[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00

PIM Working Group                                             Dave Allan
Internet Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track                           Jeff Tantsura
Expires: December 1, 2018                                         Nuage
                                                             Ian Duncan
                                                           June 1, 2018

           A Framework for Computed Multicast Applied to SR-MPLS


   This document describes a multicast solution for SR-MPLS. It is
   consistent with the Segment Routing architecture in that an IGP is
   augmented to distribute information in addition to the link state. In
   this solution it is multicast group membership information sufficient
   to synchronize state in a given network domain. Computation is
   employed to determine the topology of any loosely specified multicast
   distribution tree.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance
   with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
   Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
   groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute working
   documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
   documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
   in progress".

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire in December 1st, 2018.

Copyright and License Notice

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described
   in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided
   without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3
   1.1. Authors......................................................3
   1.2. Requirements Language........................................3
   2. Changes from the last version..................................3
   3. Conventions used in this document..............................4
   3.1. Terminology..................................................4
   4. Solution Overview..............................................5
   4.1. Mapping source specific trees onto the segment routing
   4.2. Role of the Routing System...................................6
   4.3. MDT Construction Requirements................................6
   4.4. Simplification and Pruning - theory of operation.............7
   5. Elements of Procedure..........................................7
   5.1. Triggers for Computation.....................................7
   5.2. FIB Determination............................................8
   5.2.1. Information in the IGP.....................................8
   5.2.2. Computation of individual segments.........................8
   5.3. FIB Generation..............................................12
   5.4. FIB installation............................................12
   6. Related work..................................................13
   6.1. IGP Extensions..............................................13
   6.2. BGP Extensions..............................................13
   7. Observations..................................................14
   8. Acknowledgements..............................................14
   9. Security Considerations.......................................14
   10. IANA Considerations..........................................14
   11. References...................................................14
   11.1. Normative References.......................................14
   11.2. Informative References.....................................15
   12. Authors' Addresses...........................................15

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

1. Introduction

   This memo describes a solution for multicast for SR-MPLS in which
   source specific multicast distribution trees (MDTs) are computed from
   information distributed via an IGP. Computation uses information in
   the IGP to determine if a given node in the network has a role as a
   root, a leaf or replication point in a given MDT. Unicast tunnels are
   employed to interconnect the nodes determined to have a role.
   Therefore multicast topological instructions only need be installed
   in nodes that have one of these three roles to fully instantiate an
   Although this approach might appear to be computationally intensive,
   a significant amount of computation can be avoided if and when the
   computing agent determines that the node it is computing for has no
   role in a given MDT. If there will be no need to install a multicast
   topological instruction in that node for the given MDT, the computing
   agent can abandon computation for the MDT and move on to other tasks,
   such as converging other MDTs. This permits a computed approach to
   multicast convergence to be computationally tractable.
   This approach is proposed as a solution for networks for which an
   implementation of an alternative data plane, such as BIER, offers
   technical or economic challenges.
1.1. Authors

   David Allan, Jeff Tantsura, Ian Duncan

1.2. Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].

2. Changes from the last version

      Clarification in motivation.

      Editorial corrections and improvements.

      Clarification of the description of upstream pruning in section

      Alignment of terminology with current segment routing practice.

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

3. Conventions used in this document

3.1. Terminology

   Candidate replication point (CRP) - is a node that potentially needs
   to install a multicast topological instruction to replicate multicast
   traffic as determined at an intermediate step in multicast segment
   computation. It will either resolve to having no role or a role as a
   replication point once multicast has converged.

   Candidate role - refers to any potential combination of roles on a
   given multicast segment as determined at some intermediate step in
   MDT computation. For example, a node with a candidate role may be a
   leaf and may also be a candidate replication point.

   Computing agent- refers to the agent that will compute the FIB for
   the MDTs in a given network on behalf of one node (distributed model)
   or multiple nodes (SR controller(s) in a centralized model).

   Downstream - refers to the direction along the shortest path to one
   or more leaves for a given multicast distribution tree

   Multicast convergence - is when all computation and multicast
   topological instruction installation to ensure the FIB reflects the
   multicast information in the IGP is complete.

   MDT - multicast distribution tree. Is a tree composed of one or more
   multicast segments.

   Multicast segment - is a portion of the multicast tree where only the
   root and the leaves have been specified, and computation based upon
   the current state of the IGP database is employed to determine and
   install the required topological instructions to implement the
   segment. For SR-MPLS a multicast segment is implemented as a p2mp
   LSP. A multicast segment is identified by a multicast SID.

   Multicast SID - Is the topological instruction that is used to
   implement a multicast segment. As per a unicast SR-MPLS segment, the
   rightmost 20 bits of a multicast SID is encoded as a label. It is
   drawn from the SRGB for the domain.

   Pinned path - Is a unique shortest path extending from a leaf
   upstream towards the root for a given multicast segment. Therefore,
   it is a component of the multicast segment that it has been
   determined must be there. It will not necessarily extend from the
   leaf all the way to the root during intermediate computation steps. A
   pinned path can result from pruning operations.

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

   Role - refers specifically to a node that is either a root, a leaf, a
   replication node, or a pinned waypoint for a given MDT.

   Unicast convergence - is when all computation and topological
   instruction installation to ensure the FIB reflects the unicast
   information in the IGP is complete.

   Upstream - refers to the direction along the shortest path to the
   root of a given MDT.

4. Solution Overview

   This memo describes a multicast architecture in which multicast
   topological instructions are only installed in those nodes that have
   roles as a root, a leaf, or a replication point for a given multicast
   segment. The a-priori established mesh of unicast tunnels (using
   node-SIDs) are used as interconnect between the nodes that have a
   role in a given multicast SID. Hence on an outgoing interface where
   the next node in that path of the MDT is not immediately adjacent,
   the operation will typically be a CONTINUE of the multicast SID and a
   PUSH of the node-SID.

   A loosely specified MDT is composed of a single multicast segment and
   the routing of the MDT is delegated entirely to computation driven by
   information in the IGP database.

   Explicitly routed MDTs are expressed as a tree of concatenated
   multicast segments where both the leaves of each segment and the
   waypoints coupling a given segment to the upstream and/or downstream
   segment(s) is specified in information flooded in the IGP by the
   overall root of the MDT. The segments themselves will be computed as
   per a loosely specified MDT.

   A PE acting as an overall root for a given tree is expected to be
   configured by the operator as to where to source multicast traffic
   from, be it an attachment circuit, interworking function for client
   technology or other. Similarly, a leaf for a given tree is expected
   to be configured by the operator as to the disposition of received
   multicast traffic.

   A computed segment is guaranteed to be loop free in a stable fault
   free system. A concatenation of segments to construct an MDT will
   similarly be loop free as any collision of segments can be
   disambiguated in the data plane via the SIDs.

   This architecture significantly reduces the number of multicast
   topological instructions that needs to be installed in the data plane

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

   to support multicast. This also means that the impact of many
   failures in the network on multicast traffic distribution will be
   recovered by unicast local repair or unicast convergence with
   subsequent multicast convergence acting in the role of network re-
   optimization (as opposed to restoration).

4.1. Mapping source specific trees onto the segment routing architecture

   A computed source specific tree for a given multicast group
   corresponds to one or more multicast segments in the SR architecture.
   Each multicast segment is assigned a SID, typically by management
   configuration of the node that will be the overall root for the
   source specific tree. The root node then uses the IGP to advertise
   this information to all nodes in the IGP area/domain.

   A multicast group is implemented as the set of source specific trees
   from all nodes that have registered transmit interest to all nodes
   that have registered receive interest in a multicast group.

4.2. Role of the Routing System

   The role of the IGP is to communicate topology information, multicast
   capability and associated algorithm, multicast registrations, unicast
   to node-SID bindings, multicast to SID bindings and waypoints in
   multi-segment MDTs. No changes to topology or unicast to node-SID
   binding advertisements are proposed by this memo.

   The multicast registrations/bindings will be in the form of source,
   group, transmit/receive interest and the SID to use for the source
   specific multicast tree. Registrations are originated by any node
   that has send or receive interest in a given multicast group. Nodes
   will use the combination of topology and multicast registrations to
   determine the nodes that have a role in each source specific tree and
   the SID information to then derive the required FIB state.

4.3. MDT Construction Requirements

   A multicast segment in an MDT is constructed such that between any
   pair of nodes that have a role in the segment and are connected by a
   unicast tunnel, there is not another node on the shortest path
   between the two with a role in that segment. This ensures that copies
   of a packet forwarded by a multicast segment will traverse a link
   only once in a stable system and avoids the potential scenario
   whereby a packet needs to be replicated twice on a given interface.

   Note that this can be satisfied by a minimum cost shortest path tree,
   but this is not an absolute requirement. The pruning rules specified

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

   in this memo will meet this requirement without necessarily producing
   an absolute minimum cost multicast segment (or incurring the
   associated computational cost).

4.4. Simplification and Pruning - theory of operation

   The role of nodes in a given multicast segment is determined by first
   producing an inclusive shortest path tree with all possible paths
   between the root and leaves, and then applying a set of
   simplification and pruning rules repeatedly until either an acyclic
   tree is produced, or no further prunes are possible.

   For the majority of multicast segments these rules will
   authoritatively produce a minimum cost tree. For those segments that
   are not able to be authoritatively resolved, there is a set of
   pruning operations applied that are not guaranteed to produce a tree
   that meets the requirements of 3.3, therefore these trees require
   auditing and potential correction according to a further set of
   agreed rules. This avoids the necessity and computational overhead of
   an exhaustive search of the solution space.

   A computing agent during computation of a segment may conclude that
   none of the nodes that it is computing on behalf of will have a role
   at any point in the computation process and abandon computation of
   that segment.

5. Elements of Procedure

5.1. Triggers for Computation

   MDT computation is triggered by changes to the IGP database. These
   are in the form of either changes in registered multicast group
   interest, addition or removal of a multi-segment MDT descriptor, or
   topology changes.

   A change in registered interest for a group will require re-
   computation of all MDTs that implement the multicast group.

   A topology change will require the computation of some number of
   multicast segments, the actual number will depend on the
   implementation of tree computation but at a minimum will be all trees
   for which there is not an optimal shortest path solution as a result
   of the topology change.

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

5.2. FIB Determination

5.2.1. Information in the IGP

   Group membership information for a multicast segment is obtained from
   the IGP. This is true for single segment MDTs as well as multi-
   segment MDTs. Included in the multi-segment MDT specification is the
   waypoint nodes in MDT and the upstream and downstream SIDs. The
   specified node is expected to cross connect the SIDs to join the
   segments together acting in the role of leaf for the upstream segment
   and root for the downstream segment.

   When a waypoint in an MDT descriptor does not exist in the IGP, the
   assumption is that the node identified by the waypoint SID has
   failed. The response of the other nodes in the system in FIB
   determination is to add the leaves of the downstream segment to the
   upstream segment.

   An example of this would be consider a node "x", and another node
   "y". At some point in time, "x" advertises a tree that identifies "y"
   as a waypoint that cross connects upstream SID "a" to downstream SID
   "b". At some later point node "y" fails. The other nodes in the
   network will compute segment "a" as if it included all leaves and
   waypoints in segment "b". All apriori state installed for segment "b"
   would be removed as the failure of "y" has required "b" to be
   subsumed by "a".

5.2.2. Computation of individual segments

   FIB generation for a multicast segment is the result of computation,
   ultimately as applied to all source specific trees in the network.
   All computing agents in a given network computing a tree for a given
   multicast segment must implement a common algorithm for tree
   generation, as all MUST agree on the solution.

   One algorithm is as follows:

   All possible shortest paths to the set of leaves for the MDT is
   determined. Then simplification and pruning rules are repeatedly
   applied until no further prunes are possible or the MDT is determined
   to be resolved.

   The distinction between simplification rules and pruning rules is the
   former will not change the candidate role of a node with respect to
   the MDT under consideration and therefore can be performed in any
   order, while the latter will affect candidate node roles and must be

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

   performed in an agreed order between all participating computing

   The philosophy of the application of these rules could be expressed
   as "simplify as much as possible, and prune that which cannot be".
   The rules are:

   1) Simplification: Eliminate any links and nodes not on a potential
     shortest path from the root to the leaves for the MDT under

   2) Simplification: Replace any nodes that do not have a potential
     role in the MDT with links.

     This will be nodes that are not a leaf, a root or a candidate
     replication point. For example:


     B is a leaf. A is not but is in a potential shortest path from root
     to B. However, A will have no role in the MDT that serves B as it
     provides simple transit therefore is replaced with a direct
     connection between the root and B.


     Note that such simplification also needs to avoid the creation of
     duplicate parallel links. For example:


         Root                       B


     Where A and C have no role and the cost root-A-B = cost root-C-B,
     they can be replaced with a single link from Root to B.

   3) Simplification: Eliminate of fewer hop paths

     When for a given set of leaves, a node has multiple downstream
     links that converge on a common downstream point, and that set of
     leaves is only a subset of the leaves reachable on one or more of
     the links, any link that only serves that subset of leaves can be

     For example:

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018


          \                         /




     Link AB is cost 2, link AC and CB are cost 1 (cost of link CD does
     not affect the example).

     B and D are leaves of a root upstream of A. From A, link AB can
     reach leaf B. Path AC can reach leaf B and D. In this case path A-B
     can be eliminated from consideration. The set of leaves reachable
     via link A-B is a subset of that reachable by A-C, and the paths
     from A that serves that subset converges at B.

   4) Prune: upstream links.

     The normal procedure is to determine the best-closest upstream
     leaf or pinned path and then compare all upstream adjacencies with
     that metric. Note that the best-closest upstream leaf or pinned
     path may not be directly connected to the node under
     consideration. Where there is more than one equally close upstream
     leaf or pinned path, the highest ranked is selected with the
     ranking being that a leaf is ranked superior to a pinned path, and
     the lowest unicast SID is selected when the leaf/pinned path
     ranking is equal.

     Then examine each of the remaining upstream adjacencies:

        a.  If the upstream adjacency extends closer to the root than
          the closest leaf or pinned path, then that adjacency can be

        b.  If the upstream adjacency extends the same distance towards
          the root as the best-closest adjacency, then it can be
          eliminated as it has already been ranked lower than the best-
          closest adjacency. Note that this would include non-leaf and
          non-pinned path candidate replication points.

        c.  If the upstream adjacency is a candidate replication point
          closer than the best-closest leaf or pinned path, then it is
          left alone.

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

   When for a given node all possible upstream adjacencies that can be
   pruned have been identified, each is removed, and any simplifications
   that can be performed as a result of the prune are performed. This is
   the equivalent of a localized check for 2 and 3 above and is then
   performed iteratively in response to changes to the graph as a result
   of pruning.

   The procedure is to implement all simplifications of type 1, 2 and 3
   above, then loop on type 4 prunes until such time as the MDT is fully
   resolved from the point of view of the node under consideration, or
   no further prunes are possible. Step 4 is required to be performed in
   a specific order if there is more than one computing agent generating
   topological instructions for a given multicast segment. This memo
   suggests that the nodes are processed according to a ranking of nodes
   from closest to the root to the farthest, and from lowest unicast SID
   to the highest within a given distance from the root.

   At the end of pruning and simplification, either:

   1) The node whom the computing agent is computing for has no role in
      the multicast segment under consideration

   2) A unique shortest path to the root has been determined for all
      leaves in the multicast segment that are downstream of the node
      under consideration (also termed as a pinned path from the root
      to every leaf).

   3) A unique shortest path to the root has not been determined for all
      leaves downstream of the node under consideration in the
      multicast segment.

   If 1 or 2 then the multicast segment is considered to be resolved,
   and for 2, the computation can progress directly to the topological
   instruction generation step for that segment.

   If 3 (not all downstream leaves have a unique shortest path),
   additional pruning steps are applied. These steps are NOT guaranteed
   to produce a lowest cost tree, and therefore require an additional
   audit and possible modification to ensure when forwarding a maximum
   of one copy of a packet will traverse an interface.

   For segments not authoritatively resolved by the above rules, a prune
   that will not authoritatively result in a minimum cost tree is
   applied. For the purpose of interoperability, the following rule is
   applied: A computing agent will select the closest node to the root
   with a candidate role that does not have a unique shortest path to
   the root. Where more than one such node exists, the one with the

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

   lowest node-SID is selected. For that node, the best upstream link is
   selected and all other upstream links pruned. The best upstream link
   is defined as the link with the closest node with a candidate role
   that potentially serves the highest number of leaves. Where there is
   a tie, once again the node with the lowest unicast SID is selected.

   Once the links have been pruned, rules 2 through 4 are repeatedly
   applied until either the tree is fully resolved, or again no further
   prunes are possible, in which case the next closest remaining
   unresolved node has the same prune applied.

   For all segments not resolved by the initial prune rules, they are
   audited to ensure all nodes that have a role in the tree do not have
   a node with a role between them and their upstream node on the tree.
   If they do, the old upstream adjacency is removed, and the superior
   one added.

5.3. FIB Generation

   The topology components that remain at the end of the simplification
   and pruning operations will reflect all nodes that have a role in a
   given multicast segment plus the necessary tunnels (as all
   intervening multi-path scenarios will have been simplified away).
   From this the topological instructions to put in the FIB can be

   All nodes that have a role in a given multicast segment and have
   nodes upstream in the segment will need to accept the multicast SID
   for the MDT from at minimum, all upstream interfaces.

   All nodes that have a role in a given segment and have nodes
   immediately downstream in the segment will need to replicate packets
   simply labelled with the multicast SID onto those interfaces.

   All nodes that have a role in a given segment and have nodes
   reachable via a tunnel downstream set the FIB to push the tunnel
   unicast SID for the downstream node onto any replicated copies of a
   received packet, and identify the set of interfaces on the shortest
   path for the tunnel SID.

5.4. FIB installation

   FIB installation needs to acknowledge two aspects of the hybrid
   tunnel and role model of multicast tree construction. The first is
   that because of the sparse state model simple tree adds, moves, and
   changes may require the installation of topological instructions
   where they did not previously exist, and such changes may impact

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

   existing services. The second is that it is possible to retain the
   knowledge to prioritize computation of those trees impacted the
   failure of a node with a role.

   To address this in the distributed model, there are three stages of
   topological instruction installation for multicast convergence:

   1) Immediate:

        a.  Installation of topological instructions for multicast
          segments impacted by the failure of a node in the network,
          and installation of topological instructions for segments in
          nodes that have not previously had a role in the given

        b.  Installation of topological instructions for waypoints in
          multi-segment MDTs.

   2) After T1: Update topological instructions for nodes that both had
     and have a role in a given multicast segment.

   3) After T2: Removal of topological instructions for nodes that
     transition from having a role to not having a role for a given
     multicast segment.

   T1 and T2 are network wide configurable values.

   When an SR-Controller is used, it is only necessary to properly
   sequence the installation of state. This also suggests that when
   there is more than one SR-Controller, the division of responsibility
   should be on the basis of MDT ownership.

6. Related work

6.1. IGP Extensions

   The required IGP changes are documented in [MCAST-ISIS] and [MCAST-

6.2. BGP Extensions

   This memo will require the specification of a new PMSI Tunnel
   Attribute (SPRING P2MP tunnel, tentatively 0x0c) to order to
   integrate into the multicast framework documented in RFC 6514

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

7. Observations

   This technique is not confined to SR-MPLS:

   - with the provision of a global label space (to be employed as per a
   multicast SID), an MPLS-LDP network would also provide the requisite
   mesh of unicast tunnels and be capable of implementing this approach
   to multicast.

   -  It is also possible to envision an SRv6 implementation but would
     require the ability to rewrite the SRH at each hop.

   This memo focuses on an implementation based upon nodes that are IGP
   speakers and converge independently so is written in a form that
   assumes a node, computing agent and IGP speaker are one in the same.
   It should be observed that the relative frugality of data plane state
   would suggest that separation of computation from nodes in the data
   plane combined with management or "software defined networking" based
   population of the multicast FIB entries may also be useful modes of
   network operation.

8. Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Uma Chunduri for his detailed review and suggestions.

9. Security Considerations

   For a future version of this document.

10. IANA Considerations

   This document requires the allocation of a PMSI tunnel type to
   identify a SPRING P2MP tunnel type from the P-Multicast Service
   Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types registry.

11. References

11.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
          Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft   draft-allan-pim-sr-mpls-multicast-00         June 2018

11.2. Informative References

[MCAST-ISIS] Allan et.al., "IS-IS extensions for Computed Multicast
        applied to MPLS based Segment Routing", IETF work in progress,
        draft-allan-isis-spring-multicast-00, July 2016

[MCAST-OSPF] Allan et.al., "OSPF extensions for Computed Multicast
        applied to MPLS based Segment Routing", IETF work in progress,
        draft-allan-ospf-spring-multicast-00, July 2016

[SR-ARCH] Filsfils et.al., "Segment Routing Architecture", IETF work in
        progress, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15, January 2018

[RFC6514] Aggarwal et.al., "BGP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast
         in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", IETF RFC 6514, February 2012

[RFC7385] Andersson & Swallow "IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service
         Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code Points", IETF RFC 7385,
         October 2014

12. Authors' Addresses

   Dave Allan (editor)
   2455 Augustine Drive
   Santa Clara 95054
   Email: david.i.allan@ericsson.com

   Jeff Tantsura
   Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com

   Ian Duncan
   5050 Innovation Drive
   Kanata, ON K2K 0J2

Allan et al.,          Expires December 1, 2018               [Page 15]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/