draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08.txt		draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-09.txt
	Network Working Group N. Bahadur, Ed.		Network Working Group N. Bahadur, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Bracket Computing		Internet-Draft Bracket Computing
	Intended status: Informational S. Kini, Ed.		Intended status: Informational S. Kini, Ed.
	Expires: April 21, 2016 Ericsson		Expires: January 8, 2017
	J. Medved		J. Medved
	Cisco		Cisco
	October 19, 2015		July 7, 2016
	Routing Information Base Info Model		Routing Information Base Info Model
	draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08		draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-09
	Abstract		Abstract
	Routing and routing functions in enterprise and carrier networks are		Routing and routing functions in enterprise and carrier networks are
	typically performed by network devices (routers and switches) using a		typically performed by network devices (routers and switches) using a
	routing information base (RIB). Protocols and configuration push		routing information base (RIB). Protocols and configuration push
	data into the RIB and the RIB manager installs state into the		data into the RIB and the RIB manager installs state into the
	hardware; for packet forwarding. This draft specifies an information		hardware; for packet forwarding. This draft specifies a information
	model for the RIB to enable defining a standardized data model. Such		model for the RIB to enable defining a standardized data model. Such
	a data model can be used to define an interface to the RIB from an		a data model can be used to define an interface to the RIB from an
	entity that may even be external to the network device. This		entity that may even be external to the network device. This
	interface can be used to support new use-cases being defined by the		interface can be used to support new use-cases being defined by the
	IETF I2RS WG.		IETF I2RS WG.
	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.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶
	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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://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 April 21, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2016 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
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://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
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶
	1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2. RIB data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2. RIB data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.1. RIB definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.1. RIB definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.2. Routing instance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.2. Routing instance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	2.3. Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		2.3. Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	2.4. Nexthop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		2.4. Nexthop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	2.4.1. Nexthop types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		2.4.1. Nexthop types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	2.4.2. Nexthop list attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		2.4.2. Nexthop list attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	2.4.3. Nexthop content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		2.4.3. Nexthop content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	2.4.4. Special nexthops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		2.4.4. Special nexthops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	3. Reading from the RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		3. Reading from the RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	4. Writing to the RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		4. Writing to the RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		5. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	6. RIB grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6. RIB grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6.1. Nexthop grammar explained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		6.1. Nexthop grammar explained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	7. Using the RIB grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		7. Using the RIB grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	7.1. Using route preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		7.1. Using route preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	7.2. Using different nexthops types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		7.2. Using different nexthops types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	7.2.1. Tunnel nexthops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		7.2.1. Tunnel nexthops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	7.2.2. Replication lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		7.2.2. Replication lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	7.2.3. Weighted lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		7.2.3. Weighted lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	7.2.4. Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		7.2.4. Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7.2.5. Nexthop chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		7.2.5. Nexthop chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7.2.6. Lists of lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		7.2.6. Lists of lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	7.3. Performing multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		7.3. Performing multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	8. RIB operations at scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8. RIB operations at scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	8.1. RIB reads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8.1. RIB reads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	8.2. RIB writes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8.2. RIB writes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	8.3. RIB events and notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8.3. RIB events and notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	skipping to change at page 4, line 51 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 51 ¶
	| | FIB | | | | FIB | |		| | FIB | | | | FIB | |
	| +-----+ | | +-----+ |		| +-----+ | | +-----+ |
	+-------------+ +-------------+		+-------------+ +-------------+
	Figure 1: RIB manager, RIB clients and FIB managers		Figure 1: RIB manager, RIB clients and FIB managers
	Routing protocols are inherently distributed in nature and each		Routing protocols are inherently distributed in nature and each
	router makes an independent decision based on the routing data		router makes an independent decision based on the routing data
	received from its peers. With the advent of newer deployment		received from its peers. With the advent of newer deployment
	paradigms and the need for specialized applications, there is an		paradigms and the need for specialized applications, there is an
	emerging need to guide the router's routing function		emerging need to guide the router's routing function [RFC7920].
	[I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement]. Traditional network-device		Traditional network-device protocol-based RIB population suffices for
	protocol-based RIB population suffices for most use cases where		most use cases where distributed network control is used. However
	distributed network control is used. However there are use cases		there are use cases which the network operators currently address by
	which the network operators currently address by configuring static		configuring static routes, policies and RIB import/export rules on
	routes, policies and RIB import/export rules on the routers. There		the routers. There is also a growing list of use cases
	is also a growing list of use cases [I-D.white-i2rs-use-case],		[I-D.white-i2rs-use-case], [I-D.hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc] in which a
	[I-D.hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc] in which a network operator might		network operator might want to program the RIB based on data
	want to program the RIB based on data unrelated to just routing		unrelated to just routing (within that network's domain).
	(within that network's domain). Programming the RIB could be based		Programming the RIB could be based on other information such as
	on other information such as routing data in the adjacent domain or		routing data in the adjacent domain or the load on storage and
	the load on storage and compute in the given domain. Or it could		compute in the given domain. Or it could simply be a programmatic
	simply be a programmatic way of creating on-demand dynamic overlays		way of creating on-demand dynamic overlays (e.g. GRE tunnels)
	(e.g. GRE tunnels) between compute hosts (without requiring the		between compute hosts (without requiring the hosts to run traditional
	hosts to run traditional routing protocols). If there was a		routing protocols). If there was a standardized publicly documented
	standardized publicly documented programmatic interface to a RIB, it		programmatic interface to a RIB, it would enable further networking
	would enable further networking applications that address a variety		applications that address a variety of use-cases [RFC7920].
	of use-cases [I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement].
	A programmatic interface to the RIB involves 2 types of operations -		A programmatic interface to the RIB involves 2 types of operations -
	reading from the RIB and writing (adding/modifying/deleting) to the		reading from the RIB and writing (adding/modifying/deleting) to the
	RIB. [I-D.white-i2rs-use-case] lists various use-cases which require		RIB. [I-D.white-i2rs-use-case] lists various use-cases which require
	read and/or write manipulation of the RIB.		read and/or write manipulation of the RIB.
	In order to understand what is in a router's RIB, methods like per-		In order to understand what is in a router's RIB, methods like per-
	protocol SNMP MIBs and show output screen scraping are used. These		protocol SNMP MIBs and show output screen scraping are used. These
	methods are not scalable, since they are client pull mechanisms and		methods are not scalable, since they are client pull mechanisms and
	not proactive push (from the router) mechanisms. Screen scraping is		not proactive push (from the router) mechanisms. Screen scraping is
	skipping to change at page 6, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 40 ¶
	|		|
	route(s)		route(s)
	Figure 2: RIB model		Figure 2: RIB model
	2.1. RIB definition		2.1. RIB definition
	A RIB is an entity that contains routes. A RIB is identified by its		A RIB is an entity that contains routes. A RIB is identified by its
	name and a RIB is contained within a routing instance (Section 2.2).		name and a RIB is contained within a routing instance (Section 2.2).
	The name MUST be unique within a routing instance. All routes in a		The name MUST be unique within a routing instance. All routes in a
	given RIB MUST be of the same type (e.g. IPv4). Each RIB MUST		given RIB MUST be of the same rib family (e.g. IPv4). Each RIB MUST
	belong to a routing instance.		belong to a routing instance.
	A routing instance can have multiple RIBs. A routing instance can		A routing instance can have multiple RIBs. A routing instance can
	even have two or more RIBs with the same type of routes (e.g. IPv6).		even have two or more RIBs of the same rib family (e.g. IPv6). A
	A typical case where this can be used is for multi-topology routing		typical case where this can be used is for multi-topology routing
	([RFC4915], [RFC5120]).		([RFC4915], [RFC5120]).
	Each RIB can be optionally associated with a ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK		Each RIB can be optionally associated with a ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK
	attribute that enables Reverse path forwarding (RPF) checks on all IP		attribute that enables Reverse path forwarding (RPF) checks on all IP
	routes in that RIB. Reverse path forwarding (RPF) check is used to		routes in that RIB. Reverse path forwarding (RPF) check is used to
	prevent spoofing and limit malicious traffic. For IP packets, the IP		prevent spoofing and limit malicious traffic. For IP packets, the IP
	source address is looked up and the rpf interface(s) associated with		source address is looked up and the rpf interface(s) associated with
	the route for that IP source address is found. If the incoming IP		the route for that IP source address is found. If the incoming IP
	packet's interface matches one of the rpf interface(s), then the IP		packet's interface matches one of the rpf interface(s), then the IP
	packet is forwarded based on its IP destination address; otherwise,		packet is forwarded based on its IP destination address; otherwise,
	the IP packet is discarded.		the IP packet is discarded.
	2.2. Routing instance		2.2. Routing instance
	A routing instance, in the context of the RIB information model, is a		A routing instance, in the context of the RIB information model, is a
	collection of RIBs, interfaces, and routing parameters. A routing		collection of RIBs, interfaces, and routing parameters. A routing
	instance creates a logical slice of the router and allows different		instance creates a logical slice of the router. It allows different
	logical slices; across a set of routers; to communicate with each		logical slices; across a set of routers; to communicate with each
	other. Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (VPN), Layer 2 VPNs (L2VPN)		other. Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (VPN), Layer 2 VPNs (L2VPN)
	and Virtual Private Lan Service (VPLS) can be modeled as routing		and Virtual Private Lan Service (VPLS) can be modeled as routing
	instances. Note that modeling a Layer 2 VPN using a routing instance		instances. Note that modeling a Layer 2 VPN using a routing instance
	only models the Layer-3 (RIB) aspect and does not model any layer-2		only models the Layer-3 (RIB) aspect and does not model any layer-2
	information (like ARP) that might be associated with the L2VPN.		information (like ARP) that might be associated with the L2VPN.
	The set of interfaces indicates which interfaces are associated with		The set of interfaces indicates which interfaces are associated with
	this routing instance. The RIBs specify how incoming traffic is to		this routing instance. The RIBs specify how incoming traffic is to
	be forwarded. And the routing parameters control the information in		be forwarded. And the routing parameters control the information in
	skipping to change at page 8, line 6 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 5 ¶
	the boundaries of packet forwarding. Packets coming on these		the boundaries of packet forwarding. Packets coming on these
	interfaces are directly associated with the given routing		interfaces are directly associated with the given routing
	instance. The interface list contains a list of identifiers, with		instance. The interface list contains a list of identifiers, with
	each identifier uniquely identifying an interface.		each identifier uniquely identifying an interface.
	o ROUTER_ID: The router-id field identifies the network device in		o ROUTER_ID: The router-id field identifies the network device in
	control plane interactions with other network devices. This field		control plane interactions with other network devices. This field
	is to be used if one wants to virtualize a physical router into		is to be used if one wants to virtualize a physical router into
	multiple virtual routers. Each virtual router MUST have a unique		multiple virtual routers. Each virtual router MUST have a unique
	router-id. ROUTER_ID MUST be unique across all network devices in		router-id. ROUTER_ID MUST be unique across all network devices in
	a given domain.		a given domain.
			A routing instance may be created purely for the purposes of packet
			processing and may not have any interfaces associated with it. For
			example, an incoming packet in routing instance A might have a
			nexthop of routing instance B and after packet processing in B, the
			nexthop might be routing instance C. Thus, routing instance B is not
			associated with any interface. And given that this routing instance
			does not do any control plane interaction with other network devices,
			a ROUTER_ID is also not needed.
	2.3. Route		2.3. Route
	A route is essentially a match condition and an action following the		A route is essentially a match condition and an action following the
	match. The match condition specifies the kind of route (IPv4, MPLS,		match. The match condition specifies the kind of route (IPv4, MPLS,
	etc.) and the set of fields to match on. Figure 3 represents the		etc.) and the set of fields to match on. Figure 3 represents the
	overall contents of a route.		overall contents of a route.
	route		route
	| | |		| | |
	skipping to change at page 8, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 10 ¶
	o IP multicast: Match on (S, G) or (*, G), where S and G are IP		o IP multicast: Match on (S, G) or (*, G), where S and G are IP
	addresses		addresses
	Each route MUST have associated with it the following mandatory route		Each route MUST have associated with it the following mandatory route
	attributes.		attributes.
	o ROUTE_PREFERENCE: This is a numerical value that allows for		o ROUTE_PREFERENCE: This is a numerical value that allows for
	comparing routes from different protocols. Static configuration		comparing routes from different protocols. Static configuration
	is also considered a protocol for the purpose of this field. It		is also considered a protocol for the purpose of this field. It
	is also known as administrative-distance. The lower the value,		is also known as administrative-distance. The lower the value,
	the higher the preference. For example there can be an OSPF route		the higher the preference. For example there can be an OSPF route
	for 192.0.2.1/32 with a preference of 5. If a controller programs		for 192.0.2.1/32 (or IPv6 2001:DB8::1/32) with a preference of 5.
	a route for 192.0.2.1/32 with a preference of 2, then the		If a controller programs a route for 192.0.2.1/32 (or IPv6 2001:
	controller's route will be preferred by the RIB manager.		DB8::1/32) with a preference of 2, then the controller's route
	Preference should be used to dictate behavior. For more examples		will be preferred by the RIB manager. Preference should be used
	of preference, see Section 7.1.		to dictate behavior. For more examples of preference, see
			Section 7.1.
	Each route can have associated with it one or more optional route		Each route can have associated with it one or more optional route
	attributes.		attributes.
	o route-vendor-attributes: Vendors can specify vendor-specific		o route-vendor-attributes: Vendors can specify vendor-specific
	attributes using this. The details of this attribute is outside		attributes using this. The details of this attribute is outside
	the scope of this document.		the scope of this document.
	2.4. Nexthop		2.4. Nexthop
	A nexthop represents an object resulting from a route lookup. For		A nexthop represents an object resulting from a route lookup. For
	skipping to change at page 16, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 26 ¶
	[<address-family-route-attributes>]		[<address-family-route-attributes>]
	<address-family-route-attributes> ::= <ip-route-attributes> |		<address-family-route-attributes> ::= <ip-route-attributes> |
	<mpls-route-attributes> |		<mpls-route-attributes> |
	<ethernet-route-attributes>		<ethernet-route-attributes>
	<ip-route-attributes> ::= <>		<ip-route-attributes> ::= <>
	<mpls-route-attributes> ::= <>		<mpls-route-attributes> ::= <>
	<ethernet-route-attributes> ::= <>		<ethernet-route-attributes> ::= <>
	<route-vendor-attributes> ::= <>		<route-vendor-attributes> ::= <>
	<nexthop> ::= <nexthop-base> | <nexthop-lb> |		<nexthop> ::= <nexthop-base> |
	<nexthop-protection> | <nexthop-replicate> |		(<NEXTHOP_LOAD_BALANCE> <nexthop-lb>) |
			(<NEXTHOP_PROTECTION> <nexthop-protection>) |
			(<NEXTHOP_REPLICATE> <nexthop-replicate>) |
	<nexthop-chain>		<nexthop-chain>
	<nexthop-base> ::= <NEXTHOP_ID> |		<nexthop-base> ::= <NEXTHOP_ID> |
	<nexthop-special> |		<nexthop-special> |
	<EGRESS_INTERFACE> |		<EGRESS_INTERFACE> |
	<ipv4-address> | <ipv6-address> |		<ipv4-address> | <ipv6-address> |
	(<EGRESS_INTERFACE>		(<EGRESS_INTERFACE>
	(<ipv4-address> | <ipv6-address>)) |		(<ipv4-address> | <ipv6-address>)) |
	(<EGRESS_INTERFACE> <IEEE_MAC_ADDRESS>) |		(<EGRESS_INTERFACE> <IEEE_MAC_ADDRESS>) |
	<tunnel-encap> | <tunnel-decap> |		<tunnel-encap> | <tunnel-decap> |
	skipping to change at page 24, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 24, line 46 ¶
	12.2. Informative References		12.2. Informative References
	[I-D.hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc]		[I-D.hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc]
	Hares, S. and M. Chen, "Use Cases for Virtual Connections		Hares, S. and M. Chen, "Use Cases for Virtual Connections
	on Demand (VCoD) and Virtual Network on Demand (VNoD)		on Demand (VCoD) and Virtual Network on Demand (VNoD)
	using Interface to Routing System",		using Interface to Routing System",
	draft-hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc-03 (work in progress),		draft-hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc-03 (work in progress),
	July 2014.		July 2014.
	[I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement]
	Atlas, A., Nadeau, T., and D. Ward, "Interface to the
	Routing System Problem Statement",
	draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-06 (work in progress),
	January 2015.
	[I-D.white-i2rs-use-case]		[I-D.white-i2rs-use-case]
	White, R., Hares, S., and A. Retana, "Protocol Independent		White, R., Hares, S., and A. Retana, "Protocol Independent
	Use Cases for an Interface to the Routing System",		Use Cases for an Interface to the Routing System",
	draft-white-i2rs-use-case-06 (work in progress),		draft-white-i2rs-use-case-06 (work in progress),
	July 2014.		July 2014.
	[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.		[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
	Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",		Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
	RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,		RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
	skipping to change at page 25, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 25, line 23 ¶
	Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to		Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
	Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, DOI 10.17487/		Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, DOI 10.17487/
	RFC5120, February 2008,		RFC5120, February 2008,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
	[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax		[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
	Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol		Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
	Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511,		Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511,
	April 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>.		April 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>.
			[RFC7920] Atlas, A., Ed., Nadeau, T., Ed., and D. Ward, "Problem
			Statement for the Interface to the Routing System",
			RFC 7920, DOI 10.17487/RFC7920, June 2016,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7920>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Nitin Bahadur (editor)		Nitin Bahadur (editor)
	Bracket Computing		Bracket Computing
	150 West Evelyn Ave, Suite 200		150 West Evelyn Ave, Suite 200
	Mountain View, CA 94041		Mountain View, CA 94041
	US		US
	Email: nitin_bahadur@yahoo.com		Email: nitin_bahadur@yahoo.com
	Sriganesh Kini (editor)		Sriganesh Kini (editor)
	Ericsson
	Email: sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com		Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
	Jan Medved		Jan Medved
	Cisco		Cisco
	Email: jmedved@cisco.com		Email: jmedved@cisco.com
End of changes. 21 change blocks.
	47 lines changed or deleted		55 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/