New 318 values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226]. Each bit 319 should be tracked with the following qualities: 321 Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: 323 o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit) 325 o Name flag 327 o Reference 329 +------------+--------------------+----------------+ 330 | Bit Number | Name | Reference | 331 +------------+--------------------+----------------+ 332 | 31 | P - PROTECTION-LSP | This document | 333 | 30 | S - STANDBY | This document | 334 +------------+--------------------+----------------+ 336 Table 1: PPAG TLV 338 5.3. PCEP Errors 340 This document defines new Error-Type and Error-Value related to path 341 protection association as follows: 343 +-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ 344 | Error-Type | Meaning | 345 +-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ 346 | TBD3 (suggested value - | Path Protection Association error: | 347 | 25) | | 348 | | Error-value=1: End-Points mismatch | 349 | | Error-value=2: Attempt to add another | 350 | | working LSP | 351 +-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ 353 6. Security Considerations 355 The same security considerations apply in head end as described in 356 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] 358 7. Acknowledgments 360 We would like to thank Jeff Tantsura, Dhruv Dhody and Zhangxian for 361 their contributions to this document. 363 8. References 365 8.1. Normative References 367 [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] 368 Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., 369 Zhang, X., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for 370 Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft- 371 ietf-pce-association-group-01 (work in progress), July 372 2016. 374 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] 375 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP 376 Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 377 Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 (work in 378 progress), July 2016. 380 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] 381 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP 382 Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- 383 pce-18 (work in progress), December 2016. 385 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 386 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 387 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 388 . 390 [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. 391 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 392 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, 393 September 1997, . 395 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 396 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 397 Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, 398 . 400 [RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast 401 Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, 402 DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005, 403 . 405 [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. 406 Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation 407 Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088, 408 January 2008, . 410 [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. 411 Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation 412 Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089, 413 January 2008, . 415 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 416 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 417 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 418 . 420 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 421 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 422 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 423 . 425 [RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax 426 Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol 427 Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511, April 428 2009, . 430 8.2. Information References 432 [RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J. 433 McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", 434 RFC 2702, DOI 10.17487/RFC2702, September 1999, 435 . 437 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol 438 Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, 439 DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, 440 . 442 [RFC3346] Boyle, J., Gill, V., Hannan, A., Cooper, D., Awduche, D., 443 Christian, B., and W. Lai, "Applicability Statement for 444 Traffic Engineering with MPLS", RFC 3346, 445 DOI 10.17487/RFC3346, August 2002, 446 . 448 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering 449 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, 450 DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, 451 . 453 [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation 454 Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, 455 DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, 456 . 458 [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 459 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic 460 Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September 461 2006, . 463 [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 464 Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 465 2008, . 467 [RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash, 468 "Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394, 469 DOI 10.17487/RFC5394, December 2008, 470 . 472 [RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path 473 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 474 Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global 475 Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, DOI 10.17487/RFC5557, 476 July 2009, . 478 Authors' Addresses 480 Hariharan Ananthakrishnan 481 Packet Design 482 1 South Almaden Blvd, #1150, 483 San Jose, CA, 95113 484 USA 486 EMail: hari@packetdesign.com 488 Siva Sivabalan 489 Cisco 490 2000 Innovation Drive 491 Kananta, Ontaria K2K 3E8 492 Cananda 494 EMail: msiva@cisco.com 495 Colby Barth 496 Juniper Networks 497 1194 N Mathilda Ave, 498 Sunnyvale, CA, 94086 499 USA 501 EMail: cbarth@juniper.net 503 Raveendra Torvi 504 Juniper Networks 505 1194 N Mathilda Ave, 506 Sunnyvale, CA, 94086 507 USA 509 EMail: rtorvi@juniper.net 511 Ina Minei 512 Google, Inc 513 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 514 Mountain View, CA, 94043 515 USA 517 EMail: inaminei@google.com 519 Edward Crabbe 521 EMail: edward.crabbe@gmail.com