idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC1195], [ISO10589]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: As mentioned earlier, to avoid incomplete or inconsistent interpretations of the per-node administrative tags the same tag value MUST NOT be advertised by a router in Router Capabilities of different scopes. Implementations MUST NOT allow configuring the same tag value across domain-wide and 'level-wide' scopes. The same tag value MAY be allowed to be configured and advertised under 'level-wide' scope for all levels. A IS-IS Area Border Routers (ABR) participating in both levels 1 and 2 MAY advertise the same tag value in the level-specific Router Capability TLVs with 'level-wide' scope (S-bit reset to 0) generated by it. But the same tag value MUST not be advertised in any of level 1 or level 2 Router-Capability TLV with 'global' scope (S-bit set to 1). -- The document date (December 22, 2014) is 3412 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) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589' == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-09 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4971 (Obsoleted by RFC 7981) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IS-IS for IP Internets P. Sarkar, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft H. Gredler 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Hegde 5 Expires: June 25, 2015 Juniper Networks, Inc. 6 S. Litkowski 7 B. Decraene 8 Orange 9 Z. Li 10 Huawei Technologies 11 E. Aries 12 R. Rodriguez 13 Facebook 14 H. Raghuveer 16 December 22, 2014 18 Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS 19 draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-00 21 Abstract 23 This document describes an extension to IS-IS protocol [ISO10589], 24 [RFC1195] to add an optional operational capability, that allows 25 tagging and grouping ofthe nodes in an IS-IS domain. This allows 26 simple management and easy control over route and path selection, 27 based on local configured policies. 29 This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate per- 30 node administrative tags in IS-IS protocols. 32 Requirements Language 34 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 35 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 36 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 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 http://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 June 25, 2015. 55 Copyright Notice 57 Copyright (c) 2014 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 (http://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. Administrative Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 74 3. TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 75 3.1. Per-node Admin Tag sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 76 4. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 5. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 79 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 83 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 84 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 1. Introduction 88 This document provides mechanisms to advertise per-node 89 administrative tags in the IS-IS Link State PDU [RFC1195]. In 90 certain path-selection applications like for example in traffic- 91 engineering or LFA [RFC5286] selection there is a need to tag the 92 nodes based on their roles in the network and have policies to prefer 93 or prune a certain group of nodes. 95 2. Administrative Tag 97 For the purpose of advertising per-node administrative tags within 98 IS-IS, a new sub-TLV to the IS-IS Router Capability TLV-242 that is 99 defined in [RFC4971] is proposed. Because path selection is a 100 functional set which applies both to TE and non-TE applications the 101 same has not been added as a new sub-TLV in the Traffic Engineering 102 TLVs [RFC5305]. 104 An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to 105 identify a group of nodes in the IS-IS domain. The new sub-TLV 106 specifies one or more administrative tag values. An IS-IS router 107 advertises the set of groups it is part of in the specific IS-IS 108 level. As an example, all PE-nodes may be configured with certain 109 tag value, whereas all P-nodes are configured with a different tag 110 value in. 112 The new sub-TLV defined will be carried inside the IS-IS Router 113 Capability TLV-242 (defined in [RFC4971]) in the Link State PDUs 114 originated by the router. Link State PDUs [ISO10589] that has either 115 level-wise (i.e. L1 or L2) or domain-wide flooding scope. Choosing 116 the flooding scope to flood the group tags are defined by the needs 117 of the operator's usage and is a matter of local policy or 118 configuration. 120 Operator may choose to advertise a set of per-node administrative 121 tags across levels and another set of per-node administrative tags 122 within the specific level. But evidently the same set of per-node 123 administrative tags cannot be advertised both across levels and 124 within a specific level. A receiving IS-IS router will not be able 125 to distinguish between the significance of a per-node administrative 126 tag advertised globally from that of a administrative tag advertised 127 locally if they have the same value associated but different 128 significance across different scopes. 130 Implementations SHOULD allow configuring one or more 'global' as well 131 as 'level-wide' administrative tags. A operator may only need to 132 advertise and flood a specific per-node administrative tag, either 133 across all levels, or only within a specific level. Hence 134 implementations MUST NOT allow configuring the same per-node 135 administrative tag values in both 'global' and 'level-wide' scopes. 136 However the same administrative tag value MAY be allowed to be 137 configured and advertised for multiple levels with 'level-wide' 138 flooding scope. 140 The 'global' per-node administrative tags shall have significance 141 across the entire administrative domain and hence MUST be advertised 142 in a Router-Capability TLV with 'global' scope (i.e. S-bit set to 143 1), and inserted in the LSP PDUs generated for all levels applicable. 144 The 'level-wide' administrative tags should be copied in to a Router- 145 Capability with 'level-wide' scope only (i.e S-bit reset to 0) and 146 copied into the LSP PDU for the specific level. 148 In deployments using multi-topology routing [RFC5120], since multiple 149 topologies within same IS-IS level share the same flooding scope 150 configuring the same per-node administrative tag across different 151 topologies, SHOULD NOT be allowed. Advertising the same tag value 152 across multiple topologies will lead to same inconsistencies as with 153 the case of advertising same tag value across 'global' and 'level- 154 wide' flooding scope. If there is need to distinguish between the 155 per-node administrative tags used for one topology to another, 156 operators are advised to use disjoint sets of per-node administrative 157 tags across such topologies. 159 3. TLV format 161 3.1. Per-node Admin Tag sub-TLV 163 The new Per-node Administrative Tag sub-TLV, like other ISIS 164 Capability sub-TLVs, is formatted as Type/Length/Value (TLV)triplets. 165 Figure 1 below shows the format of the new sub-TLV. 167 0 1 2 3 168 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 1 169 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 170 | Type | Length | 171 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 172 | Administrative Tag #1 | 173 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 174 | Administrative Tag #2 | 175 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 176 // // 177 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 178 | Administrative Tag #N | 179 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 181 Type : TBA 183 Length: A 8-bit field that indicates the length of the value 184 portion in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets 185 dependent on the number of tags advertised. 187 Value: A sequence of multiple 4 octets defining the 188 administrative tags. 190 Figure 1: IS-IS Per-node Administrative Tag sub-TLV 192 The 'Per-node Admin Tag' sub-TLV may be generated more than once by 193 an originating router. This MAY happen if a node carries more than 194 63 per-node administrative groups and a single sub-TLV does not 195 provide sufficient space. As such occurence of the 'Per-node Admin 196 Tag' sub-TLV does not cancel previous announcements, but rather is 197 cumulative. 199 4. Elements of Procedure 201 Meaning of the Per-node administrative tags is generally opaque to 202 IS-IS. Router advertising the per-node administrative tag (or tags) 203 may be configured to do so without knowing (or even explicitly 204 supporting) functionality implied by the tag. 206 Interpretation of tag values is specific to the administrative domain 207 of a particular network operator. The meaning of a per-node 208 administrative tag is defined by the network local policy and is 209 controlled via the configuration. If a receiving node does not 210 understand the tag value, it ignores the specific tag and floods the 211 Router Capability TLV without any change as defined in [RFC4971]. 213 The semantics of the tag order has no meaning. There is no implied 214 meaning to the ordering of the tags that indicates a certain 215 operation or set of operations that need to be performed based on the 216 ordering. 218 Each tag SHOULD be treated as an independent identifier that MAY be 219 used in policy to perform a policy action. Tags carried by the 220 administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate independent 221 characteristics of a node. The TLV SHOULD be considered as an 222 unordered list. Whilst policies may be implemented based on the 223 presence of multiple tags (e.g., if tag A AND tag B are present), 224 they MUST NOT be reliant upon the order of the tags (i.e., all 225 policies should be considered commutative operations, such that tag A 226 preceding or following tag B does not change their outcome). 228 As mentioned earlier, to avoid incomplete or inconsistent 229 interpretations of the per-node administrative tags the same tag 230 value MUST NOT be advertised by a router in Router Capabilities of 231 different scopes. Implementations MUST NOT allow configuring the 232 same tag value across domain-wide and 'level-wide' scopes. The same 233 tag value MAY be allowed to be configured and advertised under 234 'level-wide' scope for all levels. A IS-IS Area Border Routers (ABR) 235 participating in both levels 1 and 2 MAY advertise the same tag value 236 in the level-specific Router Capability TLVs with 'level-wide' scope 237 (S-bit reset to 0) generated by it. But the same tag value MUST not 238 be advertised in any of level 1 or level 2 Router-Capability TLV with 239 'global' scope (S-bit set to 1). 241 The per-node administrative tags are not meant to be extended by the 242 future IS-IS standards. The new IS-IS extensions MUST NOT require 243 use of per-node administrative tags or define well-known tag values. 244 Per-node administrative tags are for generic use and do not require 245 IANA registry. The future IS-IS extensions requiring well known 246 values MAY use new Capability sub-TLVs tailored to the needs of the 247 feature, as defined in [RFC4971]. 249 Being part of the Router Capability TLV, the per-node administrative 250 tag sub-TLV MUST be reasonably small and stable. In particular, but 251 not limited to, implementations supporting the per-node 252 administrative tags MUST NOT tie advertised tags to changes in the 253 network topology (both within and outside the IS-IS domain) or 254 reachability of routes. 256 5. Applications 258 This section lists several examples of how implementations might use 259 the Per-node administrative tags. These examples are given only to 260 demonstrate generic usefulness of the router tagging mechanism. 262 Implementation supporting this specification is not required to 263 implement any of the use cases. It is also worth noting that in some 264 described use cases routers configured to advertise tags help other 265 routers in their calculations but do not themselves implement the 266 same functionality. 268 1. Auto-discovery of Services 270 Router tagging may be used to automatically discover group of 271 routers sharing a particular service. 273 For example, service provider might desire to establish full mesh 274 of MPLS TE tunnels between all PE routers in the area of MPLS VPN 275 network. Marking all PE routers with a tag and configuring 276 devices with a policy to create MPLS TE tunnels to all other 277 devices advertising this tag will automate maintenance of the 278 full mesh. When new PE router is added to the area, all other PE 279 devices will open TE tunnels to it without the need of 280 reconfiguring them. 282 2. Policy-based Fast-Reroute 284 Increased deployment of Loop Free Alternates (LFA) as defined in 285 [RFC5286] poses operation and management challenges. 286 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] proposes policies which, when 287 implemented, will ease LFA operation concerns. 289 One of the proposed refinements is to be able to group the nodes 290 in IGP domain with administrative tags and engineer the LFA based 291 on configured policies. 293 (a) Administrative limitation of LFA scope 295 Service provider access infrastructure is frequently designed 296 in layered approach with each layer of devices serving 297 different purposes and thus having different hardware 298 capabilities and configured software features. When LFA 299 repair paths are being computed, it may be desirable to 300 exclude devices from being considered as LFA candidates based 301 on their layer. 303 For example, if the access infrastructure is divided into the 304 Access, Distribution and Core layers it may be desirable for 305 a Distribution device to compute LFA only via Distribution or 306 Core devices but not via Access devices. This may be due to 307 features enabled on Access routers; due to capacity 308 limitations or due to the security requirements. Managing 309 such a policy via configuration of the router computing LFA 310 is cumbersome and error prone. 312 With the Per-node administrative tags it is possible to 313 assign a tag to each layer and implement LFA policy of 314 computing LFA repair paths only via neighbors which advertise 315 the Core or Distribution tag. This requires minimal per-node 316 configuration and network automatically adapts when new links 317 or routers are added. 319 (b) Optimizing LFA calculations 321 Calculation of LFA paths may require significant resources of 322 the router. One execution of Dijkstra algorithm is required 323 for each neighbor eligible to become next hop of repair 324 paths. Thus a router with a few hundreds of neighbors may 325 need to execute the algorithm hundreds of times before the 326 best (or even valid) repair path is found. Manually 327 excluding from the calculation neighbors which are known to 328 provide no valid LFA (such as single-connected routers) may 329 significantly reduce number of Dijkstra algorithm runs. 331 LFA calculation policy may be configured so that routers 332 advertising certain tag value are excluded from LFA 333 calculation even if they are otherwise suitable. 335 3. Controlling Remote LFA tunnel termination 337 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] proposed method of tunneling traffic 338 after connected link failure to extend the basic LFA coverage and 339 algorithm to find tunnel tail-end routers fitting LFA 340 requirement. In most cases proposed algorithm finds more than 341 one candidate tail-end router. In real life network it may be 342 desirable to exclude some nodes from the list of candidates based 343 on the local policy. This may be either due to known limitations 344 of the per-node (the router does accept targeted LDP sessions 345 required to implement Remote LFA tunneling) or due to 346 administrative requirements (for example, it may be desirable to 347 choose tail-end router among co-located devices). 349 The Per-node administrative tag delivers simple and scalable 350 solution. Remote LFA can be configured with a policy to accept 351 during the tail-end router calculation as candidates only routers 352 advertising certain tag. Tagging routers allows to both exclude 353 nodes not capable of serving as Remote LFA tunnel tail-ends and 354 to define a region from which tail-end router must be selected. 356 4. Mobile backhaul network service deployment 357 The topology of mobile backhaul network usually adopts ring 358 topology to save fiber resource and it is divided into the 359 aggregate network and the access network. Cell Site 360 Gateways(CSGs) connects the eNodeBs and RNC(Radio Network 361 Controller) Site Gateways(RSGs)connects the RNCs. The mobile 362 traffic is transported from CSGs to RSGs. The network takes a 363 typical aggregate traffic model that more than one access rings 364 will attach to one pair of aggregate site gateways(ASGs) and more 365 than one aggregate rings will attach to one pair of RSGs. 367 ---------------- 368 / \ 369 / \ 370 / \ 371 +------+ +----+ Access +----+ 372 |eNodeB|---|CSG1| Ring 1 |ASG1|------------- 373 +------+ +----+ +----+ \ 374 \ / \ 375 \ / +----+ +---+ 376 \ +----+ |RSG1|----|RNC| 377 -------------| | Aggregate +----+ +---+ 378 |ASG2| Ring | 379 -------------| | +----+ +---+ 380 / +----+ |RSG2|----|RNC| 381 / \ +----+ +---+ 382 / \ / 383 +------+ +----+ Access +----+ / 384 |eNodeB|---|CSG2| Ring 2 |ASG3|------------ 385 +------+ +----+ +----+ 386 \ / 387 \ / 388 \ / 389 ----------------- 391 Figure 2: Mobile Backhaul Network 393 A typical mobile backhaul network with access rings and aggregate 394 links is shown in figure above. The mobile backhaul networks 395 deploy traffic engineering due to the strict Service Level 396 Agreements(SLA). The TE paths may have additional constraints to 397 avoid passing via different access rings or to get completely 398 disjoint backup TE paths. The mobile backhaul networks towards 399 the access side change frequently due to the growing mobile 400 traffic and addition of new eNodeBs. It's complex to satisfy the 401 requirements using cost, link color or explicit path 402 configurations. The per-node administrative tag defined in this 403 document can be effectively used to solve the problem for mobile 404 backhaul networks. The nodes in different rings can be assigned 405 with specific tags. TE path computation can be enhanced to 406 consider additional constraints based on per-node administrative 407 tags. 409 5. Policy-based Explicit Routing 411 Partially meshed network provides multiple paths between any two 412 nodes in the network. In a data center environment, the topology 413 is usually highly symmetric with many/all paths having equal 414 cost. In a long distance network, this is usually less the case 415 for a variety of reasons (e.g. historic, fiber availability 416 constraints, different distances between transit nodes, different 417 roles ...). Hence between a given source and destination, a path 418 is typically preferred over the others, while between the same 419 source and another destination, a different path may be 420 preferred. 422 +--------------------+ 423 | | 424 | +----------+ | 425 | | | | 426 T-10-T | | 427 /| /| | | 428 / | / | | | 429 --+ | | | | | 430 / +--+-+ 100 | | 431 / / | | | | 432 / / R-18-R | | 433 / / /\ /\ | | 434 / | / \ / \ | | 435 / | / x \ | | 436 A-25-A 10 10 \ \ | | 437 / / 10 10 | | 438 / / \ \ | | 439 A-25-A A-25-A | | 440 \ \ / / | | 441 201 201 201 201 | | 442 \ \ / / | | 443 \ x / | | 444 \ / \ / | | 445 \/ \/ | | 446 I-24-I 100 100 447 | | | | 448 | +-----------+ | 449 | | 450 +---------------------+ 452 Figure 3: Explicit Routing topology 454 In the above topology, operator may want to enforce the following 455 high level explicitly routed policies: - Traffic from A nodes to 456 A nodes must not go through I nodes - Traffic from A nodes to I 457 nodes must not go through R and T nodes with per-node 458 administrative tag, tag A can be configured on all A nodes, 459 (similarly I, R, T), and then configure this single CSPF policy 460 on all A nodes to avoid I nodes for path calculation. 462 6. Security Considerations 464 This document does not introduce any further security issues other 465 than those discussed in [ISO10589] and [RFC1195]. 467 7. IANA Considerations 469 IANA maintains the registry for the Router Capability sub-TLVs. IS- 470 IS Administrative Tags will require new type code for the following 471 new sub-TLV defined in this document. 473 i) Per-Node-Admin-Tag Sub-TLV, Type: TBD 475 8. Acknowledgments 477 Many thanks to Les Ginsberg, Dhruv Dhody, Uma Chunduri for useful 478 inputs. Thanks to Chris Bowers for providing useful inputs to remove 479 ambiguity related to tag-ordering. 481 9. References 483 9.1. Normative References 485 [ISO10589] 486 "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain 487 routeing information exchange protocol for use in 488 conjunction with the protocol for providing the 489 connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473), ISO/IEC 490 10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002. 492 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 493 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 495 9.2. Informative References 497 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] 498 Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., 499 Horneffer, M., and p. psarkar@juniper.net, "Operational 500 management of Loop Free Alternates", draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa- 501 manageability-04 (work in progress), August 2014. 503 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] 504 Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N. 505 So, "Remote LFA FRR", draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-09 (work 506 in progress), December 2014. 508 [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and 509 dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. 511 [RFC4971] Vasseur, JP., Shen, N., and R. Aggarwal, "Intermediate 512 System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for 513 Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971, July 2007. 515 [RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi 516 Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to 517 Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, February 2008. 519 [RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast 520 Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008. 522 [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 523 Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008. 525 Authors' Addresses 527 Pushpasis Sarkar (editor) 528 Juniper Networks, Inc. 529 Electra, Exora Business Park 530 Bangalore, KA 560103 531 India 533 Email: psarkar@juniper.net 535 Hannes Gredler 536 Juniper Networks, Inc. 537 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 538 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 539 US 541 Email: hannes@juniper.net 543 Shraddha Hegde 544 Juniper Networks, Inc. 545 Electra, Exora Business Park 546 Bangalore, KA 560103 547 India 549 Email: shraddha@juniper.net 551 Stephane Litkowski 552 Orange 554 Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com 555 Bruno Decraene 556 Orange 558 Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com 560 Li Zhenbin 561 Huawei Technologies 562 Huawei Bld. No.156 Beiqing Rd 563 Beijing, KA 100095 564 China 566 Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com 568 Ebben Aries 569 Facebook 571 Email: exa@fb.com 573 Rafael Rodriguez 574 Facebook 576 Email: rafael@fb.com 578 Harish Raghuveer 580 Email: harish.r.prabhu@gmail.com