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/