draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-15.txt   rfc7911.txt 
Network Working Group D. Walton Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Walton
Internet-Draft Cumulus Networks Request for Comments: 7911 Cumulus Networks
Intended status: Standards Track A. Retana Category: Standards Track A. Retana
Expires: November 24, 2016 E. Chen ISSN: 2070-1721 E. Chen
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Scudder J. Scudder
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
May 23, 2016 July 2016
Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP
draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-15
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a BGP extension that allows the advertisement This document defines a BGP extension that allows the advertisement
of multiple paths for the same address prefix without the new paths of multiple paths for the same address prefix without the new paths
implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of the extension implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of the extension
is that each path is identified by a path identifier in addition to is that each path is identified by a Path Identifier in addition to
the address prefix. the address prefix.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 24, 2016. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7911.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 11
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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. How to Identify a Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. How to Identify a Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Extended NLRI Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Extended NLRI Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. ADD-PATH Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. ADD-PATH Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The BGP specification [RFC4271] defines an Update-Send Process to The BGP specification [RFC4271] defines an Update-Send Process to
advertise the routes chosen by the Decision Process to other BGP advertise the routes chosen by the Decision Process to other BGP
speakers. No provisions are made to allow the advertisement of speakers. No provisions are made to allow the advertisement of
multiple paths for the same address prefix, or Network Layer multiple paths for the same address prefix or Network Layer
Reachability Information (NLRI). In fact, a route with the same NLRI Reachability Information (NLRI). In fact, a route with the same NLRI
as a previously advertised route implicitly replaces the previous as a previously advertised route implicitly replaces the previous
advertisement. advertisement.
This document defines a BGP extension that allows the advertisement This document defines a BGP extension that allows the advertisement
of multiple paths for the same address prefix without the new paths of multiple paths for the same address prefix without the new paths
implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of the extension implicitly replacing any previous ones. The essence of the extension
is that each path is identified by a path identifier in addition to is that each path is identified by a Path Identifier in addition to
the address prefix. the address prefix.
The availability of the additional paths can help reduce or eliminate The availability of the additional paths can help reduce or eliminate
persistent route oscillations [RFC3345]. It can also help with persistent route oscillations [RFC3345]. It can also help with
optimal routing and routing convergence in a network by providing optimal routing and routing convergence in a network by providing
potential alternate or backup paths, respectively. potential alternate or backup paths, respectively.
1.1. Specification of Requirements 1.1. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. How to Identify a Path 2. How to Identify a Path
As defined in [RFC4271], a path refers to the information reported in As defined in [RFC4271], a path refers to the information reported in
the path attribute field of an UPDATE message. As the procedures the Path Attribute field of an UPDATE message. As the procedures
specified in [RFC4271] allow only the advertisement of one path for a specified in [RFC4271] allow only the advertisement of one path for a
particular address prefix, a path for an address prefix from a BGP particular address prefix, a path for an address prefix from a BGP
peer can be keyed on the address prefix. peer can be keyed on the address prefix.
In order for a BGP speaker to advertise multiple paths for the same In order for a BGP speaker to advertise multiple paths for the same
address prefix, a new identifier (termed "Path Identifier" hereafter) address prefix, a new identifier (termed "Path Identifier" hereafter)
needs to be introduced so that a particular path for an address needs to be introduced so that a particular path for an address
prefix can be identified by the combination of the address prefix and prefix can be identified by the combination of the address prefix and
the Path Identifier. the Path Identifier.
The assignment of the Path Identifier for a path by a BGP speaker is The assignment of the Path Identifier for a path by a BGP speaker is
purely a local matter. However, the Path Identifier MUST be assigned purely a local matter. However, the Path Identifier MUST be assigned
in such a way that the BGP speaker is able to use the (prefix, path in such a way that the BGP speaker is able to use the (Prefix, Path
identifier) to uniquely identify a path advertised to a neighbor. A Identifier) to uniquely identify a path advertised to a neighbor. A
BGP speaker that re-advertises a route MUST generate its own Path BGP speaker that re-advertises a route MUST generate its own Path
Identifier to be associated with the re-advertised route. A BGP Identifier to be associated with the re-advertised route. A BGP
speaker that receives a route should not assume that the identifier speaker that receives a route should not assume that the identifier
carries any particular semantics. carries any particular semantics.
3. Extended NLRI Encodings 3. Extended NLRI Encodings
In order to carry the Path Identifier in an UPDATE message, the NLRI In order to carry the Path Identifier in an UPDATE message, the NLRI
encoding MUST be extended by prepending the Path Identifier field, encoding MUST be extended by prepending the Path Identifier field,
which is of four-octets. which is of four octets.
For example, the NLRI encoding specified in [RFC4271] is extended as For example, the NLRI encoding specified in [RFC4271] is extended as
the following: the following:
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| Path Identifier (4 octets) | | Path Identifier (4 octets) |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| Length (1 octet) | | Length (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| Prefix (variable) | | Prefix (variable) |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
The usage of the extended NLRI encodings is specified in Section 5. The usage of the extended NLRI encodings is specified in Section 5.
4. ADD-PATH Capability 4. ADD-PATH Capability
The ADD-PATH Capability is a new BGP capability [RFC5492], with The ADD-PATH Capability is a BGP capability [RFC5492], with
Capability Code 69. The Capability Length field of this capability Capability Code 69. The Capability Length field of this capability
is variable. The Capability Value field consists of one or more of is variable. The Capability Value field consists of one or more of
the following tuples: the following tuples:
+------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------+
| Address Family Identifier (2 octets) | | Address Family Identifier (2 octets) |
+------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------+
| Subsequent Address Family Identifier (1 octet) | | Subsequent Address Family Identifier (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------+
| Send/Receive (1 octet) | | Send/Receive (1 octet) |
skipping to change at page 4, line 33 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
Send/Receive: Send/Receive:
This field indicates whether the sender is (a) able to receive This field indicates whether the sender is (a) able to receive
multiple paths from its peer (value 1), (b) able to send multiple paths from its peer (value 1), (b) able to send
multiple paths to its peer (value 2), or (c) both (value 3) for multiple paths to its peer (value 2), or (c) both (value 3) for
the <AFI, SAFI>. the <AFI, SAFI>.
If any other value is received, then the capability SHOULD be If any other value is received, then the capability SHOULD be
treated as not understood and ignored [RFC5492]. treated as not understood and ignored [RFC5492].
A BGP speaker that wishes to indicate support for multiple AFI/SAFI A BGP speaker that wishes to indicate support for multiple AFI/SAFIs
MUST do so by including the information in a single instance of the MUST do so by including the information in a single instance of the
ADD-PATH Capability. ADD-PATH Capability.
5. Operation 5. Operation
The Path Identifier specified in Section 3 can be used to advertise The Path Identifier specified in Section 3 can be used to advertise
multiple paths for the same address prefix without subsequent multiple paths for the same address prefix without subsequent
advertisements replacing the previous ones. Apart from the fact that advertisements replacing the previous ones. Apart from the fact that
this is now possible, the route advertisement rules of [RFC4271] are this is now possible, the route advertisement rules of [RFC4271] are
not changed. In particular, a new advertisement for a given address not changed. In particular, a new advertisement for a given address
prefix and a given path identifier replaces a previous advertisement prefix and a given Path Identifier replaces a previous advertisement
for the same address prefix and path identifier. If a BGP speaker for the same address prefix and Path Identifier. If a BGP speaker
receives a message to withdraw a prefix with a path identifier not receives a message to withdraw a prefix with a Path Identifier not
seen before, it SHOULD silently ignore it. seen before, it SHOULD silently ignore it.
For a BGP speaker to be able to send multiple paths to its peer, that For a BGP speaker to be able to send multiple paths to its peer, that
BGP speaker MUST advertise the ADD-PATH capability with the Send/ BGP speaker MUST advertise the ADD-PATH Capability with the Send/
Receive field set to either 2 or 3, and MUST receive from its peer Receive field set to either 2 or 3, and MUST receive from its peer
the ADD-PATH capability with the Send/Receive field set to either 1 the ADD-PATH Capability with the Send/Receive field set to either 1
or 3, for the corresponding <AFI, SAFI>. or 3, for the corresponding <AFI, SAFI>.
A BGP speaker MUST follow the procedures defined in [RFC4271] when A BGP speaker MUST follow the procedures defined in [RFC4271] when
generating an UPDATE message for a particular <AFI, SAFI> to a peer generating an UPDATE message for a particular <AFI, SAFI> to a peer
unless the BGP speaker advertises the ADD-PATH Capability to the peer unless the BGP speaker advertises the ADD-PATH Capability to the peer
indicating its ability to send multiple paths for the <AFI, SAFI>, indicating its ability to send multiple paths for the <AFI, SAFI>,
and also receives the ADD-PATH Capability from the peer indicating and also receives the ADD-PATH Capability from the peer indicating
its ability to receive multiple paths for the <AFI, SAFI>, in which its ability to receive multiple paths for the <AFI, SAFI>, in which
case the speaker MUST generate a route update for the <AFI, SAFI> case the speaker MUST generate a route update for the <AFI, SAFI>
based on the combination of the address prefix and the Path based on the combination of the address prefix and the Path
skipping to change at page 5, line 34 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
persistent across a control plane restart of a BGP speaker, an persistent across a control plane restart of a BGP speaker, an
implementation SHOULD take special care so that the underlying implementation SHOULD take special care so that the underlying
forwarding plane of a "Receiving Speaker" as described in [RFC4724] forwarding plane of a "Receiving Speaker" as described in [RFC4724]
is not affected during the graceful restart of a BGP session. is not affected during the graceful restart of a BGP session.
6. Deployment Considerations 6. Deployment Considerations
The extension proposed in this document provides a mechanism for a The extension proposed in this document provides a mechanism for a
BGP speaker to advertise multiple paths over a BGP session. Care BGP speaker to advertise multiple paths over a BGP session. Care
needs to be taken in its deployment to ensure consistent routing and needs to be taken in its deployment to ensure consistent routing and
forwarding in a network [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines]. forwarding in a network [ADDPATH].
The only explicit indication that the encoding described in Section 3 The only explicit indication that the encoding described in Section 3
is in use in a particular BGP session is the exchange of Capabilities is in use in a particular BGP session is the exchange of Capabilities
Section 4. If the negotiation is successful [RFC5492], then the BGP described in Section 4. If the exchange is successful [RFC5492],
speakers will be able to process all BGP UPDATES properly, as then the BGP speakers will be able to process all BGP UPDATES
described in Section 5. However, if, for example, a packet analyzer properly, as described in Section 5. However, if, for example, a
is used on the wire to examine an active BGP session, it may not be packet analyzer is used on the wire to examine an active BGP session,
able to properly decode the BGP UPDATES because it lacks prior it may not be able to properly decode the BGP UPDATES because it
knowledge of the negotiated Capabilities. lacks prior knowledge of the exchanged Capabilities.
When deployed as a provider edge router or a peering router that When deployed as a provider edge router or a peering router that
interacts with external neighbors, a BGP speaker usually advertises interacts with external neighbors, a BGP speaker usually advertises
at most one path to the internal neighbors in a network. In the case at most one path to the internal neighbors in a network. In the case
the speaker is configured to advertise multiple paths to the internal where the speaker is configured to advertise multiple paths to the
neighbors, and additional information is needed for the application, internal neighbors, and additional information is needed for the
the speaker could use attributes such as the Edge_Discriminator application, the speaker could use attributes such as the
attribute [I-D.pmohapat-idr-fast-conn-restore]. The use of that type Edge_Discriminator attribute [FAST]. The use of that type of
of additional information is outside the scope of this document. additional information is outside the scope of this document.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned capability number 69 for the ADD-PATH Capability IANA has assigned the value 69 for the ADD-PATH Capability described
described in this document. This registration is in the BGP in this document. This registration is in the "Capability Codes"
Capability Codes registry. registry.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document defines a BGP extension that allows the advertisement This document defines a BGP extension that allows the advertisement
of multiple paths for the same address prefix without the new paths of multiple paths for the same address prefix without the new paths
implicitly replacing any previous ones. As a result, multiple paths implicitly replacing any previous ones. As a result, multiple paths
for a large number of prefixes may be received by a BGP speaker for a large number of prefixes may be received by a BGP speaker,
potentially depleting memory resources or even causing network-wide potentially depleting memory resources or even causing network-wide
instability, which can be considered a denial of service attack. instability, which can be considered a denial-of-service attack.
Note that this is not a new vulnerability, but one that is present in Note that this is not a new vulnerability, but one that is present in
the base BGP specification [RFC4272]. the base BGP specification [RFC4272].
The use of the ADD-PATH Capability is intended to address specific The use of the ADD-PATH Capability is intended to address specific
needs related to, for example, eliminating the MED-induced route needs related to, for example, eliminating route oscillations that
oscillations in a network [I-D.ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop]. were induced by the MULTI_EXIT_DISC (MED) attribute [STOP-OSC].
While describing the applications for the ADD-PATH Capability is While describing the applications for the ADD-PATH Capability is
outside the scope of this document, users are encouraged to examine outside the scope of this document, users are encouraged to examine
their behavior and potential impact by studying the best practices their behavior and potential impact by studying the best practices
described in [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines]. described in [ADDPATH].
Security concerns in the base operation of BGP [RFC4271] also apply. Security concerns in the base operation of BGP [RFC4271] also apply.
9. Acknowledgments 9. References
We would like to thank David Cook and Naiming Shen for their
contributions to the design and development of the extension.
Many people have made valuable comments and suggestions, including
Rex Fernando, Eugene Kim, Danny McPherson, Dave Meyer, Pradosh
Mohapatra, Keyur Patel, Robert Raszuk, Eric Rosen, Srihari Sangli,
Dan Tappan, Mark Turner, Jeff Haas, Jay Borkenhagen, Mach Chen, Denis
Ovsienko, Carlos Pignataro, Meral Shirazipour and Kathleen Moriarty.
10. References
10.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>. 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.
10.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines] [ADDPATH] Uttaro, J., Francois, P., Patel, K., Haas, J., Simpson,
Uttaro, J., Francois, P., Patel, K., Haas, J., Simpson,
A., and R. Fragassi, "Best Practices for Advertisement of A., and R. Fragassi, "Best Practices for Advertisement of
Multiple Paths in IBGP", draft-ietf-idr-add-paths- Multiple Paths in IBGP", Work in Progress,
guidelines-08 (work in progress), April 2016. draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-08, April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop]
Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, "BGP
Persistent Route Oscillation Solutions", draft-ietf-idr-
route-oscillation-stop-03 (work in progress), April 2016.
[I-D.pmohapat-idr-fast-conn-restore] [FAST] Mohapatra, P., Fernando, R., Filsfils, C., and R. Raszuk,
Mohapatra, P., Fernando, R., Filsfils, C., and R. Raszuk, "Fast Connectivity Restoration Using BGP Add-path", Work
"Fast Connectivity Restoration Using BGP Add-path", draft- in Progress, draft-pmohapat-idr-fast-conn-restore-03,
pmohapat-idr-fast-conn-restore-03 (work in progress),
January 2013. January 2013.
[RFC3345] McPherson, D., Gill, V., Walton, D., and A. Retana, [RFC3345] McPherson, D., Gill, V., Walton, D., and A. Retana,
"Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Persistent Route "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Persistent Route
Oscillation Condition", RFC 3345, DOI 10.17487/RFC3345, Oscillation Condition", RFC 3345, DOI 10.17487/RFC3345,
August 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3345>. August 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3345>.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y. [RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724, Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4724, January 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4724, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4724>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4724>.
[STOP-OSC] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, "BGP
Persistent Route Oscillation Solutions", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop-03, April 2016.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank David Cook and Naiming Shen for their
contributions to the design and development of the extension.
Many people have made valuable comments and suggestions, including
Rex Fernando, Eugene Kim, Danny McPherson, Dave Meyer, Pradosh
Mohapatra, Keyur Patel, Robert Raszuk, Eric Rosen, Srihari Sangli,
Dan Tappan, Mark Turner, Jeff Haas, Jay Borkenhagen, Mach Chen, Denis
Ovsienko, Carlos Pignataro, Meral Shirazipour, and Kathleen Moriarty.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Daniel Walton Daniel Walton
Cumulus Networks Cumulus Networks
185 E. Dana Street 185 E. Dana Street
Mountain View, CA 94041 Mountain View, CA 94041
US United States of America
Email: dwalton@cumulusnetworks.com Email: dwalton@cumulusnetworks.com
Alvaro Retana Alvaro Retana
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Kit Creek Rd. Kit Creek Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US United States of America
Email: aretana@cisco.com Email: aretana@cisco.com
Enke Chen Enke Chen
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Dr. 170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
US United States of America
Email: enkechen@cisco.com Email: enkechen@cisco.com
John Scudder John Scudder
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US United States of America
Email: jgs@juniper.net Email: jgs@juniper.net
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
88 lines changed or deleted 81 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/