idnits 2.17.1 draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses. Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too? Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (June 6, 2014) is 3611 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1000' on line 423 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1999' on line 423 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-ospfv3-extension-01 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed. 4 Intended status: Standards Track A. Bashandy 5 Expires: December 8, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 B. Decraene 7 S. Litkowski 8 Orange 9 M. Horneffer 10 Deutsche Telekom 11 I. Milojevic 12 Telekom Srbija 13 R. Shakir 14 British Telecom 15 S. Ytti 16 TDC Oy 17 W. Henderickx 18 Alcatel-Lucent 19 J. Tantsura 20 Ericsson 21 E. Crabbe 22 Google, Inc. 23 June 6, 2014 25 Segment Routing with MPLS data plane 26 draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-02 28 Abstract 30 Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node 31 steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called 32 segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can 33 represent any instruction, topological or service-based. SR allows 34 to enforce a flow through any topological path and service chain 35 while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node to the SR 36 domain. 38 Segment Routing can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with 39 no change in the forwarding plane. This drafts describes how Segment 40 Routing operates on top of the MPLS data plane. 42 Requirements Language 44 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 45 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 46 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 48 Status of This Memo 50 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 51 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 53 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 54 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 55 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 56 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 58 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 59 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 60 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 61 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 63 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 8, 2014. 65 Copyright Notice 67 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 68 document authors. All rights reserved. 70 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 71 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 72 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 73 publication of this document. Please review these documents 74 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 75 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 76 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 77 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 78 described in the Simplified BSD License. 80 Table of Contents 82 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 83 2. Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 84 3. MPLS Instantiation of Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 85 4. IGP Segments Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 86 4.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 87 4.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 88 4.3. Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 89 4.4. Example 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 90 4.5. Example 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 91 5. Other Examples of MPLS Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 92 5.1. LDP LSP segment combined with IGP segments . . . . . . . 8 93 5.2. RSVP-TE LSP segment combined with IGP segments . . . . . 9 94 6. Segment List History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 95 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 96 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 97 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 98 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 99 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 100 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 101 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 102 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 104 1. Introduction 106 The Segment Routing architecture [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] 107 can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with no change in 108 the MPLS forwarding plane. This drafts describes how Segment Routing 109 operates on top of the MPLS data plane. 111 The Segment Routing use cases are described in in 112 [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases]. 114 Link State protocol extensions for Segment Routing are described in 115 [I-D.previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions], 116 [I-D.psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and 117 [I-D.psenak-ospf-segment-routing-ospfv3-extension]. 119 2. Illustration 121 Segment Routing, applied to the MPLS data plane, offers the ability 122 to tunnel services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) from an ingress PE to an egress 123 PE, without any other protocol than ISIS or OSPF 124 ([I-D.previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions] and 125 [I-D.psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]). LDP and RSVP-TE 126 signaling protocols are not required. 128 Note that [draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-ldp-interop-00] 129 documents SR co-existence and interworking with other MPLS signaling 130 protocols, if present in the network during a migration, or in case 131 of non-homogeneous deployments. 133 The operator only needs to allocate one node segment per PE and the 134 SR IGP control-plane automatically builds the required MPLS 135 forwarding constructs from any PE to any PE. 137 P1---P2 138 / \ 139 A---CE1---PE1 PE2---CE2---Z 140 \ / 141 P4---P4 143 Figure 1: IGP-based MPLS Tunneling 145 In Figure 1 above, the four nodes A, CE1, CE2 and Z are part of the 146 same VPN. 148 PE2 advertises (in the IGP) a host address 192.0.2.2/32 with its 149 attached node segment 102. 151 CE2 advertises to PE2 a route to Z. PE2 binds a local label LZ to 152 that route and propagates the route and its label via MPBGP to PE1 153 with nhop 192.0.2.2 (PE2 loopback address). 155 PE1 installs the VPN prefix Z in the appropriate VRF and resolves the 156 next-hop onto the node segment 102. Upon receiving a packet from A 157 destined to Z, PE1 pushes two labels onto the packet: the top label 158 is 102, the bottom label is LZ. 102 identifies the node segment to 159 PE2 and hence transports the packet along the ECMP-aware shortest- 160 path to PE2. PE2 then processes the VPN label LZ and forwards the 161 packet to CE2. 163 Supporting MPLS services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) with SR has the following 164 benefits: 166 Simple operation: one single intra-domain protocol to operate: the 167 IGP. No need to support IGP synchronization extensions as 168 described in [RFC5443] and [RFC6138]. 170 Excellent scaling: one Node-SID per PE. 172 3. MPLS Instantiation of Segment Routing 174 MPLS instantiation of Segment Routing fits in the MPLS architecture 175 as defined in [RFC3031] both from a control plane and forwarding 176 plane perspective: 178 o From a control plane perspective [RFC3031]does not mandate a 179 single signaling protocol. Segment Routing proposes to use the 180 Link State IGP as its use of information flooding fits very well 181 with label stacking on ingress. 183 o From a forwarding plane perspective, Segment Routing does not 184 require any change to the forwarding plane. 186 When applied to MPLS, a Segment is a LSP and the 20 right-most bits 187 of the segment are encoded as a label. This implies that, in the 188 MPLS instantiation, the SID values are allocated within a reduced 189 20-bit space out of the 32-bit SID space. 191 The notion of indexed global segment fits the MPLS architecture 192 [RFC3031] as the absolute value allocated to any segment (global or 193 local) can be managed by a local allocation process (similarly to 194 other MPLS signaling protocols). 196 If present, SR can coexist and interwork with LDP and RSVP 197 [draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-ldp-interop-00]. 199 The source routing model described in 200 [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] is inherited from the ones 201 proposed by [RFC1940] and [RFC2460]. The source routing model offers 202 the support for explicit routing capability. 204 Contrary to RSVP-based explicit routes where tunnel midpoints 205 maintain states, SR-based explicit routes only require per-flow 206 states at the ingress edge router where the traffic engineer policy 207 is applied. 209 Contrary to RSVP-based explicit routes which consist in non-ECMP 210 circuits (similar to ATM/FR), SR-based explicit routes can be built 211 as list of ECMP-aware node segments and hence ECMP-aware traffic 212 engineering is natively supported by SR. 214 When Segment Routing is instantiated over the MPLS data plane the 215 following applies: 217 A list of segments is represented as a stack of labels. 219 The active segment is the top label. 221 The CONTINUE operation is implemented as an MPLS swap operation. 222 When the same SRGB block is used throughout the SR domain, the 223 outgoing label value is equal to the incoming label value . Else, 224 the outgoing label value is [SRGB(next_hop)+index] 226 The NEXT operation is implemented as an MPLS pop operation. 228 The PUSH operation is implemented as an MPLS push of a label 229 stack. 231 In conclusion, there are no changes in the operations of the data- 232 plane currently used in MPLS networks. 234 4. IGP Segments Examples 236 Assuming the network diagram of Figure 2 and the IP address and IGP 237 Segment allocation of Figure 3, the following examples can be 238 constructed. 240 +--------+ 241 / \ 242 R1-----R2----------R3-----R8 243 | \ / | 244 | +--R4--+ | 245 | | 246 +-----R5-----+ 248 Figure 2: IGP Segments - Illustration 250 +-----------------------------------------------------------+ 251 | IP address allocated by the operator: | 252 | 192.0.2.1/32 as a loopback of R1 | 253 | 192.0.2.2/32 as a loopback of R2 | 254 | 192.0.2.3/32 as a loopback of R3 | 255 | 192.0.2.4/32 as a loopback of R4 | 256 | 192.0.2.5/32 as a loopback of R5 | 257 | 192.0.2.8/32 as a loopback of R8 | 258 | 198.51.100.9/32 as an anycast loopback of R4 | 259 | 198.51.100.9/32 as an anycast loopback of R5 | 260 | | 261 | SRGB defined by the operator as 1000-5000 | 262 | | 263 | Global IGP SID allocated by the operator: | 264 | 1001 allocated to 192.0.2.1/32 | 265 | 1002 allocated to 192.0.2.2/32 | 266 | 1003 allocated to 192.0.2.3/32 | 267 | 1004 allocated to 192.0.2.4/32 | 268 | 1008 allocated to 192.0.2.8/32 | 269 | 2009 allocated to 198.51.100.9/32 | 270 | | 271 | Local IGP SID allocated dynamically by R2 | 272 | for its "north" adjacency to R3: 9001 | 273 | for its "north" adjacency to R3: 9003 | 274 | for its "south" adjacency to R3: 9002 | 275 | for its "south" adjacency to R3: 9003 | 276 +-----------------------------------------------------------+ 278 Figure 3: IGP Address and Segment Allocation - Illustration 280 4.1. Example 1 282 R1 may send a packet P1 to R8 simply by pushing an SR header with 283 segment list {1008}. 285 1008 is a global IGP segment attached to the IP prefix 192.0.2.8/32. 286 Its semantic is global within the IGP domain: any router forwards a 287 packet received with active segment 1008 to the next-hop along the 288 ECMP-aware shortest-path to the related prefix. 290 In conclusion, the path followed by P1 is R1-R2--R3-R8. The ECMP- 291 awareness ensures that the traffic be load-shared between any ECMP 292 path, in this case the two north and south links between R2 and R3. 294 4.2. Example 2 296 R1 may send a packet P2 to R8 by pushing an SR header with segment 297 list {1002, 9001, 1008}. 299 1002 is a global IGP segment attached to the IP prefix 192.0.2.2/32. 300 Its semantic is global within the IGP domain: any router forwards a 301 packet received with active segment 1002 to the next-hop along the 302 shortest-path to the related prefix. 304 9001 is a local IGP segment attached by node R2 to its north link to 305 R3. Its semantic is local to node R2: R2 switches a packet received 306 with active segment 9001 towards the north link to R3. 308 In conclusion, the path followed by P2 is R1-R2-north-link-R3-R8. 310 4.3. Example 3 312 R1 may send a packet P3 along the same exact path as P1 using a 313 different segment list {1002, 9003, 1008}. 315 9003 is a local IGP segment attached by node R2 to both its north and 316 south links to R3. Its semantic is local to node R2: R2 switches a 317 packet received with active segment 9003 towards either the north or 318 south links to R3 (e.g. per-flow loadbalancing decision). 320 In conclusion, the path followed by P3 is R1-R2-any-link-R3-R8. 322 4.4. Example 4 324 R1 may send a packet P4 to R8 while avoiding the links between R2 and 325 R3 by pushing an SR header with segment list {1004, 1008}. 327 1004 is a global IGP segment attached to the IP prefix 192.0.2.4/32. 328 Its semantic is global within the IGP domain: any router forwards a 329 packet received with active segment 1004 to the next-hop along the 330 shortest-path to the related prefix. 332 In conclusion, the path followed by P4 is R1-R2-R4-R3-R8. 334 4.5. Example 5 336 R1 may send a packet P5 to R8 while avoiding the links between R2 and 337 R3 while still benefitting from all the remaining shortest paths (via 338 R4 and R5) by pushing an SR header with segment list {2009, 1008}. 340 2009 is a global IGP segment attached to the anycast IP prefix 341 198.51.100.9/32. Its semantic is global within the IGP domain: any 342 router forwards a packet received with active segment 2009 to the 343 next-hop along the shortest-path to the related prefix. 345 In conclusion, the path followed by P5 is either R1-R2-R4-R3-R8 or 346 R1-R2-R5-R3-R8 . 348 5. Other Examples of MPLS Segments 350 In addition to the IGP segments previously described, the SPRING 351 source routing policy applied to MPLS can include MPLS LSP's signaled 352 by LDP, RSVPTE and BGP. The list of examples is non exhaustive. 353 Other form of segments combination can be instantiated through 354 Segment Routing (e.g.: RSVP LSPs combined with LDP or IGP or BGP 355 LSPs). 357 5.1. LDP LSP segment combined with IGP segments 359 The example illustrates a segment-routing policy including IGP 360 segments and LDP LSP segments. 362 SL1---S2---SL3---L4---SL5---S6 363 | | 364 +---------------+ 366 Figure 4: LDP LSP segment combined with IGP segments 368 We assume that: 370 o All links have an IGP cost of 1 except SL3-S6 link which has cost 371 2. 373 o All nodes are in the same IGP area. 375 o Nodes SL1, S2, SL3, SL5 and S6 are IGP-SR capable. 377 o SL3 and S6 have, respectively, index 3 and 6 assigned to them. 379 o All SR nodes have the same SRGB consisting of: [1000, 1999] 381 o SL1, SL3, L4 and SL5 are LDP capable. 383 o SL1 has a directed LDP session with SL3 and is able to retrieve 384 the SL3 local LDP mapping for FEC SL5: 35 386 o The following source-routed policy is defined in S1 for the 387 traffic destined to S6: use path SL1-S2-SL3-L4-SL5-S6 (instead of 388 shortest-path SL1-S2-SL3-S6). 390 This is realized by programming the following segment-routing policy 391 at S1: for traffic destined to S6, push the ordered segment list: 392 {1003, 35, 1006}, where: 394 o 1003 gets the packets from S1 to SL3 via S2. 396 o 35 gets the packets from SL3 to SL5 via L4. 398 o 1006 gets the packets from SL5 to S6. 400 The above allows to steer the traffic into path SL1-S2-SL3-L4-SL5-S6 401 instead of the shortest path SL1-S2-SL3-S6. 403 5.2. RSVP-TE LSP segment combined with IGP segments 405 The example illustrates a segment-routing policy including IGP 406 segments and RSVP-TE LSP segments. 408 S1---S2---RS3---R4---RS5---S6 409 | | 410 +---------------+ 412 Figure 5: RSVP-TE LSP segment combined with IGP segments 414 We assume that: 416 o All links have an IGP cost of 1 except link RS3-S6 which has cost 417 2. 419 o All nodes are IGP-SR capable except R4. 421 o RS3 and R6 have, respectively, index 3 and 6 assigned to them. 423 o All SR nodes have the same SRGB consisting of: [1000, 1999] 425 o RS3, R4 and RS5 are RSVP-TE capable. 427 o An RSVP-TE LSP has been provisioned from RS3 to RS5 via R4. 429 o RS3 allocates a binding SID (with value of 135) for this RSVP-TE 430 LSP and signals it in the igp. 432 o The following source-routed policy is defined at S1 for the 433 traffic destined to S6: use path S1-S2-RS3-R4-RS5-S6 instead of 434 shortest-path S1-S2-RS3-S6. 436 This is realized by programming the following segment-routing policy 437 at S1: - for traffic destined to S6, push the ordered segment list: 438 {1003, 135, 1006}, where: 440 o 1003 gets the packets from S1 to RS3 via S2. 442 o 135 gets the packets from RS3 into the RSVP-TE LSP to RS5 via R4. 444 o 1006 gets the packets from RS5 to S6. 446 The above allows to steer the traffic into path S1-S2-RS3-R4-RS5-S6 447 instead of the shortest path S1-S2-RS3-S6. 449 6. Segment List History 451 In the abstract SR routing model 452 [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing], any node N along the journey of 453 the packet is able to determine where the packet P entered the SR 454 domain and where it will exit. The intermediate node is also able to 455 determine the paths from the ingress edge router to itself, and from 456 itself to the egress edge router. 458 In the MPLS instantiation, as the packet travels through the SR 459 domain, the stack is depleted and the segment list history is 460 gradually lost. 462 Future version of this document will describe how this information 463 can be preserved in MPLS domains. 465 7. IANA Considerations 467 TBD 469 8. Manageability Considerations 471 TBD 473 9. Security Considerations 475 TBD 477 10. Acknowledgements 479 11. References 481 11.1. Normative References 483 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 484 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 486 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 487 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 489 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol 490 Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. 492 11.2. Informative References 494 [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing] 495 Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., 496 Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., 497 Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe, 498 "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-rtgwg- 499 segment-routing-01 (work in progress), October 2013. 501 [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases] 502 Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., 503 Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., 504 Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., Kini, S., and E. 505 Crabbe, "Segment Routing Use Cases", draft-filsfils-rtgwg- 506 segment-routing-use-cases-02 (work in progress), October 507 2013. 509 [I-D.previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions] 510 Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., 511 Litkowski, S., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS Extensions for 512 Segment Routing", draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing- 513 extensions-05 (work in progress), February 2014. 515 [I-D.psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] 516 Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., 517 Shakir, R., and W. Henderickx, "OSPF Extensions for 518 Segment Routing", draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing- 519 extensions-04 (work in progress), February 2014. 521 [I-D.psenak-ospf-segment-routing-ospfv3-extension] 522 Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., 523 Shakir, R., and W. Henderickx, "OSPFv3 Extensions for 524 Segment Routing", draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing- 525 ospfv3-extension-01 (work in progress), February 2014. 527 [RFC1940] Estrin, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., Varadhan, K., and D. 528 Zappala, "Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and 529 Forwarding Specification (Version 1)", RFC 1940, May 1996. 531 [RFC5443] Jork, M., Atlas, A., and L. Fang, "LDP IGP 532 Synchronization", RFC 5443, March 2009. 534 [RFC6138] Kini, S. and W. Lu, "LDP IGP Synchronization for Broadcast 535 Networks", RFC 6138, February 2011. 537 [draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-ldp-interop-00] 538 Filsfils, C. and S. Previdi, "Segment Routing 539 interoperability with LDP", October 2013. 541 Authors' Addresses 543 Clarence Filsfils (editor) 544 Cisco Systems, Inc. 545 Brussels 546 BE 548 Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com 550 Stefano Previdi (editor) 551 Cisco Systems, Inc. 552 Via Del Serafico, 200 553 Rome 00142 554 Italy 556 Email: sprevidi@cisco.com 558 Ahmed Bashandy 559 Cisco Systems, Inc. 560 170, West Tasman Drive 561 San Jose, CA 95134 562 US 564 Email: bashandy@cisco.com 565 Bruno Decraene 566 Orange 567 FR 569 Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com 571 Stephane Litkowski 572 Orange 573 FR 575 Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com 577 Martin Horneffer 578 Deutsche Telekom 579 Hammer Str. 216-226 580 Muenster 48153 581 DE 583 Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de 585 Igor Milojevic 586 Telekom Srbija 587 Takovska 2 588 Belgrade 589 RS 591 Email: igormilojevic@telekom.rs 593 Rob Shakir 594 British Telecom 595 London 596 UK 598 Email: rob.shakir@bt.com 600 Saku Ytti 601 TDC Oy 602 Mechelininkatu 1a 603 TDC 00094 604 FI 606 Email: saku@ytti.fi 607 Wim Henderickx 608 Alcatel-Lucent 609 Copernicuslaan 50 610 Antwerp 2018 611 BE 613 Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com 615 Jeff Tantsura 616 Ericsson 617 300 Holger Way 618 San Jose, CA 95134 619 US 621 Email: Jeff.Tantsura@ericsson.com 623 Edward Crabbe 624 Google, Inc. 625 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 626 Mountain View, CA 94043 627 US 629 Email: edc@google.com