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

Versions: (draft-zhang-trill-mtu-negotiation) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 8249

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                  M. Zhang
Intended Status: Standards Track                                X. Zhang
Updates: 7177                                                D. Eastlake
                                                                  Huawei
                                                              R. Perlman
                                                                     EMC
                                                               V. Manral
                                                                   Ionos
                                                           S. Chatterjee
                                                                   Cisco
Expires: August 28, 2016                               February 25, 2016

         Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
                            MTU Negotiation
                draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-02.txt

Abstract

   The base IETF TRILL protocol has a TRILL campus wide MTU feature,
   specified in RFC 6325 and RFC 7177, that assures that link state
   changes can be successfully flooded throughout the campus while being
   able to take advantage of a campus wide capability to support jumbo
   packets. This document specifies optional updates to that MTU feature
   to take advantage, for appropriate link local packets, of link local
   MTUs that exceed the TRILL campus MTU. In addition, it specifies an
   efficient algorithm for local MTU testing. It updates RFC 7177.

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
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html




Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                 [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2. Link-Wide TRILL MTU Size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3. Link MTU Size Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4. Refreshing Campus-Wide Sz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5. Relationship between Port MTU, Lz and Sz  . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6. LSP Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7. Recommendations for Traffic Link MTU Size Testing . . . . . . .  9
   8. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


















Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                 [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


1. Introduction

   [RFC6325] describes the way RBridges agree on the campus-wide minimum
   acceptable inter-RBridge MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) size - the
   campus-wide "Sz" to ensure that link state flooding operates properly
   and all RBridges converge to the same link state. For the proper
   operation of TRILL IS-IS, all RBridges MUST format their LSPs to fit
   in the campus-wide Sz.

   [RFC7177] diagrams the state transitions of an adjacency. If MTU
   testing is enabled, "Link MTU size is successfully tested" is part of
   an event (event A6) causing the transition from "2-way" state to
   "Report" state for an adjacency. This means the link MTU testing of
   size X succeeds, and X is greater than or equal to the campus-wide Sz
   [RFC6325]. In other words, if this link cannot support an MTU of the
   campus-wide Sz, it will not be reported as part of the campus
   topology.

   This document specifies a new value, link-wide "Lz", representing the
   link-wide minimum acceptable inter-RBridge MTU size for a specific
   link. There are PDUs that are sent only within a local link, such as
   CSNPs and PSNPs. These PDUs should be formatted not greater than the
   link-wide Lz. Since link-wide Lz is frequently greater than the
   campus-wide Sz, link scope PDUs can, in such cases, be formatted
   greater than the campus-wide Sz up to Lz.

   An optional TRILL MTU size testing algorithm is specified in Section
   3 as an efficient method for the MTU testing described in Section
   4.3.2 of [RFC6325] and in [RFC7177]. Multicasting the MTU-probes is
   recommended when there are multiple RBridges on a link responding to
   the probing with MTU-ack [RFC7177]. The testing method and rules of
   this document are devised in a way to minimize the number of MTU
   probes for testing, which therefore reduces the number of multicast
   packets for MTU testing.

1.1. Conventions used in this document

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2. Link-Wide TRILL MTU Size

   This document specifies a new value "Lz" for the acceptable inter-
   RBridge link MTU size on a local link. Link-wide Lz is the minimum Lz
   supported between all RBridges on a specific link. If the link is
   usable, Lz will be greater than or equal to the campus wide Sz MTU.
   Some TRILL IS-IS PDUs are exchanged only between neighbors instead of



Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                 [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


   the whole campus. They should be confined by the link-wide Lz instead
   of the campus-wide Sz. CSNPs and PSNPs are examples of such PDUs.
   These PDUs are exchanged just on the local link.

   [RFC7356] defines the PDUs which support flooding scopes in addition
   to area wide scope and domain wide scope. As specified in
   [RFC6439bis], RBridges MUST support the Extended L1 Circuit Scoped
   (E-L1CS) flooding. They use that flooding to exchange their maximally
   supportable value of "Lz". The smallest value of the Lz advertised by
   the RBridges on a link, but not less than Sz, is the link-wide Lz. An
   RBridge on a local link will be able to tell which other RBridges on
   that link support E-L1CS FS-LSPs because, as required by [RFC7180bis]
   all RBridges are required to include the Scoped Flooding Support TLV
   [RFC7356] in their TRILL Hellos.

   The maximum sized level 1 link-local PDU, such as PSNP or CSNP, which
   may be generated by a system is controlled by the value of the
   management parameter originatingL1SNPBufferSize. This value
   determines Lz. The TRILL APPsub-TLV shown in Figure 2.1 SHOULD be
   included in a TRILL GENINFO TLV [RFC7357] in an E-L1CS FS-LSP
   fragment zero. If it is missing from a fragment zero E-L1CS FS-LSP or
   there is no fragment zero E-L1CS FS-LSP, it is assumed that its
   originating IS is implicitly advertising its originatingSNPBufferSize
   value as Sz octets.

   E-L1CS FS-LSPs are link local and can also be sent up to Lz in size
   but, for robustness, E-L1CS FS-LSP fragment zero MUST NOT exceed 1470
   bytes.

                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   | Type                          |   (2 byte)
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   | Length                        |   (2 byte)
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   | originatingSNPBufferSize      |   (2 byte)
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 2.1: The originatingSNPBufferSize TLV.

   Type: set to originatingSNPBufferSize subTLV (TRILL APPsub-TLV type
   tbd). Two bytes because this APPsub-TLV appears in an Extended TLV
   [RFC7356].

   Length: set to 2.

   originatingSNPBufferSize: the local value of
   originatingL1SNPBufferSize, limited to 1470 to 65,535 bytes.




Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                 [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


   Lz is reported using a originatingSNPBufferSize TLV that MUST occur
   in fragment zero of the RBridge's E-L1CS FS-LSP.

                         Lz:1800               Lz:1800
                          +---+         |         +---+
                          |RB1|(2000)---|---(2000)|RB2|
                          +---+         |         +---+
                                        |
                  Lz:1800               |
                   +---+               +--+
                   |RB3|(2000)---(1700)|B1|
                   +---+               +--+
                                        |

   Figure 2.2: Link-wide Lz = 1800 v.s. tested link MTU size = 1700

   Even if all RBridges on a specific link have reached consensus on the
   value of link-wide Lz, it does not mean that these RBridges can
   safely exchange PDUs between each other. Figure 2.2 shows such a
   corner case. RB1, RB2 and RB3 are three RBridges on the same link and
   their Lz is 1800, so the link-wide Lz of this link is 1800. There is
   an intermediate bridge (say B1) between RB2 and RB3 whose port MTU
   size is 1700. If RB2 sends PDUs formatted in chunk of size 1800, it
   will be discarded by B1.

   Therefore the link MTU size should be tested. After the link MTU size
   of an adjacency is successfully tested, those link local PDUs such as
   CSNPs, PSNPs and E-L1CS FS-LSPs will be formatted no greater than the
   tested link MTU size and will be safely transmitted on this link.

   As for campus-wide Sz, RBridges continue to propagate their
   originatingL1LSPBufferSize across the campus through the
   advertisement of LSPs as defined in Section 4.3.2 of [RFC6325]. The
   smallest value of Sz advertised by any RBridge, but not less than
   1470, will be deemed as the campus-wide Sz. Each RBridge should
   format their "campus-wide" PDUs, for example LSPs, not greater than
   what they believe to be the campus-wide Sz.

3. Link MTU Size Testing

   [RFC7177] defines the event A6 as including "MTU test is successful"
   if the MTU testing is enabled. As described in Section 4.3.2 of
   [RFC6325], this is a combination of the following event and
   condition.

   Event: The link MTU size has been tested.

   Condition: The link can support the campus-wide Sz.



Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                 [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


   This condition can be efficiently tested by the following "Binary
   Search Algorithm" and rules. The MTU-probe and MTU-ack PDUs are
   specified in Section 3 of [RFC7176].

   X, X1, and X2 are local integer variables.

   Step 0: RB1 sends an MTU-probe padded to the size of link-wide Lz.

   1) If RB1 successfully receives the MTU-ack from RB2 to the probe of
      the value of link-wide Lz within k tries (where k is a
      configurable parameter whose default is 3), then link MTU size is
      set to the size of link-wide Lz and stop.

   2) RB1 tries to send an MTU-probe padded to the size 1470.

      a) If RB1 fails to receive an MTU-ack from RB2 after k tries, RB1
         sets the "failed minimum MTU test" flag for RB2 in RB1's Hello
         and stop.

      b) Link MTU size <-- 1470, X1 <-- 1470, X2 <-- link-wide Lz, X <--
         [(X1 + X2)/2] (Operation "[...]" returns the fraction-rounded-
         up integer.). Repeat Step 1.

   Step 1: RB1 tries to send an MTU-probe padded to the size X.

   1) If RB1 fails to receive an MTU-ack from RB2 after k tries, then:

         X2 <-- X and X <-- [(X1 + X2)/2]

   2) If RB1 receives an MTU-ack to a probe of size X from RB2 then:

         link MTU size <-- X, X1 <-- X and X <-- [(X1 + X2)/2]

   3) If X1 >= X2 or Step 1 has been repeated n times (where n is a
      configurable parameter whose default value is 5), stop. Else
      repeat Step 1.

   MTU testing is only done in the Designated VLAN [RFC7177]. Since the
   execution of the above algorithm can be resource consuming, it is
   recommended that the DRB take the responsibility to do the testing.
   Multicast should be used instead of unicast when multiple RBridges
   are desired to respond with MTU-ack on the link. The Binary Search
   Algorithm is given here as a way to minimize the probing attempts; it
   reduces the number of multicast packets for MTU-probing.

   The following rules are designed to determine whether the
   aforementioned "Condition" holds.




Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                 [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


   RBridges have figured out the upper bound (X2) and lower bound (X1)
   for the link MTU size from the execution of the above algorithm. If
   the campus-wide Sz is smaller than the lower bound or greater than
   the upper bound, RBridges can directly judge whether the link
   supports the campus-wide Sz without MTU-probing.

   (a) If X1 >= campus-wide Sz. This link can support campus-wide Sz.

   (b) Else if X2 <= campus-wide Sz. This link cannot support campus-
       wide Sz.

   Otherwise, RBridges need to test whether the link can support campus-
   wide Sz:

   (c) X1 < campus-wide Sz < X2. RBridges need probe the link with MTU-
       probe messages padded to campus-wide Sz. If an MTU-ack is
       received within k tries, this link can support campus-wide Sz.
       Otherwise, this link cannot support campus-wide Sz. Through this
       test, the lower bound and upper bound of link MTU size can be
       updated accordingly.

4. Refreshing Campus-Wide Sz

   RBridges may join or leave the campus, which may change the campus-
   wide Sz. The following recommendations are specified for refreshing
   the campus-wide Sz.

   1) When a new RBridge joins the campus and its
      originatingL1LSPBufferSize is smaller than current campus-wide Sz,
      reporting its originatingL1LSPBufferSize in its LSPs will cause
      other RBridges decrease their campus-wide Sz. Then the LSPs in the
      campus MUST be re-sized to be no greater than the new campus-wide
      Sz.

   2) When an RBrige leaves the campus and its
      originatingL1LSPBufferSize is equal to the campus-wide Sz, its
      LSPs are purged from the remaining campus after reaching MaxAge
      [IS-IS]. The campus-wide Sz MAY be recalculated and MAY increase.
      In other words, while RB1 normally ignores link state information
      for any IS-IS unreachable [RFC7180bis] RBridge RB2,
      originatingL1LSPBufferSize is an exception. Its value, even from
      IS-IS unreachable RBridges, is used in determining Sz.

   Frequent LSP "re-sizing" is harmful to the stability of the TRILL
   campus, so it should be dampened. Within the two kinds of resizing
   actions, only the upward resizing will be dampened. When an upward
   resizing event happens, a timer is set (this is a configurable
   parameter whose default value is 300 seconds). Before this timer



Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                 [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


   expires, all subsequent upward resizing will be dampened. Of course,
   in a well-configured campus with all RBridges configured to have the
   same originatingL1LSPBufferSize, no resizing will be necessary. It
   does not matter if different RBridges have different dampening timers
   or some RBridges re-size upward more quickly than others.

   If the refreshed campus-wide Sz is smaller than the lower bound or
   greater than the upper bound of the tested link MTU size, the
   resource consuming link MTU size testing can be avoided according to
   rule (a) or (b) specified in Section 3. Otherwise, RBridges need to
   test the link MTU size according to rule (c). But it's unnecessary to
   perform the link MTU size testing algorithm all over again.

5. Relationship between Port MTU, Lz and Sz

   When port MTU size is smaller than the local
   originatingL1SNPBufferSize of an RBridge (sort of a wrong
   configuration), this port should be explicitly disabled from the
   TRILL campus. On the other hand, when an RBridge receives an LSP or
   E-L1CS FS-LSP with size greater than the link-wide Lz or the campus-
   wide Sz but not greater than its port MTU size, this LSP should be
   processed normally and not discarded. If the size of an LSP is
   greater than the MTU size of a port over which it is to be
   propagated, no attempt shall be made to propagate this LSP over the
   port and an LSPTooLargeToPropagate alarm shall be generated [IS-IS].

6. LSP Synchronization

   An RBridge participates in LSP synchronization on a link as soon as
   it has at least one adjacency on that link that has advanced to at
   least the 2-Way state [RFC7177]. On a LAN link, CSNP and PSNP PDUs
   are used for synchronization. On a point-to-point link, only PSNP are
   used.

   The CSNPs and PSNPs MUST be formatted in chunks of size at most the
   link-wide Lz but are processed normally if received larger than that.
   Since the link MTU size may not have been tested in the 2-Way state,
   link-wide Lz may be greater than the supported link MTU size. In that
   case, a CSNP or PSNP may be discarded. After the link MTU size is
   successfully tested, RBridges will begin to format these PDUs in the
   size no greater than it, therefore these PDUs will eventually get
   through.

   Note that the link MTU size is frequently greater than the campus-
   wide Sz. Link local PDUs are formatted in the size of link MTU size
   rather than the campus-wide Sz, which, when Lz is greater than Sz,
   promises a reduction in the number of PDUs and a faster LSP
   synchronization process.



Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                 [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


7. Recommendations for Traffic Link MTU Size Testing

   Campus-wide Sz and link-wide Lz are used to limit the size of most
   TRILL IS-IS PDUs. They are different from the MTU size restricting
   the size of TRILL Data packets. The size of a TRILL Data packet is
   restricted by the physical MTU of the ports and links the packet
   traverses. It is possible that a TRILL Data packet successfully gets
   through the campus but its size is greater than the campus-wide Sz or
   link-wide Lz values.

   The algorithm defined in link MTU size testing can also be used in
   TRILL traffic MTU size testing; in that case the link-wide Lz used in
   that algorithm should be replaced by the port MTU of the RBridge
   sending MTU probes. The successfully tested size X can be advertised
   as an attribute of this link using MTU sub-TLV defined in [RFC7176].

   Unlike RBridges, end stations do not participate in the exchange of
   IS-IS PDUs of TRILL, therefore they cannot grasp the traffic link MTU
   size from a TRILL campus automatically. An operator may collect these
   values using network management tools such as TRILL ping or
   TraceRoute. Then the path MTU is set as the smallest tested link MTU
   on this path and end stations should not generate frames that, when
   encapsulated as TRILL Data packets, exceed this path MTU.

8. Backwards Compatibility

   There can be a mixture of Lz-ignorant and Lz-aware RBridges on a
   link. This will act properly although it will not be as efficient as
   it would be if all RBridges on the link are Lz-aware.

   At the side of an Lz-aware RBridge, in case that link-wide Lz is
   greater than campus-wide Sz, larger link-local TRILL IS-IS PDUs can
   be sent out to gain efficiencies. Lz-ignorant RBridges as receivers
   will have no problem handling them since the
   originatingL1LSPBufferSize value of these RBridges had been reported
   and the link-wide Lz is not greater than that value.

   For an Lz-ignorant RBridge, TRILL IS-IS PDUs are always formatted not
   greater than the campus-wide Sz. Lz-aware RBridges as receivers can
   handle these PDUs since they cannot be greater than the link-wide Lz.

   An Lz-ignorant RBridge might not support the link MTU testing
   algorithm defined in Section 3 but could be using some algorithm just
   to test for Sz MTU on the link. In any case, if an RBridge per
   [RFC6325] receives an MTU-probe, it MUST respond with an MTU-ack
   padded to the same size as the MTU-probe. So the extension of TRILL
   MTU negotiation with Lz, as specified in this document, is fully
   backwards compatible.



Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                 [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


9. Security Considerations

   This document raises no new security issues for TRILL. For general
   and adjacency related TRILL security considerations, see [RFC6325]
   and [RFC7177].

10. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign a new APPsub-TLV number from the range
   less than 256 in the "TRILL APPsub-TLV Types under IS-IS TLV 251
   Application Identifier 1" registry for the TRILL
   originatingSNPBufferSize sub-TLV defined in Section 2 of this
   document. The entry is as follows:

   Type  Name                      Reference
   ----  ------------------------  ---------------
   tbd   originatingSNPBufferSize  [this document]


11. References

11.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
             Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
             Specification", RFC 6325, DOI 10.17487/RFC6325, July 2011,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.

   [RFC7177] Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Yang, H., and
             V. Manral, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
             (TRILL): Adjacency", RFC 7177, DOI 10.17487/RFC7177, May
             2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7177>.

   [RFC7176] Eastlake 3rd, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt, D.,
             and A. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of
             Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", RFC 7176, DOI
             10.17487/RFC7176, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc7176>.

   [RFC7356] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding
             Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356, DOI
             10.17487/RFC7356, September 2014, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc7356>.



Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


   [RFC7180bis] D. Eastlake, M. Zhang, et al., "TRILL: Clarifications,
             Corrections, and Updates", draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis,
             working in progress.

   [RFC7357] Zhai, H., Hu, F., Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., and O.
             Stokes, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
             (TRILL): End Station Address Distribution Information
             (ESADI) Protocol", RFC 7357, DOI 10.17487/RFC7357,
             September 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7357>.

11.2. Informative References

   [IS-IS]   International Organization for Standardization,
             "Information technology -- Telecommunications and
             information exchange between systems -- Intermediate System
             to Intermediate System intra-domain routeing information
             exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the protocol
             for providing the connectionless-mode network service (ISO
             8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, November 2002.
































Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


Author's Addresses

   Mingui Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District
   Beijing 100095
   China

   Phone: +86-13810702575
   Email: zhangmingui@huawei.com


   Xudong Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District
   Beijing 100095
   China

   Email: zhangxudong@huawei.com


   Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
   Huawei Technologies
   155 Beaver Street
   Milford, MA 01757
   United States

   Phone: +1-508-333-2270
   EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com


   Radia Perlman
   EMC
   2010 256th Avenue NE, #200
   Bellevue, WA 98007
   United States

   Email: radia@alum.mit.edu


   Vishwas Manral
   Ionos
   4100 Moorpark Ave.
   San Jose, CA 95117
   United States

   Email: vishwas@ionosnetworks.com




Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation            February 25, 2016


   Somnath Chatterjee
   Cisco Systems
   SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park
   Outer Ring Road
   Bangalore - 560087
   India

   Email: somnath.chatterjee01@gmail.com











































Mingui Zhang, et al     Expires August 28, 2016                [Page 13]


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