draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-15.txt   rfc9089.txt 
LSR Working Group X. Xu Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) X. Xu
Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc Request for Comments: 9089 Capitalonline
Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini Category: Standards Track S. Kini
Expires: December 3, 2020 ISSN: 2070-1721
P. Psenak P. Psenak
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Bocci M. Bocci
Nokia Nokia
June 1, 2020 August 2021
Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth
Using OSPF Using OSPF
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-15
Abstract Abstract
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load- Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load-
balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label
Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a
given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated
via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to
as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that LSP. In addition, it as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that LSP. In addition, it
would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for
reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load- reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-
balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This
document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 and BGP-LS. OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, and Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2020. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9089.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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
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.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology
3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF
3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2
3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3
4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF
5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Informative References
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Acknowledgements
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Contributors
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC6790] describes a method to load-balance Multiprotocol Label [RFC6790] describes a method to load-balance Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). It also Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). It also
introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines
the signaling of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols. the signaling of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols.
Recently, mechanisms have been defined to signal labels via link- Recently, mechanisms have been defined to signal labels via link-
state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as OSPFv2 [RFC8665] and state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as OSPFv2 [RFC8665] and
OSPFv3 [RFC8666]. This draft defines a mechanism to signal the ELC OSPFv3 [RFC8666]. This document defines a mechanism to signal the
using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. ELC using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
In cases where Segment Routing (SR) is used with the MPLS Data Plane In cases where Segment Routing (SR) is used with the MPLS data plane
(e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660]), it would be useful for ingress LSRs to (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660]), it would be useful for ingress LSRs to
know each intermediate LSR's capability of reading the maximum label know each intermediate LSR's capability of reading the maximum label
stack depth and performing EL-based load-balancing. This capability, stack depth and performing EL-based load-balancing. This capability,
referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as defined in referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as defined in
[RFC8662], may be used by ingress LSRs to determine the position of [RFC8662], may be used by ingress LSRs to determine the position of
the EL label in the stack, and whether it is necessary to insert the EL label in the stack, and whether it is necessary to insert
multiple ELs at different positions in the label stack. This multiple ELs at different positions in the label stack. This
document defines a mechanism to signal the ERLD using OSPFv2 and document defines a mechanism to signal the ERLD using OSPFv2 and
OSPFv3. OSPFv3.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790], and [RFC8662]. This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790] and [RFC8662].
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
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
The key word OSPF is used throughout the document to refer to both The key word OSPF is used throughout the document to refer to both
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF 3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF
Even though ELC is a property of the node, in some cases it is Even though ELC is a property of the node, in some cases it is
advantageous to associate and advertise the ELC with a prefix. In advantageous to associate and advertise the ELC with a prefix. In
multi-area networks, routers may not know the identity of the prefix multi-area networks, routers may not know the identity of the prefix
originator in a remote area, or may not know the capabilities of such originator in a remote area or may not know the capabilities of such
originator. Similarly, in a multi domain network, the identity of an originator. Similarly, in a multi-domain network, the identity of
the prefix originator and its capabilities may not be known to the the prefix originator and its capabilities may not be known to the
ingress LSR. ingress LSR.
If a router has multiple interfaces, the router MUST NOT announce ELC If a router has multiple interfaces, the router MUST NOT announce ELC
unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing ELs. unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing ELs.
If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD
advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.
3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2 3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2
[RFC7684] defines the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV to advertise [RFC7684] defines the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV to advertise
additional attributes associated with a prefix. The OSPFv2 Extended additional attributes associated with a prefix. The OSPFv2 Extended
Prefix TLV includes a one-octet Flags field. A new flag in the Flags Prefix TLV includes a one-octet Flags field. A new flag in the Flags
field is used to signal the ELC for the prefix: field is used to signal the ELC for the prefix:
0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag): Set by the advertising router to 0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag):
indicate that the prefix originator is capable of processing ELs. Set by the advertising router to indicate that the prefix
originator is capable of processing ELs.
The ELC signaling MUST be preserved when an OSPF Area Border Router The ELC signaling MUST be preserved when an OSPF Area Border Router
(ABR) distributes information between areas. To do so, an ABR MUST (ABR) distributes information between areas. To do so, an ABR MUST
originate an OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684] including originate an OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque Link State Advertisement
the received ELC setting. (LSA) [RFC7684] including the received ELC setting.
When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a When an OSPF Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) redistributes a
prefix from another instance of OSPF or from some other protocol, it prefix from another instance of OSPF or from some other protocol, it
SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix if it exists. To do SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix if it exists. To do
so, an ASBR SHOULD originate an Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684] so, an ASBR SHOULD originate an Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684]
including the ELC setting of the redistributed prefix. The flooding including the ELC setting of the redistributed prefix. The flooding
scope of the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA MUST match the flooding scope scope of the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA MUST match the flooding scope
of the LSA that an ASBR originates as a result of the redistribution. of the LSA that an ASBR originates as a result of the redistribution.
The exact mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances The exact mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances
on an ASBR is outside of the scope of this document. on an ASBR is outside of the scope of this document.
3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3 3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3
[RFC5340] defines the OSPFv3 PrefixOptions field to indicate [RFC5340] defines the OSPFv3 PrefixOptions field to indicate
capabilities associated with a prefix. A new bit in the OSPFv3 capabilities associated with a prefix. A new bit in the OSPFv3
PrefixOptions is used to signal the ELC for the prefix: PrefixOptions field is used to signal the ELC for the prefix:
0x40 - E-Flag (ELC Flag): Set by the advertising router to 0x40 - E-Flag (ELC Flag):
indicate that the prefix originator is capable of processing ELs. Set by the advertising router to indicate that the prefix
originator is capable of processing ELs.
The ELC signaling MUST be preserved when an OSPFv3 Area Border The ELC signaling MUST be preserved when an OSPFv3 Area Border Router
Router (ABR) distributes information between areas. The setting (ABR) distributes information between areas. The setting of the ELC
of the ELC Flag in the Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA [RFC5340] or in the Flag in the Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA [RFC5340] or in the Inter-Area-
Inter-Area-Prefix TLV [RFC8362], generated by an ABR, MUST be the Prefix TLV [RFC8362], generated by an ABR, MUST be the same as the
same as the value the ELC Flag associated with the prefix in the value the ELC Flag associated with the prefix in the source area.
source area.
When an OSPFv3 Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) When an OSPFv3 Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) redistributes a
redistributes a prefix from another instance of OSPFv3 or from prefix from another instance of OSPFv3 or from some other protocol,
some other protocol, it SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the it SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix if it exists.
prefix if it exists. The setting of the ELC Flag in the AS- The setting of the ELC Flag in the AS-External-LSA, Not-So-Stubby
External-LSA, NSSA-LSA [RFC5340] or in the External-Prefix TLV Area LSA (NSSA-LSA) [RFC5340], or in the External-Prefix TLV
[RFC8362], generated by an ASBR, MUST be the same as the value of [RFC8362], generated by an ASBR, MUST be the same as the value of the
the ELC Flag associated with the prefix in the source domain. The ELC Flag associated with the prefix in the source domain. The exact
exact mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances on mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances on the ASBR
the ASBR is outside of the scope of this document. is outside of the scope of this document.
4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF 4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF
The ERLD is advertised in a Node MSD TLV [RFC8476] using the ERLD-MSD The ERLD is advertised in a Node Maximum SID Depth (MSD) TLV
type defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]. [RFC8476] using the ERLD-MSD type defined in [RFC9088].
If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of
reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the
smallest value found across all of its interfaces. smallest value found across all of its interfaces.
The absence of ERLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the The absence of ERLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the
advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability. advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability.
When the ERLD-MSD type is received in the OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 Link MSD When the ERLD-MSD type is received in the OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 Link MSD
Sub-TLV [RFC8476], it MUST be ignored. sub-TLV [RFC8476], it MUST be ignored.
The considerations for advertising the ERLD are specified in The considerations for advertising the ERLD are specified in
[RFC8662]. [RFC8662].
5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS 5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS
The OSPF extensions defined in this document can be advertised via The OSPF extensions defined in this document can be advertised via
BGP-LS (Distribution of Link-State and TE Information Using BGP) BGP-LS (distribution of Link-State and TE information using BGP)
[RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs. [RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs.
The ELC is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV as defined The ELC is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV as defined
in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]. in [RFC9085].
The ERLD-MSD is advertised using the Node MSD TLV as defined in The ERLD-MSD is advertised using the Node MSD TLV as defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]. [RFC8814].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
Early allocation has been done by IANA for this document as follows: IANA has completed the following actions for this document:
- Flag 0x20 in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry has * Flag 0x20 in the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags" registry has
been allocated by IANA to the E-Flag (ELC Flag). been allocated to the E-Flag (ELC Flag).
- Bit 0x40 in the "OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits)" registry has * Bit 0x40 in the "OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits)" registry has been
been allocated by IANA to the E-Flag (ELC Flag). allocated to the E-Flag (ELC Flag).
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node
capabilities using OSPF and BGP-LS. As such, the security capabilities using OSPF and BGP-LS. As such, the security
considerations as described in [RFC5340], [RFC7770], [RFC7752], considerations as described in [RFC5340], [RFC7684], [RFC7752],
[RFC7684], [RFC8476], [RFC8662], [RFC7770], [RFC8476], [RFC8662], [RFC8814], and [RFC9085] are
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] and applicable to this document.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] are applicable to this
document.
Incorrectly setting the E flag during origination, propagation or Incorrectly setting the E-Flag during origination, propagation, or
redistribution may lead to poor or no load-balancing of the MPLS redistribution may lead to poor or no load-balancing of the MPLS
traffic or black-holing of the MPLS traffic on the egress node. traffic or to the MPLS traffic being discarded on the egress node.
Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor or no load- Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor or no load-
balancing of the MPLS traffic. balancing of the MPLS traffic.
8. Contributors 8. References
The following people contributed to the content of this document and
should be considered as co-authors:
Gunter Van de Velde (editor)
Nokia
Antwerp
BE
Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com
Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Keyur Patel
Arrcus
USA
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee
Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura , Bruno
Decraene and Carlos Pignataro for their valuable comments.
10. References
10.1. Normative 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-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G.,
and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth)
using Border Gateway Protocol - Link State", draft-ietf-
idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-18 (work in progress), May
2020.
[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc] 8.1. Normative References
Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S.,
and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and
Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-
isis-mpls-elc-13 (work in progress), May 2020.
[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>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
skipping to change at page 8, line 21 skipping to change at line 290
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8476>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8476>.
[RFC8662] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S., [RFC8662] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662, Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662>.
10.2. Informative References [RFC8814] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G.,
and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD)
Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State", RFC 8814,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8814, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8814>.
[RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
(BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9085>.
[RFC9088] Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S.,
and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and
Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", RFC 9088,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9088, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9088>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
[RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions [RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>. December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee
Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura , Bruno
Decraene, and Carlos Pignataro for their valuable comments.
Contributors
The following people contributed to the content of this document and
should be considered coauthors:
Gunter Van de Velde (editor)
Nokia
Antwerp
Belgium
Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com
Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Keyur Patel
Arrcus
United States of America
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu Xiaohu Xu
Alibaba Inc Capitalonline
Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com Email: xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net
Sriganesh Kini Sriganesh Kini
Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
Peter Psenak Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Eurovea Centre, Central 3 Eurovea Centre, Central 3
Pribinova Street 10 Pribinova Street 10
Bratislava 81109 81109 Bratislava
Slovakia Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels Brussels
Belgium Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
skipping to change at page 9, line 30 skipping to change at line 393
Stephane Litkowski Stephane Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
La Rigourdiere La Rigourdiere
Cesson Sevigne Cesson Sevigne
France France
Email: slitkows@cisco.com Email: slitkows@cisco.com
Matthew Bocci Matthew Bocci
Nokia Nokia
Shoppenhangers Road 740 Waterside Drive
Maidenhead, Berks Aztec West Business Park
UK Bristol
BS32 4UF
United Kingdom
Email: matthew.bocci@nokia.com Email: matthew.bocci@nokia.com
 End of changes. 41 change blocks. 
142 lines changed or deleted 139 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/