idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bier-use-cases-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (August 3, 2015) is 3189 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-04 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4601 (Obsoleted by RFC 7761) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group N. Kumar 3 Internet-Draft R. Asati 4 Intended status: Informational Cisco 5 Expires: February 4, 2016 M. Chen 6 X. Xu 7 Huawei 8 A. Dolganow 9 Alcatel-Lucent 10 T. Przygienda 11 Ericsson 12 A. Gulko 13 Thomson Reuters 14 D. Robinson 15 id3as-company Ltd 16 V. Arya 17 DirecTV Inc 18 August 3, 2015 20 BIER Use Cases 21 draft-ietf-bier-use-cases-01.txt 23 Abstract 25 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that 26 provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without 27 requiring intermediate routers to maintain any multicast related per- 28 flow state. BIER also does not require any explicit tree-building 29 protocol for its operation. A multicast data packet enters a BIER 30 domain at a "Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR), and leaves the 31 BIER domain at one or more "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs). 32 The BFIR router adds a BIER header to the packet. The BIER header 33 contains a bit-string in which each bit represents exactly one BFER 34 to forward the packet to. The set of BFERs to which the multicast 35 packet needs to be forwarded is expressed by setting the bits that 36 correspond to those routers in the BIER header. 38 This document describes some of the use-cases for BIER. 40 Status of This Memo 42 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 43 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 45 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 46 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 47 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 48 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 50 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 51 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 52 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 53 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 55 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 4, 2016. 57 Copyright Notice 59 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 60 document authors. All rights reserved. 62 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 63 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 64 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 65 publication of this document. Please review these documents 66 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 67 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 68 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 69 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 70 described in the Simplified BSD License. 72 Table of Contents 74 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 75 2. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 76 3. BIER Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 77 3.1. Multicast in L3VPN Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 78 3.2. BUM in EVPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 3.3. IPTV and OTT Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 3.4. Multi-service, converged L3VPN network . . . . . . . . . 6 81 3.5. Control-plane simplification and SDN-controlled networks 7 82 3.6. Data center Virtualization/Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . 7 83 3.7. Financial Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 84 3.8. 4k broadcast video services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 85 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 86 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 87 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 88 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 89 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 90 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 91 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 93 1. Introduction 95 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] is 96 an architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a 97 "BIER domain" without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any 98 multicast related per-flow state. BIER also does not require any 99 explicit tree-building protocol for its operation. A multicast data 100 packet enters a BIER domain at a "Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" 101 (BFIR), and leaves the BIER domain at one or more "Bit-Forwarding 102 Egress Routers" (BFERs). The BFIR router adds a BIER header to the 103 packet. The BIER header contains a bit-string in which each bit 104 represents exactly one BFER to forward the packet to. The set of 105 BFERs to which the multicast packet needs to be forwarded is 106 expressed by setting the bits that correspond to those routers in the 107 BIER header. 109 The obvious advantage of BIER is that there is no per flow multicast 110 state in the core of the network and there is no tree building 111 protocol that sets up tree on demand based on users joining a 112 multicast flow. In that sense, BIER is potentially applicable to 113 many services where Multicast is used and not limited to the examples 114 described in this draft. In this document we are describing a few 115 use-cases where BIER could provide benefit over using existing 116 mechanisms. 118 2. Specification of Requirements 120 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 121 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 122 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 124 3. BIER Use Cases 126 3.1. Multicast in L3VPN Networks 128 The Multicast L3VPN architecture [RFC6513] describes many different 129 profiles in order to transport L3 Multicast across a providers 130 network. Each profile has its own different tradeoffs (see section 131 2.1 [RFC6513]). When using "Multidirectional Inclusive" "Provider 132 Multicast Service Interface" (MI-PMSI) an efficient tree is build per 133 VPN, but causes flooding of egress PE's that are part of the VPN, but 134 have not joined a particular C-multicast flow. This problem can be 135 solved with the "Selective" PMSI to build a special tree for only 136 those PE's that have joined the C-multicast flow for that specific 137 VPN. The more S-PMSI's, the less bandwidth is wasted due to 138 flooding, but causes more state to be created in the providers 139 network. This is a typical problem network operators are faced with 140 by finding the right balance between the amount of state carried in 141 the network and how much flooding (waste of bandwidth) is acceptable. 142 Some of the complexity with L3VPN's comes due to providing different 143 profiles to accommodate these trade-offs. 145 With BIER there is no trade-off between State and Flooding. Since 146 the receiver information is explicitly carried within the packet, 147 there is no need to build S-PMSI's to deliver multicast to a sub-set 148 of the VPN egress PE's. Due to that behaviour, there is no need for 149 S-PMSI's. 151 Mi-PMSI's and S-PMSI's are also used to provide the VPN context to 152 the Egress PE router that receives the multicast packet. Also, in 153 some MVPN profiles it is also required to know which Ingress PE 154 forwarded the packet. Based on the PMSI the packet is received from, 155 the target VPN is determined. This also means there is a requirement 156 to have a least a PMSI per VPN or per VPN/Ingress PE. This means the 157 amount of state created in the network is proportional to the VPN and 158 ingress PE's. Creating PMSI state per VPN can be prevented by 159 applying the procedures as documented in [RFC5331]. This however has 160 not been very much adopted/implemented due to the excessive flooding 161 it would cause to Egress PE's since *all* VPN multicast packets are 162 forwarded to *all* PE's that have one or more VPN's attached to it. 164 With BIER, the destination PE's are identified in the multicast 165 packet, so there is no flooding concern when implementing [RFC5331]. 166 For that reason there is no need to create multiple BIER domain's per 167 VPN, the VPN context can be carry in the multicast packet using the 168 procedures as defined in [RFC5331]. Also see [I-D.ietf-bier-mvpn] 169 for more information. 171 With BIER only a few MVPN profiles will remain relevant, simplifying 172 the operational cost and making it easier to be interoperable among 173 different vendors. 175 3.2. BUM in EVPN 177 The current widespread adoption of L2VPN services [RFC4664], 178 especially the upcoming EVPN solution [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-evpn] which 179 transgresses many limitations of VPLS, introduces the need for an 180 efficient mechanism to replicate broadcast, unknown and multicast 181 (BUM) traffic towards the PEs that participate in the same EVPN 182 instances (EVIs). As simplest deployable mechanism, ingress 183 replication is used but poses accordingly a high burden on the 184 ingress node as well as saturating the underlying links with many 185 copies of the same frame headed to different PEs. Fortunately 186 enough, EVPN signals internally P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) 187 [RFC6513] attribute to establish transport for BUM frames and with 188 that allows to deploy a plethora of multicast replication services 189 that the underlying network layer can provide. It is therefore 190 relatively simple to deploy BIER P-Tunnels for EVPN and with that 191 distribute BUM traffic without building of P-router state in the core 192 required by PIM, mLDP or comparable solutions. 194 Specifically, the same I-PMSI attribute suggested for mVPN can be 195 used easily in EVPN and given EVPN can multiplex and disassociate BUM 196 frames on p2mp and mp2mp trees using upstream assigned labels, BIER 197 P-Tunnel will support BUM flooding for any number of EVIs over a 198 single sub-domain for maximum scalability but allow at the other 199 extreme of the spectrum to use a single BIER sub-domain per EVI if 200 such a deployment is necessary. 202 Multiplexing EVIs onto the same PMSI forces the PMSI to span more 203 than the necessary number of PEs normally, i.e. the union of all PEs 204 participating in the EVIs multiplexed on the PMSI. Given the 205 properties of BIER it is however possible to encode in the receiver 206 bitmask only the PEs that participate in the EVI the BUM frame 207 targets. In a sense BIER is an inclusive as well as a selective tree 208 and can allow to deliver the frame to only the set of receivers 209 interested in a frame even though many others participate in the same 210 PMSI. 212 As another significant advantage, it is imaginable that the same BIER 213 tunnel needed for BUM frames can optimize the delivery of the 214 multicast frames though the signaling of group memberships for the 215 PEs involved has not been specified as of date. 217 3.3. IPTV and OTT Services 219 IPTV is a service, well known for its characteristics of allowing 220 both live and on-demand delivery of media traffic over end-to-end 221 Managed IP network. 223 Over The Top (OTT) is a similar service, well known for its 224 characteristics of allowing live and on-demand delivery of media 225 traffic between IP domains, where the source is often on an external 226 network relative to the receivers. 228 Content Delivery Networks (CDN) operators provide layer 4 229 applications, and often some degree of managed layer 3 IP network, 230 that enable media to be securely and reliably delivered to many 231 receivers. In some models they may place applications within third 232 party networks, or they may place those applications at the edges of 233 their own managed network peerings and similar inter-domain 234 connections. CDNs provide capabilities to help publishers scale to 235 meet large audience demand. Their applications are not limited to 236 audio and video delivery, but may include static and dynamic web 237 content, or optimized delivery for Massive Multiplayer Gaming and 238 similar. Most publishers will use a CDN for public Internet 239 delivery, and some publishers will use a CDN internally within their 240 IPTV networks to resolve layer 4 complexity. 242 In a typical IPTV environment the egress routers connecting to the 243 receivers will build the tree towards the ingress router connecting 244 to the IPTV servers. The egress routers would rely on IGMP/MLD 245 (static or dynamic) to learn about the receiver's interest in one or 246 more multicast group/channels. Interestingly, BIER could allows 247 provisioning any new multicast group/channel by only modifying the 248 channel mapping on ingress routers. This is deemed beneficial for 249 the linear IPTV video broadcasting in which every receivers behind 250 every egress PE routers would receive the IPTV video traffic. 252 With BIER in IPTV environment, there is no need of tree building from 253 egress to ingress. Further, any addition of new channel or new 254 egress routers can be directly controlled from ingress router. When 255 a new channel is included, the multicast group is mapped to Bit 256 string that includes all egress routers. Ingress router would start 257 sending the new channel and deliver it to all egress routers. As it 258 can be observed, there is no need for static IGMP provisioning in 259 each egress routers whenever a new channel/stream is added. Instead, 260 it can be controlled from ingress router itself by configuring the 261 new group to Bit Mask mapping on ingress router. 263 With BIER in OTT environment, these edge routers in CDN domain 264 terminating the OTT user session connect to the Ingress BIER routers 265 connecting content provider domains or a local cache server and 266 leverage the scalability benefit that BIER could provide. This may 267 rely on MBGP interoperation (or similar) between the egress of one 268 domain and the ingress of the next domain, or some other SDN control 269 plane may prove a more effective and simpler way to deploy BIER. For 270 a single CDN operator this could be well managed in the Layer 4 271 applications that they provide and it may be that the initial 272 receiver in a remote domain is actually an application operated by 273 the CDN which in turn acts as a source for the Ingress BIER router in 274 that remote domain, and by doing so keeps the BIER more descrete on a 275 domain by domain basis. 277 3.4. Multi-service, converged L3VPN network 279 Increasingly operators deploy single networks for multiple-services. 280 For example a single Metro Core network could be deployed to provide 281 Residential IPTV retail service, residential IPTV wholesale service, 282 and business L3VPN service with multicast. It may often be desired 283 by an operator to use a single architecture to deliver multicast for 284 all of those services. In some cases, governing regulations may 285 additionally require same service capabilities for both wholesale and 286 retail multicast services. To meet those requirements, some 287 operators use multicast architecture as defined in [RFC5331]. 288 However, the need to support many L3VPNs, with some of those L3VPNs 289 scaling to hundreds of egress PE's and thousands of C-multicast 290 flows, make scaling/efficiency issues defined in earlier sections of 291 this document even more prevalent. Additionally support for ten's of 292 millions of BGP multicast A-D and join routes alone could be required 293 in such networks with all consequences such a scale brings. 295 With BIER, again there is no need of tree building from egress to 296 ingress for each L3VPN or individual or group of c-multicast flows. 297 As described earlier on, any addition of a new IPTV channel or new 298 egress router can be directly controlled from ingress router and 299 there is no flooding concern when implementing [RFC5331]. 301 3.5. Control-plane simplification and SDN-controlled networks 303 With the advent of Software Defined Networking, some operators are 304 looking at various ways to reduce the overall cost of providing 305 networking services including multicast delivery. Some of the 306 alternatives being consider include minimizing capex cost through 307 deployment of network-elements with simplified control plane 308 function, minimizing operational cost by reducing control protocols 309 required to achieve a particular service, etc. Segment routing as 310 described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] provides a solution 311 that could be used to provide simplified control-plane architecture 312 for unicast traffic. With Segment routing deployed for unicast, a 313 solution that simplifies control-plane for multicast would thus also 314 be required, or operational and capex cost reductions will not be 315 achieved to their full potential. 317 With BIER, there is no longer a need to run control protocols 318 required to build a distribution tree. If L3VPN with multicast, for 319 example, is deployed using [RFC5331] with MPLS in P-instance, the 320 MPLS control plane would no longer be required. BIER also allows 321 migration of C-multicast flows from non-BIER to BIER-based 322 architecture, which makes transition to control-plane simplified 323 network simpler to operationalize. Finally, for operators, who would 324 desire centralized, offloaded control plane, multicast overlay as 325 well as BIER forwarding could migrate to controller-based 326 programming. 328 3.6. Data center Virtualization/Overlay 330 Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348] is a kind of 331 network virtualization overlay technology which is intended for 332 multi-tenancy data center networks. To emulate a layer2 flooding 333 domain across the layer3 underlay, it requires to have a mapping 334 between the VXLAN Virtual Network Instance (VNI) and the IP multicast 335 group in a ratio of 1:1 or n:1. In other words, it requires to 336 enable the multicast capability in the underlay. For instance, it 337 requires to enable PIM-SM [RFC4601] or PIM-BIDIR [RFC5015] multicast 338 routing protocol in the underlay. VXLAN is designed to support 16M 339 VNIs at maximum. In the mapping ratio of 1:1, it would require 16M 340 multicast groups in the underlay which would become a significant 341 challenge to both the control plane and the data plane of the data 342 center switches. In the mapping ratio of n:1, it would result in 343 inefficiency bandwidth utilization which is not optimal in data 344 center networks. More importantly, it is recognized by many data 345 center operators as a unaffordable burden to run multicast in data 346 center networks from network operation and maintenance perspectives. 347 As a result, many VXLAN implementations are claimed to support the 348 ingress replication capability since ingress replication eliminates 349 the burden of running multicast in the underlay. Ingress replication 350 is an acceptable choice in small-sized networks where the average 351 number of receivers per multicast flow is not too large. However, in 352 multi-tenant data center networks, especially those in which the NVE 353 functionality is enabled on a high amount of physical servers, the 354 average number of NVEs per VN instance would be very large. As a 355 result, the ingress replication scheme would result in a serious 356 bandwidth waste in the underlay and a significant replication burden 357 on ingress NVEs. 359 With BIER, there is no need for maintaining that huge amount of 360 multicast states in the underlay anymore while the delivery 361 efficiency of overlay BUM traffic is the same as if any kind of 362 stateful multicast protocols such as PIM-SM or PIM-BIDIR is enabled 363 in the underlay. 365 3.7. Financial Services 367 Financial services extensively rely on IP Multicast to deliver stock 368 market data and its derivatives, and critically require optimal 369 latency path (from publisher to subscribers), deterministic 370 convergence (so as to deliver market data derivatives fairly to each 371 client) and secured delivery. 373 Current multicast solutions e.g. PIM, mLDP etc., however, don't 374 sufficiently address the above requirements. The reason is that the 375 current solutions are primarily subscriber driven i.e. multicast tree 376 is setup using reverse path forwarding techniques, and as a result, 377 the chosen path for market data may not be latency optimal from 378 publisher to the (market data) subscribers. 380 As the number of multicast flows grows, the convergence time might 381 increase and make it somewhat nondeterministic from the first to the 382 last flow depending on platforms/implementations. Also, by having 383 more protocols in the network, the variability to ensure secured 384 delivery of multicast data increases, thereby undermining the overall 385 security aspect. 387 BIER enables setting up the most optimal path from publisher to 388 subscribers by leveraging unicast routing relevant for the 389 subscribers. With BIER, the multicast convergence is as fast as 390 unicast, uniform and deterministic regardless of number of multicast 391 flows. This makes BIER a perfect multicast technology to achieve 392 fairness for market derivatives per each subscriber. 394 3.8. 4k broadcast video services 396 In a broadcast network environment, the media content is sourced from 397 various content providers across different locations. The 4k 398 broadcast video is an evolving service with enormous demand on 399 network infrastructure in terms of Low latency, faster convergence, 400 high throughput, and high bandwidth. 402 In a typical broadcast satellite network environment, the receivers 403 are the satellite Terminal nodes which will receive the content from 404 various sources and feed the data to the satellite. Typically a 405 multicast group address is assigned for each source. Currently the 406 receivers can join the sources using either PIM-SM [RFC4601] or PIM- 407 SSM [RFC4607]. 409 In such network scenarios, normally PIM will be the multicast routing 410 protocol used to establish the tree between Ingress connecting the 411 content media sources to egress routers connecting the receivers. In 412 PIM-SM mode, the receivers relies on shared tree to learn the source 413 address and build source tree while in PIM-SSM mode, IGMPv3 is used 414 by receiver to signal the source address to the egress router. In 415 either case, as the number of sources increases, the number of 416 multicast trees in the core also increases resulting with more 417 multicast state entries in the core and increasing the convergence 418 time. 420 With BIER in 4k broadcast satellite network environment, there is no 421 need to run PIM in the core and no need to maintain any multicast 422 state. The obvious advantage with BIER is the low multicast state 423 maintained in the core and the faster convergence (which is typically 424 at par with the unicast convergence). The edge router at the content 425 source facility can act as BIFR router and the edge router at the 426 receiver facility can act as BFER routers. Any addition of a new 427 content source or new satellite Terminal nodes can be added 428 seamlessly in to the BEIR domain. The group membership from the 429 receivers to the sources can be provisioned either by BGP or SDN 430 controller. 432 4. Security Considerations 434 There are no security issues introduced by this draft. 436 5. IANA Considerations 438 There are no IANA consideration introduced by this draft. 440 6. Acknowledgments 442 The authors would like to thank IJsbrand Wijnands, Greg Shepherd and 443 Christian Martin for their contribution. 445 7. References 447 7.1. Normative References 449 [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] 450 Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and 451 S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit 452 Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-02 (work in 453 progress), July 2015. 455 [I-D.ietf-bier-mvpn] 456 Rosen, E., Sivakumar, M., Wijnands, I., Aldrin, S., 457 Dolganow, A., and T. Przygienda, "Multicast VPN Using 458 BIER", draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-01 (work in progress), July 459 2015. 461 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 462 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 463 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 464 . 466 7.2. Informative References 468 [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-evpn] 469 Sajassi, A., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and J. 470 Uttaro, "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", draft-ietf-l2vpn- 471 evpn-11 (work in progress), October 2014. 473 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] 474 Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., 475 and r. rjs@rob.sh, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft- 476 ietf-spring-segment-routing-04 (work in progress), July 477 2015. 479 [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, 480 "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): 481 Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, 482 DOI 10.17487/RFC4601, August 2006, 483 . 485 [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for 486 IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006, 487 . 489 [RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed. and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer 490 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, 491 DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006, 492 . 494 [RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano, 495 "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR- 496 PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007, 497 . 499 [RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream 500 Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", 501 RFC 5331, DOI 10.17487/RFC5331, August 2008, 502 . 504 [RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/ 505 BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February 506 2012, . 508 [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, 509 L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual 510 eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for 511 Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 512 Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, 513 . 515 Authors' Addresses 517 Nagendra Kumar 518 Cisco 519 7200 Kit Creek Road 520 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 521 US 523 Email: naikumar@cisco.com 524 Rajiv Asati 525 Cisco 526 7200 Kit Creek Road 527 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 528 US 530 Email: rajiva@cisco.com 532 Mach(Guoyi) Chen 533 Huawei 535 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com 537 Xiaohu Xu 538 Huawei 540 Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com 542 Andrew Dolganow 543 Alcatel-Lucent 544 600 March Road 545 Ottawa, ON K2K2E6 546 Canada 548 Email: andrew.dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com 550 Tony Przygienda 551 Ericsson 552 300 Holger Way 553 San Jose, CA 95134 554 USA 556 Email: antoni.przygienda@ericsson.com 558 Arkadiy Gulko 559 Thomson Reuters 560 195 Broadway 561 New York NY 10007 562 USA 564 Email: arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com 565 Dom Robinson 566 id3as-company Ltd 567 UK 569 Email: Dom@id3as.co.uk 571 Vishal Arya 572 DirecTV Inc 573 2230 E Imperial Hwy 574 CA 90245 575 USA 577 Email: varya@directv.com