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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

6tisch                                                    S. Anamalamudi
Internet-Draft                           Huaiyin Institute of Technology
Intended status: Standards Track                                M. Zhang
Expires: August 6, 2017                                        AR. Sangi
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                              C. Perkins
                                                               Futurewei
                                                             S.V.R.Anand
                                             Indian Institute of Science
                                                        February 2, 2017


   Scheduling Function One (SF1) for hop-by-hop Scheduling in 6tisch
                                Networks
                    draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1-03

Abstract

   This document defines a 6top Scheduling Function called "Scheduling
   Function One" (SF1) to reserve, label and schedule the end-to-end
   resources hop-by-hop through the Distributed Resource Reservation
   Protocol(RSVP).  SF1 uses the 6P signaling messages with a global
   TrackID to add or delete the cells in L2-bundles of isolated traffic
   flows.

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 August 6, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1         February 2017


   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.  Operation of Scheduling Function One (SF1)  . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Resource Reservation Protocol(RSVP) . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  RSVP-PATH message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  RSVP-RESV message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Reroute and Bandwidth Increase mechanism  . . . . . . . .  10
     2.5.  Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Scheduling Function Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Scheduling Function Zero (SF0) [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-sf0] enables on-
   the-fly cell scheduling (ADD/DELETE) between 1-hop neighbors for
   aggregated (best-effort) traffic flows.  In other words, all the
   instances from nodeA to nodeB in Figure 1 are scheduled in a single
   L3-bundle (IP link).

                  L3-bundle (Instance-1,Instance-2,...Instance-n)
               ------------------------------------------------->
         nodeA<-------------------------------------------------  nodeB
                  L3-bundle (Instance-1,Instance-2,...Instance-n)

   Figure 1: L3-bundle for aggregated traffic flows over 1-hop with SF0.

   Some applications (e.g.  Industrial M2M) require end-to-end dedicated
   L2-bundles to support control/data streams for time-critical
   applications [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases].  For such applications,
   per-instance L2-bundles need to be scheduled hop-by-hop in between
   sender and receiver [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture].  In addition,
   cells in the scheduled end-to-end L2-bundles of each instance may



Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1         February 2017


   have to be dynamically adapted for bursty time-critical traffic
   flows.  To achieve this, an end-to-end track has to be installed with
   a global TrackID for each isolated instance.  With 1-hop based SF0
   cell scheduling, it is difficult to schedule dedicated end-to-end
   cells for isolated traffic flows.  Moreover, global bandwidth
   estimation through Resource Reservation protocol is required for
   bandwidth allocation in multi-hop cell scheduling.  This draft
   specifies a Scheduling Function One (SF1) to schedule end-to-end
   dedicated L2-bundles for each instance, and to dynamically adapt the
   cells in already scheduled L2-bundles through the RSVP protocol (see
   Figure 2).

                L2-bundle(Instance-1)       L2-bundle(Instance-1)
             ----------------------->      ------------------>
            <------------------------      <-------------------
                L2-bundle(Instance-1)       L2-bundle(Instance-1)

                L2-bundle(Instance-2)       L2-bundle(Instance-2)
             ---------------------->       ----------------->
      Sender<-----------------------nodeB <----------------- Receiver
                L2-bundle(Instance-2)      L2-bundle(Instance-2)
                        .                          .
                        .                          .
                L2-bundle(Instance-n)      L2-bundle(Instance-n)
             ----------------------->     -------------------->
            <------------------------     <--------------------
                L2-bundle(Instance-n)      L2-bundle(Instance-n)

   Figure 2: Dedicated L2-bundles for end-to-end isolated traffic flows
                                 with SF1

2.  Operation of Scheduling Function One (SF1)

   With SF1, the Sender determines when to reserve end-to-end resources,
   support implicit label switching (GMPLS), schedule the labeled
   L2-bundles hop-by-hop, associate the global TrackID for labeled
   L2-bundles, and dynamically adapt the cells in an existing instance
   through RSVP(Resource Reservation Protocol).  The following events
   may trigger the use of SF1:

   1.  If Sender has a outgoing bandwidth requirement for a new instance
       to transmit data to Receiver.

   2.  If Sender has a new outgoing bandwidth requirement for an
       existing instance to transmit data to Receiver.






Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1         February 2017


   In both cases, distributed RSVP(explained in Section 2.1) is
   triggered to provide end-to-end resource reservations along with
   scheduling operations.

2.1.  Resource Reservation Protocol(RSVP)

   In this specification, an end-to-end route path is assumed to be
   available, for instance by using reactive P2P-RPL (Storing or non-
   storing mode) routing.  GMPLS signaling Resource Reservation Protocol
   (RSVP) with 6tisch scheduling capability is designed to label,
   reserve and schedule the resources hop-by-hop for isolated traffic
   flows.  SF1 of the application sender will trigger the RSVP
   operation, whenever it has time critical traffic.  RSVP has two
   messages, namely (1)RSVP-PATH message (Sender to Receiver) and (2)
   RSVP-RESV message (Receiver to Sender).

2.2.  RSVP-PATH message

   The basic RSVP-PATH message [RFC2205] is used to carry the "Sender
   Traffic Specification" along with "characterization parameters" from
   sender to receiver.  Since RSVP treat objects as opaque data, it is
   permissible to use another protocol element (e.g.,GMPLS, 6P, SF1) as
   an object in a RSVP-PATH message.

   The format of the PATH message that supports 6tisch scheduling
   capabilities (6P and SF1) is as follows:

   <Path Message> ::=    <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
                         [ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK> ] ... ]
                         [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
                         <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
                         <TIME_VALUES>
                         [ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
                         <LABEL_REQUEST>
                         [ <SF1 OPERATION REQUEST> ]
                         [ <6P OPERATION REQUEST> ]
                         [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
                         [ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ]
                         [ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
                         [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
                         <sender descriptor>

     <sender descriptor> ::=  <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
                              [ <ADSPEC> ]
                              [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]

   The format of the Generalized Label Request Object in PATH message
   is:



Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1         February 2017


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Length             | Class-Num (19)|  C-Type (4)   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type |             G-PID             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Generalized Label Request describes the requirement of
   communication characteristics to support the 6TiSCH-LSP being
   requested.  Generalized Label Request object is set by the ingress
   node (6LR), transparently passed by transit nodes, and used by the
   egress node(6LR).

   1.  LSP Encoding Type (8 bits): Indicates the encoding of the LSP
       being requested.

        Value         Type
        -----         ----
         TBD        Timeslot

   2.  Switching Type (8 bits):Indicates the type of switching that
       should be performed on a particular link.

        Value               Type
        -----               ----
         100    Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)

   3.  G-PID (8 bits): An identifier of the payload carried by an LSP,
       i.e., an identifier of the client layer of that LSP.

        Value             Type                     Technology
        -----             ----                       ------
         TBD     Wireless Ethernet(802.15.4)         6TiSCH

   "SF1 OPERATION REQUEST" and "6P OPERATION REQUEST" are added in the
   PATH message to check for 6tisch scheduling capabilities within the
   intermediate nodes from sender to receiver.  The "Timeslot Switching
   Capability" (TSC) is used as an implicit label to switch the cell at
   intermediate nodes [RFC3473].  "LABEL_REQUEST" in path message should
   be set to "Timeslot Switching Capability".  The "RPLInstanceID" is
   added in the "SENDER_TEMPLATE" to create the Global TrackID during 6P
   transactions of RSVP-RESV messages.  If an intermediate node does not
   support the TSC or "6P transactions" or "SF1 operation" then it MUST
   send a "PathErr" message back to application.






Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1         February 2017


2.3.  RSVP-RESV message

   The basic RSVP-RESV messages [RFC2205] are transmitted upstream from
   receiver to sender to provide resource reservation as well as "Label
   Distribution".  In this specification, hop-by-hop scheduling is
   extended to support both resource reservation and label distribution.
   The current specification is only defined for unicast point-to-point
   traffic flows, i.e., Fixed Filter (FF) reservation style.

   The format of the RESV message that supports 6tisch scheduling
   capabilities (6P and SF1) is as follows:

<Resv Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
                         [ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK> ] ... ]
                         [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
                         <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
                         <TIME_VALUES>
                         <LABEL>
                         [ <SF1 OPERATION> ]
                         [ <6P OPERATION> ]
                         [ <RESV_CONFIRM> ]  [ <SCOPE> ]
                         [ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ]
                         [ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
                         [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
                         <STYLE> <flow descriptor list>

     <flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor>
     <FF flow descriptor> ::= [ <FLOWSPEC> ] <FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL>
     [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]

   The format of the Generalized Label Object in RESV message is:

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |            Length             | Class-Num (16)|   C-Type (3)  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  Slotframe ID |                    SlotOffset                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    .......    |                 ...............               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  Slotframe ID |                    SlotOffset                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   1.  Slotframe ID (1 octet): It represents the specific slotframe of
   the SlotOffset.  A slotframe is defined as the collection of
   timeslots repeating in time.  It is characterized by a slotframe_ID,
   and a slotframe_size.



Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1         February 2017


   2. slotOffset(3 octets): It identifies a column in the TSCH schedule.
   SlotOffset is used as an implicit lable to switch the packet through
   "Track Forwarding".

   Upon arrival of the PATH message at an application receiver, the
   SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects are interpreted to select the
   resource reservation parameters.  Since RSVP provides receiver
   initiated resource reservation setup, the scheduling operation has to
   proceed upstream from receiver to sender.  Subsequently, the reserved
   resources (bandwidth) are mapped into 6tisch cells through Scheduling
   Function and a corresponding L2-bundle is created.  An aggregation of
   cells is called a "bundle" (the directional link to a next-hop
   neighbor).  Every L2-bundle is associated with a global trackID to
   dynamically adapt the cells "hop-by-hop" to an scheduled instance.
   In addition, the TrackID is used as a "packet filter" to switch the
   incoming tracks to outgoing tracks.  The receiver will generate the
   TrackID with the combination of "Source/Destination IP address" and
   "RPLInstanceID" that is obtained from "SENDER_TEMPLATE/FILTER_SPEC".

































Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1         February 2017


                    next-hop node            Receiver
                   +--------------+       +--------------+
                   |     IPv6     |       |     IPv6     |
                   +--------------+       +--------------+
                   |   6LoWPAN    |       |   6LoWPAN    |
                   +--------------+       +--------------+
                   |     6top     |       |     6top     |
                   +--------------+       +--------------+
                   |   TSCH MAC   |       |   TSCH MAC   |
                   +--------------+       +--------------+
                   |   LLN PHY    |       |   LLN PHY    |
                   +--------------+       +--------------+
                        |                           |
                        |                           | Rspec: Reserves
                        |                           | bandwith
                        |                           |
                        |                           | SF1: Maps
                        |                           | bandwidth to cells
                        | RESV + 6P Request(TrackID)|
                        |<------------------------- |
       Rspec:Reserves   |                           |
       bandwith         |                           |
                        |                           |
     SF1:Maps bandwidth |                           |
     to cells           |6P Response (CellList[..]) |
                        |-------------------------->|
                        |                           |
                        |                           |
                        |                           |
                        |   6P confirmation         |LABEL SET
                        |   CellList[..]+ Label     |label=Channel+Slot
                        |<--------------------------|
        Resv state:"Cell|                           |
        label"          |                           |
                        |                           |
                        |                           |
                        |                           |

      Figure 3: Operation of RSVP-RESV message with 6P transactions.

   From [RFC6997], the application node that initiates the point-to-
   point (P2P) traffic is called the "Parent node" and the application
   receiver that receives the data is called the "Child node".  Since
   the child node targets the Scheduling operation upstream towards the
   sender, the "3-step transaction" of the 6P protocol needs to be
   triggered at each hop to schedule the reserved resources (see
   Figure 3).  Hence, "6P Request" with an associated TrackID in the
   metadata field is transmitted in "RESV" message from Receiver to the



Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1         February 2017


   next-hop node.  The "NumCells" field in the 6P Request is set to the
   required number of cells, and "CellList" should be empty.  Once the
   next-hop node receives the "RESV" message, it checks the service
   request specification(Rspec) and performs the resource reservation.
   Subsequently, the Scheduling Function of next-hop neighbor maps the
   reserved resources into transmit cells.  Later, "6P Response" with
   "CellList" (slotOffset, channelOffset) is transmitted downstream to
   receiver.  When the receiver has cells (to receive data) available
   with the "CellList" in the "6P Response" then "6P Confirmation" with
   "IANA_6TOP_RC_SUCCESS" is upstream towards next-hop node.  Otherwise,
   "ResvErr" message SHOULD be sent back to the receiver with the
   specific error.  Since the cell information
   (slotOffset,channelOffset) is available in the 6P transactions, the
   next-hop node will store the "SlotOffset(Timeslot)" as a label to
   switch the traffic flow to receiver.  For multiple cells (i.e., a
   bundle), a generalized label set is created where each label
   represents one cell to forward data to receiver.  Once the 6P
   transaction is successful between a next-hop node and receiver, a
   labeled L2-bundle is created with the associated TrackID.
   Subsequently, "cell label set" is stored in the Resv state block at
   the next-hop node.  Later, SF1 of "next-hop node" maps the reserved
   bandwidth to the "receiving cells" to receive the data from its
   upstream node.  The "RESV" message with "6P Request" along with
   TrackID is transmitted upstream towards sender node.  In this way, an
   end-to-end Track is installed with a succession of paired L2-bundles
   (a receive bundle from the previous hop and a transmit bundle to the
   next hop) for a specific instance from sender to receiver (See
   Figure 4).

            +--------------+  <-Data transmission in end-to-end Track->
            |     IPv6     | Sender                             Receiver
            +--------------+   |                                     |
            |   6LoWPAN    |   |                                     |
            +--------------+   |                 nodeB               |
            |     6top     |   |                +----+               |
            +--------------+   |                |    |               |
            |   TSCH MAC   |   |                |    |               |
            +--------------+   |                |    |               |
            |   LLN PHY    |   |   L2-Bundle    |    |   L2-Bundle   |
            +--------------+   +----------------+    +---------------+
            <--Dedicated cells for each Instance-->

         Figure 4: End-to-end cell scheduling with SF1 Scheduling

   During data transmission, SF1 of sender at 6top identifies the
   TrackID based on "Sender/Receiver IP address, RPLInstanceID" from the
   received packet.  Subsequently, an associated L2-bundle is scheduled
   to forward the data to the next-hop neighbor (nodeB in Figure 4).



Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1         February 2017


   Later, SF1 of the next-hop neighbor identifies the TrackID based on
   the "Sender/Receiver IP address, RPLInstanceID" of the received data
   to switch the track towards receiver.  In this way, end-to-end data
   transmission is achieved through "Track forwarding" at the 6top sub-
   layer (see Figure 4).  Using TSC of RSVP-GMPLS [RFC3473], cells in
   paired L2-bundles are used as implicit labels to switch the data from
   Sender to Receiver at the 6top sub-layer.

2.4.  Reroute and Bandwidth Increase mechanism

   Whenever the sender needs to establish a new tunnel that can maintain
   resource reservations without double counting (at any particular
   intermediate node) the resources with an existing tunnel, then the
   "RSVP reroute mechanism" is initiated [RFC3209].  With this
   operation, bandwidth can be increased or decreased end-to-end in the
   tunnel.  The detailed explanation of the reroute mechanism is
   explained in [RFC3209].

2.5.  Error Codes

   The detailed explanation of PathErr and ResvErr with different
   ERROR_SPEC to handle Scheduling and 6P operation errors will be
   described in later specification.

3.  Scheduling Function Identifier

   The Scheduling Function Identifier (SFID) of SF1 is
   IANA_SFID_SF1(TBD).

4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate a new Scheduling Function
   (IANA_SFID_SF1) from the SF space of Scheduling Functions defined in
   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-sf0]

5.  Security Considerations

   TODO

6.  References

6.1.  References

   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
              September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.




Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1         February 2017


   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.

   [RFC6997]  Goyal, M., Ed., Baccelli, E., Philipp, M., Brandt, A., and
              J. Martocci, "Reactive Discovery of Point-to-Point Routes
              in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6997,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6997, August 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6997>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-6top-sf0]
              Dujovne, D., Grieco, L., Palattella, M., and N. Accettura,
              "6TiSCH 6top Scheduling Function Zero (SF0)", draft-ietf-
              6tisch-6top-sf0-02 (work in progress), October 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-6tisch-architecture]
              Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
              of IEEE 802.15.4", draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-11 (work
              in progress), January 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases]
              Grossman, E., Gunther, C., Thubert, P., Wetterwald, P.,
              Raymond, J., Korhonen, J., Kaneko, Y., Das, S., Zha, Y.,
              Varga, B., Farkas, J., Goetz, F., Schmitt, J., Vilajosana,
              X., Mahmoodi, T., Spirou, S., and P. Vizarreta,
              "Deterministic Networking Use Cases", draft-ietf-detnet-
              use-cases-11 (work in progress), October 2016.

Authors' Addresses

   Satish Anamalamudi
   Huaiyin Institute of Technology
   No.89 North Beijing Road, Qinghe District
   Huaian  223001
   China

   Email: satishnaidu80@gmail.com





Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        draft-satish-6tisch-6top-sf1         February 2017


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

   Email: zhangmingui@huawei.com


   Abdur Rashid Sangi
   Huawei Technologies
   No.156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District
   Beijing  100095
   P.R. China

   Email: rashid.sangi@huawei.com


   Charles E. Perkins
   Futurewei
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara  95050
   Unites States

   Email: charliep@computer.org


   S.V.R Anand
   Indian Institute of Science
   Bangalore
   560012
   India

   Email: anand@ece.iisc.ernet.in

















Anamalamudi, et al.      Expires August 6, 2017                [Page 12]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/