draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-01.txt   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-02.txt 
PCE Working Group H. Ananthakrishnan PCE Working Group H. Ananthakrishnan
Internet-Draft Packet Design Internet-Draft Packet Design
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: October 26, 2018 Cisco Expires: December 21, 2018 Cisco
C. Barth C. Barth
R. Torvi R. Torvi
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
I. Minei I. Minei
Google, Inc Google, Inc
E. Crabbe E. Crabbe
Individual Contributor Individual Contributor
D. Dhody D. Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
April 24, 2018 June 19, 2018
PCEP Extensions for Associating Working and Protection LSPs with PCEP Extensions for Associating Working and Protection LSPs with
Stateful PCE Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-01 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-02
Abstract Abstract
A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of computing as A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of computing as
well as controlling via Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) well as controlling via Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering Label Switched Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths (MPLS LSP). Furthermore, it is also possible for a stateful Paths (MPLS LSP). Furthermore, it is also possible for a stateful
PCE to create, maintain, and delete LSPs. This document describes PCE to create, maintain, and delete LSPs. This document describes
PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end
path protection. path protection.
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
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 October 26, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 21, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Path Protection Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Path Protection Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Path Protection Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Path Protection Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. PCC Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. PCC Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. PCE Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. PCE Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Session Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.4. Session Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. PPAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. PPAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.3. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Information References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.2. Information References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes PCEP for communication between a Path Computation [RFC5440] describes PCEP for communication between a Path Computation
Client (PCC) and a PCE or between one a pair of PCEs as per Client (PCC) and a PCE or between one a pair of PCEs as per
[RFC4655]. A PCE computes paths for MPLS-TE LSPs based on various [RFC4655]. A PCE computes paths for MPLS-TE LSPs based on various
constraints and optimization criteria. constraints and optimization criteria.
Stateful pce [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to Stateful pce [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to
skipping to change at page 5, line 30 skipping to change at page 5, line 30
[RFC3209]) of all LSPs within a PPAG MUST be the same. As per [RFC3209]) of all LSPs within a PPAG MUST be the same. As per
[RFC3209], TE tunnel is used to associate a set of LSPs during [RFC3209], TE tunnel is used to associate a set of LSPs during
reroute or to spread a traffic trunk over multiple paths. reroute or to spread a traffic trunk over multiple paths.
The format of the Association object used for PPAG is specified in The format of the Association object used for PPAG is specified in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
This document defines a new Association type, the Path Protection This document defines a new Association type, the Path Protection
Association type, value will be assigned by IANA (TBD1). Association type, value will be assigned by IANA (TBD1).
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] specify the mechanism for the
capability advertisement of the association types supported by a PCEP
speaker by defining a ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an
OPEN object. This capability exchange for the association type
described in this document (i.e. Path Protection Association Type)
MAY be done before using the policy association, i.e., the PCEP
speaker MAY include the Path Protection Association Type (TBD1) in
the ASSOC-Type-List TLV before using the PPAG in the PCEP messages.
This Association-Type is dynamic in nature and created by the PCC or This Association-Type is dynamic in nature and created by the PCC or
PCE for the LSPs belonging to the same TE tunnel (as described in PCE for the LSPs belonging to the same TE tunnel (as described in
[RFC3209]) originating at the same head node and terminating at the [RFC3209]) originating at the same head node and terminating at the
same destination. These associations are conveyed via PCEP messages same destination. These associations are conveyed via PCEP messages
to the PCEP peer. Operator-configured Association Range MUST NOT be to the PCEP peer. Operator-configured Association Range MUST NOT be
set for this association-type and MUST be ignored. set for this association-type and MUST be ignored.
3.2. Path Protection Association TLV 3.2. Path Protection Association TLV
The Path Protection Association TLV is an optional TLV for use with The Path Protection Association TLV is an optional TLV for use with
skipping to change at page 5, line 51 skipping to change at page 6, line 11
Association TLV MUST NOT be present more than once. If it appears Association TLV MUST NOT be present more than once. If it appears
more than once, only the first occurrence is processed and any others more than once, only the first occurrence is processed and any others
MUST be ignored. MUST be ignored.
The Path Protection Association TLV follows the PCEP TLV format of The Path Protection Association TLV follows the PCEP TLV format of
[RFC5440]. [RFC5440].
The type (16 bits) of the TLV is to be assigned by IANA. The length The type (16 bits) of the TLV is to be assigned by IANA. The length
field is 16 bit-long and has a fixed value of 4. field is 16 bit-long and has a fixed value of 4.
The value comprises a single field, the Path Protection Association The value comprises of a single field, the Path Protection
Flags (32 bits), where each bit represents a flag option. Association Flags (32 bits), where each bit represents a flag option.
The format of the Path Protection Association TLV (Figure 1) is as The format of the Path Protection Association TLV (Figure 1) is as
follows: 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 = TBD2 | Length | | Type = TBD2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PT | Path Protection Association Flags |S|P| | PT | Path Protection Association Flags |S|P|
skipping to change at page 7, line 10 skipping to change at page 7, line 18
* 0x10: 1+1 Bidirectional Protection * 0x10: 1+1 Bidirectional Protection
Unassigned bits are considered reserved. They MUST be set to 0 on Unassigned bits are considered reserved. They MUST be set to 0 on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
If the TLV is missing, it is considered that the LSP is the working If the TLV is missing, it is considered that the LSP is the working
LSP (i.e. P bit is unset). LSP (i.e. P bit is unset).
4. Operation 4. Operation
LSPs are associated with other LSPs with which they interact by An LSP is associated with other LSPs with which they interact by
adding them to a common association group via ASSOCIATION object. adding them to a common association group via the ASSOCIATION object.
All procedures and error-handling for the ASSOCIATION object is as All procedures and error-handling for the ASSOCIATION object is as
per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
4.1. State Synchronization 4.1. State Synchronization
During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing path During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing path
protection association groups as well as any path protection flags to protection association groups as well as any path protection flags to
PCE(s) as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. PCE(s) as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
4.2. PCC Initiated LSPs 4.2. PCC Initiated LSPs
A PCC can associate a set of LSPs under its control for path A PCC can associate a set of LSPs under its control for path
protection purpose. Similarly, the PCC can remove on or more LSPs protection purpose. Similarly, the PCC can remove on or more LSPs
under its control from the corresponding PPAG. In both cases, the under its control from the corresponding PPAG. In both cases, the
PCC must report the change in association to PCE(s) via PCRpt PCC would report the change in association to PCE(s) via PCRpt
message. A PCC can also delegate the working and protection LSPs to message. A PCC can also delegate the working and protection LSPs to
a stateful PCE, where PCE would control the LSPs. The stateful PCE a stateful PCE, where PCE would control the LSPs. The stateful PCE
could update the paths and attributes of the LSPs in the association could update the paths and attributes of the LSPs in the association
group via PCUpd message. A PCE could also update the association to group via PCUpd message. A PCE could also update the association to
PCC via PCUpd message. These procedures are described in PCC via PCUpd message. These procedures are described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
It is expected that both working and protection LSP are delegated
together (and to the same PCE) to avoid any race conditions. Refer
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] for the problem description.
4.3. PCE Initiated LSPs 4.3. PCE Initiated LSPs
A PCE can create/update working and protection LSPs independently. A PCE can create/update working and protection LSPs independently.
As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], Association Groups As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], Association Groups
can be created by both PCE and PCC. Further, a PCE can remove a can be created by both PCE and PCC. Further, a PCE can remove a
protection LSP from a PPAG as specified in protection LSP from a PPAG as specified in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. The PCE uses PCUpd or PCInitiate [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. The PCE uses PCUpd or PCInitiate
message to communicate the association information to the PCC. message to communicate the association information to the PCC.
4.4. Session Termination 4.4. Session Termination
As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] the association information As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] the association information
is cleared along with the LSP state information. When a PCEP session is cleared along with the LSP state information. When a PCEP session
is terminated, after expiry of State Timeout Interval at PCC, the LSP is terminated, after expiry of State Timeout Interval at PCC, the LSP
state associated with that PCEP session is reverted to operator- state associated with that PCEP session is reverted to operator-
defined default parameters or behaviors as per [RFC8231]. Same defined default parameters or behaviors as per [RFC8231]. Same
skipping to change at page 8, line 4 skipping to change at page 8, line 18
4.4. Session Termination 4.4. Session Termination
As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] the association information As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] the association information
is cleared along with the LSP state information. When a PCEP session is cleared along with the LSP state information. When a PCEP session
is terminated, after expiry of State Timeout Interval at PCC, the LSP is terminated, after expiry of State Timeout Interval at PCC, the LSP
state associated with that PCEP session is reverted to operator- state associated with that PCEP session is reverted to operator-
defined default parameters or behaviors as per [RFC8231]. Same defined default parameters or behaviors as per [RFC8231]. Same
procedure is also followed for the association information. On procedure is also followed for the association information. On
session termination at the PCE, when the LSP state reported by PCC is session termination at the PCE, when the LSP state reported by PCC is
cleared, the association information is also cleared as per cleared, the association information is also cleared as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. Where there are no LSPs in a [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. Where there are no LSPs in a
association group, the association is considered to be deleted.. association group, the association is considered to be deleted..
4.5. Error Handling 4.5. Error Handling
As per the processing rules specified in section 5.4 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], if a PCEP speaker does not support
this Path Protection association-type, it would return a PCErr
message with Error-Type 26 (Early allocation by IANA) "Association
Error" and Error-Value 1 "Association-type is not supported".
All LSPs (working or protection) within a PPAG MUST belong to the All LSPs (working or protection) within a PPAG MUST belong to the
same TE Tunnel (as described in [RFC3209]) and have the same source same TE Tunnel (as described in [RFC3209]) and have the same source
and destination. If a PCEP speaker attempts to add an LSP to a PPAG and destination. If a PCEP speaker attempts to add an LSP to a PPAG
and the Tunnel ID (as carried in LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV [RFC8231], with and the Tunnel ID (as carried in LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV [RFC8231], with
description as per [RFC3209]) or source or destination of the LSP is description as per [RFC3209]) or source or destination of the LSP is
different from the LSP(s) in the PPAG, the PCC MUST send PCErr with different from the LSP(s) in the PPAG, the PCC MUST send PCErr with
Error-Type= 29 (Early allocation by IANA) (Association Error) Error-Type= 29 (Early allocation by IANA) (Association Error)
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value = TBD3 (Tunnel ID or [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value = TBD3 (Tunnel ID or
End points mismatch for Path Protection Association). End points mismatch for Path Protection Association). In case of
Path Protection, LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV SHOULD be included for all LSPs
(including segment routing (SR) [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
When the protection type is set to 1+1 or 1:N (with N=1), there MUST When the protection type is set to 1+1 or 1:N (with N=1), there MUST
be only one working LSP and protection LSP within a PPAG. If a PCEP be only one working LSP and protection LSP within a PPAG. If a PCEP
Speaker attempts to add another working/protection LSP, the PCEP peer Speaker attempts to add another working/protection LSP, the PCEP peer
MUST send PCErr with Error-Type=29 (Early allocation by IANA) MUST send PCErr with Error-Type=29 (Early allocation by IANA)
(Association Error) [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value (Association Error) [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value
= TBD4 (Attempt to add another working/protection LSP for Path = TBD4 (Attempt to add another working/protection LSP for Path
Protection Association). Protection Association).
All processing as per section 5.4 of [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
continue to apply.
5. Other considerations 5. Other considerations
The working and protection LSPs are typically resource disjoint The working and protection LSPs are typically resource disjoint
(e.g., node, SRLG disjoint). This ensures that a single failure will (e.g., node, SRLG disjoint). This ensures that a single failure will
not affect both the working and protection LSPs.The disjoint not affect both the working and protection LSPs.The disjoint
requirement for a group of LSPs is handled via another association requirement for a group of LSPs is handled via another association
type called "Disjointness Association", as described in type called "Disjointness Association", as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity]. The diversity requirements for [I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity]. The diversity requirements for
the the protection LSP are also handled by including both ASSOCIATION the the protection LSP are also handled by including both ASSOCIATION
object identifying both the protection association group and disjoint object identifying both the protection association group and disjoint
skipping to change at page 12, line 41 skipping to change at page 13, line 21
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for
Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft- Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft-
ietf-pce-association-group-05 (work in progress), March ietf-pce-association-group-06 (work in progress), June
2018. 2018.
10.2. Information References 10.2. Information References
[RFC4427] Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery [RFC4427] Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery
(Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4427>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4427>.
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 29
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-07 (work in progress), March 2018. yang-07 (work in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity] [I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., and D. Dhody, Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., and D. Dhody,
"Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension "Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension
for signaling LSP diversity constraint", draft-ietf-pce- for signaling LSP diversity constraint", draft-ietf-pce-
association-diversity-03 (work in progress), February association-diversity-03 (work in progress), February
2018. 2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11 (work in progress),
November 2017.
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., and D. Dhody, "Inter
Stateful Path Computation Element communication
procedures", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-03 (work in
progress), April 2018.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Hariharan Ananthakrishnan Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
Packet Design Packet Design
1 South Almaden Blvd, #1150, 1 South Almaden Blvd, #1150,
San Jose, CA, 95113 San Jose, CA, 95113
USA USA
EMail: hari@packetdesign.com Email: hari@packetdesign.com
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Cisco
2000 Innovation Drive 2000 Innovation Drive
Kananta, Ontaria K2K 3E8 Kananta, Ontaria K2K 3E8
Canada Canada
EMail: msiva@cisco.com Email: msiva@cisco.com
Colby Barth Colby Barth
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Ave, 1194 N Mathilda Ave,
Sunnyvale, CA, 94086 Sunnyvale, CA, 94086
USA USA
EMail: cbarth@juniper.net Email: cbarth@juniper.net
Raveendra Torvi Raveendra Torvi
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Ave, 1194 N Mathilda Ave,
Sunnyvale, CA, 94086 Sunnyvale, CA, 94086
USA USA
EMail: rtorvi@juniper.net Email: rtorvi@juniper.net
Ina Minei Ina Minei
Google, Inc Google, Inc
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA, 94043 Mountain View, CA, 94043
USA USA
EMail: inaminei@google.com Email: inaminei@google.com
Edward Crabbe Edward Crabbe
Individual Contributor Individual Contributor
EMail: edward.crabbe@gmail.com Email: edward.crabbe@gmail.com
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
32 lines changed or deleted 67 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/