draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-00.txt   draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-01.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force S. Pallagatti, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force S. Pallagatti, Ed.
Internet-Draft Independent Contributor Internet-Draft Rtbrick
Intended status: Standards Track S. Paragiri Intended status: Standards Track S. Paragiri
Expires: July 28, 2018 Juniper Networks Expires: February 7, 2019 Juniper Networks
V. Govindan V. Govindan
M. Mudigonda M. Mudigonda
Cisco Cisco
G. Mirsky G. Mirsky
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
January 24, 2018 August 6, 2018
BFD for VXLAN BFD for VXLAN
draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-00 draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-01
Abstract Abstract
This document describes use of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection This document describes the use of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) protocol in Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) (BFD) protocol in Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN)
overlay network. overlay network.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 28, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 7, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. BFD Packet Transmission over VXLAN Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. BFD Packet Transmission over VXLAN Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. BFD Packet Encapsulation in VXLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. BFD Packet Encapsulation in VXLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Reception of BFD packet from VXLAN Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Reception of BFD packet from VXLAN Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Demultiplexing of the BFD packet . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Demultiplexing of the BFD packet . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Use of reserved VNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Use of reserved VNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Echo BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Echo BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 13. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
"Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN)" has been described in "Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN)" has been described in
[RFC7348]. VXLAN provides an encapsulation scheme that allows [RFC7348]. VXLAN provides an encapsulation scheme that allows
virtual machines (VMs) to communicate in a data center network. virtual machines (VMs) to communicate in a data center network.
VXLAN is typically deployed in data centers interconnecting VXLAN is typically deployed in data centers interconnecting
virtualized hosts, which may be spread across multiple racks. The virtualized hosts, which may be spread across multiple racks. The
individual racks may be part of a different Layer 3 network or they individual racks may be part of a different Layer 3 network, or they
could be in a single Layer 2 network. The VXLAN segments/overlay could be in a single Layer 2 network. The VXLAN segments/overlay
networks are overlaid on top of these Layer 2 or Layer 3 networks. networks are overlaid on top of these Layer 2 or Layer 3 networks.
A VM can communicate with another VM only if they are on the same A VM can communicate with another VM only if they are on the same
VXLAN. VMs are unaware of VXLAN tunnels as VXLAN tunnel is VXLAN. VMs are unaware of VXLAN tunnels as VXLAN tunnel is
terminated on VXLAN Tunnel End Point (VTEP) (hypervisor/TOR). VTEPs terminated on VXLAN Tunnel End Point (VTEP) (hypervisor/TOR). VTEPs
(hypervisor/TOR) are responsible for encapsulating and decapsulating (hypervisor/TOR) are responsible for encapsulating, and decapsulating
frames exchanged among VMs. frames exchanged among VMs.
Since underlay is a L3 network, ability to monitor path continuity, Since underlay is an L3 network, ability to monitor path continuity,
i.e. perform proactive continuity check (CC) for these tunnels is i.e., perform proactive continuity check (CC) for these tunnels is
important. Asynchronous mode of BFD, as defined in [RFC5880], can be important. Asynchronous mode of BFD, as defined in [RFC5880], can be
used to monitor a VXLAN tunnel. Use of [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] is used to monitor a VXLAN tunnel. Use of [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] is
for future study. for future study.
Also BFD in VXLAN can be used to monitor special service nodes that Also, BFD in VXLAN can be used to monitor the particular service
are designated to properly handle Layer 2 broadcast, unknown unicast, nodes that are designated to properly handle Layer 2 broadcast,
and multicast traffic. Such nodes, often referred "replicators", are unknown unicast, and multicast traffic. Such nodes, often referred
usually virtual VTEPs can be monitored by physical VTEPs in order to "replicators", are usually virtual VTEPs can be monitored by physical
minimize BUM traffic directed to unavialable replicator. VTEPs to minimize BUM traffic directed to the unavailable replicator.
This document describes use of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection This document describes the use of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) protocol VXLAN to enable continuity monitoring between Network (BFD) protocol VXLAN to enable continuity monitoring between Network
Virtualization Edges (NVEs) and/or availability of a replicator Virtualization Edges (NVEs) and/or availability of a replicator
service node using BFD. service node using BFD.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology 2.1. Terminology
BFD - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection BFD - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
2.2. Requirements Language 2.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Use cases 3. Use cases
Main use case of BFD for VXLAN is for continuity check of a tunnel. The primary use case of BFD for VXLAN is for continuity check of a
By exchanging BFD control packets between VTEPs an operator exercises tunnel. By exchanging BFD control packets between VTEPs, an operator
the VXLAN path in both in underlay and overlay thus ensuring the exercises the VXLAN path in both in underlay and overlay thus
VXLAN path availability and VTEPs reachability. BFD failure ensuring the VXLAN path availability and VTEPs reachability. BFD
detection can be used for maintenance. There are other use cases failure detection can be used for maintenance. There are other use
such as cases such as
Layer 2 VMs: Layer 2 VMs:
Most deployments will have VMs with only L2 capabilities that Most deployments will have VMs with only L2 capabilities that
may not support L3. BFD being a L3 protocol can be used as may not support L3. BFD being an L3 protocol can be used as
tunnel CC mechanism, where BFD will start and terminate at the tunnel CC mechanism, where BFD will start and terminate at the
NVEs, e.g. VTEPs. NVEs, e.g., VTEPs.
It is possible to aggregate the CC sessions for multiple It is possible to aggregate the CC sessions for multiple
tenants by running a BFD session between the VTEPs over VxLAN tenants by running a BFD session between the VTEPs over VxLAN
tunnel. In rest of this document terms NVE and VTEP are used tunnel. In the rest of this document, terms NVE and VTEP are
interchangeably. used interchangeably.
Fault localization: Fault localization:
It is also possible that VMs are L3 aware and can possibly host It is also possible that VMs are L3 aware and can host a BFD
a BFD session. In these cases BFD sessions can be established session. In these cases, BFD sessions can be established among
among VMs for CC. In addition, BFD sessions can be established VMs for CC. In addition, BFD sessions can be established among
among VTEPs for tunnel CC. Having a hierarchical OAM model VTEPs for tunnel CC. Having a hierarchical OAM model helps
helps localize faults though requires additional consideration. localize faults though requires additional consideration.
Service node reachability: Service node reachability:
Service node is responsible for sending BUM traffic. In case The service node is responsible for sending BUM traffic. In
of service node tunnel terminates at VTEP and it might not even case a service node tunnel terminates at VTEP, and it might not
host VM. BFD session between TOR/hypervisor and service node even host VM. BFD session between TOR/hypervisor and service
can be used to monitor service node reachability. node can be used to monitor service node reachability.
4. Deployment 4. Deployment
Figure 1 illustrates the scenario with two servers, each of them Figure 1 illustrates the scenario with two servers, each of them
hosting two VMs. These servers host VTEPs that terminate two VXLAN hosting two VMs. The servers host VTEPs that terminate two VXLAN
tunnels with VNI number 100 and 200. Separate BFD sessions can be tunnels with VNI number 100 and 200 respectively. Separate BFD
established between the VTEPs (IP1 and IP2) for monitoring each of sessions can be established between the VTEPs (IP1 and IP2) for
the VXLAN tunnels (VNI 100 and 200). No BFD packets, intended to monitoring each of the VXLAN tunnels (VNI 100 and 200). No BFD
Hypervisor VTEP, should be forwarded to a VM as VM may drop BFD packets intended to Hypervisor VTEP should be forwarded to a VM as VM
packets leading to false negative. This method is applicable whether may drop BFD packets leading to a false negative. This method is
VTEP is a virtual or physical device. applicable whether VTEP is a virtual or physical device.
+------------+-------------+ +------------+-------------+
| Server 1 | | Server 1 |
| | | |
| +----+----+ +----+----+ | | +----+----+ +----+----+ |
| |VM1-1 | |VM1-2 | | | |VM1-1 | |VM1-2 | |
| |VNI 100 | |VNI 200 | | | |VNI 100 | |VNI 200 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------+ +---------+ | | +---------+ +---------+ |
| Hypervisor VTEP (IP1) | | Hypervisor VTEP (IP1) |
skipping to change at page 6, line 9 skipping to change at page 6, line 9
BFD packet MUST be encapsulated and sent to a remote VTEP as BFD packet MUST be encapsulated and sent to a remote VTEP as
explained in Section 5.1. Implementations SHOULD ensure that the BFD explained in Section 5.1. Implementations SHOULD ensure that the BFD
packets follow the same lookup path of VXLAN packets within the packets follow the same lookup path of VXLAN packets within the
sender system. sender system.
5.1. BFD Packet Encapsulation in VXLAN 5.1. BFD Packet Encapsulation in VXLAN
VXLAN packet format has been described in Section 5 of [RFC7348]. VXLAN packet format has been described in Section 5 of [RFC7348].
The Outer IP/UDP and VXLAN headers MUST be encoded by the sender as The Outer IP/UDP and VXLAN headers MUST be encoded by the sender as
per [RFC7348]. defined in [RFC7348].
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Outer Ethernet Header ~ ~ Outer Ethernet Header ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Outer IPvX Header ~ ~ Outer IPvX Header ~
skipping to change at page 7, line 24 skipping to change at page 7, line 24
the scope of this document. the scope of this document.
Source MAC: MAC address of the originating VTEP Source MAC: MAC address of the originating VTEP
IP header: IP header:
Source IP: IP address of the originating VTEP. Source IP: IP address of the originating VTEP.
Destination IP: IP address of the terminating VTEP. Destination IP: IP address of the terminating VTEP.
TTL: This MUST be set to 1. This is to ensure that the BFD TTL: MUST be set to 1 to ensure that the BFD packet is not
packet is not routed within the L3 underlay network. routed within the L3 underlay network.
[Ed.Note]:Use of inner source and destination IP addresses
needs more discussion by the WG.
The fields of the UDP header and the BFD control packet are The fields of the UDP header and the BFD control packet are
encoded as specified in [RFC5881] for p2p VXLAN tunnels. encoded as specified in [RFC5881] for p2p VXLAN tunnels.
6. Reception of BFD packet from VXLAN Tunnel 6. Reception of BFD packet from VXLAN Tunnel
Once a packet is received, VTEP MUST validate the packet as described Once a packet is received, VTEP MUST validate the packet as described
in Section 4.1 of [RFC7348]. If the Destination MAC of the inner MAC in Section 4.1 of [RFC7348]. If the Destination MAC of the inner MAC
frame matches the dedicated MAC or the MAC address of the VTEP the frame matches the dedicated MAC or the MAC address of the VTEP the
packet MUST be processed further. packet MUST be processed further.
The UDP destination port and the TTL of the inner Ethernet frame MUST The UDP destination port and the TTL of the inner Ethernet frame MUST
be validated to determine if the received packet can be processed by be validated to determine if the received packet can be processed by
BFD. BFD packet with inner MAC set to VTEP or dedicated MAC address BFD. BFD packet with inner MAC set to VTEP or dedicated MAC address
MUST NOT be forwarded to VMs. MUST NOT be forwarded to VMs.
To ensure BFD detects the proper configuration of VXLAN Network To ensure BFD detects the proper configuration of VXLAN Network
Identifier (VNI) in a remote VTEP, a lookup SHOULD be performed with Identifier (VNI) in a remote VTEP, a lookup SHOULD be performed with
the MAC-DA and VNI as key in the Virtual Forwarding Instance (VFI) the MAC-DA and VNI as key in the Virtual Forwarding Instance (VFI)
table of the originating/ terminating VTEP in order to exercise the table of the originating/ terminating VTEP to exercise the VFI
VFI associated with the VNI. associated with the VNI.
6.1. Demultiplexing of the BFD packet 6.1. Demultiplexing of the BFD packet
Demultiplexing of IP BFD packet has been defined in Section 3 of Demultiplexing of IP BFD packet has been defined in Section 3 of
[RFC5881]. Since multiple BFD sessions may be running between two [RFC5881]. Since multiple BFD sessions may be running between two
VTEPs, there needs to be a mechanism for demultiplexing received BFD VTEPs, there needs to be a mechanism for demultiplexing received BFD
packets to the proper session. The procedure for demultiplexing packets to the proper session. The procedure for demultiplexing
packets with Your Discriminator equal to 0 is different from packets with Your Discriminator equal to 0 is different from
[RFC5880]. For such packets, the BFD session MUST be identified [RFC5880]. For such packets, the BFD session MUST be identified
using the inner headers, i.e. the source IP and the destination IP using the inner headers, i.e., the source IP and the destination IP
present in the IP header carried by the payload of the VXLAN present in the IP header carried by the payload of the VXLAN
encapsulated packet. The VNI of the packet SHOULD be used to derive encapsulated packet. The VNI of the packet SHOULD be used to derive
interface related information for demultiplexing the packet. If BFD interface-related information for demultiplexing the packet. If BFD
packet is received with non-zero Your Discriminator then BFD session packet is received with non-zero Your Discriminator, then BFD session
MUST be demultiplexed only with Your Discriminator as the key. MUST be demultiplexed only with Your Discriminator as the key.
7. Use of reserved VNI 7. Use of reserved VNI
BFD session MAY be established for the reserved VNI 0. One way to BFD session MAY be established for the reserved VNI 0. One way to
aggregate BFD sessions between VTEP's is to establish a BFD session aggregate BFD sessions between VTEP's is to establish a BFD session
with VNI 0. A VTEP MAY also use VNI 0 to establish a BFD session with VNI 0. A VTEP MAY also use VNI 0 to establish a BFD session
with a service node. with a service node.
8. Echo BFD 8. Echo BFD
skipping to change at page 8, line 39 skipping to change at page 8, line 33
Support for echo BFD is outside the scope of this document. Support for echo BFD is outside the scope of this document.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a dedicated MAC address to be used as the IANA is requested to assign a dedicated MAC address to be used as the
Destination MAC address of the inner Ethernet which carries BFD Destination MAC address of the inner Ethernet which carries BFD
control packet in IP/UDP encapsulation. control packet in IP/UDP encapsulation.
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
Document recommends setting of inner IP TTL to 1 which could lead to The document recommends setting the inner IP TTL to 1 which could
DDoS attack, implementation MUST have throttling in place. lead to a DDoS attack. Thus the implementation MUST have throttling
Throttling MAY be relaxed for BFD packets based on port number. in place. Throttling MAY be relaxed for BFD packets based on port
number.
Other than inner IP TTL set to 1 this specification does not raise Other than inner IP TTL set to 1 this specification does not raise
any additional security issues beyond those of the specifications any additional security issues beyond those of the specifications
referred to in the list of normative references. referred to in the list of normative references.
11. Contributors 11. Contributors
Reshad Rahman Reshad Rahman
rrahman@cisco.com rrahman@cisco.com
Cisco Cisco
12. Acknowledgments 12. Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Jeff Hass of Juniper Networks for his Authors would like to thank Jeff Hass of Juniper Networks for his
reviews and feedback on this material. reviews and feedback on this material.
Authors would also like to thank Nobo Akiya, Marc Binderberger and Authors would also like to thank Nobo Akiya, Marc Binderberger and
skipping to change at page 9, line 20 skipping to change at page 9, line 17
Authors would like to thank Jeff Hass of Juniper Networks for his Authors would like to thank Jeff Hass of Juniper Networks for his
reviews and feedback on this material. reviews and feedback on this material.
Authors would also like to thank Nobo Akiya, Marc Binderberger and Authors would also like to thank Nobo Akiya, Marc Binderberger and
Shahram Davari for the extensive review. Shahram Davari for the extensive review.
13. Normative References 13. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]
Katz, D., Ward, D., Networks, J., and G. Mirsky, "BFD for Katz, D., Ward, D., Networks, J., and G. Mirsky, "BFD for
Multipoint Networks", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-12 (work Multipoint Networks", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-18 (work
in progress), December 2017. in progress), June 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
skipping to change at page 10, line 8 skipping to change at page 9, line 48
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Santosh Pallagatti (editor) Santosh Pallagatti (editor)
Independent Contributor Rtbrick
Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
Sudarsan Paragiri Sudarsan Paragiri
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, California 94089-1206 Sunnyvale, California 94089-1206
USA USA
Email: sparagiri@juniper.net Email: sparagiri@juniper.net
Vengada Prasad Govindan Vengada Prasad Govindan
Cisco Cisco
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
62 lines changed or deleted 60 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/