idnits 2.17.1 draft-dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-01.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 12 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. 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 16, 2019) is 1919 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC4272' is defined on line 400, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4364' is defined on line 404, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6952' is defined on line 413, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn' is defined on line 427, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header' is defined on line 442, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement' is defined on line 448, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid' is defined on line 460, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions' is defined on line 472, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy' is defined on line 484, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 490, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4271' is defined on line 495, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4659' is defined on line 500, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5549' is defined on line 505, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming-01 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4272 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5706 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6952 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7752 (Obsoleted by RFC 9552) == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-15 == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-11 == Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-25) exists of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-22 == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-02 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5549 (Obsoleted by RFC 8950) Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 23 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Inter-Domain Routing G. Dawra, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft LinkedIn 4 Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils 5 Expires: July 20, 2019 Cisco Systems 6 D. Bernier 7 Bell Canada 8 J. Uttaro 9 AT&T 10 B. Decraene 11 Orange 12 H. Elmalky 13 Ericsson 14 X. Xu 15 Alibaba 16 F. Clad 17 K. Talaulikar 18 Cisco Systems 19 January 16, 2019 21 BGP-LS Advertisement of Segment Routing Service Segments 22 draft-dawra-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-01 24 Abstract 26 BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) enables distribution of topology information 27 from the network to a Path Computation Engine (PCE) or any 28 controller/application in general so it can learn the network 29 topology. Service functions are deployed as virtualized elements 30 along with network elements or on servers in data centers. The 31 advertisement of such attached service capabilities along with the 32 network nodes that they are attached to or associated with enable 33 their discovery and for programming of service paths that use these 34 service functions. Segment Routing (SR) bring in the concept of 35 segments which can be topological or service instructions. SR 36 Policies enable setup of paths which are a mix of topological and 37 service segments. 39 This document specifies the extensions to BGP-LS for discovery and 40 advertisement of service segments so as to enable setup of service 41 programming paths using Segment Routing. 43 Status of This Memo 45 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 46 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 48 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 49 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 50 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 51 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 53 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 54 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 55 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 56 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 58 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 20, 2019. 60 Copyright Notice 62 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 63 document authors. All rights reserved. 65 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 66 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 67 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 68 publication of this document. Please review these documents 69 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 70 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 71 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 72 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 73 described in the Simplified BSD License. 75 Table of Contents 77 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 78 2. BGP-LS Extensions for Service Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 3. Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 4.1. Service Type Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 4.2. Segment routing function Identifier(SFI) . . . . . . . . 8 83 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 84 6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 85 6.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 86 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 87 8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 88 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 89 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 90 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 91 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 92 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 94 1. Introduction 96 Segments are introduced in the SR architecture 97 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. Segment Routing based Service 98 chaining is well described in Section 6 of 99 [I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming] document with an example 100 network and services. 102 This document extend the example to add a Segment Routing Controller 103 (SR-C) to the network, for the purpose of service discovery and SR 104 policy instantiation. 106 Consider the network represented in Figure 1 below where: 108 o A and B are two end hosts using IPv4. 110 o S1 is an SR-aware firewall Service. 112 o S2 is an SR-unaware DPI Service. 114 SR-C --3-- 115 | / \ 116 | / \ 117 A----1----2----4----5----6----B 118 | | 119 | | 120 S1 S2 122 Figure 1: Network with Services 124 SR Controller (SR-C) is connected to Node 1, but may be attached to 125 any node 1-6 in the network. 127 SR-C is capable of receiving BGP-LS updates to discover topology, and 128 calculating constrained paths between 1 and 6. 130 However, if SR-C is configured to computation a constrained path from 131 1 and 6, including a DPI service (i.e., S2) it is not yet possible 132 due to the lack of service distribution. SR-C does not know where a 133 DPI Service is nor the SID for it. It does not know that S2 is a 134 service it needs. 136 This document proposes an extension to BGP-LS for Service Chaining to 137 distribute the service information to SR-C. There may be other 138 alternate mechanisms to distribute service information to SR-C and 139 are outside of scope of this document. There are no extensions 140 required in SR-TE Policy SAFI. 142 2. BGP-LS Extensions for Service Chaining 144 For an attached service, following data needs to be shared with SR-C: 146 o Service SID value (e.g. MPLS label or IPv6 address). Service SID 147 MAY only be encoded as LOC:FUNCT, where LOC is the L most 148 significant bits and FUNCT is the 128-L least significant 149 bits[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. ARGs bits, if 150 any, MAY be set to 0 in the advertised service SID. 152 o Function Identifier (Static Proxy, Dynamic Proxy, Shared Memory 153 Proxy, Masquerading Proxy, SR Aware Service etc). 155 o Service Type (DPI, Firewall, Classifier, LB etc). 157 o Traffic Type (IPv4 OR IPv6 OR Ethernet) 159 o Opaque Data (Such as brand and version, other extra information) 161 [I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming]defines SR-aware and SR- 162 unaware services. This document will reuse these definitions. Per 163 [RFC7752] Node Attributes are ONLY associated with the Node NLRI. 164 All non-VPN information SHALL be encoded using AFI 16388 / SAFI 71. 165 VPN information SHALL be encoded using AFI 16388 / SAFI 72 with 166 associated RTs. 168 This document extends SRv6 Node SID TLV 169 [I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] and SR-MPLS SID/Label TLV 170 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] to associate the Service 171 SID Value with Service-related Information using Service Chaining(SC) 172 Sub-TLV. 174 Function Sub-TLV [I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] of Node SID TLV 175 encodes Identifier(Function ID) along with associated Function Flags. 177 A Service Chaining (SC) Sub-TLV in Figure 2 is defined as: 179 +---------------------------------------+ 180 | Type (2 octet) | 181 +---------------------------------------+ 182 | Length (2 octet) | 183 +---------------------------------------+ 184 | Service Type(ST) (2 octet | 185 +---------------------------------------+ 186 | Flags (1 octet) | 187 +---------------------------------------+ 188 | Traffic Type(1 octet) | 189 +---------------------------------------+ 190 | RESERVED (2 octet) | 191 +---------------------------------------+ 193 Figure 2: Service Chaining(SC) Sub-TLV 195 Where: 197 Type: 16 bit field. TBD 199 Length: 16 bit field. The total length of the value portion of 200 the TLV. 202 Service Type(ST): 16bit field. Service Type: categorizes the 203 Service: (such as "Firewall", "Classifier" etc). 205 Flags: 8 bit field. Bits SHOULD be 0 on transmission and MUST be 206 ignored on reception. 208 Traffic Type: 8 Bit field. A bit to identify if Service is IPv4 209 OR IPv6 OR L2 Ethernet Capable. Where: 211 Bit 0(LSB): Set to 1 if Service is IPv4 Capable 213 Bit 1: Set to 1 if Service is IPv6 Capable 215 Bit 2: Set to 1 if Service is Ethernet Capable 217 RESERVED: 16bit field. SHOULD be 0 on transmission and MUST be 218 ignored on reception. 220 Service Type(ST) MUST be encoded as part of SC Sub-TLV. 222 There may be multiple instances of similar Services that needs to be 223 distinguished. For example, firewalls made by different vendors A 224 and B may need to be identified differently because, while they have 225 similar functionality, their behavior is not identical. 227 In order for SDN Controller to identify the categories of Services 228 and their associated SIDs, this section defines the BGP-LS extensions 229 required to encode these characteristics and other relevant 230 information about these Services. 232 Another Optional Opaque Metadata(OM) Sub-TLV of Node SID TLV may 233 encode vendor specific information. Multiple of OM Sub-TLVs may be 234 encoded. 236 +---------------------------------------+ 237 | Type (2 octet) | 238 +---------------------------------------+ 239 | Length (2 octet) | 240 +---------------------------------------+ 241 | Opaque Type (2 octet) | 242 +---------------------------------------+ 243 | Flags (1 octet) | 244 +---------------------------------------+ 245 | Value (variable) | 246 +---------------------------------------+ 248 Figure 3: Opaque Metadata(OM) Sub-TLV 250 o Type: 16 bit field. TBD. 252 o Length: 16 bit field. The total length of the value portion of 253 the TLV. 255 o Opaque Type: 8-bit field. Only publishers and consumers of the 256 opaque data are supposed to understand the data. 258 o Flags: 8 bit field. Bits SHOULD be 0 on transmission and MUST be 259 ignored on reception. 261 o Value: Variable Length. Based on the data being encoded and 262 length is recorded in length field. 264 Opaque Metadata(OM) Sub-TLV defined in Figure 3 may encode propriety 265 or Service Opaque information such as: 267 o Vendor specific Service Information. 269 o Traffic Limiting Information to particular Service Type. 271 o Opaque Information unique to the Service 273 o Propriety Enterprise Service specific Information. 275 3. Illustration 277 In our SRv6 example above Figure 1 , Node 5 is configured with an 278 SRv6 dynamic proxy segments (End.AD) C5::AD:F2 for S2. 280 The BGP-LS advertisement MUST contain and Node SID TLV: 282 o Service SID: C5::AD:F2 SID 284 o Function ID: END.AD 286 The BGP-LS advertisement MUST contain a SC Sub-TLV with: 288 o Service Type: Deep Packet Inspection(DPI) 290 o Traffic Type: IPv4 Capable. 292 The BGP-LS advertisement MAY contain a OM Sub-TLV with: 294 o Opaque Type: Cisco DPI Version 296 o Value: 3.5 298 In our example in Figure 1, using BGP SR-TE SAFI Update 299 [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], SR Controller computes the 300 candidate path and pushes the Policy. 302 SRv6 encapsulation policy < CF1::, C3::, C5::AD:F2, C6::D4:B > is 303 signaled to Node 1 which has mix of service and topological segments. 305 4. IANA Considerations 307 This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP- 308 LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute 309 TLVs". 311 4.1. Service Type Table 313 IANA is request to create a new top-level registry called "Service 314 Type Table (STT)". Valid values are in the range 0 to 65535. Values 315 0 and 65535 are to be marked "Reserved, not to be allocated". 317 +--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ 318 | Service | Service | Reference | Date | 319 | Value(TBD) | | | | 320 +--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ 321 | 32 | Classifier | ref-to-set | date-to-set | 322 +--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ 323 | 33 | Firewall | ref-to-set | date-to-set | 324 +--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ 325 | 34 | Load Balancer | ref-to-set | date-to-set | 326 +--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ 327 | 35 | DPI | ref-to-set | date-to-set | 328 +--------------+---------------------------+--------------+----------------+ 330 Figure 4 332 4.2. Segment routing function Identifier(SFI) 334 IANA is request to extend a top-level registry called "Segment 335 Routing Function Identifier(SFI)" with new code points. This 336 document extends the SFI values defined in 337 [I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]. Details about the Service functions 338 are defined in[I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming]. 340 +--------------------------+---------------------------+ 341 | Function | Function Identifier | 342 | | | 343 +--------------------------+---------------------------+ 344 | Static Proxy | 8 | 345 +--------------------------+---------------------------+ 346 | Dynamic Proxy | 9 | 347 +--------------------------+---------------------------+ 348 | Shared Memory Proxy | 10 | 349 +--------------------------+---------------------------+ 350 | Masquerading Proxy | 11 | 351 +--------------------------+---------------------------+ 352 | SRv6 Aware Service | 12 | 353 +--------------------------+---------------------------+ 355 5. Manageability Considerations 357 This section is structured as recommended in[RFC5706] 359 6. Operational Considerations 360 6.1. Operations 362 Existing BGP and BGP-LS operational procedures apply. No additional 363 operation procedures are defined in this document. 365 7. Security Considerations 367 Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not 368 affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations' 369 section of [RFC4271]for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer 370 to[RFC4272]and[RFC6952]for analysis of security issues for BGP. 372 8. Conclusions 374 This document proposes extensions to the BGP-LS to allow discovery of 375 Services using Segment Routing. 377 9. Acknowledgements 379 The authors would like to thank Krishnaswamy Ananthamurthy for his 380 review of this document. 382 10. References 384 10.1. Normative References 386 [I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] 387 Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M., 388 daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., Uttaro, J., Decraene, B., and 389 H. Elmalky, "BGP Link State extensions for IPv6 Segment 390 Routing(SRv6)", draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04 (work in 391 progress), September 2018. 393 [I-D.xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming] 394 Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, 395 d., Li, C., Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C., 396 Henderickx, W., and S. Salsano, "Service Programming with 397 Segment Routing", draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service- 398 programming-01 (work in progress), October 2018. 400 [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", 401 RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, 402 . 404 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 405 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 406 2006, . 408 [RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and 409 Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions", 410 RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009, 411 . 413 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 414 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 415 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 416 Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, 417 . 419 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 420 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 421 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 422 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 423 . 425 10.2. Informative References 427 [I-D.dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn] 428 (Unknown), (., Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., 429 Brissette, P., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., 430 daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., 431 Steinberg, D., Raszuk, R., Decraene, B., and S. 432 Matsushima, "BGP Signaling of IPv6-Segment-Routing-based 433 VPN Networks", draft-dawra-bgp-srv6-vpn-00 (work in 434 progress), March 2017. 436 [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] 437 Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., 438 daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 439 Network Programming", draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network- 440 programming-06 (work in progress), October 2018. 442 [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] 443 Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and 444 d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header 445 (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-15 (work in 446 progress), October 2018. 448 [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement] 449 Rabadan, J., Henderickx, W., Drake, J., Lin, W., and A. 450 Sajassi, "IP Prefix Advertisement in EVPN", draft-ietf- 451 bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11 (work in progress), May 452 2018. 454 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] 455 Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., 456 and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment 457 Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-11 458 (work in progress), October 2018. 460 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid] 461 Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A., 462 and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for 463 BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress), 464 June 2018. 466 [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] 467 Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Jain, D., Mattes, P., Rosen, 468 E., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in 469 BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05 (work in 470 progress), November 2018. 472 [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] 473 Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., 474 Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for 475 Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- 476 extensions-22 (work in progress), December 2018. 478 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] 479 Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., 480 Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing 481 Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work 482 in progress), January 2018. 484 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] 485 Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., 486 bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing 487 Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- 488 policy-02 (work in progress), October 2018. 490 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 491 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 492 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 493 . 495 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 496 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 497 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 498 . 500 [RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur, 501 "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for 502 IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006, 503 . 505 [RFC5549] Le Faucheur, F. and E. Rosen, "Advertising IPv4 Network 506 Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop", 507 RFC 5549, DOI 10.17487/RFC5549, May 2009, 508 . 510 Authors' Addresses 512 Gaurav Dawra (editor) 513 LinkedIn 514 USA 516 Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com 518 Clarence Filsfils 519 Cisco Systems 520 Belgium 522 Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com 524 Daniel Bernier 525 Bell Canada 526 Canada 528 Email: daniel.bernier@bell.ca 530 Jim Uttaro 531 AT&T 532 USA 534 Email: ju1738@att.com 536 Bruno Decraene 537 Orange 538 France 540 Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com 541 Hani Elmalky 542 Ericsson 543 USA 545 Email: hani.elmalky@gmail.com 547 Xiaohu Xu 548 Alibaba 550 Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com 552 Francois Clad 553 Cisco Systems 554 France 556 Email: fclad@cisco.com 558 Ketan Talaulikar 559 Cisco Systems 560 India 562 Email: ketant@cisco.com