draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-02.txt   draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-03.txt 
LSVR K. Patel LSVR K. Patel
Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc. Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc.
Intended status: Informational A. Lindem Intended status: Informational A. Lindem
Expires: November 2, 2019 Cisco Systems Expires: May 5, 2020 Cisco Systems
S. Zandi S. Zandi
G. Dawra G. Dawra
Linkedin Linkedin
May 1, 2019 November 2, 2019
Usage and Applicability of Link State Vector Routing in Data Centers Usage and Applicability of Link State Vector Routing in Data Centers
draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-02.txt draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-03
Abstract Abstract
This document discusses the usage and applicability of Link State This document discusses the usage and applicability of Link State
Vector Routing (LSVR) extensions in data center networks utilizing Vector Routing (LSVR) extensions in data center networks utilizing
CLOS or Fat-Tree topologies. The document is intended to provide a CLOS or Fat-Tree topologies. The document is intended to provide a
simplified guide for the deployment of LSVR extensions. simplified guide for the deployment of LSVR extensions.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted 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). 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 http://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 November 2, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 5, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
(http://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
6.1. Usage of BGP-LS SPF SAFI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Usage of BGP-LS SPF SAFI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1.1. Relationship to Other BGP AFI/SAFI Tuples . . . . . . 6 6.1.1. Relationship to Other BGP AFI/SAFI Tuples . . . . . . 6
6.2. Peering Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Peering Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2.1. Sparse Peering Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2.1. Sparse Peering Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2.2. Bi-Connected Graph Heuristic . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2.2. Bi-Connected Graph Heuristic . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.3. BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.4. BGP Peer Discovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.4. BGP Peer Discovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.5. BGP Peer Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.5. BGP Peer Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.5.1. BGP Peer Discovery Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.5.1. BGP Peer Discovery Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.5.2. Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability . . . . 9 6.5.2. Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability . . . . 9
6.6. Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability . . . . . . . . 10 6.6. Non-Transit Node Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.7. Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability . . . . . . . . 10
7. BGP Policy Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. BGP Policy Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document complements [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] by discussing the This document complements [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] by discussing the
applicability of the technology in a simple and fairly common applicability of the technology in a simple and fairly common
deployment scenario, which is described in Section 4. deployment scenario, which is described in Section 4.
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 39
establishment is allowed. However, BGP speaker will never actively establishment is allowed. However, BGP speaker will never actively
establish an east-west BGP session unless it can't establish two establish an east-west BGP session unless it can't establish two
northbound BGP sessions. northbound BGP sessions.
6.3. BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy 6.3. BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy
One of the advantages of using BGP SPF as the underlay protocol is One of the advantages of using BGP SPF as the underlay protocol is
that BGP policy can be applied at any level. In Spine/Leaf that BGP policy can be applied at any level. In Spine/Leaf
topologies, it is not necessary to advertise BGP-LS NLRI received by topologies, it is not necessary to advertise BGP-LS NLRI received by
leaves northbound to the spine nodes at the level above. If a common leaves northbound to the spine nodes at the level above. If a common
AS is used for the spine nodes, This can easily be accomplished with AS is used for the spine nodes, this can easily be accomplished with
EBGP and a simple policy to filter advertisements from the leaves to EBGP and a simple policy to filter advertisements from the leaves to
the spine if the first AS in the AS path is the spine AS. the spine if the first AS in the AS path is the spine AS.
In the figure below, the leaves would not advertise any NLRI with AS In the figure below, the leaves would not advertise any NLRI with AS
64512 as the first AS in the AS path. 64512 as the first AS in the AS path.
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
AS 64512 | | | | | | AS 64512 | | | | | |
for Spine | Spine1 +----+ Spine2 +- ......... -+ SpineN | for Spine | Spine 1+----+ Spine 2+- ......... -+ Spine N|
Nodes at | | | | | | Nodes at | | | | | |
this Level +-+-+-+-++ ++-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-++ this Level +-+-+-+-++ ++-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-++
+------+ | | | | | | | | | | | +------+ | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-----|-|-|------+ | | | | | | | | +-----|-|-|------+ | | | | | | |
| | +--|-|-|--------+-|-|-----------------+ | | | | | +--|-|-|--------+-|-|-----------------+ | | |
| | | | | | +---+ | | | | | | | | | | | +---+ | | | | |
| | | | | | | +--|-|-------------------+ | | | | | | | | | +--|-|-------------------+ | |
| | | | | | | | | | +------+ +----+ | | | | | | | | | | +------+ +----+
| | | | | | | | | +--------------|----------+ | | | | | | | | | | +--------------|----------+ |
| | | | | | | | +-------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------+ | | |
| | | | | +----|--|----------------|--|--------+ | | | | | | | +----|--|----------------|--|--------+ | |
| | | | +------|--|--------------+ | | | | | | | | | +------|--|--------------+ | | | | |
| | | +------+ | | | | | | | | | | | +------+ | | | | | | | |
++--+--++ +-+-+--++ ++-+--+-+ ++-+--+-+ ++--+--++ +-+-+--++ ++-+--+-+ ++-+--+-+
| Leaf1 |~~~~~~| Leaf2 | ........ | LeafX | | LeafY | | Leaf 1|~~~~~~| Leaf 2| ........ | Leaf X| | Leaf Y|
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
Figure 2: Spine/Leaf Topology Policy Figure 2: Spine/Leaf Topology Policy
6.4. BGP Peer Discovery Requirements 6.4. BGP Peer Discovery Requirements
The most basic requirement is to be able to discover the address of a The most basic requirement is to be able to discover the address of a
single-hop peer without pre-configuration. This is being single-hop peer without pre-configuration. This is being
accomplished today with using IPv6 Router Advertisements (RA) accomplished today with using IPv6 Router Advertisements (RA)
[RFC4861] and assuming that a BGP sessions is desired with any [RFC4861] and assuming that a BGP sessions is desired with any
skipping to change at page 9, line 6 skipping to change at page 9, line 6
o Session Policy Identifier - A group number or name used to o Session Policy Identifier - A group number or name used to
associate common session parameters with the peer. For example, associate common session parameters with the peer. For example,
in a data center, BGP sessions with a Top of Rack (ToR) device in a data center, BGP sessions with a Top of Rack (ToR) device
could have parameters than BGP sessions between leaf and spine. could have parameters than BGP sessions between leaf and spine.
In a data center fabric, it is often useful to know whether a peer is In a data center fabric, it is often useful to know whether a peer is
southbound (towards the servers) or northbound (towards the spine or southbound (towards the servers) or northbound (towards the spine or
super-spine), e.g., Section 6.2.2. A potential requirement would be super-spine), e.g., Section 6.2.2. A potential requirement would be
to determine this dynamically. One mechanism, without specifying all to determine this dynamically. One mechanism, without specifying all
the details, might be for the ToRs to be identified when installed the details, might be for the ToR switches to be identified when
and for the others switches in the fabric to determine their level installed and for the others switches in the fabric to determine
based on the distance from the closest ToR. their level based on the distance from the closest ToR switch.
If there are multiple links between BGP speakers or the links between If there are multiple links between BGP speakers or the links between
BGP speakers are unnumbered, it is also useful to be able to BGP speakers are unnumbered, it is also useful to be able to
establish multi-hop sessions using the loopback addresses. This will establish multi-hop sessions using the loopback addresses. This will
often require the discovery protocol to install route(s) toward the often require the discovery protocol to install route(s) toward the
potential peer loopback addresses prior to BGP session establishment. potential peer loopback addresses prior to BGP session establishment.
Finally, a simple BGP discovery protocol could also be used to Finally, a simple BGP discovery protocol could also be used to
establish a multi-hop session with one or more controllers by establish a multi-hop session with one or more controllers by
advertising connectivity to one or more controllers. However, once advertising connectivity to one or more controllers. However, once
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
The BGP discovery mechanisms under consideration are The BGP discovery mechanisms under consideration are
[I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery], [I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery],
[I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery], and [I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl]. [I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery], and [I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl].
6.5.2. Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability 6.5.2. Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability
Since BGP SPF is to be used for the routing underlay and DCI gateway Since BGP SPF is to be used for the routing underlay and DCI gateway
boxes typically have direct or very simple connectivity, BGP external boxes typically have direct or very simple connectivity, BGP external
sessions would typically not include the BGP SPF SAFI. sessions would typically not include the BGP SPF SAFI.
6.6. Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability 6.6. Non-Transit Node Capability
In certain scenarios, a BGP node wishes to participate in the BGP SPF
topology but never be used for transit traffic. These in include
situations where a server wants to make application services
available to clients homed at subnets throughout the BGP SPF domain
but doesn't ever want to be used as a router (i.e., carry transit
traffic). Another specific instance is where a controller is
resident on a server and direct connectivity to the controller is
required throughout the entire domain. This can readily be
accomplished using the BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV as
described in [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf].
6.7. Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability
The BGP SPF extensions [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] can be used in other The BGP SPF extensions [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] can be used in other
topologies and avail the inherent convergence improvements. topologies and avail the inherent convergence improvements.
Additionally, sparse peering techniques may be utilized Section 6.2. Additionally, sparse peering techniques may be utilized Section 6.2.
However, determining whether or to establish a BGP session is more However, determining whether or to establish a BGP session is more
complex and the heuristic described in Section 6.2.2 cannot be used. complex and the heuristic described in Section 6.2.2 cannot be used.
In such topologies, other techniques such as those described in In such topologies, other techniques such as those described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding] may be employed. One potential [I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding] may be employed. One potential
deployment would be the underlay for a Service Provider (SP) backbone deployment would be the underlay for a Service Provider (SP) backbone
where usage of a single protocol, i.e., BGP, is desired. where usage of a single protocol, i.e., BGP, is desired.
skipping to change at page 11, line 12 skipping to change at page 11, line 23
The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana and Yan Filyurin for The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana and Yan Filyurin for
the review and comments. the review and comments.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]
Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and W. Henderickx, Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and W. Henderickx,
"Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol", "Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol",
draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-04 (work in progress), December draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-06 (work in progress), September
2018. 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, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[CLOS] "A Study of Non-Blocking Switching Networks", The Bell [CLOS] "A Study of Non-Blocking Switching Networks", The Bell
System Technical Journal, Vol. 32(2), DOI System Technical Journal, Vol. 32(2), DOI
10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x, March 1953. 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x, March 1953.
[I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery] [I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery]
Lindem, A., Patel, K., Zandi, S., Haas, J., and X. Xu, Lindem, A., Patel, K., Zandi, S., Haas, J., and X. Xu,
"BGP Logical Link Discovery Protocol (LLDP) Peer "BGP Logical Link Discovery Protocol (LLDP) Peer
Discovery", draft-acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery-04 (work in Discovery", draft-acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery-05 (work in
progress), December 2018. progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding] [I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding]
Li, T., Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Przygienda, T., Cooper, Li, T., Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Chen, H., Przygienda,
D., Jalil, L., and S. Dontula, "Dynamic Flooding on Dense T., Cooper, D., Jalil, L., and S. Dontula, "Dynamic
Graphs", draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-00 (work in Flooding on Dense Graphs", draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
progress), February 2019. flooding-03 (work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl] [I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl]
Bush, R., Austein, R., and K. Patel, "Layer 3 Discovery Bush, R., Austein, R., and K. Patel, "Layer 3 Discovery
and Liveness", draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-00 (work in progress), and Liveness", draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-02 (work in progress),
April 2019. July 2019.
[I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery] [I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery]
Xu, X., Talaulikar, K., Bi, K., Tantsura, J., and N. Xu, X., Talaulikar, K., Bi, K., Tantsura, J., and N.
Triantafillis, "BGP Neighbor Discovery", draft-xu-idr- Triantafillis, "BGP Neighbor Discovery", draft-xu-idr-
neighbor-autodiscovery-11 (work in progress), April 2019. neighbor-autodiscovery-11 (work in progress), April 2019.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[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, January 2006, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
editor.org/info/rfc4760>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
editor.org/info/rfc4861>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4957] Krishnan, S., Ed., Montavont, N., Njedjou, E., Veerepalli, [RFC4957] Krishnan, S., Ed., Montavont, N., Njedjou, E., Veerepalli,
S., and A. Yegin, Ed., "Link-Layer Event Notifications for S., and A. Yegin, Ed., "Link-Layer Event Notifications for
Detecting Network Attachments", RFC 4957, Detecting Network Attachments", RFC 4957,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4957, August 2007, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC4957, August 2007,
editor.org/info/rfc4957>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4957>.
[RFC5580] Tschofenig, H., Ed., Adrangi, F., Jones, M., Lior, A., and [RFC5580] Tschofenig, H., Ed., Adrangi, F., Jones, M., Lior, A., and
B. Aboba, "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and B. Aboba, "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and
Diameter", RFC 5580, DOI 10.17487/RFC5580, August 2009, Diameter", RFC 5580, DOI 10.17487/RFC5580, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5580>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5580>.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>. June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[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, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of [RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938, BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
editor.org/info/rfc7938>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.
[RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J. [RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.
Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177, Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017,
editor.org/info/rfc8177>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8177>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Keyur Patel Keyur Patel
Arrcus, Inc. Arrcus, Inc.
2077 Gateway Pl 2077 Gateway Pl
San Jose, CA 95110 San Jose, CA 95110
USA USA
Email: keyur@arrcus.com Email: keyur@arrcus.com
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 58 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/