draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-00.txt   draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-01.txt 
Network Working Group R. Zhang Network Working Group R. Zhang
Internet-Draft China Telecom Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track Z. Cao Intended status: Standards Track Z. Cao
Expires: November 6, 2014 H. Deng Expires: January 26, 2015 H. Deng
China Mobile China Mobile
R. Pazhyannur R. Pazhyannur
S. Gundavelli S. Gundavelli
Cisco Cisco
L. Xue L. Xue
Huawei Huawei
May 5, 2014 July 25, 2014
Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames in CAPWAP Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames in CAPWAP
draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-00 draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-01
Abstract Abstract
CAPWAP defines a specification to encapsulate a station's data frames CAPWAP defines a specification to encapsulate a station's data frames
between the Wireless Transmission Point (WTP) and Access Controller between the Wireless Transmission Point (WTP) and Access Controller
(AC) using CAPWAP. Specifically, the station's IEEE 802.11 data (AC) using CAPWAP. Specifically, the station's IEEE 802.11 data
frames can be either locally bridged or tunneled to the AC. When frames can be either locally bridged or tunneled to the AC. When
tunneled, a CAPWAP data channel is used for tunneling. In many tunneled, a CAPWAP data channel is used for tunneling. In many
deployments it is desirable to encapsulate date frames to an entity deployments it is desirable to encapsulate date frames to an entity
different from the AC for example to an Access Router (AR). Further, different from the AC for example to an Access Router (AR). Further,
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
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 http://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 6, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 26, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 (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
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Supported Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations . . . . . . . . 8 3. Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations Type . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Supported Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations . . . . . . . . 8
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations Type . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. IEEE 802.11 WTP Alternate Tunnel Failure Indication . . 10
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Service Providers are deploying very large Wi-Fi deployments (ranging Service Providers are deploying very large Wi-Fi deployments (ranging
from hundreds of thousands of APs to millions of APs). These from hundreds of thousands of APs (referred to as WTPs in CAPWAP
networks are designed to carry traffic generated from mobile users. terminology) to millions of APs). These networks are designed to
The volume in mobile user traffic is already very large (in the order carry traffic generated from mobile users. The volume in mobile user
of petabytes per day) and expected to continue growing rapidly. As a traffic is already very large (in the order of petabytes per day) and
result, operators are looking for solutions that can scale to meet expected to continue growing rapidly. As a result, operators are
the increasing demand. One way to meet the scalability requirement looking for solutions that can scale to meet the increasing demand.
is to split the control/management plane from the data plane. This
separation enables the data plane be scaled independently of the One way to meet the scalability requirement is to split the control/
control/management plane. This document provides a description of a management plane from the data plane. This separation enables the
CAPWAP specification change that enables the separation of data plane data plane be scaled independently of the control/management plane.
from control plane. This document provides a description of a CAPWAP specification change
that enables the separation of data plane from control plane.
CAPWAP ([RFC5415], [RFC5416]) defines a tunnel mode that specifies CAPWAP ([RFC5415], [RFC5416]) defines a tunnel mode that specifies
the frame tunneling type to be used for 802.11 data frames from the frame tunneling type to be used for 802.11 data frames from
stations associated with the WLAN. The following types are stations associated with the WLAN. The following types are
supported: supported:
o Local Bridging: All user traffic is to be locally bridged. o Local Bridging: All user traffic is to be locally bridged.
o 802.3 Tunnel: All user traffic is to be tunneled to the AC in o 802.3 Tunnel: All user traffic is to be tunneled to the AC in
802.3 format. 802.3 format.
o 802.11 Tunnel: All user traffic is to be tunneled to the AC in o 802.11 Tunnel: All user traffic is to be tunneled to the AC in
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 4
packets are sent and received. packets are sent and received.
CAPWAP Data Channel: A bi-directional flow defined by the AC IP CAPWAP Data Channel: A bi-directional flow defined by the AC IP
Address, WTP IP Address, AC data port, WTP data port, and the Address, WTP IP Address, AC data port, WTP data port, and the
transport-layer protocol (UDP or UDP-Lite) over which CAPWAP Data transport-layer protocol (UDP or UDP-Lite) over which CAPWAP Data
packets are sent and received. packets are sent and received.
2. Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation 2. Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation
2.1. Description 2.1. Description
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+
| WTP | | AC | | WTP | | AC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Join Request[Supported Alternate Tunnel | |Join Request[Supported Alternate Tunnel |
| Encapsulations ] | | Encapsulations ] |
|---------------------------------------->| |---------------------------------------->|
| | | |
|Join Response | |Join Response |
|<----------------------------------------| |<----------------------------------------|
| | | |
|IEEE 802.11 WLAN Config. Request [ | |IEEE 802.11 WLAN Config. Request [ |
| IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN, | | IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN, |
| Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation ( | | Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation ( |
| Tunnel Type, Tunnel Specific Info) | | Tunnel Type, Tunnel Info Element) |
| ] | | ] |
|<----------------------------------------| |<----------------------------------------|
| | | |
|IEEE 802.11 WLAN Config. Response | | |
|---------------------------------------->| +-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | | Setup | |
| | | Alternate | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Tunnel | |
| Setup | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Alternate | | | |
| Tunnel | | |IEEE 802.11 WLAN Config. Response |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |---------------------------------------->|
| | | |
|WTP Event Request[Alt Tunnel Established]| | |
|---------------------------------------->| +-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | | Tunnel | |
| | | Failure | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Tunnel | | |WTP Alternate Tunnel Failure Indication |
| Failure | | |(report failure) |
| | | |---------------------------------------->|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | |
| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
|Change State Event[Tunnel Failure] | | Tunnel | |
|---------------------------------------->| | Established | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
|WTP Alternate Tunnel Failure Indication |
|(report clearing failure) |
|---------------------------------------->|
| |
Figure 3: Setup of Alternate Tunnel Figure 3: Setup of Alternate Tunnel
The above example describes how the alternate tunnel encapsulation The above example describes how the alternate tunnel encapsulation
may be established. When the WTP joins the AC, it should indicate may be established. When the WTP joins the AC, it should indicate
its alternate tunnel encapsulation capability. The AC would its alternate tunnel encapsulation capability. The AC determines
determine whether an alternate tunnel configuration is required. If whether an alternate tunnel configuration is required. If an
required, it would select an appropriate alternate tunnel appropriate alternate tunnel type is selected, then the AC provides
encapsulation. The AC provides the alternate tunnel encapsulation the alternate tunnel encapsulation message element containing the
message element that provides both the tunnel-type and tunnel tunnel type and a tunnel-specific information element. (The tunnel-
specific information. The tunnel specific information may contain specific information element, for example, may contain information
configuration information to help the WTP setup the tunnel. For like the IP address of the tunnel termination point.) The WTP sets
example, the IP address of the access router that will terminate the up the alternate tunnel using the alternate tunnel encapsulation
WTP tunnel. Once the WTP sets up the tunnel, the WTP may inform the message element.
AC about the tunnel setup. Correspondingly, if the WTP discovers
that the tunneled link to the AR has failed, then it may inform the
AC.
2.2. Supported Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations When the WTP detects an alternate tunnel failure, the WTP informs the
AC using a message element (defined in this specification), WTP
Alternate Tunnel Fail Indication. The message element has a status
field that indicates whether the message denotes reporting a failure
or the clearing of the previously reported failure.
This message element enables a WTP to communicate its capability to 3. Protocol Considerations
support alternate tunnel encapsulations to the AC. The WTP may
commmunicate its capability during the discovery or join process. 3.1. Supported Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations
This message element is sent by a WTP to communicate its capability
to support alternate tunnel encapsulations. The message element
contains the following fields:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
+=+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- +=+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Num_Tunnels | Tunnel_1 | Tunnel_[2..N].. | Num_Tunnels | Tunnel-Type 1 | Tunnel-Type [2..N]
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Supported Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations Figure 4: Supported Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations
o Type: TBD for Supported Tunnel Encapsulations o Type: <IANA-1> for Supported Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations
o Num_Tunnels >=1: This refers to number of profiles presnt in this o Length: The length in bytes is 1 + Num_Tunnels
messaage element. There must be at least one profile. o Num_Tunnels: This refers to number of tunnel types present in the
o Tunnel: Each Tunnel is identified by value defined in the Tunnel message element. At least one tunnel type must be present.
Type field in Section 2.3 o Tunnel-Type: This is identified by value defined in Section 3.2
2.3. Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations Type 3.2. Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations Type
The IEEE 802.11 Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation message element allows This message element is sent by the AC. This message element allows
the AC to select the alternate tunnel encapsulation. This messsage the AC to select the alternate tunnel encapsulation. This message
element may be provided along with the IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN message element may be provided along with the IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN message
element. When the message element is present the following fields of element. When the message element is present the following fields of
the IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN element shall be set as follows: MAC mode is the IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN element shall be set as follows: MAC mode is
set to 0 (Local MAC) and Tunnel Mode is set to 0 (Local Bridging). set to 0 (Local MAC) and Tunnel Mode is set to 0 (Local Bridging).
The message element contains the following fields
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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
| Tunnel Type | Tunnel Specific +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Information | Tunnel-Type | Info Element Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Info Element
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations Type Figure 5: Alternate Tunnel Encapsulations Type
o Type: TBD for Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation Type o Type: <IANA-2> for Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation Type
o Tunnel Type: The profile is identified by a value given below o Length: > 4
o Tunnel-Type: The tunnel type is specified by a 2 byte value. This
specification defines the values from zero (0) to five (5) as
given below. The remaining values are reserved for future use.
* 0: CAPWAP data channel as described in [RFC5415][RFC5416] * 0: CAPWAP. This refers to a CAPWAP data channel described in
* 1: L2TP [RFC5415][RFC5416]. Additional decscription in
* 2: L2TPv3 [I-D.xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information].
* 3: IP-in-IP * 1: L2TP. This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in
* 4: IP/GRE [RFC2661].
o Tunnel Specific Information: This field contains tunnel specific * 2: L2TPv3. This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in
information that is used to configure the WTP with parameters [RFC3931].
needed for alternate tunnel setup. * 3: IP-in-IP. This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in
[RFC2003].
* 4: PMIPv6. This refers to the tunneling encapsulation
described in [RFC5213]
o Info Element: This field contains tunnel specific configuration
parameters to enable the WTP to setup the alternate tunnel. For
example if the tunnel type is CAPWAP then this field may contain
the following (non-exhaustive) list of parameters
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * Access Router IPv4 address
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- * Access Router IPv6 address
| Length | Data * Tunnel DTLS Policy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- * IEEE 802.11 Tagging Policy
Figure 6: Tunnel Specific Information This specification only defines a generic container for such
message elements. We anticipate that these message elements (for
the different protocols) will be defined in separate documents,
potentially one for each tunneling protocols. See
* Length: [I-D.xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information] for example of such
* Data: The data field would contain tunnel specific information a specification.
to assist the WTP in setting up the alternate tunnel. For
example if the tunnel type is CAPWAP then the data field would
contain the following (non-exhaustive) list of parameters
+ Access Router IPv4 address 3.3. IEEE 802.11 WTP Alternate Tunnel Failure Indication
+ Access Router IPv6 address
+ Tunnel DTLS Policy
+ IEEE 802.11 Tagging Policy
This specification only defines a generic container for such The Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation message element is sent by the WTP
message elements. We anticipate that these message elements to inform the AC about the status of the Alternate Tunnel. The
(for the different protocols) will be defined in separate message element contains the following fields
documents, potentially one for each tunneling protocols. See
[I-D.xue-opsawg-capwap-separation-capability] for example of
such a specification.
3. IANA Considerations 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Radio ID | WLAN ID | Status | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
To be specified in later versions Figure 6: IEEE 802.11 WTP Alternate Tunnel Failure Indication
4. Security Considerations o Type: <IANA-3> for IEEE 802.11 WTP Alternate Tunnel Failure
Indication
o Length: == 4
o Radio ID: The Radio Identifier, whose value is between one (1) and
31, typically refers to some interface index on the WTP.
o WLAN ID: An 8-bit value specifying the WLAN Identifier. The value
MUST be between one (1) and 16.
o Status: An 8-bit boolean indicating whether the radio failure is
being reported or cleared. A value of zero is used to clear the
event, while a value of one is used to report the event.
To be specified in later versions. 4. IANA Considerations
5. Contributors This document requires the following IANA considerations.
o <IANA-1>. This specification defines the Supported Alternate
Tunnel Encapsulations Type message element in Section 3.1. This
elements needs to be registered in the existing CAPWAP Message
Element Type registry, defined in [RFC5415]. The Type value for
this element needs to be between 1 and 1023 (see Section 15.7 in
[RFC5415]).
o <IANA-2>. This specification defines the Alternate Tunnel
Encapsulations Type message element in Section 3.2. This element
needs to be registered in the existing CAPWAP Message Element Type
registry, defined in [RFC5415]. The Type value for this element
needs to be between 1 and 1023.
o <IANA-3>. This specification defines the IEEE 802.11 WTP
Alternate Tunnel Failure Indication message element in
Section 3.3. This element needs to be registered in the existing
CAPWAP Message Element Type registry, defined in [RFC5415]. The
Type value for this element needs to be between 1024 and 2047.
o Tunnel-Type: This specification defines the Alternate Tunnel
Encapsulations Type message element. This element contains a
field Tunnel-Type. The namespace for the field is 16 bits
(0-65535)). This specification defines values, zero (0) through
five (5) and can be found in Section 3.2. The remaining values
(6-65535) are controlled and maintained by IANA and require an
Expert Review. IANA needs to create a Tunnel-Type registry whose
format is given below.
Tunnel-Type Type Value Reference
CAPWAP 0
L2TP 1
L2TPv3 2
IP-IP 3
PMIPv6 4
5. Security Considerations
This document introduces three new CAPWAP WTPssage elements. These
elements are transported within CAPWAP Control messages as the
existing message elements. Therefore, this document does not
introduce any new security risks compared to [RFC5415] and [RFC5416].
The security considerations described in [RFC5415] and [RFC5416]
apply here as well.
6. Contributors
This document stems from the joint work of Hong Liu, Yifan Chen, This document stems from the joint work of Hong Liu, Yifan Chen,
Chunju Shao from China Mobile Research. Chunju Shao from China Mobile Research.
6. References 7. References
6.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
October 1996.
[RFC2661] Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn,
G., and B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"",
RFC 2661, August 1999.
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Townsley, M., and I. Goyret, "Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931, March 2005.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control And [RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control And
Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol
Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009. Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009.
[RFC5416] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control and [RFC5416] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control and
Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol
Binding for IEEE 802.11", RFC 5416, March 2009. Binding for IEEE 802.11", RFC 5416, March 2009.
6.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.xue-opsawg-capwap-separation-capability] [I-D.xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information]
Xue, L., Du, Z., Liu, D., Zhang, R., and J. Liu, D., Zhang, R., Xue, L., Kaippallimalil, J.,
Kaippallimalil, "Capability Announcement and AR Discovery Pazhyannur, R., and S. Gundavelli, "Specification
in CAPWAP Control and Data Channel Separation", draft-xue- Alternate Tunnel Information for Data Frames in WLAN",
opsawg-capwap-separation-capability-01 (work in progress), draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information-00 (work in
October 2013. progress), July 2014.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Rong Zhang Rong Zhang
China Telecom China Telecom
No.109 Zhongshandadao avenue No.109 Zhongshandadao avenue
Guangzhou 510630 Guangzhou 510630
skipping to change at page 11, line 28 skipping to change at page 13, line 28
Email: rpazhyan@cisco.com Email: rpazhyan@cisco.com
Sri Gundavelli Sri Gundavelli
Cisco Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive 170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: sgundave@cisco.com Email: sgundave@cisco.com
Li Xue Li Xue
Huawei Huawei
No.156 Beiqing Rd. Z-park, Shi-Chuang-Ke-Ji-Shi-Fan-Yuan, HaiDian District No.156 Beiqing Rd. Z-park, HaiDian District
Beijing Beijing
China China
Email: xueli@huawei.com Email: xueli@huawei.com
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
144 lines changed or deleted 233 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/