idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses. Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too? Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (May 29, 2015) is 3254 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1000' on line 427 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1999' on line 427 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) == Outdated reference: A later version (-25) exists of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-23) exists of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-27) exists of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-03 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed. 4 Intended status: Standards Track A. Bashandy 5 Expires: November 30, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 B. Decraene 7 S. Litkowski 8 Orange 9 M. Horneffer 10 Deutsche Telekom 11 R. Shakir 12 British Telecom 13 J. Tantsura 14 Ericsson 15 E. Crabbe 16 Individual 17 May 29, 2015 19 Segment Routing with MPLS data plane 20 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-01 22 Abstract 24 Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. A node 25 steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called 26 segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can 27 represent any instruction, topological or service-based. SR allows 28 to enforce a flow through any topological path and service chain 29 while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node to the SR 30 domain. 32 Segment Routing can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with 33 no change in the forwarding plane. This drafts describes how Segment 34 Routing operates on top of the MPLS data plane. 36 Requirements Language 38 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 39 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 40 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 42 Status of This Memo 44 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 45 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 47 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 48 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 49 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 50 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 52 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 53 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 54 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 55 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 57 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2015. 59 Copyright Notice 61 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 62 document authors. All rights reserved. 64 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 65 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 66 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 67 publication of this document. Please review these documents 68 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 69 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 70 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 71 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 72 described in the Simplified BSD License. 74 Table of Contents 76 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 77 2. Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 78 3. MPLS Instantiation of Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 4. IGP Segments Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 4.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 4.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 4.3. Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 83 4.4. Example 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 84 4.5. Example 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 85 5. Other Examples of MPLS Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 86 5.1. LDP LSP segment combined with IGP segments . . . . . . . 8 87 5.2. RSVP-TE LSP segment combined with IGP segments . . . . . 9 88 6. Segment List History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 89 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 90 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 91 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 92 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 93 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 94 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 95 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 96 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 98 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 100 1. Introduction 102 The Segment Routing architecture [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] 103 can be directly applied to the MPLS architecture with no change in 104 the MPLS forwarding plane. This drafts describes how Segment Routing 105 operates on top of the MPLS data plane. 107 The Segment Routing use cases are described in in 108 [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases]. 110 Link State protocol extensions for Segment Routing are described in 111 [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], 112 [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and 113 [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. 115 2. Illustration 117 Segment Routing, applied to the MPLS data plane, offers the ability 118 to tunnel services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) from an ingress PE to an egress 119 PE, without any other protocol than ISIS or OSPF 120 ([I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] and 121 [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]). LDP and RSVP-TE 122 signaling protocols are not required. 124 Note that [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] documents 125 SR co-existence and interworking with other MPLS signaling protocols, 126 if present in the network during a migration, or in case of non- 127 homogeneous deployments. 129 The operator only needs to allocate one node segment per PE and the 130 SR IGP control-plane automatically builds the required MPLS 131 forwarding constructs from any PE to any PE. 133 P1---P2 134 / \ 135 A---CE1---PE1 PE2---CE2---Z 136 \ / 137 P4---P4 139 Figure 1: IGP-based MPLS Tunneling 141 In Figure 1 above, the four nodes A, CE1, CE2 and Z are part of the 142 same VPN. 144 PE2 advertises (in the IGP) a host address 192.0.2.2/32 with its 145 attached node segment 102. 147 CE2 advertises to PE2 a route to Z. PE2 binds a local label LZ to 148 that route and propagates the route and its label via MPBGP to PE1 149 with nhop 192.0.2.2 (PE2 loopback address). 151 PE1 installs the VPN prefix Z in the appropriate VRF and resolves the 152 next-hop onto the node segment 102. Upon receiving a packet from A 153 destined to Z, PE1 pushes two labels onto the packet: the top label 154 is 102, the bottom label is LZ. 102 identifies the node segment to 155 PE2 and hence transports the packet along the ECMP-aware shortest- 156 path to PE2. PE2 then processes the VPN label LZ and forwards the 157 packet to CE2. 159 Supporting MPLS services (VPN, VPLS, VPWS) with SR has the following 160 benefits: 162 Simple operation: one single intra-domain protocol to operate: the 163 IGP. No need to support IGP synchronization extensions as 164 described in [RFC5443] and [RFC6138]. 166 Excellent scaling: one Node-SID per PE. 168 3. MPLS Instantiation of Segment Routing 170 MPLS instantiation of Segment Routing fits in the MPLS architecture 171 as defined in [RFC3031] both from a control plane and forwarding 172 plane perspective: 174 o From a control plane perspective [RFC3031]does not mandate a 175 single signaling protocol. Segment Routing proposes to use the 176 Link State IGP as its use of information flooding fits very well 177 with label stacking on ingress. 179 o From a forwarding plane perspective, Segment Routing does not 180 require any change to the forwarding plane. 182 When applied to MPLS, a Segment is a LSP and the 20 right-most bits 183 of the segment are encoded as a label. This implies that, in the 184 MPLS instantiation, the SID values are allocated within a reduced 185 20-bit space out of the 32-bit SID space. 187 The notion of indexed global segment fits the MPLS architecture 188 [RFC3031] as the absolute value allocated to any segment (global or 189 local) can be managed by a local allocation process (similarly to 190 other MPLS signaling protocols). 192 If present, SR can coexist and interwork with LDP and RSVP 193 [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]. 195 The source routing model described in 196 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] is inherited from the ones proposed 197 by [RFC1940] and [RFC2460]. The source routing model offers the 198 support for explicit routing capability. 200 Contrary to RSVP-based explicit routes where tunnel midpoints 201 maintain states, SR-based explicit routes only require per-flow 202 states at the ingress edge router where the traffic engineer policy 203 is applied. 205 Contrary to RSVP-based explicit routes which consist in non-ECMP 206 circuits (similar to ATM/FR), SR-based explicit routes can be built 207 as list of ECMP-aware node segments and hence ECMP-aware traffic 208 engineering is natively supported by SR. 210 When Segment Routing is instantiated over the MPLS data plane the 211 following applies: 213 A list of segments is represented as a stack of labels. 215 The active segment is the top label. 217 The CONTINUE operation is implemented as an MPLS swap operation. 218 When the same Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB, defined in 219 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] is used throughout the SR 220 domain, the outgoing label value is equal to the incoming label 221 value . Else, the outgoing label value is [SRGB(next_hop)+index] 223 The NEXT operation is implemented as an MPLS pop operation. 225 The PUSH operation is implemented as an MPLS push of a label 226 stack. 228 The Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB) values MUST by greater 229 than 15 in order to preserve values 0-15 as defined in [RFC3032]. 231 As described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], using the same 232 SRGB on all nodes within the SR domain ease operations and 233 troubleshooting and is expected to be a deployment guideline. 235 In conclusion, there are no changes in the operations of the data- 236 plane currently used in MPLS networks. 238 4. IGP Segments Examples 240 Assuming the network diagram of Figure 2 and the IP address and IGP 241 Segment allocation of Figure 3, the following examples can be 242 constructed. 244 +--------+ 245 / \ 246 R1-----R2----------R3-----R8 247 | \ / | 248 | +--R4--+ | 249 | | 250 +-----R5-----+ 252 Figure 2: IGP Segments - Illustration 254 +-----------------------------------------------------------+ 255 | IP address allocated by the operator: | 256 | 192.0.2.1/32 as a loopback of R1 | 257 | 192.0.2.2/32 as a loopback of R2 | 258 | 192.0.2.3/32 as a loopback of R3 | 259 | 192.0.2.4/32 as a loopback of R4 | 260 | 192.0.2.5/32 as a loopback of R5 | 261 | 192.0.2.8/32 as a loopback of R8 | 262 | 198.51.100.9/32 as an anycast loopback of R4 | 263 | 198.51.100.9/32 as an anycast loopback of R5 | 264 | | 265 | SRGB defined by the operator as 1000-5000 | 266 | | 267 | Global IGP SID allocated by the operator: | 268 | 1001 allocated to 192.0.2.1/32 | 269 | 1002 allocated to 192.0.2.2/32 | 270 | 1003 allocated to 192.0.2.3/32 | 271 | 1004 allocated to 192.0.2.4/32 | 272 | 1008 allocated to 192.0.2.8/32 | 273 | 2009 allocated to 198.51.100.9/32 | 274 | | 275 | Local IGP SID allocated dynamically by R2 | 276 | for its "north" adjacency to R3: 9001 | 277 | for its "north" adjacency to R3: 9003 | 278 | for its "south" adjacency to R3: 9002 | 279 | for its "south" adjacency to R3: 9003 | 280 +-----------------------------------------------------------+ 282 Figure 3: IGP Address and Segment Allocation - Illustration 284 4.1. Example 1 286 R1 may send a packet P1 to R8 simply by pushing an SR header with 287 segment list {1008}. 289 1008 is a global IGP segment attached to the IP prefix 192.0.2.8/32. 290 Its semantic is global within the IGP domain: any router forwards a 291 packet received with active segment 1008 to the next-hop along the 292 ECMP-aware shortest-path to the related prefix. 294 In conclusion, the path followed by P1 is R1-R2--R3-R8. The ECMP- 295 awareness ensures that the traffic be load-shared between any ECMP 296 path, in this case the two north and south links between R2 and R3. 298 4.2. Example 2 300 R1 may send a packet P2 to R8 by pushing an SR header with segment 301 list {1002, 9001, 1008}. 303 1002 is a global IGP segment attached to the IP prefix 192.0.2.2/32. 304 Its semantic is global within the IGP domain: any router forwards a 305 packet received with active segment 1002 to the next-hop along the 306 shortest-path to the related prefix. 308 9001 is a local IGP segment attached by node R2 to its north link to 309 R3. Its semantic is local to node R2: R2 switches a packet received 310 with active segment 9001 towards the north link to R3. 312 In conclusion, the path followed by P2 is R1-R2-north-link-R3-R8. 314 4.3. Example 3 316 R1 may send a packet P3 along the same exact path as P1 using a 317 different segment list {1002, 9003, 1008}. 319 9003 is a local IGP segment attached by node R2 to both its north and 320 south links to R3. Its semantic is local to node R2: R2 switches a 321 packet received with active segment 9003 towards either the north or 322 south links to R3 (e.g. per-flow loadbalancing decision). 324 In conclusion, the path followed by P3 is R1-R2-any-link-R3-R8. 326 4.4. Example 4 328 R1 may send a packet P4 to R8 while avoiding the links between R2 and 329 R3 by pushing an SR header with segment list {1004, 1008}. 331 1004 is a global IGP segment attached to the IP prefix 192.0.2.4/32. 332 Its semantic is global within the IGP domain: any router forwards a 333 packet received with active segment 1004 to the next-hop along the 334 shortest-path to the related prefix. 336 In conclusion, the path followed by P4 is R1-R2-R4-R3-R8. 338 4.5. Example 5 340 R1 may send a packet P5 to R8 while avoiding the links between R2 and 341 R3 while still benefitting from all the remaining shortest paths (via 342 R4 and R5) by pushing an SR header with segment list {2009, 1008}. 344 2009 is a global IGP segment attached to the anycast IP prefix 345 198.51.100.9/32. Its semantic is global within the IGP domain: any 346 router forwards a packet received with active segment 2009 to the 347 next-hop along the shortest-path to the related prefix. 349 In conclusion, the path followed by P5 is either R1-R2-R4-R3-R8 or 350 R1-R2-R5-R3-R8 . 352 5. Other Examples of MPLS Segments 354 In addition to the IGP segments previously described, the SPRING 355 source routing policy applied to MPLS can include MPLS LSP's signaled 356 by LDP, RSVPTE and BGP. The list of examples is non exhaustive. 357 Other form of segments combination can be instantiated through 358 Segment Routing (e.g.: RSVP LSPs combined with LDP or IGP or BGP 359 LSPs). 361 5.1. LDP LSP segment combined with IGP segments 363 The example illustrates a segment-routing policy including IGP 364 segments and LDP LSP segments. 366 SL1---S2---SL3---L4---SL5---S6 367 | | 368 +---------------+ 370 Figure 4: LDP LSP segment combined with IGP segments 372 We assume that: 374 o All links have an IGP cost of 1 except SL3-S6 link which has cost 375 2. 377 o All nodes are in the same IGP area. 379 o Nodes SL1, S2, SL3, SL5 and S6 are IGP-SR capable. 381 o SL3 and S6 have, respectively, index 3 and 6 assigned to them. 383 o All SR nodes have the same SRGB consisting of: [1000, 1999] 385 o SL1, SL3, L4 and SL5 are LDP capable. 387 o SL1 has a directed LDP session with SL3 and is able to retrieve 388 the SL3 local LDP mapping for FEC SL5: 35 390 o The following source-routed policy is defined in SL1 for the 391 traffic destined to S6: use path SL1-S2-SL3-L4-SL5-S6 (instead of 392 shortest-path SL1-S2-SL3-S6). 394 This is realized by programming the following segment-routing policy 395 at S1: for traffic destined to S6, push the ordered segment list: 396 {1003, 35, 1006}, where: 398 o 1003 gets the packets from S1 to SL3 via S2. 400 o 35 gets the packets from SL3 to SL5 via L4. 402 o 1006 gets the packets from SL5 to S6. 404 The above allows to steer the traffic into path SL1-S2-SL3-L4-SL5-S6 405 instead of the shortest path SL1-S2-SL3-S6. 407 5.2. RSVP-TE LSP segment combined with IGP segments 409 The example illustrates a segment-routing policy including IGP 410 segments and RSVP-TE LSP segments. 412 S1---S2---RS3---R4---RS5---S6 413 | | 414 +---------------+ 416 Figure 5: RSVP-TE LSP segment combined with IGP segments 418 We assume that: 420 o All links have an IGP cost of 1 except link RS3-S6 which has cost 421 2. 423 o All nodes are IGP-SR capable except R4. 425 o RS3 and R6 have, respectively, index 3 and 6 assigned to them. 427 o All SR nodes have the same SRGB consisting of: [1000, 1999] 429 o RS3, R4 and RS5 are RSVP-TE capable. 431 o An RSVP-TE LSP has been provisioned from RS3 to RS5 via R4. 433 o RS3 allocates a binding SID (with value of 135) for this RSVP-TE 434 LSP and signals it in the igp. 436 o The following source-routed policy is defined at S1 for the 437 traffic destined to S6: use path S1-S2-RS3-R4-RS5-S6 instead of 438 shortest-path S1-S2-RS3-S6. 440 This is realized by programming the following segment-routing policy 441 at S1: - for traffic destined to S6, push the ordered segment list: 442 {1003, 135, 1006}, where: 444 o 1003 gets the packets from S1 to RS3 via S2. 446 o 135 gets the packets from RS3 into the RSVP-TE LSP to RS5 via R4. 448 o 1006 gets the packets from RS5 to S6. 450 The above allows to steer the traffic into path S1-S2-RS3-R4-RS5-S6 451 instead of the shortest path S1-S2-RS3-S6. 453 6. Segment List History 455 In the abstract SR routing model [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], 456 any node N along the journey of the packet is able to determine where 457 the packet P entered the SR domain and where it will exit. The 458 intermediate node is also able to determine the paths from the 459 ingress edge router to itself, and from itself to the egress edge 460 router. 462 In the MPLS instantiation, as the packet travels through the SR 463 domain, the stack is depleted and the segment list history is 464 gradually lost. 466 7. IANA Considerations 468 TBD 470 8. Manageability Considerations 472 TBD 474 9. Security Considerations 476 TBD 478 10. Contributors 480 The following contributors have substantially helped the definition 481 and editing of the content of this document: 483 Wim Henderickx 484 Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com 486 Igor Milojevic 487 Email: milojevicigor@gmail.com 489 Saku Ytti 490 Email: saku@ytti.fi 492 11. Acknowledgements 494 12. References 496 12.1. Normative References 498 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 499 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 501 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 502 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 504 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol 505 Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. 507 [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., 508 Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack 509 Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001. 511 12.2. Informative References 513 [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] 514 Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., 515 Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., 516 Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe, 517 "Segment Routing interoperability with LDP", draft- 518 filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-03 (work in 519 progress), March 2015. 521 [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases] 522 Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., 523 Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., 524 Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., Kini, S., and E. 525 Crabbe, "Segment Routing Use Cases", draft-filsfils- 526 spring-segment-routing-use-cases-01 (work in progress), 527 October 2014. 529 [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] 530 Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., 531 Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS 532 Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment- 533 routing-extensions-04 (work in progress), May 2015. 535 [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] 536 Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., 537 Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3 538 Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3- 539 segment-routing-extensions-02 (work in progress), February 540 2015. 542 [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] 543 Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., 544 Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF 545 Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- 546 routing-extensions-04 (work in progress), February 2015. 548 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] 549 Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., 550 and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf- 551 spring-segment-routing-03 (work in progress), May 2015. 553 [RFC1940] Estrin, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., Varadhan, K., and D. 554 Zappala, "Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and 555 Forwarding Specification (Version 1)", RFC 1940, May 1996. 557 [RFC5443] Jork, M., Atlas, A., and L. Fang, "LDP IGP 558 Synchronization", RFC 5443, March 2009. 560 [RFC6138] Kini, S. and W. Lu, "LDP IGP Synchronization for Broadcast 561 Networks", RFC 6138, February 2011. 563 Authors' Addresses 565 Clarence Filsfils (editor) 566 Cisco Systems, Inc. 567 Brussels 568 BE 570 Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com 571 Stefano Previdi (editor) 572 Cisco Systems, Inc. 573 Via Del Serafico, 200 574 Rome 00142 575 Italy 577 Email: sprevidi@cisco.com 579 Ahmed Bashandy 580 Cisco Systems, Inc. 581 170, West Tasman Drive 582 San Jose, CA 95134 583 US 585 Email: bashandy@cisco.com 587 Bruno Decraene 588 Orange 589 FR 591 Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com 593 Stephane Litkowski 594 Orange 595 FR 597 Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com 599 Martin Horneffer 600 Deutsche Telekom 601 Hammer Str. 216-226 602 Muenster 48153 603 DE 605 Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de 607 Rob Shakir 608 British Telecom 609 London 610 UK 612 Email: rob.shakir@bt.com 613 Jeff Tantsura 614 Ericsson 615 300 Holger Way 616 San Jose, CA 95134 617 US 619 Email: Jeff.Tantsura@ericsson.com 621 Edward Crabbe 622 Individual 624 Email: edward.crabbe@gmail.com