[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Internet Engineering Task Force                         P. Ashwood-Smith
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational                                R. Iyengar
Expires: May 12, 2013                                            T. Tsou
                                                 Huawei Technologies USA
                                                              A. Sajassi
                                                      Cisco Technologies
                                                            M. Boucadair
                                                            C. Jacquenet
                                                          France Telecom
                                                        November 8, 2012


                     NVO3 Operational Requirements
             draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-01

Abstract

   This document provides framework and requirements for Network
   Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3) Operations, Administration, and
   Maintenance (OAM).  This document for the most part gathers
   requirements from existing IETF drafts and RFCs which have already
   extensively studied this subject for different data planes and
   layering.  As a result this draft is high level and broad.  We begin
   to ask which are truly required for NVO3 and expect the list to be
   narrowed by the working group as subsequent versions of this draft
   are created.

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 12, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the



Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  OSI Definitions of OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     1.3.  Relationship with Other OAM Work . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  NVO3 Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  OAM Framework for NVO3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  OAM Layering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  OAM Domains  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  NVO3 OAM Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.1.  Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.2.  Connectivity Fault Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       5.2.1.  Connectivity Fault Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       5.2.2.  Connectivity Fault Verification  . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       5.2.3.  Connectivity Fault localization  . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       5.2.4.  Connectivity Fault Notification and Alarm
               Suppression  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.4.  Frame Delay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.5.  Frame Delay Variation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.6.  Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.7.  Data Path Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.8.  Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.9.  Extensibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.10. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.11. Transport Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.12. Application Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Items for Further Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14



Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


















































Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document provides framework and requirements for Network
   virtualization over Layer 3(NVO3) Operation, Administration, and
   Maintenance (OAM).  Given that this OAM subject is far from new and
   has been under extensive investigation by various IETF working groups
   (and several other standards bodies) for many years, this document
   draws from existing work, starting with [RFC6136].  As a result,
   sections of [RFC6136] have been reused with minor changes with the
   permission of the authors.

   NVO3 OAM requirements are expected to be a subset of IETF/IEEE etc.
   work done so far; however, we begin with a full set of requirements
   and expect to prune them through several iterations of this document.

1.1.  OSI Definitions of OAM

   The scope of OAM for any service and/or transport/network
   infrastructure technologies can be very broad in nature.  OSI has
   defined the following five generic functional areas commonly
   abbreviated as "FCAPS" [NM-Standards]:

   o  Fault Management,

   o  Configuration Management,

   o  Accounting Management,

   o  Performance Management, and

   o  Security Management.

   This document focuses on the Fault, Performance and to a limited
   extent the Configuration Management aspects.  Other functional
   aspects of FCAPS and their relevance (or not) to NVO3 are for further
   study.

   Fault Management can typically be viewed in terms of the following
   categories:

   o  Fault Detection

   o  Fault Verification

   o  Fault Isolation

   o  Fault Notification and Alarm Suppression




Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


   o  Fault Recovery

   Fault detection deals with mechanism(s) that can detect both hard
   failures such as link and device failures, and soft failures, such as
   software failure, memory corruption, misconfiguration, etc.Fault
   detection relies upon a set of mechanisms that first allow the
   observation of an event, then the use of a protocol to dynamically
   notify a network/system operator (or management system) about the
   event occurrence, then diagnosis tools to assess the nature and the
   gravity of the fault.  After verifying that a fault has occurred
   along the data path, it is important to be able to isolate the fault
   to the level of a given device or link.  Therefore, a fault isolation
   mechanism is needed in Fault Management.  A fault notification
   mechanism should be used in conjunction with a fault detection
   mechanism to notify the devices upstream and downstream to the fault
   detection point.  The fault notification mechanism should also notify
   NMS systems.  For example, when there is a client/server relationship
   between two layered networks (for example the NVO3 layer would be a
   client of the outer IP server layer) while the inner IP layer would
   be a client of the NVO3 server layer 2); fault detection at the
   server layer may result in the following fault notifications:

   o  Sending a forward fault notification from the server layer to the
      client layer network(s) using the fault notification format
      appropriate to the client layer.

   o  Sending a backward fault notification at the server layer, if
      applicable, in the reverse direction.

   o  Sending a backward fault notification at the client layer, if
      applicable, in the reverse direction.

   Finally, fault recovery deals with recovering from the detected
   failure by switching to an alternate available data path (depending
   on the nature of the fault) using alternate devices or links.  Note,
   given that the IP network on which NVO3 resides is usually self
   healing, it is expected that recovery would not normally be required
   by the NVO3 layer.  The special case of a static IP overlay network,
   or possibly a centrally controlled IP overlay network may however
   require NVO3 involvement in fault recovery.

   Performance Management deals with mechanism(s) that allow determining
   and measuring the performance of the network/services under
   consideration.  Performance Management can be used to verify the
   compliance to both the service-level and network-level metric
   objectives/specifications.  Performance Management typically consists
   of measuring performance metrics, e.g., Frame Loss, Frame Delay,
   Frame Delay Variation (aka Jitter), etc., across managed entities



Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


   when the managed entities are in available state.  Performance
   Management is suspended across unavailable managed entities.

1.2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

1.3.  Relationship with Other OAM Work

   This document leverages requirements that originate with other OAM
   work, specifically the following:

   o  [RFC6136] provides a template and some of the high level
      requirements and introductory wording.

   o  [IEEE802.1ag] is expected to provide a subset of the requirements
      for NVO3 both at the Tenant level and also within the L3 Overlay
      network.

   o  [Y.1731] is expected to provide a subset of the requirements for
      NVO3 at the Tenant level.

   o  Section 3.8 of [NVO3-DP-Reqs] lists several requirements
      specifically concerning ECMP/LAG.


2.  Terminology

   The terminology defined in [NVO3-framework] and [NVO3-DP-Reqs] is
   used throughout this document.  We introduce no new terminology.


3.  NVO3 Reference Model

   Figure 1 below reproduces the generic NVO3 reference model as per
   [NVO3-framework].













Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


     +--------+                                  +--------+
     | Tenant |                                  | Tenant |
     |  End   +--+                           +---|  End   |
     | System |  |                           |   | System |
     +--------+  |    ...................    |   +--------+
                 |  +-+--+           +--+-+  |
                 |  | NV |           | NV |  |
                 +--|Edge|           |Edge|--+
                    +-+--+           +--+-+
                   /  .    L3 Overlay   .  \
     +--------+   /   .     Network     .   \     +--------+
     | Tenant +--+    .                 .    +----| Tenant |
     |  End   |       .                 .         |  End   |
     | System |       .    +----+       .         | System |
     +--------+       .....| NV |........         +--------+
                           |Edge|
                           +----+
                             |
                             |
                          +--------+
                          | Tenant |
                          |  End   |
                          | System |
                          +--------+

   Figure 1: Generic reference model for DC network virtualization over
                          a Layer3 infrastructure

   Figure 2 below, reproduces the Generic reference model for the NV
   Edge (NVE) as per [NVO3-DP-Reqs].





















Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


                         +------- L3 Network ------+
                         |                         |
                         |       Tunnel Overlay    |
            +------------+--------+       +--------+------------+
            | +----------+------+ |       | +------+----------+ |
            | | Overlay Module  | |       | | Overlay Module  | |
            | +--------+--------+ |       | +--------+--------+ |
            |          | VNID     |       |          | VNID     |
            |          |          |       |          |          |
            |  +-------+-------+  |       |  +-------+-------+  |
            |  |      VNI      |  |       |  |      VNI      |  |
       NVE1 |  +-+-----------+-+  |  NVE2 |  +-+-----------+-+  |
            |    |   VAPs    |    |       |    |   VAPs    |    |
            +----+-----------+----+       +----+-----------+----+
                 |           |                 |           |
          -------+-----------+-----------------+-----------+-------
                 |           |     Tenant      |           |
                 |           |   Service IF    |           |
               Tenant End Systems            Tenant End Systems

               Figure 2: Generic reference model for NV Edge


4.  OAM Framework for NVO3

   Figure 1 showed the generic reference model for a DC network
   virtualization over an L3 (or L3VPN) infrastructure while Figure 2
   showed the generic reference model for the Network Virtualization
   (NV) Edge.

   L3 network(s) or L3 VPN networks (either IPv6 or IPv4, or a
   combination thereof), provide transport for an emulated layer 2
   created by NV Edge devices.  Unicast and multicast tunneling methods
   (de-multiplexed by Virtual Network Identifier (VNID)) are used to
   provide connectivity between the NV Edge devices.  The NV Edge
   devices then present an emulated layer 2 network to the Tenant End
   Systems at a Virtual Network Interface (VNI) through Virtual Access
   Points (VAPs).  The NV Edge devices map layer 2 unicast to layer 3
   unicast point-to-point tunnels and may either map layer 2 multicast
   to layer 3 multicast tunnels or may replicate packets onto multiple
   layer 3 unicast tunnels.

4.1.  OAM Layering

   The emulated layer 2 network is provided by the NV Edge devices to
   which the Tenant End Systems are connected.  This network of NV Edges
   can be operated by a single service provider or can span across
   multiple administrative domains.  Likewise, the L3 Overlay Network



Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


   can be operated by a single service provider or span across multiple
   administrative domains.

   While each of the layers is responsible for its own OAM, each layer
   may consist of several different administrative domains.  Figure 3
   shows an example.

                                                          OAM
                                                          ---

      TENANT    |----------------------------| TENANT {all IP/ETH}

      NV Edge   |----------------------|  NV Edge     {t.b.d.}

      IP(VPN)   |---| IP (VPN) |---| IP(VPN)          {IP(VPN)/ETH}

                  Figure 3: OAM layers in an NVO3 network

   For example, at the bottom, at the L3 IP overlay network layer
   IP(VPN) and/or Ethernet OAM mechanisms are used to probe link by
   link, node to node etc.  OAM addressing here means physical node
   loopback or interface addresses.

   Further up, at the NV Edge layer, NVO3 OAM messages are used to probe
   the NV Edge to NV Edge tunnels and NV Edge entity status.  OAM
   addressing here likely means the physical node loopback together with
   the VNI (to de-multiplex the tunnels).

   Finally, at the Tenant layer, the IP and/or Ethernet OAM mechanisms
   are again used but here they are operating over the logical L2/L3
   provided by the NV-Edge through the VAP.  OAM addressing at this
   layer deals with the logical interfaces on Vswitches and Virtual
   Machines.

4.2.  OAM Domains

   Complex OAM relationships exist as a result of the hierarchical
   layering of responsibility and of breaking up of end-to-end
   responsibility.

   The OAM domain above NVO3, is expected to be supported by existing IP
   and L2 OAM methods and tools.

   The OAM domain below NVO3, is expected to be supported by existing
   IP/L2 and MPLS OAM methods and tools.  Where this layer is actually
   multiple domains spliced together, the existing methods to deal with
   these boundaries are unchanged.  Note however that exposing LAG/ECMP
   detailed behavior may result in additional requirements to this



Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


   domain, the deatils of which will be specified in the future versions
   of this draft.

   When we refer to an OAM domain in this document, or just 'domain', we
   therefore refer to a closed set of NV Edges and the tunnels which
   interconnect them.  Inter-domain OAM considersations will be
   specified in the future versions of this draft


5.  NVO3 OAM Requirements

   The following numbered requirements originate from [RFC6136].  All
   are included however where they seem obviously not relevant (to the
   present authors) an explanation as to why is included.

5.1.  Discovery

   R1) NVO3 OAM MUST allow an NV Edge device to dynamically discover
   other NV Edge devices that share the same VNI within a given NVO3
   domain.

5.2.  Connectivity Fault Management

5.2.1.  Connectivity Fault Detection

   R2) NVO3 OAM MUST allow proactive connectivity monitoring between two
   NV Edge devices that support the same VNIs within a given NVO3
   domain.

   R3) NVO3 OAM MUST allow monitoring/tracing of all possible paths
   between NV Edge devices.  Using this feature, equal cost paths that
   traverse LAG and/or ECMP may be differentiated.

5.2.2.  Connectivity Fault Verification

   R4) NVO3 OAM MUST allow connectivity fault verification between two
   NV Edge devices that support the same VNI within a given NVO3 domain.

5.2.3.  Connectivity Fault localization

   R5) NVO3 OAM MUST allow connectivity fault localization between two
   NV Edge devices that support the same VNI within a given NVO3 domain.

5.2.4.  Connectivity Fault Notification and Alarm Suppression

   R6) NVO3 OAM MUST support fault notification to be triggered as a
   result of the faults occured at the underneath network
   infrastructure.  This fault notification SHOULD be used for the



Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


   suppression of redundant service-level alarms.

5.3.  Frame Loss

   R7) NVO3 OAM MUST support measurement of per VNI frame/packet loss
   between two NV Edge devices that support the same VNI within a given
   NVO3 domain.

5.4.  Frame Delay

   R8) NVO3 OAM MUST support measurement of per VNI two-way frame/packet
   delay between two NV edge devices that support the same VNI within a
   given NVO3 domain.

   R9) NVO3 OAM MUST support measurement of per VNI one-way frame/packet
   delay between two NV Edge devices that support the same VNI within a
   given NVO3 domain.

5.5.  Frame Delay Variation

   R10) NVO3 OAM MUST support measurement of per VNI frame/packet delay
   variation between two NV Edge devices that support the same VNI
   within a given NVO3 domain.

5.6.  Availability

   A service may be considered unavailable if the service frames/packets
   do not reach their intended destination (e.g., connectivity is down)
   or the service is degraded (e.g., frame/packet loss and/or frame/
   packet delay and/or delay variation threshold is exceeded).  Entry
   and exit conditions may be defined for the unavailable state.
   Availability itself may be defined in the context of a service type.
   Since availability measurement may be associated with connectivity,
   frame/packet loss, frame/packet delay, and frame/packet delay
   variation measurements, no additional requirements are specified
   currently.

5.7.  Data Path Forwarding

   R11) NVO3 OAM frames MUST be forwarded along the same path (i.e.,
   links (including LAG members) and nodes) as the NVO3 data frames.

   R12) NVO3 OAM frames MUST provide a mechanism to exercise/trace all
   data paths that result due to ECMP/LAG hops.







Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


5.8.  Scalability

   R13) NVO3 OAM MUST be scalable such that an NV edge device can
   support proactive OAM for each VNI that is supported by the device.
   (Note - Likely very hard to achieve with hash based ECMP/LAG).

5.9.  Extensibility

   R14) NVO3 OAM MUST be extensible such that new functionality and
   information elements related to this functionality can be introduced
   in the future.

   R15) NVO3 OAM MUST be defined such that devices not supporting the
   OAM are able to forward the OAM frames in a similar fashion as the
   regular NVO3 data frames/packets.

5.10.  Security

   R16) NVO3 OAM frames MUST be prevented from leaking outside their
   NVO3 domain.

   R17) NVO3 OAM frames from outside an NVO3 domain MUST be prevented
   from entering the said NVO3 domain when such OAM frames belong to the
   same level or to a lower-level OAM.  (Trivially met because
   hierarchical domains are independent technologies.)

   R18) NVO3 OAM frames from outside an NVO3 domain MUST be transported
   transparently inside the NVO3 domain when such OAM frames belong to a
   higher-level NVO3 domain.  (Trivially met because hierarchical
   domains are independent technologies).

5.11.  Transport Independence

   Similar to transport requirement from [RFC6136], we expect NVO3 OAM
   will leverage the OAM capabilities of the transport layer (e.g., IP
   underlay).

   R19) NVO3 OAM MAY allow adaptation/interworking with its IP underlay
   OAM functions.  For example, this would be useful to allow fault
   notifications from the IP layer to be sent to the NVO3 layer and
   likewise exposure of LAG / ECMP will require such non-independence.

5.12.  Application Independence

   R20) NVO3 OAM MUST be independent of the application technologies and
   specific application OAM capabilities.





Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


6.  Items for Further Discussion

   This section identifies a set of operational items which may be
   elaborated further if these items fail within the scope of the NVO3.

   o  VNID renumbering support

      *  Means to change the VNID assigned to a given instance MUST be
         supported.

      *  VNID renumbering MUST NOT alter the service availability.

      *  A VNE MUST be able to map a VNID with a virtual network
         context.

   o  VNI migration and management operations

      *  Means to delete an existing VNI MUST be supported.

      *  Means to add a new VNI MUST be supported.

      *  Means to merge several VNIs SHOULD be supported.

      *  Means to retrieve reporting data per VNI MUST be supported.

      *  Means to monitor the network resources per VNI MUST be
         supported.

   o  Support of planned maintenance operations on the NVO3
      infrastructure

      *  Graceful procedure to allow for planned maintenance operation
         on NVE MUST be supported.

   o  Inter-VNI communication support

      *  For global reachability purposes, inter-VNI communication MUST
         be supported.  This can be enforced using a NAT function.

   o  Activation of new network-related services to the NVO3

      *  Means to assist in activating new network services (e.g.,
         multicast) without impacting running service should be
         supported.

   o  Inter-operator NVO3 considerations





Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


      *  As NVO3 may be deployed over inter-operator infrastructure,
         coordinating OAM actions in each individual domain are required
         to ensure an e2e OAM.  In particular, this assumes existence of
         agreements on the measurement and monitoring methods, fault
         detection and repair actions, extending QoS classes (e.g., DSCP
         mapping policies), etc.

         +  [[DISCUSSION NOTE: Should inter-operator issues be declared
            out of scope?]]


7.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.


8.  Security Considerations

   TBD


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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

9.2.  Informative References

   [IEEE802.1ag]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, Amendment
              5: Connectivity Fault Management", 2007.

   [IEEE802.1ah]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, Amendment
              6: Provider Backbone Bridges", 2008.

   [NM-Standards]
              ITU-T, "ITU-T Recommendation M.3400 (02/2000) - TMN
              Management Functions", February 2000.

   [NVO3-DP-Reqs]
              Bitar, N., Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Jin, L.,
              and B. Khasnabish, "NVO3 Data Plane Requirements",
              October 2012.



Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


   [NVO3-framework]
              Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Bitar, N., and Y.
              Rekhter, "Framework for DC Network Virtualization",
              July 2012.

   [RFC6136]  Sajassi, A. and D. Mohan, "Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
              (L2VPN) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
              Requirements and Framework", RFC 6136, March 2011.

   [Y.1731]   ITU-T, "ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731 (02/08) - OAM
              functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based networks",
              February 2008.


Authors' Addresses

   Peter Ashwood-Smith
   Huawei Technologies
   303 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 400
   Kanata, Ontario  K2K 3J1
   Canada

   Phone: +1 613 595-1900
   Email: Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com


   Ranga Iyengar
   Huawei Technologies USA
   2330 Central Expy
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Phone:
   Email: ranga.Iyengar@huawei.com


   Tina Tsou
   Huawei Technologies USA
   2330 Central Expy
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Phone:
   Email: Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com







Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        NVO3 Operational Requirements        November 2012


   Ali Sajassi
   Cisco Technologies
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Phone:
   Email: sajassi@cisco.com


   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes,   35000
   France

   Phone:
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Christian Jacquenet
   France Telecom
   Rennes,   35000
   France

   Phone:
   Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com

























Ashwood-Smith, et al.     Expires May 12, 2013                 [Page 16]


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