draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-02.txt   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-03.txt 
Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed. Network Working Group C. Filsfils, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed. Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: March 17, 2017 E. Aries Expires: May 24, 2017 E. Aries
Facebook Juniper Networks
D. Ginsburg
D. Afanasiev D. Afanasiev
Yandex Yandex
September 13, 2016 November 20, 2016
Segment Routing Centralized BGP Peer Engineering Segment Routing Centralized BGP Peer Engineering
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-02 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-03
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a
packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by
prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any
instruction topological or service-based. SR allows to enforce a instruction topological or service-based. SR allows to enforce a
flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining
per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain. per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain.
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
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 March 17, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 39 skipping to change at page 2, line 39
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Segment Routing Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Segment Routing Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. BGP Peering Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. BGP Peering Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Distribution of External Topology and TE Information using 3. Distribution of External Topology and TE Information using
BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer D and its PeerNode SID 7 3.1. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer D and its PeerNode SID 7
3.2. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer E and its PeerNode SID 7 3.2. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer E and its PeerNode SID 7
3.3. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer F and its PeerNode SID 8 3.3. BGP-PE Router advertising the Peer F and its PeerNode SID 8
3.4. BGP-PE Router advertising a first PeerAdj to Peer F . . . 8 3.4. BGP-PE Router advertising a first PeerAdj to Peer F . . . 8
3.5. BGP-PE Router advertising a second PeerAdj to Peer F . . 9 3.5. BGP-PE Router advertising a second PeerAdj to Peer F . . 8
3.6. Fast Reroute (FRR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.6. Fast Reroute (FRR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. BGP-PE Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. BGP-PE Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Valid Paths From Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Valid Paths From Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Intra-Domain Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Intra-Domain Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. External Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. External Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. SLA characteristics of each peer . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. SLA characteristics of each peer . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Traffic Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.5. Traffic Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Business Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.6. Business Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.7. BGP-PE Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.7. BGP-PE Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Programming an input policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Programming an input policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. At a Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. At a Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. At a router - SR Traffic Engineering tunnel . . . . . . . 13 5.2. At a router - SR Traffic Engineering tunnel . . . . . . . 13
5.3. At a Router - RFC3107 policy route . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3. At a Router - RFC3107 policy route . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. At a Router - VPN policy route . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.4. At a Router - VPN policy route . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. At a Router - Flowspec route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.5. At a Router - Flowspec route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The document is structured as follows: The document is structured as follows:
o Section 1 states the BGP-PE problem statement and provides the key o Section 1 states the BGP-PE problem statement and provides the key
references. references.
o Section 2 defines the different BGP Peering Segments and the o Section 2 defines the different BGP Peering Segments and the
skipping to change at page 3, line 50 skipping to change at page 3, line 51
exhaustive definition of all the means to program an BGP-PE input exhaustive definition of all the means to program an BGP-PE input
policy is outside the scope of this document. policy is outside the scope of this document.
For editorial reasons, the solution is described for IPv4. A later For editorial reasons, the solution is described for IPv4. A later
section describes how the same solution is applicable to IPv6. section describes how the same solution is applicable to IPv6.
1.1. Segment Routing Documents 1.1. Segment Routing Documents
The main references for this document are: The main references for this document are:
o SR Problem Statement: [I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement]. o SR Problem Statement: [RFC7855].
o SR Architecture: [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. o SR Architecture: [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
o Distribution of External Topology and TE Information using BGP: o Distribution of External Topology and TE Information using BGP:
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe].
The SR instantiation in the MPLS dataplane is described in The SR instantiation in the MPLS dataplane is described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls].
The SR IGP protocol extensions are defined in The SR IGP protocol extensions are defined in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].
The Segment Routing PCE protocol extensions are defined in The Segment Routing PCE protocol extensions are defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
1.2. Problem Statement 1.2. Problem Statement
The BGP-PE problem statement is defined in The BGP-PE problem statement is defined in [RFC7855].
[I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement].
A centralized controller should be able to instruct an ingress A centralized controller should be able to instruct an ingress
Provider Edge router (PE) or a content source within the domain to Provider Edge router (PE) or a content source within the domain to
use a specific egress PE and a specific external interface/neighbor use a specific egress PE and a specific external interface/neighbor
to reach a particular destination. to reach a particular destination.
We call this solution "BGP-PE" for "BGP Peer Engineering". The We call this solution "BGP-PE" for "BGP Peer Engineering". The
centralized controller is called the "BGP-PE Controller". The egress centralized controller is called the "BGP-PE Controller". The egress
border router where the BGP-PE traffic-steering functionality is border router where the BGP-PE traffic-steering functionality is
implemented is called a BGP-PE-enabled border router. The input implemented is called a BGP-PE-enabled border router. The input
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 5, line 50
o Loopback of F used for eBGP multi-hop peering to C: 192.0.2.2/32 o Loopback of F used for eBGP multi-hop peering to C: 192.0.2.2/32
o C's loopback is 203.0.113.3/32 with SID 64 o C's loopback is 203.0.113.3/32 with SID 64
C's BGP peering: C's BGP peering:
o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.2 (D) o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.2 (D)
o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.6 (E) o Single-hop eBGP peering with neighbor 198.51.100.6 (E)
o Multi-hop eBGP peering with F on IP address 192.0.2.2 (F)
o Multi-hop eBGP peering with F on IP address 192.0.2.2 (F)
C's resolution of the multi-hop eBGP session to F: C's resolution of the multi-hop eBGP session to F:
o Static route 192.0.2.2/32 via 198.51.100.10 o Static route 192.0.2.2/32 via 198.51.100.10
o Static route 192.0.2.2/32 via 198.51.100.14 o Static route 192.0.2.2/32 via 198.51.100.14
C is configured with local policy that defines a BGP PeerSet as the C is configured with local policy that defines a BGP PeerSet as the
set of peers (198.51.100.6 and 192.0.2.2) set of peers (198.51.100.6 and 192.0.2.2)
X is the BGP-PE controller within AS1 domain. X is the BGP-PE controller within AS1 domain.
skipping to change at page 12, line 8 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
via non-best-path peers. via non-best-path peers.
Unidirectional SLA monitoring of the desired path is likely required. Unidirectional SLA monitoring of the desired path is likely required.
This might be possible when the application is controlled at the This might be possible when the application is controlled at the
source and the receiver side. Unidirectional monitoring dissociates source and the receiver side. Unidirectional monitoring dissociates
the SLA characteristic of the return path (which cannot usually be the SLA characteristic of the return path (which cannot usually be
controlled) from the forward path (the one of interest for pushing controlled) from the forward path (the one of interest for pushing
content from a source to a consumer and the one which can be content from a source to a consumer and the one which can be
controlled). controlled).
Alternatively, Extended Metrics, as defined in Alternatively, Extended Metrics, as defined in [RFC7810] could also
[I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] could also be advertised using be advertised using new BGP-LS attributes.
new BGP-LS attributes.
4.5. Traffic Matrix 4.5. Traffic Matrix
The BGP-PE controller might collect the traffic matrix to its peers The BGP-PE controller might collect the traffic matrix to its peers
or the final destinations. IPFIX is a likely option. or the final destinations. IPFIX is a likely option.
An alternative option consists in collecting the link utilization An alternative option consists in collecting the link utilization
statistics of each of the internal and external links, also available statistics of each of the internal and external links, also available
in the current definition of [RFC7752]. in the current definition of [RFC7752].
skipping to change at page 16, line 9 skipping to change at page 16, line 9
This document does not request any IANA allocations. This document does not request any IANA allocations.
9. Manageability Considerations 9. Manageability Considerations
TBD TBD
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
TBD TBD
11. Acknowledgements 11. Contributors
Daniel Ginsburg substantially contributed to the content of this
document.
12. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem for his comments and The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem for his comments and
contribution. contribution.
12. References 13. References
12.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in [RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, DOI 10.17487/RFC3107, May 2001, BGP-4", RFC 3107, DOI 10.17487/RFC3107, May 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3107>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3107>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., [RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009, Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
12.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Ray, S., Patel, K., Dong, J., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Ray, S., Patel, K., Dong, J.,
and M. Chen, "Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering and M. Chen, "Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering
BGP-LS Extensions", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing- BGP-LS Extensions", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-
epe-05 (work in progress), May 2016. epe-06 (work in progress), November 2016.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment- "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
routing-extensions-07 (work in progress), June 2016. segment-routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), October
2016.
[I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions]
Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and W.
Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-11 (work in
progress), February 2016.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3 Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
segment-routing-extensions-06 (work in progress), July segment-routing-extensions-07 (work in progress), October
2016. 2016.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), July 2016. routing-extensions-10 (work in progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 (work in Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 (work in
progress), July 2016. progress), July 2016.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Filsfils, C., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Filsfils, C., Crabbe, E.,
Lopez, V., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, Raszuk, R., Lopez, V., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and
"PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-pce- J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-
segment-routing-07 (work in progress), March 2016. ietf-pce-segment-routing-08 (work in progress), October
2016.
[I-D.ietf-spring-problem-statement]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "SPRING Problem Statement
and Requirements", draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-08
(work in progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf- and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
spring-segment-routing-09 (work in progress), July 2016. spring-segment-routing-10 (work in progress), November
2016.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R.,
jefftant@gmail.com, j., and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing jefftant@gmail.com, j., and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing
with MPLS data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- with MPLS data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
mpls-05 (work in progress), July 2016. mpls-05 (work in progress), July 2016.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
[RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement
and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Clarence Filsfils (editor) Clarence Filsfils (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels Brussels
BE BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi (editor) Stefano Previdi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Del Serafico, 200 Via Del Serafico, 200
Rome 00142 Rome 00142
Italy Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Ebben Aries Ebben Aries
Facebook Juniper Networks
1 Hacker Way 1133 Innovation Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025 Sunnyvale CA 94089
US US
Email: exa@fb.com Email: exa@juniper.net
Daniel Ginsburg
Yandex
RU
Email: dbg@yandex-team.ru
Dmitry Afanasiev Dmitry Afanasiev
Yandex Yandex
RU RU
Email: fl0w@yandex-team.ru Email: fl0w@yandex-team.ru
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
55 lines changed or deleted 53 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/