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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system

Network Working Group                                         P. Marques
Internet-Draft                                                   L. Fang
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: June 13, 2012                                            P. Pan
                                                           Infinera Corp
                                                               A. Shukla
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                           December 2011

              End-system support for BGP-signaled IP/VPNs.


   Network Service Providers often use BGP/MPLS IP VPNs [RFC4364] as the
   control plane for overlay networks.  That solution has proven to
   scale to large number of VPNs and attachment points and is one
   familiar to network equipment software.

   There is a significant interest in the industry in building overlay
   networks in which end-systems are themselves the direct participant,
   along with network equipment such as service appliances.

   This document proposes an extension of the BGP IP VPN model to serve
   as the signaling protocol for host-based overlay networks along with
   an XMPP interface that provides a bridge between the software
   concepts familiar to end-points and those familiar to network

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 June 13, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                           [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  End-system functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Virtual Machine Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Operational Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  XMPP client interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  VPN NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.  Introduction

   Data center applications require private networks connecting multiple
   "Virtual Machines" belonging to the same administrative "user" and
   between them and network elements and appliances.

   In this context, it is a common goal, for the data-center forwarding
   infrastructure to be isolated from the knowledge of the private
   network.  The set of routers and switches that interconnects physical
   machines in the data-center is assumed to provide an IP service (with
   or without the use of IEEE 802.1 technologies).

   The Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) associated with each individual
   administrative domain can be built without the knowledge of the data-
   center connectivity layer as an overlay network.  This proposal
   leverages the technology used in the Service Provide managed VPN
   space and extends it to address the problem of interconnecting
   virtual interfaces on end-systems.  In both applications there is the
   need to be able to manage at scale a very large number of VPNs and
   attachement points.  And in both cases there is the need to support
   the interchange of traffic between different VPNs.

   This document defines how BGP-signaled IP/VPNs can be used to
   interconnect end-systems and network elements.  It assumes that the
   forwarding layer uses IP over GRE as defined by [RFC4023].  Other
   transport layers such as native MPLS or 802.1ah can also be used with
   the same signaling approach.

   When this document uses the term 'Infrastructure IP' addresses, it
   refers to the addresses used in the outer header of GRE packets.  In
   the case of a transport other than IP over GRE, this would be the

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                           [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   Subnetwork Point of Attachement (SNPA) address corresponding to the
   multi-access network providing connectivity to the end-systems.

   BGP is not an interface that application software is familiar with.
   In order to bridge the gap between concepts familiar to network
   devices and those familiar to end-system developers, this document
   defines an XMPP client interface to be used by end-systems.  It
   defines the procedures to interchange data between XMPP and BGP IP
   VPN sessions along with the corresponding data schemas.  Networking
   devices may opt to receive the signaling information directly via

2.  End-system functionality

   For the purposes of this document we assume that each end-system
   executes an 'Host Operating System' with the ability to:

      Create virtual interfaces (typically ethernet interfaces).

      Associate a given virtual interface with a specific "Virtual and
      Routing Forwarding (VRF)" table.

      Store entries in the VRF table that map an VRF-specific IP prefix
      into a next-hop which contains a destination IP address and a
      20-bit label.

      Encapsulate outgoing packets according [RFC4023] using the result
      of the VRF lookup.

      Associate incoming packets with a VRF according to the 20-bit
      label contained immediately after the GRE header.

      Expose a programmatic interface to create, update and delete VRF
      table entries.

   The 'Host Operating System' may choose to associate the virtual
   interfaces with specific 'Virtual Machines' or use other policies to
   manage the application access to these interfaces.

   The description above assumes that each virtual interface is
   associated with its own VRF table as the contents of the VRF table
   are not known in advance.  If two virtual interfaces belonging to the
   same host are allowed to exchange traffic the default behavior of an
   IP implementation would result in the traffic being encapsulated into
   GRE and delivered by the IP stack to the host itself via a loopback

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                           [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   As an optimization, hosts MAY support the ability to associate
   multiple virtual interfaces with the same VRF, for interfaces
   associated with the same VPN.  When that is the case, locally known
   routes, that is IP routes to the local virtual interfaces SHALL NOT
   be used to forward outbound traffic (from the virtual interfaces to
   the outside) unless a route advertisement has been received that
   matches that specific IP prefix and next-hop information.  As an
   example, if a given VRF contains two virtual interfaces, "veth0" and
   "veth1", with the addresses and respectively,
   the initial forwarding state must be initialized such that traffic
   from either of these interfaces does not match the other's routing
   table entry.  It may for instance match a default route advertised by
   a remote system.  Traffic received from the tunnel interface however
   must be delivered to the correct local interface.  If at a subsequent
   stage a route is received from the signaling gateway such that has a next-hop with the IP address of the local host and
   the correct label, the system may subsequently install a local
   routing table entry that delivers traffic directly to the "veth1"

   The 20-bit label which is associated with a virtual-interface is of
   local significance only and SHOULD be allocated by the end-system.

   The procedure that determines that a VRF should be configured on a
   particular end-system as well as which IP addresses to be associated
   with each interface are outside the scope of this document.  We
   assume that statically assigned IP addresses are used.

   The VRFs support IP unicast traffic only.  Multicast support is
   subject for further study and will be detailed in a separate
   document.  Both IPv4 and IPv6 are supported and the term 'IP' can
   refer to either version of the Internet Protocol.

   The VRF table is populated by the signaling mechanisms described
   bellow and may contain both host length (i.e.  /32 and /128 for IPv4
   and v6 respectively) or subnet prefixes.  As an example a VPN with
   access to the external networks would probably contain a default
   route plus a set of host length entries for all the Virtual Machines
   (VMs) in the same VPN.

   In the terminology used in the BGP-signaled IP/VPN standard
   [RFC4364], a end-system acts as a 'Provider Edge' (PE) device in
   terms of its forwarding capabilities, with the virtual interfaces
   that it exposes (for instance to virtual machines) as the 'Customer
   Edge' (CE) interfaces.

3.  Virtual Machine Networking

   When virtual machines are associated with a virtual interface on the
   end-system, this document assumes that there is a single route entry
   to a default route on the Virtual Machine (VM). Packets are then

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                           [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   routed by the Host OS, which imposes the VPN encapsulation header.
   Link-local addresses on the virtual ethernet interface that connects
   the virtual machine are not globally significant.

   When discussing VM connectivity, it is frequent to encounter the
   assumption that the VM routing table contains a subnet route entry
   with reachability to all other VMs in the VPN.

   VM route table using LAN adjacency:

   | IP prefix   | Next-hop | Interface |
   | | local    | veth0     |
   | 10.1/16     | direct   | veth0     |

   In the scenario above, the VM assumes a direct LAN adjacency with its
   peers (e.g. It uses ARP to build an L2 adjacency to its
   communication peers.  Scaling ARP broadcasts and updating ARP entries
   across the data-center becomes an important problem.  Often the
   conclusion reached is that the VM mac-addresses must be global and
   constant for a given VM. That can be a problematic requirement when
   interconnecting data-centers administered by different orchestration

   This document proposes a VM routing table configuration where there
   are no ARP adjacencies between different VMs.

   VM route table using default gateway:

   | IP prefix          | Next-hop        | Interface |
   |        | local           | veth0     |
   | | direct          | veth0     |
   | 0/0                | | veth0     |

   The configuration above eliminates the need for L2 adjacencies
   between VMs.  The VM contains a single ARP entry to its default
   gateway, which is the Host OS. The Host OS performs a route lookup in
   the corresponding VRF in order to route the packet.  In this
   approach, the Host OS VRF is the point of control that determines the
   destination end-system associated with the VPN destination IP

   One of the advantages of this model is that it eliminates the need to
   support broadcast across a VPN.

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                           [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   The guest OS should be configured with a default gateway address in
   the IP link-local address space.  This address should be constant
   across all hosts that the VM can be instantiated on.  The example
   above uses the highest numbered address in the IPv4 link-local range
   and assumes that the Host OS has been configured to recognize that
   address as local and answer local ARP requests on the virtual

4.  Operational Model

   In the simplest case, a VPN is a collection of systems that are
   allowed to exchange traffic with each other and where all the VRFs in
   the VPN contain all the routing entries for the VPN. Only members of
   the VPN are allowed to exchange traffic with each other.  We can
   refer to these as symmetrical VPNs since all VRFs contain the same
   routing information.

   When end-systems join a given VPN they advertise their membership by
   advertising the VPN-specific IP address associated with a particular
   virtual interface as well as its binding to the infrastructure IP
   address associated with the host.

   Infrastructure addresses are routable in the underlying transport
   network (e.g.  the data-center network). While VPN addresses are
   routable on the VPN network only.

   End-systems subscribe to the contents of the VPN routing tables for
   which they have members associated with.  This information is then
   used to populate the host's routing tables.  It may contain both host
   routes (i.e.  IPv4 32-bit prefixes or IPv6 128-bit prefixes) or
   routes to gateways that interconnect other networks.

   The signaling network delivers the membership advertisements
   generated by the end-systems to other members of the same VPN, subjet
   to policy controls.

   When a particular VM "moves" from one physical end-system to another,
   its respective VPN address will be advertised by the new system and
   that notification propagated to all attachment points of that VPN.

   This document assumes two types of applications that perform network
   signaling functions: BGP Route Reflectors (RRs) and BGP/XMPP
   signaling gateways.  Both functions may be collocated in the same
   physical device.

   The BGP Route Reflectors accept connection from gateways or native
   BGP devices.  These BGP peering sessions SHALL be support the address
   families: VPN-IPv4 (1, 128), VPN-IPv6 (2, 128) and RT-Constraint (1,
   132) [RFC4684].

   The XMPP signaling gateways maintain persistent connection to a
   subset of the end-systems of the domain and provide a 'pubsub' API to
   the contents of each specific VPN routing table.  These systems are

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                           [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   not in the forwarding plane and do not need to be collocated with a
   network device.

   Network devices MAY have direct BGP sessions to the BGP Route
   Reflectors.  For instance, a router or security appliance that
   supports BGP/MPLS IP VPNs over GRE may use its existing functionality
   to inter-operate directly with a collection of Virtual Machines.

   The BGP/XMPP gateways implement the VRF policy functionality that is
   associated with PE routers in the pure BGP IP/VPN case.  In these
   signaling gateways, the 'publish-subscribe' messages from the end-
   systems are associated with a VRF-specific signaling table.  Each of
   these routing tables contains import and export policies which
   provide fine grain control over the table contents.

   An export policy associates VPN routing information with one or more
   6 byte values known as 'Route Targets'. These 'Route Targets' are
   associated with the routes as they are advertised out to other BGP

   Import policies, on the other hand, select via 'Route Targets', from
   all the available routing information which routes should be imported
   into a VPN-specific routing table.

   A symmetrical VPN uses the same configuration for both import and
   export.  By controlling these policies it is possible to selectively
   allow direct traffic exchanges between members of different VPNs,
   assuming their respective IP addresses are non-overlapping.

                  +--------+                 +--------+
   VM1 -- veth0 --| host 1 |=== [network] ===| host 2 |-- veth0 -- VM2
                  +--------+                 +--------+

    IP pkt  ===> GRE encap  ===> [IP net] ===> GRE decap ===> IP pkt
              [, 20]               map 20 to veth0

   | VPN IP address | Host address | label |
   |    | localhost    | 10    |
   |    |  | 20    |

   VRF table on host1

   The figure and table above contain an example in which IP packets are
   transmitted from one VPN interface (with address to another
   VPN interface (with address As previously mentioned, the
   virtual ethernet interfaces function as a CE interace in a
   traditional BGP-signaled IP VPN. While the end-system provide the

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                           [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   forwarding functionality equivalent to a PE device.

   +--------+       +-----------+       +--------+
   | host 1 | <===> | signaling | <===> | BGP RR |
   +--------+       | gateway   |       +--------+

   | VPN IP address | SNPA        | label | Known via |
   |    | | 10    | XMPP      |
   |    | | 20    | BGP       |

   VPN Routing table on signaling gateway

   The signaling network corresponding to the same example is depicted
   above.  The signaling gateway is an out-of-band system which speaks
   both XMPP to the host as well as BGP to the BGP RRs.  The table above
   represents the routing table on the gateway that corresponds to the
   VPN of the example.  Host 2 would be connected to another signaling
   gateway which would be in turn connected to the BGP RR mesh.

   The gateway is configured via an external mechanism with the
   parameters that correspond to the VPNs in use by its clients along
   with its respective vrf import and export policies.

   XMPP publish request are translated into routing entries on this
   table, which are then advertised via BGP, using standard BGP-signaled
   IP VPN mechanism.BGP learned routes are also imported into this
   routing table.  Any changes to its content are advertised to local
   XMPP clients.

   In comparison with traditional IP VPNs, the signaling gateway is
   performing the PE functionality, with XMPP used as a PE-CE routing

   An example of an asymmetrical VPN configuration is one where all the
   traffic from VMs must be redirected though a middle-box (on a VM) for
   inspection.  Assuming that the VMs of a particular user are
   configured to be in the VPN "tenant1" at an initial stage.  This
   "tenant1" VPN is symmetrical and uses a single Route Target in both
   its import and export policies.  The middle-box functionality can be
   incrementally deployed by defining a new VPN, "tenant1-hub", and an
   associated Route Target.  Accompanied with a change in the gateway
   configuration such that VPN "tenant1" only imports routes with the
   Route Target associated with the hub.  The "hub" VPN is assumed to
   advertise a prefix that covers all the VMs IP addresses.  The "hub"
   VPN imports the VMs routes in order for it to be able to generate the
   XMPP updates to the "hub" end-system.  This information is required
   for the return traffic from the hub to the spokes (the standard VMs).
   In such a scenario a single interface can connect the middle-box to
   the VMs in a given VPN which appear logically as downstream from it.
   Such a middle-box would often require connectivity to multiple VPNs,
   such as for instance an "outside" VPN which provides external

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                           [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   connectivity to one or more "inside" VPNs.

5.  XMPP client interface

   The communication between end-systems and the signaling gateway uses
   the XMPP protocol with the PubSub Collection Nodes [pubsub] extension
   in order to exchange VPN route information.

   End-systems establish persistent XMPP sessions.  These sessions MUST
   use the XMPP Ping [xmpp-ping] extension in order to detect end-system

   An End-system MAY connect to multiple VPN-signaling gateways for
   reliability.  In this case it SHOULD publish its information to each
   of the gateways.  It MAY choose to subscribe to VPN routing
   information once only from one of the available gateways.

   The information advertised by a end-system SHOULD be deleted after a
   configurable timeout, when the session closes.  This timeout should
   default to 60 seconds.

                   +---------+             +--------+
                   | gateway | ----------- | BGP RR |
                   +---------+             +--------+
                   //          \          /
                 XMPP           \        /
                 //              \      /
   +------------+                 \    /
   | end-system |                  \  /
   +------------+                   \/
                 \\                 /\
                 XMPP              /  \
                   \\             /    \
                   +---------+   /      \  +--------+
                   | gateway | ----------- | BGP RR |
                   +---------+             +--------+

   The figure above represents a typical configuration in which a end-
   system is homed to multiple gateways, which are in turn connected to
   multiple BGP route reflectors.  In a deployment there would be a
   number of gateways corresponding to the number of end-systems divided
   by the gateway capacity in terms of number of XMPP sessions.  While
   the BGP RR scale in terms of the number of gateways attached to it.

   The XMPP "jid" used by the end-system shall be a 6-byte value that
   uniquely identifies the host in the domain.  This specification
   recommends the use of the 802 MAC address of one of the physical
   ethernet interfaces of the end-system, when present.

   Each VPN shall be identified by a 64 ASCII character string.

   The host system software on an end-system SHALL establish an XMPP
   session with its configured signaling gateways before creating
   virtual interfaces.

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                           [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   When a virtual interface is created, for instance as result of a
   Virtual Machine being instantiated on a end-system, the host
   operating-system software shall generate an XMPP Publish message to
   the VPN-signaling gateway.

   Publish request from end-system to gateway:

   <iq type='set'
       from='01020304abcd@domain.org'  <!-- system-id@domain.org -->
     <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'>
       <publish node='01020304abcd:vpn-ip-address/32'>
           <entry xmlns='http://ietf.org/protocol/bgpvpn'>
             <nlri af='1'>'vpn-ip-address>/32'</nlri>
         <snpa af='1'>'infrastructure-ip-address'</snpa>
             <version id='1'>      <!-- non-decreasing VM version # -->
         <label>1</label>      <!-- 24 bit number -->

   <iq type='set'
     <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'>
       <collection node='vpn-customer-name'>
         <associate node='01020304abcd:vpn-ip-address/32'/>

   In the request above the node 'vpn-customer-name' is assumed to be a
   collection which is implicitly created by the VPN-signaling gateway.

   The VPN-signaling gateway will convert the information received in a
   the 'publish' request into the corresponding BGP route information
   such that:.

      It associates the specific request with a local VRF with the name
      specified in the collection 'node' attribute.

      It creates a BGP VPN route with a 'Route Distinguisher' (RD) which
      contains the the end-system's 'system-id' value and the specified
      IP prefix and 'label' as the Network Layer Reachability
      Information (NLRI) .

      It associates this route with the specified SNPA address.

      It associates the route with an extended community TDB containing
      the version number.

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                          [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   Subscription request from end-system to gateway:

   <iq type='set'
     <pubsub xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub'>
       <subscribe node='vpn-customer-name'/>

   Update notification from gateway to end-system:

   <message to='system-id@domain.org from='network-control.domain.org>
     <event xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#event'>
       <items node='vpn-customer-name'>
         <item id='ae890ac52d0df67ed7cfdf51b644e901'>
           <entry xmlns='http://ietf.org/protocol/bgpvpn'>
             <nlri af='1'>'vpn-ip-address>/32'</nlri>
         <snpa af='1'>'infrastructure-ip-address'</snpa>
             <version id='1'>      <!-- non-decreasing VM version # -->
         <label>1</label>      <!-- 24 bit number -->
         <item >

   Notifications should be generated whenever a VPN route is added,
   modified or deleted.

   Note that the Update from the signaling gateway to the end-point does
   not contain the system-id of the destination end-point.  When
   multiple possible routes exist for a given VPN IP address, for
   instance because the VM may be in the process of moving location, it
   is the responsibility of the gateway to select the best path to
   advertise to the end-system.

   When routes are withdrawn, the signaling gateway generates both a
   "collection disassociate" request as well as a node "delete" request.

   In situations where an automated system is controlling the
   instantiation of VMs it may be possible to have that system assign a
   non-decreasing version number for each instantiation of that
   particular VM. In that case, this number, carried in the 'version'
   field may be used to help gateways select the most recent
   instantiation of a VM during the interval of time where multiple
   routes are present.


Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                          [Page 11]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   When a VPN-signaling gateway receives a request to create or modify a
   VPN route is SHALL generate a BGP VPN route advertisement with the
   corresponding information using the BGP address family corresponding
   to the address family specified by the end-system.

   It is assumed that the VPN-signaling gateways contain information
   regarding the mapping between 'vpn-customer-names' and BGP Route
   Targets used to import and export information from the associated
   VRFs.  This mapping is known via an out-of-band mechanism not
   specified in this document.

   Whenever a VRF in the gateway contains local routing information, the
   gateway shall advertise the corresponding RT-Constraint route target
   routes in BGP, which perform a parallel function to the subscription
   requests in XMPP.

   The 32bit route version number defined in the XML schema is
   advertised into BGP as a Extended community with type TBD.

   Signaling gateways SHOULD use automatically assign a BGP route
   distinguisher per VPN routing table.

7.  Security Considerations

   The signaling protocol defines the access control policies for each
   virtual interface and any VM associated with it.  It is important to
   secure the end-system access to signaling gateways and the BGP
   infrastructure itself.

   The XMPP session between end-systems and the XMPP gateways MUST use
   mutual authentication.  One possible strategy is to distribute pre-
   signed certificates to end-systems which are presented as proof of
   authorization to the signaling gateway.

   BGP sessions MUST be authenticated using a shared secret.  This
   document recommends that BGP speaking systems filter traffic on port
   179 such that only IP addresses which are known to participate in the
   BGP signaling protocol are allowed.

8.  Acknowledgements

   Yakov Rekhter provided valuable input as well as helped correct
   several technical inaccuracies in this document.  The authors would
   also like to thank Thomas Morin for his comments.

9.  References

   [RFC4023]  Worster, T., Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating MPLS
              in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 4023,
              March 2005.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                          [Page 12]

Internet-Draft   End-system attachements in BGP IP/VPNs    December 2011

   [RFC4684]  Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
              R., Patel, K. and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
              Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
              Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
              Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, November 2006.

              "XMPP Ping", XEP 0199, June 2009.

   [pubsub]   "PubSub Collection Nodes", XEP 0248, September 2010.

Authors' Addresses

   Pedro Marques

   Email: pedro.r.marques@gmail.com

   Luyuan Fang
   Cisco Systems
   111 Wood Avenue South
   Iselin, NJ 08830

   Email: lufang@cisco.com

   Ping Pan
   Infinera Corp
   140 Caspian Ct.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089

   Email: ppan@infinera.com

   Amit Shukla
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Av.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089

   Email: amit@juniper.net

Marques, Fang, Pan & Shukla       std                          [Page 13]

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