idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-00.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 1 instance of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 6890 (or successor): 192.0.2.x, 198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7854, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC7854 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 9, 2017) is 2511 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: '1' on line 554 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Global Routing Operations T. Evens 3 Internet-Draft S. Bayraktar 4 Updates: 7854 (if approved) M. Bhardwaj 5 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems 6 Expires: December 11, 2017 P. Lucente 7 NTT Communications 8 June 9, 2017 10 Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) 11 draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-00 13 Abstract 15 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to the Adj-RIB-In 16 and locally originated routes (e.g. routes distributed into BGP from 17 protocols such as static) but not access to the BGP instance Loc-RIB. 18 This document updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 by 19 adding access to the BGP instance Local-RIB, as defined in RFC 4271 20 the routes that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's 21 Decision Process. These are the routes over all peers, locally 22 originated, and after best-path selection. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 11, 2017. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 4. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 4.1. Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 4.2. Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 5. Loc-RIB Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 5.1. Per-Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 5.2. Peer UP Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 5.2.1. Peer UP Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 5.3. Peer Down Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 5.4. Route Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 5.4.1. ASN Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 5.4.2. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 5.5. Route Mirroring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 5.6. Statistics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 75 6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 76 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 78 6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers . . . . . . . . . 12 79 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 8.1. BMP Peer Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 8.2. BMP Peer Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 83 8.3. Peer UP Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 84 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 85 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 9.2. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 87 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 88 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 90 1. Introduction 92 The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) suggests that locally originated 93 routes are locally sourced routes, such as redistributed or otherwise 94 added routes to the BGP instance by the local router. It does not 95 specify routes that are in the BGP instance Loc-RIB, such as routes 96 after best-path selection. 98 Figure 1 shows the flow of received routes from one or more BGP peers 99 into the Loc-RIB. 101 +------------------+ +------------------+ 102 | Peer-A | | Peer-B | 103 /-- | | ---- | | --\ 104 | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | 105 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 106 | | | | 107 | Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| | 108 | V V | 109 | +------------------ +------------------+ | 110 | | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | Adj-RIB-In (Post)| | 111 | +------------------ +------------------+ | 112 | | | | 113 | Selected -| Selected -| | 114 | V V | 115 | +-----------------------------------------+ | 116 | | Loc-RIB | | 117 | +-----------------------------------------+ | 118 | | 119 | ROUTER/BGP Instance | 120 \----------------------------------------------------/ 122 Figure 1: BGP peering Adj-RIBs-In into Loc-RIB 124 As shown in Figure 2, Locally originated follows a similar flow where 125 the redistributed or otherwise originated routes get installed into 126 the Loc-RIB based on the decision process selection. 128 /--------------------------------------------------------\ 129 | | 130 | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ | 131 | | IS-IS | | OSPF | | Static | | BGP | | 132 | +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ | 133 | | | | | | 134 | | | | 135 | | Redistributed or originated into BGP | | 136 | | | | 137 | | | | | | 138 | V V V V | 139 | +----------------------------------------------+ | 140 | | Loc-RIB | | 141 | +----------------------------------------------+ | 142 | | 143 | ROUTER/BGP Instance | 144 \--------------------------------------------------------/ 146 Figure 2: Locally Originated into Loc-RIB 148 BGP instance Loc-RIB usually provides a similar, if not exact, 149 forwarding information base (FIB) view of the routes from BGP that 150 the router will use. The following are some use-cases for Loc-RIB 151 access: 153 o Adj-RIBs-In Post-Policy may still contain hundreds of thousands of 154 routes per-peer but only a handful are selected and installed in 155 the Loc-RIB as part of the best-path selection. Some monitoring 156 applications, such as ones that need only to correlate flow 157 records to Loc-RIB entries, only need to collect and monitor the 158 routes that are actually selected and used. 160 Requiring the applications to collect all Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy 161 data forces the applications to receive a potentially large 162 unwanted data set and to perform the BGP decision process 163 selection, which includes having access to the IGP next-hop 164 metrics. While it is possible to obtain the IGP topology 165 information using BGP-LS, it requires the application to implement 166 SPF and possibly CSPF based on additional policies. This is 167 overly complex for such a simple application that only needed to 168 have access to the Loc-RIB. 170 o It is common to see frequent changes over many BGP peers, but 171 those changes do not always result in the router's Loc-RIB 172 changing. The change in the Loc-RIB can have a direct impact on 173 the forwarding state. It can greatly reduce time to troubleshoot 174 and resolve issues if operators had the history of Loc-RIB 175 changes. For example, a performance issue might have been seen 176 for only a duration of 5 minutes. Post troubleshooting this issue 177 without Loc-RIB history hides any decision based routing changes 178 that might have happened during those five minutes. 180 o Operators may wish to validate the impact of policies applied to 181 Adj-RIB-In by analyzing the final decision made by the router when 182 installing into the Loc-RIB. For example, in order to validate if 183 multi-path prefixes are installed as expected for all advertising 184 peers, the Adj-RIB-In Post-Policy and Loc-RIB needs to be 185 compared. This is only possible if the Loc-RIB is available. 186 Monitoring the Adj-RIB-In for this router from another router to 187 derive the Loc-RIB is likely to not show same installed prefixes. 188 For example, the received Adj-RIB-In will be different if add- 189 paths is not enabled or if maximum number of equal paths are 190 different from Loc-RIB to routes advertised. 192 This document adds Loc-RIB to the BGP Monitoring Protocol and 193 replaces Section 8.2 [RFC7854] Locally Originated Routes. 195 1.1. Current Method to Monitor Loc-RIB 197 Loc-RIB is used to build Adj-RIB-Out when advertising routes to a 198 peer. It is therefore possible to derive the Loc-RIB of a router by 199 monitoring the Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy from another router. While it 200 is possible to derive the Loc-RIB, it is also error prone and 201 complex. 203 /------------------------------------------------------\ 204 | ROUTER1 BGP Instance | 205 | | 206 | +--------------------------------------------+ | 207 | | Loc-RIB | | 208 | +--------------------------------------------+ | 209 | | | | 210 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 211 | | Peer-ROUTER2 | | Peer-ROUTER3 | | 212 | | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Pre)| | 213 | +------------------+ +------------------+ | 214 | Filters/Policy -| Filters/Policy -| | 215 | V V | 216 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 217 | | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | Adj-RIB-Out (Post)| | 218 | +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | 219 | | | | 220 \------------- | ------------------------ | -----------/ 221 BGP | BGP | 222 Peer | Peer | 223 +------------------+ +------------------+ 224 | Peer-ROUTER1 | | Peer-ROUTER1 | 225 /--| |--\ /--| | --\ 226 | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | | | Adj-RIB-In (Pre) | | 227 | +------------------+ | | +------------------+ | 228 | | | | 229 | ROUTER2/BGP Instance | | ROUTER3/BGP Instance | 230 \------------------------/ \-------------------------/ 231 | | 232 v v 233 ROUTER2 BMP Feed ROUTER3 BMP Feed 235 Figure 3: Current method to monitor Loc-RIB 237 The setup needed to monitor the Loc-RIB of a router requires another 238 router with a peering session to the target router that is to be 239 monitored. As shown in Figure 3, the target router Loc-RIB is 240 advertised via Adj-RIB-Out to the BMP router over a standard BGP 241 peering session. The BMP router then forwards Adj-RIB-In Pre-Policy 242 to the BMP receiver. 244 The current method introduces the need for additional resources: 246 o Requires at least two routers when only one router was to be 247 monitored. 249 o Requires additional BGP peering to collect the received updates 250 when peering may have not even been required in the first place. 251 For example, VRF's with no peers, redistributed bgp-ls with no 252 peers, segment routing egress peer engineering where no peers have 253 link-state address family enabled. 255 Complexities introduced with current method in order to derive (e.g. 256 correlate) peer to router Loc-RIB: 258 o Adj-RIB-Out received as Adj-RIB-In from another router may have a 259 policy applied that filters, generates aggregates, suppresses more 260 specifics, manipulates attributes, or filters routes. Not only 261 does this invalidate the Loc-RIB view, it adds complexity when 262 multiple BMP routers may have peering sessions to the same router. 263 The BMP receiver user is left with the erroneous task of 264 identifying which peering session is the best representative of 265 the Loc-RIB. 267 o BGP peering is designed to work between administrative domains and 268 therefore does not need to include internal system level 269 information of each peering router (e.g. the system name or 270 version information). In order to derive a Loc-RIB to a router, 271 the router name or other system information is needed. The BMP 272 receiver and user are forced to do some type of correlation using 273 what information is available in the peering session (e.g. peering 274 addresses, ASNs, and BGP-ID's). This leads to error prone 275 correlations. 277 o The BGP-ID's and session addresses to router correlation requires 278 additional data, such as router inventory. This additional data 279 provides the BMP receiver the ability to map and correlate the 280 BGP-ID's and/or session addresses, but requires the BMP receiver 281 to somehow obtain this data outside of BMP. How this data is 282 obtained and the accuracy of the data directly effects the 283 integrity of the correlation. 285 2. Terminology 287 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 288 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 289 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 291 3. Definitions 293 o Adj-RIB-In: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-In contains 294 unprocessed routing information that has been advertised to the 295 local BGP speaker by its peers." This is also referred to as the 296 pre-policy Adj-RIB-In in this document. 298 o Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Adj-RIBs-Out contains 299 the routes for advertisement to specific peers by means of the 300 local speaker's UPDATE messages." 302 o Loc-RIB: As defined in [RFC4271], "The Loc-RIB contains the routes 303 that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision 304 Process." It is further defined that the routes selected include 305 locally originated and routes from all peers. 307 o Pre-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result before applying the outbound 308 policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This normally represents a similar view 309 of the Loc-RIB but may contain additional routes based on BGP 310 peering configuration. 312 o Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to 313 an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer. 315 4. Per-Peer Header 317 4.1. Peer Type 319 This document defines the following new peer type: 321 o Peer Type = TBD: Loc-RIB Instance Peer 323 4.2. Peer Flags 325 In section 4.2 [RFC7854], the "locally sourced routes" comment under 326 the L flag description is removed. Locally sourced routes MUST be 327 conveyed using the Loc-RIB instance peer type. 329 The per-peer header flags for Loc-RIB Instance Peer type are defined 330 as follows: 332 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 333 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 334 |F| Reserved | 335 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 337 o The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This indicates 338 that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table. 340 The remaining bits are reserved for future use. They SHOULD be 341 transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt. 343 5. Loc-RIB Monitoring 345 Loc-RIB contains all routes from BGP peers as well as any and all 346 routes redistributed or otherwise locally originated. In this 347 context, only the BGP instance Loc-RIB is included. Routes from 348 other routing protocols that have not been redistributed, originated 349 by or into BGP, or received via Adj-RIB-In are not considered. 351 5.1. Per-Peer Header 353 All peer messages that include a per-peer header MUST use the 354 following values: 356 o Peer Type: Set to TBD to indicate Loc-RIB Instance Peer. 358 o Peer Distinguisher: Zero filled if the Loc-RIB represents the 359 global instance. Otherwise set to the route distinguisher or 360 unique locally defined value of the particular instance the Loc- 361 RIB belongs to. 363 o Peer Address: Zero-filled. Remote peer address is not applicable. 364 The V flag is not applicable with Local-RIB Instance peer type 365 considering addresses are zero-filed. 367 o Peer AS: Set to the BGP instance global or default ASN value. 369 o Peer BGP ID: Set to the BGP instance global or RD (e.g. VRF) 370 specific router-id. 372 5.2. Peer UP Notification 374 Peer UP notifications follow section 4.10 [RFC7854] with the 375 following clarifications: 377 o Local Address: Zero-filled, local address is not applicable. 379 o Local Port: Set to 0, local port is not applicable. 381 o Remote Port: Set to 0, remote port is not applicable. 383 o Sent OPEN Message: This is a fabricated BGP OPEN message. 384 Capabilities MUST include 4-octet ASN and all necessary 385 capabilities to represent the Loc-RIB route monitoring messages. 386 Only include capabilities if they will be used for Loc-RIB 387 monitoring messages. For example, if add-paths is enabled for 388 IPv6 and Loc-RIB contains additional paths, the add-paths 389 capability should be included for IPv6. In the case of add-paths, 390 the capability intent of advertise, receive or both can be ignored 391 since the presence of the capability indicates enough that add- 392 paths will be used for IPv6. 394 o Received OPEN Message: Repeat of the same Sent Open Message. The 395 duplication allows the BMP receiver to use existing parsing. 397 5.2.1. Peer UP Information 399 The following peer UP information TLV types are added: 401 o Type = TBD: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an 402 ASCII string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or 403 table name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string 404 size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. 406 The VRF/Table Name TLV is optionally included. For consistency, 407 it is RECOMMENDED that the VRF/Table Name always be included. The 408 default value of "global" SHOULD be used for the default Loc-RIB 409 instance with a zero-filled distinguisher. 411 5.3. Peer Down Notification 413 Peer down notification SHOULD follow the section 4.9 [RFC7854] reason 414 2. 416 5.4. Route Monitoring 418 Route Monitoring messages are used for initial synchronization of the 419 Loc-RIB. They are also used to convey incremental Loc-RIB changes. 421 As defined in section 4.3 [RFC7854], "Following the common BMP header 422 and per-peer header is a BGP Update PDU." 424 5.4.1. ASN Encoding 426 Loc-RIB route monitor messages MUST use 4-byte ASN encoding as 427 indicated in PEER UP sent OPEN message (Section 5.2) capability. 429 5.4.2. Granularity 431 State compression and throttling maybe used by a BMP sender 432 implementation to reduce the amount of route monitoring messages that 433 are transmitted to BMP receivers. With state compression, only the 434 final resultant updates are sent. 436 For example, prefix 10.0.0.0/8 is updated in the Loc-RIB 5 times 437 within 1 second. State compression of BMP route monitor messages 438 results in only the final change being transmitted. The other 4 439 changes are suppressed because they fall within the compression 440 interval. If no compression was being used, all 5 updates would have 441 been transmitted. 443 A BMP receiver SHOULD expect that Loc-RIB route monitoring 444 granularity can be different by BMP sender implementation. 446 5.5. Route Mirroring 448 Route mirroring is not applicable to Loc-RIB. 450 5.6. Statistics Report 452 Not all Stat Types are relevant to Loc-RIB. The Stat Types that are 453 relevant are listed below: 455 o Stat Type = 8: (64-bit Gauge) Number of routes in Loc-RIB. 457 o Stat Type = 10: Number of routes in per-AFI/SAFI Loc-RIB. The 458 value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a 64- 459 bit Gauge. 461 6. Other Considerations 463 6.1. Loc-RIB Implementation 465 There are several methods to implement Loc-RIB efficiently. In all 466 methods, the implementation emulates a peer with Peer UP and DOWN 467 messages to convey capabilities as well as Route Monitor messages to 468 convey Loc-RIB. In this sense, the peer that conveys the Loc-RIB is 469 a local router emulated peer. 471 6.1.1. Multiple Loc-RIB Peers 473 There MUST be multiple emulated peers for each Loc-RIB instance, such 474 as with VRF's. The BMP receiver identifies the Loc-RIB's by the peer 475 header distinguisher and BGP ID. The BMP receiver uses the VRF/ 476 Table Name from the PEER UP information to associate a name to the 477 Loc-RIB. 479 In some implementations, it might be required to have more than one 480 emulated peer for Loc-RIB to convey different address families for 481 the same Loc-RIB. In this case, the peer distinguisher and BGP ID 482 should be the same since it represents the same Loc-RIB instance. 483 Each emulated peer instance MUST send a PEER UP with the OPEN message 484 indicating the address family capabilities. A BMP receiver MUST 485 process these capabilities to know which peer belongs to which 486 address family. 488 6.1.2. Filtering Loc-RIB to BMP Receivers 490 There maybe be use-cases where BMP receivers should only receive 491 specific routes from Loc-RIB. For example, IPv4 unicast routes may 492 include IBGP, EBGP, and IGP but only routes from EBGP should be sent 493 to the BMP receiver. Alternatively, it may be that only IBGP and 494 EBGP that should be sent and IGP redistributed routes should be 495 excluded. In these cases where the Loc-RIB is filtered, the F flag 496 is set to 1 to indicate to the BMP receiver that the Loc-RIB is 497 filtered. 499 7. Security Considerations 501 It is not believed that this document adds any additional security 502 considerations. 504 8. IANA Considerations 506 This document requests that IANA assign the following new parameters 507 to the BMP parameters name space [1]. 509 8.1. BMP Peer Type 511 This document defines a new peer type (Section 4.1): 513 o Peer Type = TBD: Loc-RIB Instance Peer 515 8.2. BMP Peer Flags 517 This document defines a new flag (Section 4.2) and proposes that peer 518 flags are specific to the peer type: 520 o The F flag indicates that the Loc-RIB is filtered. This indicates 521 that the Loc-RIB does not represent the complete routing table. 523 8.3. Peer UP Information TLV 525 This document defines the following new BMP PEER UP informational 526 message TLV types (Section 5.2.1): 528 o Type = TBD: VRF/Table Name. The Information field contains an 529 ASCII string whose value MUST be equal to the value of the VRF or 530 table name (e.g. RD instance name) being conveyed. The string 531 size MUST be within the range of 1 to 255 bytes. 533 9. References 535 9.1. Normative References 537 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 538 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 539 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 540 . 542 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 543 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 544 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 545 . 547 [RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP 548 Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854, 549 DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016, 550 . 552 9.2. URIs 554 [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp- 555 parameters.xhtml 557 Acknowledgements 559 The authors would like to thank John Scudder for his valuable input. 561 Authors' Addresses 563 Tim Evens 564 Cisco Systems 565 2901 Third Avenue, Suite 600 566 Seattle, WA 98121 567 USA 569 Email: tievens@cisco.com 571 Serpil Bayraktar 572 Cisco Systems 573 3700 Cisco Way 574 San Jose, CA 95134 575 USA 577 Email: serpil@cisco.com 578 Manish Bhardwaj 579 Cisco Systems 580 3700 Cisco Way 581 San Jose, CA 95134 582 USA 584 Email: manbhard@cisco.com 586 Paolo Lucente 587 NTT Communications 588 Siriusdreef 70-72 589 Hoofddorp, WT 2132 590 NL 592 Email: paolo@ntt.net