draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-02.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-03.txt 
Inter-Domain Routing K. Talaulikar Inter-Domain Routing K. Talaulikar, Ed.
Internet-Draft P. Psenak Internet-Draft P. Psenak
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: July 9, 2020 S. Zandi Expires: January 6, 2021 S. Zandi
G. Dawra G. Dawra
LinkedIn LinkedIn
January 6, 2020 July 5, 2020
Flexible Algorithm Definition Advertisement with BGP Link-State Flexible Algorithm Definition Advertisement with BGP Link-State
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-02 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-03
Abstract Abstract
Flexible Algorithm is a solution that allows routing protocols (viz. Flexible Algorithm is a solution that allows routing protocols (viz.
OSPF and IS-IS) to compute paths over a network based on user-defined OSPF and IS-IS) to compute paths over a network based on user-defined
(and hence, flexible) constraints and metrics. The computation is (and hence, flexible) constraints and metrics. The computation is
performed by routers participating in the specific network in a performed by routers participating in the specific network in a
distribute manner using a Flex Algorithm definition. This definition distribute manner using a Flex Algorithm definition. This definition
provisioned on one or more routers and propagated (viz. OSPF and IS- provisioned on one or more routers and propagated (viz. OSPF and IS-
IS flooding) through the network. IS flooding) through the network.
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 July 9, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
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.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. BGP-LS Extensions for Flex Algo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. BGP-LS Extensions for Flex Algo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Flexible Algorithm Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Flexible Algorithm Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Flex Algo Exclude Any Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Flex Algo Exclude Any Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Flex Algo Include Any Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Flex Algo Include Any Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Flex Algo Include All Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3. Flex Algo Include All Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Flex Algo Definition Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. Flex Algo Definition Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Flex Algorithm Prefix Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.5. Flex Algo Exclude SRLG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Flex Algorithm Prefix Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
IGP protocols (OSPF and IS-IS) traditionally compute best paths over IGP protocols (OSPF and IS-IS) traditionally compute best paths over
the network based on the IGP metric assigned to the links. Many the network based on the IGP metric assigned to the links. Many
network deployments use RSVP-TE [RFC3209] based or Segment Routing network deployments use RSVP-TE [RFC3209] based or Segment Routing
(SR) Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] based solutions (SR) Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] based solutions
to enforce traffic over a path that is computed using different to enforce traffic over a path that is computed using different
metrics or constraints than the shortest IGP path. metrics or constraints than the shortest IGP path.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] defines the Flexible Algorithm solution that [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] defines the Flexible Algorithm solution that
skipping to change at page 4, line 40 skipping to change at page 4, line 42
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. BGP-LS Extensions for Flex Algo 2. BGP-LS Extensions for Flex Algo
The BGP-LS [RFC7752] specifies the Node NLRI for advertisement of The BGP-LS [RFC7752] specifies the Node NLRI for advertisement of
nodes along with their attributes using the BGP-LS Attribute and the nodes along with their attributes using the BGP-LS Attribute, the
Prefix NLRI for advertisement of prefixes along with their attributes Link NLRI for advertisement of links along with their attributes
using the BGP-LS Attribute. The Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD) using the BGP-LS Attribute and the Prefix NLRI for advertisement of
advertised by a node are considered as its node level attributes and prefixes along with their attributes using the BGP-LS Attribute.
advertised as such. The Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) are
considered as prefix attributes and advertised as such. The Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD) advertised by a node are
considered as its node level attributes and advertised as such.
Various link attributes like affinities and SRLGs used during the
Flex-Algorithm path calculations in IS-IS and OSPF are advertised in
those protocols using the Application Specific Link Attribute (ASLA)
advertisements as described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. The BGP-LS
extensions for ASLA advertisements
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr] MUST be used for the
advertisement of these Flex-Algorithm application specific link
attributes from the underlying IGP protocols using the Flexible
Algorithm application specific bit defined in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].
The Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) are considered as prefix
attributes and advertised as such.
3. Flexible Algorithm Definition 3. Flexible Algorithm Definition
This document defines a new optional BGP-LS Attribute TLV associated This document defines a new optional BGP-LS Attribute TLV associated
with the Node NLRI called the Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD) TLV with the Node NLRI called the Flexible Algorithm Definition (FAD) TLV
and its format is as follows: and its format is as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 9, line 11 skipping to change at page 9, line 28
o Flags : the bitmask used to represent the flags for the flex o Flags : the bitmask used to represent the flags for the flex
algorithm definition as introduced by [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] and algorithm definition as introduced by [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] and
listed in the "Flex-Algorithm Definition Flags" registry under the listed in the "Flex-Algorithm Definition Flags" registry under the
"Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA registry. "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA registry.
The information in the Flex Algo Definition Flags sub-TLV is derived The information in the Flex Algo Definition Flags sub-TLV is derived
from the IS-IS and OSPF protocol specific Flexible Algorithm from the IS-IS and OSPF protocol specific Flexible Algorithm
Definition Flags sub-TLV as defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. Definition Flags sub-TLV as defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].
3.5. Flex Algo Exclude SRLG
The Flex Algo Exclude SRLG sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV that is
used to carry the shared risk link group (SRLG) [RFC4202] information
associated with the flex algo definition and enable the exclusion of
links that are associated with any of the specified SRLG in the
computation of the specific algorithm as described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. The SRLGs associated with a link are
carried in the BGP-LS Shared Link Risk Group (TLV 1096) [RFC7752].
The TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Values (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: TBD
o Length: variable, depedent on the number of SRLG values. MUST be
a multiple of 4 octets.
o SRLG Values : One or more SRLG values, each of 4 octet size, as
defined in [RFC4202] and listed in the "Flex-Algorithm Definition
Flags" registry under the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
Parameters" IANA registry.
The information in the Flex Algo SRLG Exclude sub-TLV is derived from
the IS-IS and OSPF protocol specific Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG
sub-TLV as defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].
4. Flex Algorithm Prefix Metric 4. Flex Algorithm Prefix Metric
This document defines a new optional BGP-LS Attribute TLV associated This document defines a new optional BGP-LS Attribute TLV associated
with the Prefix NLRI called the Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric with the Prefix NLRI called the Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric
(FAPM) TLV and its format is as follows: (FAPM) TLV and its format is as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
skipping to change at page 10, line 29 skipping to change at page 11, line 34
+------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+
| Code Point | Description | Length | | Code Point | Description | Length |
+------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+
| 1039 | Flex Algorithm Definition TLV | variable | | 1039 | Flex Algorithm Definition TLV | variable |
| 1040 | Flex Algo Exclude Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1040 | Flex Algo Exclude Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable |
| 1041 | Flex Algo Include Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1041 | Flex Algo Include Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable |
| 1042 | Flex Algo Include All Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1042 | Flex Algo Include All Affinity sub-TLV | variable |
| 1043 | Flex Algo Definition Flags sub-TLV | variable | | 1043 | Flex Algo Definition Flags sub-TLV | variable |
| 1044 | Flex Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV | variable | | 1044 | Flex Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV | variable |
| TBD | Flex Algorithm Exclude SRLG TLV | variable |
+------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+
6. Manageability Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706]. This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706].
The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the
existing IGP topology information that was distributed via [RFC7752]. existing IGP topology information that was distributed via [RFC7752].
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as
skipping to change at page 11, line 26 skipping to change at page 12, line 30
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg for his reviews and The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg for his reviews and
contributions to this work. contributions to this work.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr]
Talaulikar, K., Psenak, P., and J. Tantsura, "Application
Specific Attributes Advertisement with BGP Link-State",
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-02 (work in
progress), May 2020.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
(work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M.,
daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link
State Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
srv6-ext-02 (work in progress), January 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex- A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
algo-05 (work in progress), November 2019. algo-07 (work in progress), April 2020.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-07 (work in
progress), December 2019.
[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 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
(work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M.,
daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link
State Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
srv6-ext-01 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-06 (work in progress), ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-07 (work in progress),
December 2019. May 2020.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-16 (work in
progress), June 2020.
[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J. [RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
RFC 2702, DOI 10.17487/RFC2702, September 1999, RFC 2702, DOI 10.17487/RFC2702, September 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2702>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2702>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and [RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions", Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009, RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.
[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ketan Talaulikar Ketan Talaulikar (editor)
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
India India
Email: ketant@cisco.com Email: ketant@cisco.com
Peter Psenak Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Slovakia Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
58 lines changed or deleted 121 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/