draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-01.txt   draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-02.txt 
Bess K. Patel INTERNET-DRAFT K. Patel
Internet-Draft S. Boutros Intended Status: Standard Track Arrcus
Intended status: Standards Track J. Liste S. Boutros
Expires: November 26, 2016 Cisco Systems VMware
J. Liste
Cisco
B. Wen B. Wen
Comcast Comcast
J. Rabadan J. Rabadan
Alcatel-Lucent Nokia
May 25, 2016
Expires: September 28, 2017 March 27, 2017
Extensions to BGP Signaled Pseudowires to support Flow-Aware Transport Extensions to BGP Signaled Pseudowires to support Flow-Aware Transport
Labels Labels
draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-01.txt draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-02.txt
Abstract Abstract
[RFC6391] describes a mechanism that uses an additional label (Flow [RFC6391] describes a mechanism that uses an additional label (Flow
Label) in the MPLS label stack that allows Label Switch Routers to Label) in the MPLS label stack that allows Label Switch Routers to
balance flows within Pseudowires at a finer granularity than the balance flows within Pseudowires at a finer granularity than the
individual Pseudowires across the Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs) individual Pseudowires across the Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs)
that exists within the Packet Switched Network (PSN). that exists within the Packet Switched Network (PSN).
Furthermore,[RFC6391] defines the LDP protocol extensions required to Furthermore,[RFC6391] defines the LDP protocol extensions required to
synchronize the flow label states between the ingress and egress PEs synchronize the flow label states between the ingress and egress PEs
when using the signaling procedures defined in the [RFC4447]. when using the signaling procedures defined in the [RFC4447].
This draft defines protocol extensions required to synchronize flow This draft defines protocol extensions required to synchronize flow
label states among PEs when using the BGP-based signaling procedures label states among PEs when using the BGP-based signaling procedures
defined in [RFC4761]. These protocol extensions are equally defined in [RFC4761]. These protocol extensions are equally
applicable to point-to-point L2VPNs defined in [RFC6624]. applicable to point-to-point L2VPNs defined in [RFC6624].
Status of This Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2016. The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
Copyright Notice The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright and License Notice
document authors. All rights reserved.
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Modifications to Layer 2 Info Extended Community . . . . . . 3 2. Modifications to Layer 2 Info Extended Community . . . . . . . 4
3. Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1 Introduction
A pseudowire (PW)[RFC3985] is normally transported over one single A pseudowire (PW)[RFC3985] is normally transported over one single
network path, even if multiple Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs) network path, even if multiple Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs)
exist between the ingress and egress PW provider edge (PE) equipment. exist between the ingress and egress PW provider edge (PE) equipment.
This is required to preserve the characteristics of the emulated This is required to preserve the characteristics of the emulated
service. The use of a single path to preserve the packet delivery service. The use of a single path to preserve the packet delivery
order remains the default mode of operation of a PW and is described order remains the default mode of operation of a PW and is described
in [RFC4385], [RFC4928]. in [RFC4385], [RFC4928].
Using the principles defined in [RFC6391], this draft augments the Using the principles defined in [RFC6391], this draft augments the
BGP-signaling procedures of [RFC4761] and [RFC6624] to allow an BGP-signaling procedures of [RFC4761] and [RFC6624] to allow an
OPTIONAL mode that may be employed when the use of ECMPs is known to OPTIONAL mode that may be employed when the use of ECMPs is known to
be beneficial to the operation of the PW. be beneficial to the operation of the PW.
skipping to change at page 3, line 15 skipping to change at page 3, line 23
order remains the default mode of operation of a PW and is described order remains the default mode of operation of a PW and is described
in [RFC4385], [RFC4928]. in [RFC4385], [RFC4928].
Using the principles defined in [RFC6391], this draft augments the Using the principles defined in [RFC6391], this draft augments the
BGP-signaling procedures of [RFC4761] and [RFC6624] to allow an BGP-signaling procedures of [RFC4761] and [RFC6624] to allow an
OPTIONAL mode that may be employed when the use of ECMPs is known to OPTIONAL mode that may be employed when the use of ECMPs is known to
be beneficial to the operation of the PW. be beneficial to the operation of the PW.
High bandwidth Ethernet-based services are a prime example that High bandwidth Ethernet-based services are a prime example that
benefits from the ability to load-balance flows in a PW over multiple benefits from the ability to load-balance flows in a PW over multiple
PSN paths. In general, load-balancing is applicable when the PW PSN paths. In general, load-balancing is applicable when the PW
attachment circuit bandwidth and PSN core link bandwidth are of same attachment circuit bandwidth and PSN core link bandwidth are of same
order of magnitude. order of magnitude.
To achieve the load-balancing goal,[RFC6391] introduces the notion of To achieve the load-balancing goal,[RFC6391] introduces the notion of
an additional Label Stack Entry (LSE) (Flow label) located at the an additional Label Stack Entry (LSE) (Flow label) located at the
bottom of the stack (right after PW LSE). Label Switching Routers bottom of the stack (right after PW LSE). Label Switching Routers
(LSRs) commonly generate a hash of the label stack in order to (LSRs) commonly generate a hash of the label stack in order to
discriminate and distribute flows over available ECMPs. The presence discriminate and distribute flows over available ECMPs. The presence
of the Flow label (closely associated to a flow determined by the of the Flow label (closely associated to a flow determined by the
ingress PE) will normally provide the greatest entropy. ingress PE) will normally provide the greatest entropy.
Furthermore, following the procedures for Inter-AS scenarios Furthermore, following the procedures for Inter-AS scenarios
described in [RFC4761] section 3.4, the Flow label should never be described in [RFC4761] section 3.4, the Flow label should never be
handled by the ASBRs, only the terminating PEs on each AS will be handled by the ASBRs, only the terminating PEs on each AS will be
responsible for popping or pushing this label. This is equally responsible for popping or pushing this label. This is equally
applicable to Method B [section 3.4.2] of [RFC4761] where ASBRs are applicable to Method B [section 3.4.2] of [RFC4761] where ASBRs are
responsible for swapping the PW label as traffic traverses from ASBR responsible for swapping the PW label as traffic traverses from ASBR
to PE and ASBR to ASBR directions. Therefore, the Flow label will to PE and ASBR to ASBR directions. Therefore, the Flow label will
remain untouched across AS boundaries. remain untouched across AS boundaries.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1 Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Modifications to Layer 2 Info Extended Community 2. Modifications to Layer 2 Info Extended Community
The Layer 2 Info Extended Community is used to signal control The Layer 2 Info Extended Community is used to signal control
information about the pseudowires to be setup. The extended information about the pseudowires to be setup. The extended
community format is described in [RFC4761]. The format of this community format is described in [RFC4761]. The format of this
extended community is described as: extended community is described as:
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| Extended community type (2 octets) | | Extended community type (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| Encaps Type (1 octet) | | Encaps Type (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| Control Flags (1 octet) | | Control Flags (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| Layer-2 MTU (2 octet) | | Layer-2 MTU (2 octet) |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| Reserved (2 octets) | | Reserved (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
Layer 2 Info Extended Community Figure 1: Layer 2 Info Extended Community
Control Flags: Control Flags:
This field contains bit flags relating to the control This field contains bit flags relating to the control information
information about pseudowires. This field is augmented with about pseudowires. This field is augmented with a definition of 2 new
a definition of 2 new flags field. flags field.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Z|Z|Z|Z|T|R|C|S| (Z = MUST Be Zero) |Z|Z|Z|Z|T|R|C|S| (Z = MUST Be Zero)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Control Flags Bit Vector Figure 2: Control Flags Bit Vector
With Reference to the Control Flags Bit Vector, the following bits in With Reference to the Control Flags Bit Vector, the following bits in
the Control Flags are defined; the remaining bits, designated Z, MUST the Control Flags are defined; the remaining bits, designated Z, MUST
be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when receiving this be set to zero when sending and MUST be ignored when receiving this
Extended Community. Extended Community.
Z Must be set to Zero. Z Must be set to Zero.
T When the bit value is 1, the PE is requesting the ability T When the bit value is 1, the PE is requesting the ability
to send a Pseudowire packet that includes a flow label. to send a Pseudowire packet that includes a flow label.
skipping to change at page 5, line 9 skipping to change at page 5, line 21
with the flow label present. with the flow label present.
C Defined in [RFC4761]. C Defined in [RFC4761].
S Defined in [RFC4761]. S Defined in [RFC4761].
3. Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label 3. Signaling the Presence of the Flow Label
As part of the Pseudowire signaling procedures described in As part of the Pseudowire signaling procedures described in
[RFC4761], a Layer 2 Info Extended Community is advertised in the [RFC4761], a Layer 2 Info Extended Community is advertised in the
VPLS BGP NLRI. This draft recommends that the Control Flags field of VPLS BGP NLRI. This draft recommends that the Control Flags field of
this extended community be used to synchronize the flow label states this extended community be used to synchronize the flow label states
amongst PEs for a given L2VPN. amongst PEs for a given L2VPN.
A PE that wishes to send a flow label in a Pseudowire packet MUST A PE that wishes to send a flow label in a Pseudowire packet MUST
include in its VPLS BGP NLRI a Layer 2 Info Extended Community using include in its VPLS BGP NLRI a Layer 2 Info Extended Community using
Control Flags field with T = 1. Control Flags field with T = 1.
A PE that is willing to receive a flow label in a Pseudowire packet A PE that is willing to receive a flow label in a Pseudowire packet
MUST include in its VPLS BGP NLRI a Layer 2 Info Extended Community MUST include in its VPLS BGP NLRI a Layer 2 Info Extended Community
using Control Flags field with R = 1. using Control Flags field with R = 1.
skipping to change at page 5, line 33 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
packet. packet.
Therefore, a PE sending a Control Flags field with T = 1 and Therefore, a PE sending a Control Flags field with T = 1 and
receiving a Control Flags field with R = 1 MUST include a flow label receiving a Control Flags field with R = 1 MUST include a flow label
in the Pseudowire packet. Under all other combinations, a PE MUST in the Pseudowire packet. Under all other combinations, a PE MUST
NOT include a flow label in the Pseudowire packet. NOT include a flow label in the Pseudowire packet.
A PE MAY support the configuration of the flow label (T and R bits) A PE MAY support the configuration of the flow label (T and R bits)
on a per-service (e.g. VPLS VFI) basis. Furthermore, it is also on a per-service (e.g. VPLS VFI) basis. Furthermore, it is also
possible that on a given service, PEs may not share the same flow possible that on a given service, PEs may not share the same flow
label settings. The presence of a flow label is therefore determined label settings. The presence of a flow label is therefore determined
on a per-peer basis and according to the local and remote T and R bit on a per-peer basis and according to the local and remote T and R bit
values. For example, a PE part of a VPLS and with a local T = 1, values. For example, a PE part of a VPLS and with a local T = 1,
must only transmit traffic with a flow label to those peers that must only transmit traffic with a flow label to those peers that
signaled R = 1. And if the same PE has local R = 1, it must only signaled R = 1. And if the same PE has local R = 1, it must only
expect to receive traffic with a flow label from peers with T = 1. expect to receive traffic with a flow label from peers with T = 1.
Any other traffic MUST not have a flow label. Any other traffic MUST not have a flow label.
Modification of flow label settings may impact traffic over a PW as Modification of flow label settings may impact traffic over a PW as
these could trigger changes in the PEs data-plane programming (i.e. these could trigger changes in the PEs data-plane programming (i.e.
imposition / disposition of flow label). This is an implementation imposition / disposition of flow label). This is an implementation
specific behavior and outside the scope of this draft specific behavior and outside the scope of this draft.
The signaling procedures in [RFC4761] state that the unspecified bits The signaling procedures in [RFC4761] state that the unspecified bits
in the Control Flags field (bits 0-5) MUST be set to zero when in the Control Flags field (bits 0-5) MUST be set to zero when
sending and MUST be ignored when receiving. The signaling procedure sending and MUST be ignored when receiving. The signaling procedure
described here is therefore backwards compatible with existing described here is therefore backwards compatible with existing
implementations. A PE not supporting the extensions described in implementations. A PE not supporting the extensions described in
this draft will always advertise a value of ZERO in the position this draft will always advertise a value of ZERO in the position
assigned by this draft to the R bit and therefore a flow label will assigned by this draft to the R bit and therefore a flow label will
never be included in a packet sent to it by one of its peers. never be included in a packet sent to it by one of its peers.
Similarly, it will always advertise a value of ZERO in the position Similarly, it will always advertise a value of ZERO in the position
assigned by this draft to the T bit and therefore a peer will know assigned by this draft to the T bit and therefore a peer will know
that a flow label will never be included in a packet sent by it. that a flow label will never be included in a packet sent by it.
Note that what is signaled is the desire to include the flow LSE in Note that what is signaled is the desire to include the flow LSE in
the label stack. The value of the flow label is a local matter for the label stack. The value of the flow label is a local matter for
the ingress PE, and the label value itself is not signaled. the ingress PE, and the label value itself is not signaled.
4. Acknowledgements 4 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Bertrand Duvivier and John Drake for The authors would like to thank Bertrand Duvivier and John Drake for
their review and comments. their review and comments.
5. Contributors 5 Contributors
In addition to the authors listed above, the following individuals In addition to the authors listed above, the following individuals
also contributed to this document: also contributed to this document:
Eric Lent Eric Lent
John Brzozowski John Brzozowski
Steven Cotter Steven Cotter
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
inherent in the existing [RFC4271]. inherent in the existing [RFC4271].
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpls-multihoming] [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpls-multihoming] Kothari, B., Kompella, K.,
Kothari, B., Kompella, K., Henderickx, W., Balus, F., Henderickx, W., Balus, F., Uttaro, J., Palislamovic, S., and W. Lin,
Uttaro, J., Palislamovic, S., and W. Lin, "BGP based "BGP based Multi-homing in Virtual Private LAN Service", draft-ietf-
Multi-homing in Virtual Private LAN Service", draft-ietf- l2vpn-vpls-multihoming-06 (work in progress), July 2013.
l2vpn-vpls-multihoming-06 (work in progress), July 2013.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, DOI 10.17487/RFC3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005, March 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, [RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385, an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385, February 2006,
February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and [RFC4447] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, DOI 10.17487/RFC4447, April
DOI 10.17487/RFC4447, April 2006, 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4447>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4447>.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private [RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC
Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007, 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007, <http://www.rfc-
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>. editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal [RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, RFC 4928, DOI
RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007, 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007, <http://www.rfc-
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>. editor.org/info/rfc4928>.
[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., [RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V.,
Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires over
Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391,
RFC 6391, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, November 2011, November 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC2842] Chandra, R. and J. Scudder, "Capabilities Advertisement [RFC2842] Chandra, R. and J. Scudder, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 2842, DOI 10.17487/RFC2842, May 2000, with BGP-4", RFC 2842, DOI 10.17487/RFC2842, May 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2842>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2842>.
[RFC2858] Bates, T., Rekhter, Y., Chandra, R., and D. Katz, [RFC2858] Bates, T., Rekhter, Y., Chandra, R., and D. Katz,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, DOI 10.17487/RFC2858,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2858, June 2000, June 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2858>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2858>.
[RFC6624] Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2 [RFC6624] Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",
Signaling", RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012, RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012, <http://www.rfc-
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6624>. editor.org/info/rfc6624>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Keyur Patel Keyur Patel
Cisco Systems Arrcus
170 W. Tasman Drive Email: keyur@arrcus.com
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: keyupate@cisco.com
Sami Boutros Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems VMware
170 W. Tasman Drive Email: sboutros@vmware.com
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: sboutros@cisco.com
Jose Liste Jose Liste
Cisco Systems Cisco
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: jliste@cisco.com Email: jliste@cisco.com
Bin Wen Bin Wen
Comcast Comcast
1701 John F Kennedy Blvd
Philadelphia, PA 19103
USA
Email: bin_wen@cable.comcast.com Email: bin_wen@cable.comcast.com
Jorge Rabadan
Alcatel-Lucent
777 E. Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
Email: jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
 End of changes. 52 change blocks. 
141 lines changed or deleted 109 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/