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

Versions: (draft-keyupate-lsvr-applicability) 00 01 02 03 04

LSVR                                                            K. Patel
Internet-Draft                                              Arrcus, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                                 A. Lindem
Expires: November 2, 2019                                  Cisco Systems
                                                                S. Zandi
                                                                G. Dawra
                                                                Linkedin
                                                             May 1, 2019


  Usage and Applicability of Link State Vector Routing in Data Centers
                  draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-02.txt

Abstract

   This document discusses the usage and applicability of Link State
   Vector Routing (LSVR) extensions in data center networks utilizing
   CLOS or Fat-Tree topologies.  The document is intended to provide a
   simplified guide for the deployment of LSVR extensions.

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 November 2, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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



Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


   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.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Recommended Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Common Deployment Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Justification for BGP SPF Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  LSVR Applicability to CLOS Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  Usage of BGP-LS SPF SAFI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       6.1.1.  Relationship to Other BGP AFI/SAFI Tuples . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  Peering Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       6.2.1.  Sparse Peering Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       6.2.2.  Bi-Connected Graph Heuristic  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.3.  BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.4.  BGP Peer Discovery Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.5.  BGP Peer Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.5.1.  BGP Peer Discovery Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.5.2.  Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability  . . . .   9
     6.6.  Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability  . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  BGP Policy Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   This document complements [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] by discussing the
   applicability of the technology in a simple and fairly common
   deployment scenario, which is described in Section 4.

   After describing the deployment scenario, Section 5 will describe the
   reasons for BGP modifications for such deployments.

   Once the control plane routing protocol requirements are described,
   Section 6 will cover the LSVR protocol enhancements to BGP to meet
   these requirements and their applicability to Data Center CLOS
   networks.






Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


2.  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.

3.  Recommended Reading

   This document assumes knowledge of existing data center networks and
   data center network topologies [CLOS].  This document also assumes
   knowledge of data center routing protocols like BGP [RFC4271], BGP-
   SPF [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf], OSPF [RFC2328], as well as, data center
   OAM protocols like LLDP [RFC4957] and BFD [RFC5580].

4.  Common Deployment Scenario

   Within a Data Center, servers are commonly interconnected the CLOS
   topology [CLOS].  The CLOS topology is fully non-blocking and the
   topology is realized using Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP).  In a CLOS
   topology, the minimum number of parallel paths between two servers is
   determined by the width of a tier-1 stage as shown in the figure 1.

   The following example illustrates multi-stage CLOS topology.


























Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


                                      Tier-1
                                     +-----+
                                     |NODE |
                                  +->| 12  |--+
                                  |  +-----+  |
                          Tier-2  |           |   Tier-2
                         +-----+  |  +-----+  |  +-----+
           +------------>|NODE |--+->|NODE |--+--|NODE |-------------+
           |       +-----|  9  |--+  | 10  |  +--| 11  |-----+       |
           |       |     +-----+     +-----+     +-----+     |       |
           |       |                                         |       |
           |       |     +-----+     +-----+     +-----+     |       |
           | +-----+---->|NODE |--+  |NODE |  +--|NODE |-----+-----+ |
           | |     | +---|  6  |--+->|  7  |--+--|  8  |---+ |     | |
           | |     | |   +-----+  |  +-----+  |  +-----+   | |     | |
           | |     | |            |           |            | |     | |
         +-----+ +-----+          |  +-----+  |          +-----+ +-----+
         |NODE | |NODE | Tier-3   +->|NODE |--+   Tier-3 |NODE | |NODE |
         |  1  | |  2  |             |  3  |             |  4  | |  5  |
         +-----+ +-----+             +-----+             +-----+ +-----+
           | |     | |                                     | |     | |
           A O     B O            <- Servers ->            Z O     O O


                 Figure 1: Illustration of the basic CLOS

5.  Justification for BGP SPF Extension

   In order to simplify layer-3 routing and operations [RFC7938], many
   data centers use BGP as a routing protocol to create both an underlay
   and overlay network for their CLOS Topologies.  However, BGP is a
   path-vector routing protocol.  Since it does not create a fabric
   topology, it uses hop-by-hop EBGP peering to facilitate hop-by-hop
   routing to create the underlay network and to resolve any overlay
   next hops.  The hop-by-hop BGP peering paradigm imposes several
   restrictions within a CLOS.  It severely prohibits a deployment of
   Route Reflectors/Route Controllers as the EBGP sessions are congruent
   with the data path.  The BGP best-path algorithm is prefix-based and
   it prevents announcements of prefixes to other BGP speakers until the
   best-path decision process has been performed for the prefix at each
   intermediate hop.  These restrictions significantly delay the overall
   convergence of the underlay network within a CLOS network.

   The LSVR SPF modifications allow BGP to overcome these limitations.
   Furthermore, using the BGP-LS NLRI format [RFC7752] allows the LSVR
   data to be advertised for nodes, links, and prefixes in the BGP
   routing domain and used for SPF computations.




Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


6.  LSVR Applicability to CLOS Networks

   With the BGP SPF extensions [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf], the BGP best-
   path computation and route computation are replaced with OSPF-like
   algorithms [RFC2328] both to determine whether an BGP-LS SPF NLRI has
   changed and needs to be re-advertised and to compute the BGP routes.
   These modifications will significantly improve convergence of the
   underlay while affording the operational benefits of a single routing
   protocol [RFC7938].

   Data center controllers typically require visibility to the BGP
   topology to compute traffic-engineered paths.  These controllers
   learn the topology and other relevant information via the BGP-LS
   address family [RFC7752] which is totally independent of the underlay
   address families (usually IPv4/IPv6 unicast).  Furthermore, in
   traditional BGP underlays, all the BGP routers will need to advertise
   their BGP-LS information independently.  With the BGP SPF extensions,
   controllers can learn the topology using the same BGP advertisements
   used to compute the underlay routes.  Furthermore, these data center
   controllers can avail the convergence advantages of the BGP SPF
   extensions.  The placement of controllers can be outside of the
   forwarding path or within the forwarding path.

   Alternatively, as each and every router in the BGP SPF domain will
   have a complete view of the topology, the operator can also choose to
   configure BGP sessions in hop-by-hop peering model described in
   [RFC7938] along with BFD [RFC5580].  In doing so, while the hop-by-
   hop peering model lacks the inherent benefits of the controller-based
   model, BGP updates need not be serialized by BGP best-path algorithm
   in either of these models.  This helps overall network convergence.

6.1.  Usage of BGP-LS SPF SAFI

   The BGP SPF extensions [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] define a new BGP-LS
   SPF SAFI for announcement of BGP SPF link-state.  The NLRI format and
   its associated attributes follow the format of BGP-LS for node, link,
   and prefix announcements.  Whether the peering model within a CLOS
   follows hop-by-hop peering described in [RFC7938] or any controller-
   based or route-reflector peering, an operator can exchange BGP SPF
   SAFI routes over the BGP peering by simply configuring BGP SPF SAFI
   between the necessary BGP speakers.

   The BGP-LS SPF SAFI can also co-exist with BGP IP Unicast SAFI which
   could exchange overlapping IP routes.  The routes received by these
   SAFIs are evaluated, stored, and announced independently according to
   the rules of [RFC4760].  The tie-breaking of route installation is a
   matter of the local policies and preferences of the network operator.




Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


   Finally, as the BGP SPF peering is done following the procedures
   described in [RFC4271], all the existing transport security
   mechanisms including [RFC5925] are available for the BGP-LS SPF SAFI.

6.1.1.  Relationship to Other BGP AFI/SAFI Tuples

   Normally, the BGP-LS AFI/SAFI is used solely to compute the underlay
   and is given preference over other AFI/SAFIs.  Other BGP SAFIs, e.g.,
   IPv6/IPv6 Unicast VPN would use the BGP-SPF computed routes for next
   hop resolution.  However, if BGP-LS NLRI is also being advertised for
   controller consumption, there is no need to replicate the Node, Link,
   and Prefix NLRI in BGP-NLRI.  Rather, additional NLRI attributes can
   be advertised in the BGP-LS SPF AFI/SAFI as required.

6.2.  Peering Models

   As previously stated, BGP SPF can be deployed using the existing
   peering model where there is a single-hop BGP session on each and
   every link in the data center fabric [RFC7938].  This provides for
   both the advertisement of routes and the determination of link and
   neighboring switch availability.  With BGP SPF, the underlay will
   converge faster due to changes to the decision process that will
   allow NLRI changes to be advertised faster after detecting a change.

6.2.1.  Sparse Peering Model

   Alternately, BFD [RFC5580] can be used to swiftly determine the
   availability of links and the BGP peering model can be significantly
   sparser than the data center fabric.  BGP SPF sessions only need to
   be established with enough peers to provide a bi-connected graph.  If
   IEBGP is used, then the BGP routers at tier N-1 will act as route-
   reflectors for the routers at tier N.

   The obvious usage of sparse peering is to avoid parallel sessions on
   links between the same two BGP speakers in the data center fabric.
   However, this use case is not very useful since parallel layer-3
   links between the same two BGP routers are rare in CLOS or Fat-Tree
   topologies.  Two more interesting scenarios are described below.

   In current data center topologies, there is often a very dense mesh
   of links between levels, e.g., leaf and spine, providing 32-way,
   64-way, or more Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) paths.  In these
   topologies, it is desirable not to have a BGP session on every link
   and techniques such as the one described in Section 6.2.2 can be used
   establish sessions on some subset of northbound links.

   Alternately, controller-based data center topologies are envisioned
   where BGP speakers within the data center only establish BGP sessions



Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


   with two or more controllers.  In these topologies, fabric nodes
   below the first tier (using [RFC7938] hierarchy) will establish BGP
   multi-hop sessions with the controllers.  For the multi-hop sessions,
   determining the route to the controllers without depending on BGP
   would need to be through some other means beyond the scope of this
   document.  However, the BGP discovery mechanisms described in
   Section 6.5 would be one possibility.

6.2.2.  Bi-Connected Graph Heuristic

   With this heuristic, discovery of BGP peers is assumed, e.g., as
   described in Section 6.5.  Additionally, it assumed that the
   direction of the peering can be ascertained.  In the context of a
   data center fabric, direction is either northbound (toward the
   spine), southbound (toward the Top-Of-Rack (TOR) switches) or east-
   west (same level in hierarchy.  The determination of the direction is
   beyond the scope of this document.  However, it would be reasonable
   to assume a technique where the TOR switches can be identified and
   the number of hops to the TOR is used to determine the direction.

   In this heuristic, BGP speakers allow passive session establishment
   for southbound BGP sessions.  For northbound sessions, BGP speakers
   will attempt to maintain two northbound BGP sessions with different
   switches (in data center fabrics there is normally a single layer-3
   connection anyway).  For east-west sessions, passive BGP session
   establishment is allowed.  However, BGP speaker will never actively
   establish an east-west BGP session unless it can't establish two
   northbound BGP sessions.

6.3.  BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy

   One of the advantages of using BGP SPF as the underlay protocol is
   that BGP policy can be applied at any level.  In Spine/Leaf
   topologies, it is not necessary to advertise BGP-LS NLRI received by
   leaves northbound to the spine nodes at the level above.  If a common
   AS is used for the spine nodes, This can easily be accomplished with
   EBGP and a simple policy to filter advertisements from the leaves to
   the spine if the first AS in the AS path is the spine AS.

   In the figure below, the leaves would not advertise any NLRI with AS
   64512 as the first AS in the AS path.










Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


                +--------+    +--------+             +--------+
    AS 64512    |        |    |        |             |        |
    for Spine   | Spine1 +----+ Spine2 +- ......... -+ SpineN |
    Nodes at    |        |    |        |             |        |
    this Level  +-+-+-+-++    ++-+-+-+-+             +-+-+-+-++
           +------+ | | |      | | | |                 | | | |
           |  +-----|-|-|------+ | | |                 | | | |
           |  |  +--|-|-|--------+-|-|-----------------+ | | |
           |  |  |  | | |    +---+ | |                   | | |
           |  |  |  | | |    |  +--|-|-------------------+ | |
           |  |  |  | | |    |  |  | |              +------+ +----+
           |  |  |  | | |    |  |  | +--------------|----------+  |
           |  |  |  | | |    |  |  +-------------+  |          |  |
           |  |  |  | | +----|--|----------------|--|--------+ |  |
           |  |  |  | +------|--|--------------+ |  |        | |  |
           |  |  |  +------+ |  |              | |  |        | |  |
          ++--+--++      +-+-+--++            ++-+--+-+     ++-+--+-+
          | Leaf1 |~~~~~~| Leaf2 |  ........  | LeafX |     | LeafY |
          +-------+      +-------+            +-------+     +-------+



                   Figure 2: Spine/Leaf Topology Policy

6.4.  BGP Peer Discovery Requirements

   The most basic requirement is to be able to discover the address of a
   single-hop peer without pre-configuration.  This is being
   accomplished today with using IPv6 Router Advertisements (RA)
   [RFC4861] and assuming that a BGP sessions is desired with any
   discovered peer.  Beyond the basic requirement, it is useful to have
   to following information relating to the BGP session:

   o  Autonomous System (AS) and BGP Identifier of a potential peer.
      The latter can be used for debugging and to decrease the
      likelihood of BGP session establishment collisions.

   o  Security capabilities supported and for cryptographic
      authentication, the security capabilities and possibly a key-chain
      [RFC8177] to be used.

   o  Session Policy Identifier - A group number or name used to
      associate common session parameters with the peer.  For example,
      in a data center, BGP sessions with a Top of Rack (ToR) device
      could have parameters than BGP sessions between leaf and spine.

   In a data center fabric, it is often useful to know whether a peer is
   southbound (towards the servers) or northbound (towards the spine or



Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


   super-spine), e.g., Section 6.2.2.  A potential requirement would be
   to determine this dynamically.  One mechanism, without specifying all
   the details, might be for the ToRs to be identified when installed
   and for the others switches in the fabric to determine their level
   based on the distance from the closest ToR.

   If there are multiple links between BGP speakers or the links between
   BGP speakers are unnumbered, it is also useful to be able to
   establish multi-hop sessions using the loopback addresses.  This will
   often require the discovery protocol to install route(s) toward the
   potential peer loopback addresses prior to BGP session establishment.

   Finally, a simple BGP discovery protocol could also be used to
   establish a multi-hop session with one or more controllers by
   advertising connectivity to one or more controllers.  However, once
   the multi-hop session actually traverses multiple nodes, it is
   bordering a distance-vector routing protocol and possibly this is not
   a good requirement for the discovery protocol.

6.5.  BGP Peer Discovery

6.5.1.  BGP Peer Discovery Alternatives

   While BGP peer discovery is not part of [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf],
   there are, at least, three proposals for BGP peer discovery.  At
   least one of these mechanisms will be adopted and will be applicable
   to deployments other than the data center.  It is strongly
   RECOMMENDED that the accepted mechanism be used in conjunction with
   BGP SPF in data centers.  The BGP discovery mechanism should
   discovery both peer addresses and endpoints for BFD discovery.
   Additionally, it would be great if there were a heuristic for
   determining whether the peer is at a tier above or below the
   discovering BGP speaker (refer to Section 6.2.2).

   The BGP discovery mechanisms under consideration are
   [I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery],
   [I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery], and [I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl].

6.5.2.  Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability

   Since BGP SPF is to be used for the routing underlay and DCI gateway
   boxes typically have direct or very simple connectivity, BGP external
   sessions would typically not include the BGP SPF SAFI.








Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


6.6.  Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability

   The BGP SPF extensions [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] can be used in other
   topologies and avail the inherent convergence improvements.
   Additionally, sparse peering techniques may be utilized Section 6.2.
   However, determining whether or to establish a BGP session is more
   complex and the heuristic described in Section 6.2.2 cannot be used.
   In such topologies, other techniques such as those described in
   [I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding] may be employed.  One potential
   deployment would be the underlay for a Service Provider (SP) backbone
   where usage of a single protocol, i.e., BGP, is desired.

7.  BGP Policy Applicability

   Existing BGP policy including aggregation and prefix filtering may be
   used in conjunction with the BGP-LS SPF SAFI.  When aggregation
   policy is used, BGP-LS SPF prefix NLRI will be originated for the
   aggregate prefix and BGP-LS SPF prefix NLRI for components will be
   filtered.  Additionally, link and node NLRI may be filtered and the
   abstracted by the prefix NLRI.

   When BGP policy is used with the BGP-LS SPF SAFI, BGP speakers in the
   BGP-LS SPF routing domain will not all have the same set of NLRI and
   will compute a different BGP local routing table.  Consequently, care
   must be taken to assure routing is consistent and blackholes or
   routing loops do not ensue.  However, this is no different than if
   tradition BGP routing using the IPv4 and IPv6 address families were
   used.

8.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA updates are requested by this document.

9.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security considerations above and
   beyond those already specified in the [RFC4271] and
   [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf].

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana and Yan Filyurin for
   the review and comments.








Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]
              Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and W. Henderickx,
              "Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol",
              draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-04 (work in progress), December
              2018.

   [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>.

   [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>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [CLOS]     "A Study of Non-Blocking Switching Networks",  The Bell
              System Technical Journal, Vol. 32(2), DOI
              10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x, March 1953.

   [I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery]
              Lindem, A., Patel, K., Zandi, S., Haas, J., and X. Xu,
              "BGP Logical Link Discovery Protocol (LLDP) Peer
              Discovery", draft-acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery-04 (work in
              progress), December 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding]
              Li, T., Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Przygienda, T., Cooper,
              D., Jalil, L., and S. Dontula, "Dynamic Flooding on Dense
              Graphs", draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-00 (work in
              progress), February 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl]
              Bush, R., Austein, R., and K. Patel, "Layer 3 Discovery
              and Liveness", draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-00 (work in progress),
              April 2019.

   [I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery]
              Xu, X., Talaulikar, K., Bi, K., Tantsura, J., and N.
              Triantafillis, "BGP Neighbor Discovery", draft-xu-idr-
              neighbor-autodiscovery-11 (work in progress), April 2019.





Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2328>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC4760]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc4760>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4957]  Krishnan, S., Ed., Montavont, N., Njedjou, E., Veerepalli,
              S., and A. Yegin, Ed., "Link-Layer Event Notifications for
              Detecting Network Attachments", RFC 4957,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4957, August 2007, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc4957>.

   [RFC5580]  Tschofenig, H., Ed., Adrangi, F., Jones, M., Lior, A., and
              B. Aboba, "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and
              Diameter", RFC 5580, DOI 10.17487/RFC5580, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5580>.

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
              June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.

   [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
              S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
              Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

   [RFC7938]  Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
              BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc7938>.







Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                                                  May 2019


   [RFC8177]  Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.
              Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc8177>.

Authors' Addresses

   Keyur Patel
   Arrcus, Inc.
   2077 Gateway Pl
   San Jose, CA  95110
   USA

   Email: keyur@arrcus.com


   Acee Lindem
   Cisco Systems
   301 Midenhall Way
   Cary, NC  95110
   USA

   Email: acee@cisco.com


   Shawn Zandi
   Linkedin
   222 2nd Street
   San Francisco, CA  94105
   USA

   Email: szandi@linkedin.com


   Gaurav Dawra
   Linkedin
   222 2nd Street
   San Francisco, CA  94105
   USA

   Email: gdawra@linkedin.com










Patel, et al.           Expires November 2, 2019               [Page 13]


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