idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-08.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 35 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 19 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 date (October 29, 2020) is 1237 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: 'I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions' is defined on line 405, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3630' is defined on line 410, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8444' is defined on line 458, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-02 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4272 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6952 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7752 (Obsoleted by RFC 9552) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Networking Working Group R. Chen 3 Internet-Draft Zh. Zhang 4 Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation 5 Expires: May 2, 2021 V. Govindan 6 IJ. Wijnands 7 Cisco 8 October 29, 2020 10 BGP Link-State extensions for BIER 11 draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-08 13 Abstract 15 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that 16 provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without 17 requiring intermediate routers to maintain any multicast related per- 18 flow state. BIER also does not require any explicit tree-building 19 protocol for its operation. A multicast data packet enters a BIER 20 domain at a "Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR), and leaves the 21 BIER domain at one or more "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs). 22 The BFIR router adds a BIER header to the packet. The BIER header 23 contains a bitstring in which each bit represents exactly one BFER to 24 forward the packet to. The set of BFERs to which the multicast 25 packet needs to be forwarded is expressed by setting the bits that 26 correspond to those routers in the BIER header. 28 BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) enables the collection of various topology 29 information from the network, and the topology informations are used 30 by the controller to calculate the fowarding table and then program 31 them onto the ingress nodes(instead of having each node to calculate 32 on its own) and that can be for both inter-as and intra-as 33 situations. 35 This document specifies extensions to the BGP Link-state address- 36 family in order to advertise BIER informations. 38 Status of This Memo 40 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 41 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 43 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 44 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 45 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 46 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 48 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 49 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 50 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 51 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 53 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2021. 55 Copyright Notice 57 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 58 document authors. All rights reserved. 60 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 61 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 62 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 63 publication of this document. Please review these documents 64 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 65 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 66 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 67 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 68 described in the Simplified BSD License. 70 Table of Contents 72 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 73 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 74 3. BGP-LS Extensions for BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 75 3.1. Prefix Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 76 3.1.1. The BIER information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 77 3.1.2. The BIER MPLS Encapsulation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 3.1.3. The BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation TLV . . . . . . . . . 6 79 4. Equivalent IS-IS BIER TLVs/Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 5. Equivalent OSPFv2/OSPFV3 BIER TLVs/Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . 8 81 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 82 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 83 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 84 9. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 87 1. Introduction 89 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that 90 provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without 91 requiring intermediate routers to maintain any multicast related per- 92 flow state. BIER also does not require any explicit tree-building 93 protocol for its operation. A multicast data packet enters a BIER 94 domain at a "Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR), and leaves the 95 BIER domain at one or more "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs). 97 The BFIR router adds a BIER header to the packet. The BIER header 98 contains a bitstring in which each bit represents exactly one BFER to 99 forward the packet to. The set of BFERs to which the multicast 100 packet needs to be forwarded is expressed by setting the bits that 101 correspond to those routers in the BIER header. 103 When BIER is enabled in an IGP domain, BIER-related information will 104 be advertised via IGP link-state routing protocols. IGP extensions 105 are described in: ISIS[[RFC8401]],OSPFv2[[RFC8444]] and 106 OSPFv3[[I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions]].The flooding scope for the 107 IGP extensions for Segment routing is IGP area-wide. by using the IGP 108 alone it is not enough to construct segments across multiple IGP 109 Area. 111 The BGP-LS address-family/sub-address-family have been defined to 112 allow BGP to carry Link-State information. This document specifies 113 extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in order to advertise 114 BIER-specific informations. An external component (e.g., a 115 controller/a PCE) then can learns the BIER information in the 116 "northbound" direction and calculate BIRT/BIFT and then program them 117 onto BFRs (instead of having each BFR to calculate on its own), and 118 that can be for both inter-as and intra-as situations. 120 2. Conventions used in this document 122 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 123 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 124 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119. 126 3. BGP-LS Extensions for BIER 128 [RFC8279] defines the BFR - A router that supports BIER is known as a 129 "Bit-Forwarding Router"(BFR), and each BFR MUST be assigned a "BFR- 130 Prefix". A BFR's BFR-Prefix MUST be an IP address (either IPv4 or 131 IPv6) of the BFR, and MUST be unique and routable within the BIER 132 domain as described in section 2 of [RFC8279], and then external 133 component (e.g., a controller) need to collect BIER information of 134 BIER routers are associated with the BFR-Prefix in the "northbound" 135 direction within the BIER domain. 137 Given that the BIER information is associated with the prefix, the 138 Prefix Attribute TLV [RFC7752] can be used to carry the BIER 139 information. A new Prefix Attribute TLVs are defined for the 140 encoding of BIER information. 142 3.1. Prefix Attributes TLVs 144 The following Prefix Attribute TLVs are defined: 146 +------+---------------------------+---------------+ 147 | Type | Description | Section | 148 +------+---------------------------+---------------+ 149 | TBD |BIER information | Section 3.1.1 | 150 | TBD |BIER MPLS Encapsulation | Section 3.1.2 | 151 | TBD |BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation| Section 3.1.2 | 152 +------+---------------------------+---------------+ 154 Table 1:The new Prefix Attribute TLVs 156 3.1.1. The BIER information TLV 158 A new Prefix Attribute TLV (defined in [RFC7752] is defined for 159 distributing BIER information. The new TLV is called the BIER TLV. 160 The BIER information TLVs may appear multiple times. 162 The following BIER information TLV is defined: 164 0 1 2 3 165 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 1 166 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 167 | Type | Length | 168 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 169 | BAR | IPA | subdomain-id | 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 | BFR-id | 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 | Sub-TLVs (variable) | 174 +- -+ 175 | | 177 Figure 2: The BIER information TLV 179 Type: 2 octet field with value TBD, see IANA Considerations section. 181 Length: 2 octet. 183 Reserved: MUST be 0 on transmission, ignored on reception. May be 184 used in future versions. 186 BAR: A 1 octet field encoding the BIER Algorithm, used to calculate 187 underlay paths to reach BFERs. Values are allocated from the "BIER 188 Algorithms" registry which is defined in [RFC8401]. 190 IPA: A 1 octet field encoding the IGP Algorithm, used to either 191 modify,enhance, or replace the calculation of underlay paths to reach 192 BFERs as defined by the BAR value. Values are from the IGP Algorithm 193 registry. 195 Subdomain-id: Unique value identifying the BIER sub-domain, 1 octet. 197 MT-ID: Multi-Topology ID that identifies the topology that is 198 associated with the BIER sub-domain.1 octet. 200 BFR-id: A 2 octet field encoding the BFR-id, as documented in 201 [RFC8279]. If the BFR-id is zero, it means, the advertising router 202 is not advertising any BIER-id.In some environment, BFR-id can be 203 configured by NMS, The BFR-id should be sent to a controller. 205 BS Length: A 1 octet field encoding the Bitstring length as per 206 [RFC8296]. 208 If the MT-ID value is outside of the values specified in [RFC4915], 209 the BIER Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. 211 3.1.2. The BIER MPLS Encapsulation TLV 213 The BIER MPLS Encapsulation TLV is used in order to advertise MPLS 214 specific information used for BIER. It MAY appear multiple times. 216 In some environment, each router allocates its labels, and advertises 217 it to the controller.That solution is simpler as the controller does 218 not need to deal with label allocation. If the controller has to 219 deal with Label allocation , there needs to be a (global) range 220 carved out such there are no conflicts. We can avoid all that by 221 having the router allocate the BIER Label range and advertise it to 222 the controller. 224 The following the BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV is defined: 226 0 1 2 3 227 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 1 228 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 229 | Type | Length | 230 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 231 | Max SI | Label | 232 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 233 |BS Len | Reserved | 234 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 236 Figure 3: The BIER MPLS Encapsulation TLV 238 Type: 2 octet field with value TBD, see IANA Considerations section. 240 Length: 2 octet. 242 Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the maximum Set Identifier(as 243 defined in [RFC8279]), used in the encapsulation for this BIER 244 subdomain for this BitString length. 246 Label: A 3 octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the 247 first label in the label range. 249 BS Length: A 1 octet field encoding the Bitstring length as per 250 [RFC8296] 252 BS length in multiple BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV inside the same 253 BIER Sub-TLV MUST NOT repeat, otherwise only the first BIER MPLS 254 Encapsulation Sub-TLV with such BS length MUST be used and any 255 subsequent BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLVs with the same BS length 256 MUST be ignored. 258 3.1.3. The BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation TLV 260 The BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation TLV is used in order to advertise 261 non-MPLS encapsulation(e.g. ethernet encapsulation ) capability and 262 other associated parameters of the encapsulation.It MAY appear 263 multiple times. 265 The following the BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV is defined: 267 0 1 2 3 268 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 1 269 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 270 | Type | Length | 271 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 272 | Max SI | BIFT-id | 273 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 274 |BS Len | Reserved | 275 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 277 Figure 4: The BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation TLV 279 Type:2 octet field with value TBD, see IANA Considerations section. 281 Length: 2 octet.. 283 Max SI:A 1 octet field encoding the maximum Set Identifier(as defined 284 in [RFC8279]), used in the encapsulation for this BIER subdomain for 285 this BitString length. 287 BIFT-id:A 3-octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the 288 first BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be 289 ignored. 291 The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the 292 BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). A unique BIFT-id range 293 is allocated for each BitString length and sub-domain-id. These 294 BIFT-id's are used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279])and 295 [RFC8296]. 297 Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the Bitstring 298 length as per [RFC8296]. 300 Reserved:SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on 301 reception. 303 4. Equivalent IS-IS BIER TLVs/Sub-TLVs 305 This section illustrate the BIER TLVs mapped to the ones defined in 306 this document. 308 The following table, illustrates for each BGP-LS TLV, its equivalence 309 in IS-IS. 311 +--------------+----------------------------+------------------------------------------+ 312 | Descriptio | IS-IS TLV | Reference | 313 | n | /Sub-TLV | | 314 +--------------+----------------------------+------------------------------------------+ 315 | BIER | BIER Info Sub-TLV | [RFC8401] | 316 | information | | | 317 | | | | 318 | BIER MPLS |BIER MPLS Encapsulation | [RFC8401] | 319 | Encapsulation|Sub-Sub-TLV | | 320 | | | | 321 | BIER non-MPLS| BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation| [I-D.ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions] | 322 | Encapsulation| Sub-Sub-TLV | | 323 +--------------+----------------------------+------------------------------------------+ 325 Table 2:IS-IS BIER Sub-TLVs/Sub-Sub-TLVs 327 5. Equivalent OSPFv2/OSPFV3 BIER TLVs/Sub-TLVs 329 This section illustrate the BIER TLVs mapped to the ones defined in 330 this document. 332 The following table, illustrates for each BGP-LS TLV, its equivalence 333 in OSPFv2/OSPFV3. 335 +--------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ 336 | Descriptio | OSPFv2/OSPFV3 sub-TLV | Reference | 337 | n | /Sub-Sub-TLV | | 338 +--------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ 339 | BIER | BIER Sub-TLV |[RFC8444] & | 340 | information | |[I-D. ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions | 341 | | | | 342 | BIER MPLS |BIER MPLS Encapsulation |[RFC8444]& | 343 | Encapsulation|Sub-TLV |[I-D. ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions | 344 | | | | 345 | BIER non-MPLS| BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation |[I-D.ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions] | 346 | Encapsulation| Sub-TLV | | 347 +--------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ 349 Table 3: OSPFv2/OSPFV3 BIER TLVs/Sub-TLVs 351 6. IANA Considerations 353 This document requests assigning code-points from the registry for 354 the new Prefix Attribute TLVs. 356 +-------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+ 357 | TLV Code Point | Description | Value defined | 358 +-------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+ 359 | TBD | BIER information | this document | 360 +-------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+ 361 | TBD | BIER MPLS Encapsulation | this document | 362 +-------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+ 363 | TBD | BIER non-MPLS Encapsulation | this document | 364 +-------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+ 366 Table 4: The new Prefix Attribute TLV 368 7. Security Considerations 370 Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not 371 affect the BGP security model. See the "Security 372 Considerations"section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. 373 Also, refer to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of security 374 issues for BGP.Security considerations for acquiring and distributing 375 BGP-LS information are discussed in [RFC7752]. 377 The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate the Bit 378 Index Explicit Replication (BIER) defined in [[RFC8401]], [[RFC8444]] 379 , [[I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions]] and 380 [[I-D.ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions]] . These TLVs represent the 381 bier information associated with the prefix. It is assumed that the 382 IGP instances originating these TLVs will support all the required 383 security and authentication mechanisms in [[RFC8401]], [[RFC8444]] 384 [[I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions]] and 385 [[I-D.ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions]] in order to prevent any 386 security issues when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. The 387 advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this 388 document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the 389 existing link attribute information already supported in [RFC7752]. 391 8. Acknowledgements 393 The authors thank Peter Psenak, Ketan Talaulikar, Zhaohui Zhang, Gyan 394 Mishra and Benchong Xu and many others for their suggestions and 395 comments. 397 9. Normative references 399 [I-D.ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions] 400 Dhanaraj, S., Wijnands, I., Psenak, P., Zhang, Z., Yan, 401 G., and J. Xie, "LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet", 402 draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-01 (work in 403 progress), July 2019. 405 [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions] 406 Psenak, P., Nainar, N., and I. Wijnands, "OSPFv3 407 Extensions for BIER", draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-02 408 (work in progress), May 2020. 410 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering 411 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, 412 DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, 413 . 415 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 416 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 417 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 418 . 420 [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", 421 RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, 422 . 424 [RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P. 425 Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF", 426 RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007, 427 . 429 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 430 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 431 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 432 Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, 433 . 435 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 436 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 437 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 438 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 439 . 441 [RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 442 Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index 443 Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, 444 DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017, 445 . 447 [RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 448 Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation 449 for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- 450 MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January 451 2018, . 453 [RFC8401] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z. 454 Zhang, "Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Support via 455 IS-IS", RFC 8401, DOI 10.17487/RFC8401, June 2018, 456 . 458 [RFC8444] Psenak, P., Ed., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A., 459 Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPFv2 460 Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)", 461 RFC 8444, DOI 10.17487/RFC8444, November 2018, 462 . 464 Authors' Addresses 466 Ran Chen 467 ZTE Corporation 468 No.50 Software Avenue,Yuhuatai District 469 Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210012 470 China 472 Phone: +86 025 88014636 473 Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn 475 Zheng Zhang 476 ZTE Corporation 477 No.50 Software Avenue,Yuhuatai District 478 Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210012 479 China 481 Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn 483 Vengada Prasad Govindan 484 Cisco 486 Email: venggovi@cisco.com 487 IJsbrand Wijnands 488 Cisco 489 De Kleetlaan 6a 490 Diegem 1831 491 Belgium 493 Email: ice@cisco.com