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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05

Routing area                                                    S. Hegde
Internet-Draft                                                  K. Arora
Intended status: Standards Track                           M. Srivastava
Expires: August 27, 2020                           Juniper Networks Inc.
                                                                S. Ninan
                                                  Individual Contributor
                                                                   X. Xu
                                                            Alibaba Inc.
                                                       February 24, 2020


   Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR)
Egress Peer Engineering Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes
                   draft-hegde-mpls-spring-epe-oam-05

Abstract

   Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) is an application of Segment Routing to
   Solve the problem of egress peer selection.  The Segment Routing
   based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized controller, e.g. a
   Software Defined Network (SDN) controller to program any egress peer.
   The EPE solution requires a node to program the PeerNode SID
   describing a session between two nodes, the PeerAdj SID describing
   the link (one or more) that is used by sessions between peer nodes,
   and the PeerSet SID describing an arbitrary set of sessions or links
   between a local node and its peers.  This document provides new sub-
   TLVs for EPE Segment Identifiers (SID) that would be used in the MPLS
   Target stack TLV (Type 1), in MPLS Ping and Traceroute procedures.

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 https://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 August 27, 2020.






Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   February 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  FEC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.2.  PeerNode SID Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  PeerSet SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] is an effective
   mechanism to select the egress peer link based on different criteria.
   The EPE-SIDs provide means to represent egress peer links.  Many
   network deployments have built their networks consisting of multiple
   Autonomous Systems either for ease of operations or as a result of
   network mergers and acquisitons.  The inter-AS links connecting the
   two Autonomous Systems could be traffic engineered using EPE-SIDs in
   this case as well.  It is important to be able to validate the
   control plane to forwarding plane synchronization for these SIDs so
   that any anomaly can be detected easily by the operator.

   This document provides Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)
   stack TLV definitions for EPE-SIDs.  Other procedures for mpls Ping



Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   February 2020


   and Traceroute as defined in [RFC8287] section 7 and clarified by
   [RFC8690] are applicable for EPE-SIDs as well.

2.  Theory of Operation

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] provides mechanisms to
   advertise the EPE-SIDs in BGP-LS.  These EPE-SIDs may be used to
   build Segment Routing paths as described in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].  Data plane monitoring for
   such paths which consist of EPE-SIDs will use extensions defined in
   this document to build the Taget FEC stack TLV.  The MPLS Ping and
   Traceroute procedures MAY be initaited by the head-end of the Segment
   Routing path or a centralized topology-aware data plane monitoring
   system as described in [RFC8403].  The node initiating the data plane
   monitoring may acquire the details of EPE-SIDs through BGP-LS
   advertisements as described in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe].  The procedures to operate
   e-BGP sessions in a scenario with unnumbered interfaces is not very
   well defined and hence out of scope for this document.  During AS
   migration scenario procedures described in [RFC7705] may be in force.
   In these scenarios, if the local and remote AS fields in the FEC as
   described in Section 4carries the global AS and not the "local AS" as
   defined in [RFC7705], the FEC validation procedures may fail.

3.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14, [RFC2119], [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

4.  FEC Definitions

   As described in [RFC8287] sec 5, 3 new type of sub-TLVs for the
   Target FEC Stack TLV are defined for the Target FEC stack TLV
   corresponding to each label in the label stack.  If a malformed FEC
   sub-TLV is received, then a return code of 1, "Malformed echo request
   received" as defined in [RFC8029] SHOULD be sent.

4.1.  PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV










Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   February 2020


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type = TBD                     |          Length               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local AS Number (4  octets)                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote As Number (4 octets)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Local BGP router ID (4 octets)                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets)                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Local Interface address (4/16 octets)            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote Interface address (4/16 octets)           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




                       Figure 1: PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV

   Type : TBD

   Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address

   Local AS Number :

   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS to
   which PeerAdj SID advertising node belongs to.

   Remote AS Number :

   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
   remote node for which the PeerAdj SID is advertised.

   Local BGP Router ID :

   4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

   Remote BGP Router ID :

   4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].



Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   February 2020


   Local Interface Address :

   In case of PeerAdj SID Local interface address corresponding to the
   PeerAdj SID should be apecified in this field.  For IPv4,this field
   is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.  Link Local IPv6
   addresses are allowed in this field.

   Remote Interface Address :

   In case of PeerAdj SID Remote interface address corresponding to the
   PeerAdj SID should be apecified in this field.  For IPv4,this field
   is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.Link Local IPv6
   addresses are allowed in this field.

4.2.  PeerNode SID Sub-TLV


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type = TBD                     |          Length               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local AS Number (4  octets)                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote As Number (4 octets)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Local BGP router ID (4 octets)                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets)                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   No.of IPv4 interface pairs  |   No.of IPv6 interface pairs  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              ......                                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+






                      Figure 2: PeerNode SID Sub-TLV




Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   February 2020


   Type : TBD

   Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address.  There could
   be multiple pairs of local and remote interface pairs.  The length
   includes all the pairs.

   Local AS Number :

   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS to
   which PeerNode SID advertising node belongs to.

   Remote AS Number :

   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
   remote node for which the PeerNode SID is advertised.

   Local BGP Router ID :

   4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

   Remote BGP Router ID :

   4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

   Number of IPv4 interface pairs:

   Total number of IPV4 local and remote interface address pairs.

   Number of IPv6 interface pairs:

   Total number of IPV6 local and remote interface address pairs.

   There can be multiple Layer 3 interfaces on which a peerNode SID
   loadbalances the traffic.  All such interfaces local/remote address
   MUST be included in the FEC.

   When a PeerNode SID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only
   address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the FEC definition
   should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6 address
   pairs.

   Local Interface Address :





Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   February 2020


   In case of PeerNode SID, the interface local address ipv4/ipv6 which
   corresponds to the PeerNode SID MUST be specified.  For IPv4,this
   field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.Link Local IPv6
   addresses are allowed in this field.

   Remote Interface Address :

   In case of PeerNode SID, the interface remote address ipv4/ipv6 which
   corresponds to the PeerNode SID MUST be specified.  For IPv4,this
   field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.Link Local IPv6
   addresses are allowed in this field.

4.3.  PeerSet SID Sub-TLV


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type = TBD                     |          Length               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Local AS Number (4  octets)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Local BGP router ID (4 octets)                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   No.of elements in set       |          Reserved             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote As Number (4 octets)                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote BGP Router ID (4 octets)                  |
       ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++
       |   No.of IPv4 interface pairs  |   No.of IPv6 interface pairs  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local Interface address1 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Remote Interface address1 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Local Interface address2 (4/16 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              ......                                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




                       Figure 3: PeerSet SID Sub-TLV

   Type : TBD




Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   February 2020


   Length : variable based on ipv4/ipv6 interface address and number of
   elements in the set

   Local AS Number :

   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS to
   which PeerSet SID advertising node belongs to.

   Remote AS Number :

   4 octet unsigned integer representing the Member ASN inside the
   Confederation.[RFC5065].  The AS number corresponds to the AS of the
   remote node for which the PeerSet SID is advertised.

   Advertising BGP Router ID :

   4 octet unsigned integer of the advertising node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

   Receiving BGP Router ID :

   4 octet unsigned integer of the receiving node representing the BGP
   Identifier as defined in [RFC4271] and [RFC6286].

   No.of elements in set:

   Number of remote ASes, the set SID load-balances on.

   PeerSet SID may be associated with a number of PeerNode SIDs and
   PeerAdj SIDs.  Link address details of all these SIDs should be
   included in the peerSet SID FEC so that the data-plane can be
   correctly verified on the remote node.

   Number of IPv4 interface pairs:

   Total number of IPV4 local and remote interface address pairs.

   Number of IPv6 interface pairs:

   Total number of IPV6 local and remote interface address pairs.

   There can be multiple Layer 3 interfaces on which a peerNode SID
   loadbalances the traffic.  All such interfaces local/remote address
   MUST be included in the FEC.

   When a PeerSet SID load-balances over few interfaces with IPv4 only
   address and few interfaces with IPv6 address then the Link address



Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   February 2020


   TLV should list all IPv4 address pairs together followed by IPv6
   address pairs.

   Local Interface Address :

   In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdj SID, the interface local address ipv4/
   ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNode SID/PeerAdj SID MUST be
   specified.  For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is
   16 octets.  Link Local IPv6 addresses are allowed in this field.

   Remote Interface Address :

   In case of PeerNodeSID/PeerAdj SID, the interface remote address
   ipv4/ipv6 which corresponds to the PeerNode SID/PeerAdj SID MUST be
   specified.  For IPv4,this field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is
   16 octets.  Link Local IPv6 addresses are allowed in this field.

5.  IANA Considerations

   New Target FEC stack sub-TLV from the "sub-TLVs for TLV types 1,16
   and 21" subregistry of the "Multi-Protocol Label switching (MPLs)
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping parameters" registry

      PeerAdj SID Sub-TLV : TBD

      PeerNode SID Sub-TLV : TBD

      PeerSet SID Sub-TLV : TBD

6.  Security Considerations

   The EPE-SIDs are advertised for egress links for Egress Peer
   Engineering purposes or for inter-As links between co-operating ASes.
   When co-operating domains are involved, they can allow the packets
   arriving on trusted interfaces to reach the control plane and get
   processed.  When EPE-SIDs which are created for egress TE links where
   the neighbor AS is an independent entity, it may not allow packets
   arriving from external world to reach the control plane.  In such
   deployments mpls OAM packets will be dropped by the neighboring AS
   that receives the MPLS OAM packet.

7.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Loa Andersson and Alexander Vainshtein for careful review
   and comments.






Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   February 2020


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
              Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray,
              S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing
              BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
              segment-routing-epe-19 (work in progress), May 2019.

   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.

   [RFC8287]  Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
              N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
              Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
              IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
              Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D.
              Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer
              Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-
              epe-10 (work in progress), December 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
              Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
              P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
              ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-06 (work in progress),
              December 2019.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7705]  George, W. and S. Amante, "Autonomous System Migration
              Mechanisms and Their Effects on the BGP AS_PATH
              Attribute", RFC 7705, DOI 10.17487/RFC7705, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7705>.





Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   February 2020


   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8403]  Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N.
              Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane
              Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>.

   [RFC8690]  Nainar, N., Pignataro, C., Iqbal, F., and A. Vainshtein,
              "Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287",
              RFC 8690, DOI 10.17487/RFC8690, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8690>.

Authors' Addresses

   Shraddha Hegde
   Juniper Networks Inc.
   Exora Business Park
   Bangalore, KA  560103
   India

   Email: shraddha@juniper.net


   Kapil Arora
   Juniper Networks Inc.

   Email: kapilaro@juniper.net


   Mukul Srivastava
   Juniper Networks Inc.

   Email: msri@juniper.net


   Samson Ninan
   Individual Contributor

   Email: samson.cse@gmail.com










Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                   EPE-OAM                   February 2020


   Xiaohu Xu
   Alibaba Inc.
   Beijing
   China

   Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com













































Hegde, et al.            Expires August 27, 2020               [Page 12]


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