draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-10.txt   rfc7394.txt 
Network Working Group Sami Boutros Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Boutros
INTERNET-DRAFT Siva Sivabalan Request for Comments: 7394 S. Sivabalan
Intended Status: Standards Track George Swallow Category: Standards Track G. Swallow
Shaleen Saxena ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Saxena
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
V. Manral
Vishwas Manral Ionos Networks
Hewlett Packard Co. S. Aldrin
Sam Aldrin
Huawei Technologies, Inc. Huawei Technologies, Inc.
November 2014
Expires: February 20, 2015 August 19, 2014 Definition of Time to Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms
Definition of Time-to-Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-10.txt
Abstract Abstract
LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, in the present Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, in the
form, this mechanism is inadequate to verify connectivity of a present form, this mechanism is inadequate to verify connectivity of
segment of a Multi-Segment PseudoWire (MS-PW) and/or bidirectional a segment of a Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) and/or bidirectional
co-routed LSP from any node on the path of the MS-PW and/or co-routed Label Switched Path (LSP) from any node on the path of the
bidirectional co-routed LSP. This document defines a TLV to address MS-PW and/or bidirectional co-routed LSP. This document defines a
this shortcoming. TLV to address this shortcoming.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Status of This Memo
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This is an Internet Standards Track document.
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7394.
Copyright and License Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Time To Live TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Time To Live TLV ................................................4
3.1. TTL TLV Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. TTL TLV Format .............................................4
3.2. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Usage ......................................................4
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Operation .......................................................5
4.1. Traceroute mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Traceroute Mode ............................................6
4.2. Error scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Error Scenario .............................................6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations .........................................6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations .............................................7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References ......................................................7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References .......................................7
8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Acknowledgements ...................................................7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Contributors .......................................................7
Authors' Addresses .................................................8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A MS-PW may span across multiple service provider networks. In order An MS-PW may span across multiple service provider networks. In
to allow Service Providers (SP) to verify segments of such MS-PW from order to allow Service Providers (SPs) to verify segments of such
any node on the path of the MS-PW, any node along the path of the MS- MS-PWs from any node on the path of the MS-PW, any node along the
PW, should be able to originate an MPLS Echo Request packet to any path of the MS-PW, should be able to originate an MPLS Echo Request
other node along the path of the MS-PW and receive the corresponding packet to any other node along the path of the MS-PW and receive the
MPLS Echo Reply. If the originator of the MPLS Echo Request is at the corresponding MPLS Echo Reply. If the originator of the MPLS Echo
end of a MS-PW, the receiver of the request can send the reply back Request is at the end of a MS-PW, the receiver of the request can
to the sender without knowing the hop-count distance of the send the reply back to the sender without knowing the hop-count
originator. The reply will be intercepted by the originator distance of the originator. The reply will be intercepted by the
regardless of the TTL value on the reply packet. But, if the originator regardless of the TTL value on the reply packet. But, if
originator is not at the end of the MS-PW, the receiver of the MPLS the originator is not at the end of the MS-PW, the receiver of the
Echo Request may need to know how many hops away the originator of MPLS Echo Request may need to know how many hops away the originator
the MPLS Echo Request is so that it can set the TTL value on the MPLS of the MPLS Echo Request is so that it can set the TTL value on the
header for the MPLS Echo Reply to be intercepted at the originator MPLS header for the MPLS Echo Reply to be intercepted at the
node. originator node.
In MPLS networks, for bidirectional co-routed LSPs, if it is desired In MPLS networks, for bidirectional co-routed LSPs, if it is desired
to verify connectivity from any intermediate node (LSR) on the LSP to to verify connectivity from any intermediate node Label Switching
the any other LSR on the LSP the receiver may need to know the TTL to Router (LSR) on the LSP to the any other LSR on the LSP the receiver
send the MPLS Echo Reply with, so as the packet is intercepted by the may need to know the TTL to send the MPLS Echo Reply with, so as the
originator node. packet is intercepted by the originator node.
A new optional TTL TLV is defined in this document. This TLV will be A new optional TTL TLV is defined in this document. This TLV will be
added by the originator of the MPLS Echo Request to inform the added by the originator of the MPLS Echo Request to inform the
receiver how many hops away the originator is on the path of the MS- receiver how many hops away the originator is on the path of the
PW or Bidirectional LSP. MS-PW or bidirectional LSP.
This mechanism only works if the MPLS Echo Reply is sent down the co- This mechanism only works if the MPLS Echo Reply is sent down the
routed LSP, hence the scope of this TTL TLV is currently limited to co-routed LSP; hence, the scope of this TTL TLV is currently limited
MS-PW or Bidirectional co-routed MPLS LSPs. The presence of the TLV to MS-PW or bidirectional co-routed MPLS LSPs. The presence of the
implies the use of the return path of the co-routed LSP, if the TLV implies the use of the return path of the co-routed LSP, if the
return path is any other mechanism then the TLV in the MPLS Echo return path is any other mechanism, then the TLV in the MPLS Echo
Request MUST be ignored. Request MUST be ignored.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
LSR: Label Switching Router LSR: Label Switching Router
skipping to change at page 4, line 4 skipping to change at page 3, line 37
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
LSR: Label Switching Router LSR: Label Switching Router
MPLS-TP: MPLS Transport Profile MPLS-TP: MPLS Transport Profile
MS-PW: Multi-Segment Pseudowire MS-PW: Multi-Segment Pseudowire
PW: Pseudowire PW: Pseudowire
TLV: Type Length Value TLV: Type Length Value
TTL: Time To Live TTL: Time To Live
3. Time To Live TLV 3. Time To Live TLV
3.1. TTL TLV Format 3.1. TTL TLV Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD | Length = 8 | | Type = 32769 | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value | Reserved | Flags | | Value | Reserved | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Time To Live TLV format
The TTL TLV has the format shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Time To Live TLV Format
Value The TTL TLV has the format shown in Figure 1.
The value of the TTL as specified by this TLV Value
Flags The value of the TTL as specified by this TLV
The Flags field is a bit vector with the following format: Flags
0 1 The Flags field is a bit vector with the following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One flag is defined for now, the R flag. The rest of the 0 1
flags are Reserved - MUST be zero (MBZ) when sending and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
ignored on receipt. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The R flag (Reply TTL) is set signify that the value is One flag is defined for now, the R flag. The rest of the
meant to be used as the TTL for the reply packet. Other bits flags are Reserved - MUST be zero (MBZ) when sending and
may be defined later to enhance the scope of this TLV. ignored on receipt.
3.2. Usage The R flag (Reply TTL) is set signify that the value is
meant to be used as the TTL for the reply packet. Other bits
may be defined later to enhance the scope of this TLV.
3.2. Usage
The TTL TLV MAY be included in the MPLS Echo Request by the The TTL TLV MAY be included in the MPLS Echo Request by the
originator of the request. originator of the request.
If the TTL TLV is present and the receiver does not understand TTL If the TTL TLV is present and the receiver does not understand TTL
TLVs, it will simply ignore the TLV, as is the case for all optional TLVs, it will simply ignore the TLV, as is the case for all optional
TLVs. If the TTL TLV is not present or is not processed by the TLVs. If the TTL TLV is not present or is not processed by the
receiver, any determination of the TTL value used in the MPLS label receiver, any determination of the TTL value used in the MPLS label
on the LSP-Ping echo reply is beyond the scope of this document. on the LSP-Ping echo reply is beyond the scope of this document.
If the TTL TLV is present and the receiver understands TTL TLVs, one If the TTL TLV is present and the receiver understands TTL TLVs, one
of the following two conditions apply: of the following two conditions apply:
o If the TTL TLV value field is zero, the LSP-Ping echo request o If the TTL TLV value field is zero, the LSP-Ping echo request
packet SHOULD be dropped. packet SHOULD be dropped.
o Otherwise, the receiver MUST use the TTL value specified in the o Otherwise, the receiver MUST use the TTL value specified in the
TTL TLV when it creates the MPLS header of the MPLS Echo Reply. TTL TLV when it creates the MPLS header of the MPLS Echo Reply.
The TTL value in the TTL TLV takes precedence over any TTL value The TTL value in the TTL TLV takes precedence over any TTL value
determined by other means, such as from the Switching Point TLV in determined by other means, such as from the Switching Point TLV in
the MS-PW. This precedence will aid the originator of the LSP- the MS-PW. This precedence will aid the originator of the LSP-
Ping echo request in analyzing the return path. Ping echo request in analyzing the return path.
4. Operation 4. Operation
In this section, we explain a use case for the TTL TLV with an MPLS In this section, we explain a use case for the TTL TLV with an MPLS
MS-PW. MS-PW.
<------------------MS-PW --------------------->
A B C D E <------------------MS-PW --------------------->
o -------- o -------- o --------- o --------- o
---MPLS Echo Request--->
<--MPLS Echo Reply------
Figure 2: Use-case with MS-PWs A B C D E
o -------- o -------- o --------- o --------- o
---MPLS Echo Request--->
<--MPLS Echo Reply------
Let us assume a MS-PW going through LSRs A, B, C, D, and E. Figure 2: Use-Case with MS-PWs
Let us assume an MS-PW going through LSRs A, B, C, D, and E.
Furthermore, assume that an operator wants to perform a connectivity Furthermore, assume that an operator wants to perform a connectivity
check between B and D from B. Thus, an MPLS Echo Request with the TTL check between B and D, from B. Thus, an MPLS Echo Request with the
TLV is originated from B and sent towards D. The MPLS Echo Request TTL TLV is originated from B and sent towards D. The MPLS Echo
packet contains the FEC of the PW Segment between C and D. The value Request packet contains the FEC of the PW Segment between C and D.
field of the TTL TLV and the TTL field of the MPLS label are set to The value field of the TTL TLV and the TTL field of the MPLS label
2, the choice of the value 2 will be based on the operator input are set to 2, the choice of the value 2 will be based on the operator
requesting the MPLS Echo Request or from the optional LDP switching input requesting the MPLS Echo Request or from the optional LDP
point TLV. The MPLS Echo Request is intercepted at D because of TTL switching point TLV. The MPLS Echo Request is intercepted at D
expiry. D detects the TTL TLV in the request, and use the TTL value because of TTL expiry. D detects the TTL TLV in the request and uses
(i.e., 2) specified in the TLV on the MPLS label of the MPLS Echo the TTL value (i.e., 2) specified in the TLV on the MPLS label of the
Reply. The MPLS Echo Reply will be intercepted by B because of TTL MPLS Echo Reply. The MPLS Echo Reply will be intercepted by B
expiry. because of TTL expiry.
The same operation will apply when we have a co-routed bidirectional The same operation will apply when we have a co-routed bidirectional
LSP, and we want to check connectivity from an intermediate LSR "B" LSP and we want to check connectivity from an intermediate LSR "B" to
to another LSR "D". another LSR "D".
4.1. Traceroute mode 4.1. Traceroute Mode
In traceroute mode, the TTL value in the TLV is set to 1 for the In traceroute mode, the TTL value in the TLV is set to 1 for the
first Echo Request, then to 2 for the next, and so on. This is first Echo Request, then to 2 for the next, and so on. This is
similar to the TTL values used for the label set on the packet. similar to the TTL values used for the label set on the packet.
4.2. Error scenario 4.2. Error Scenario
It is possible that the MPLS Echo Request packet was intercepted It is possible that the MPLS Echo Request packet was intercepted
before the intended destination for reason other than label TTL before the intended destination for reasons other than label TTL
expiry. This could be due network faults, misconfiguration or other expiry. This could be due to network faults, misconfiguration, or
reasons. In such cases, if the return TTL is set to the value other reasons. In such cases, if the return TTL is set to the value
specified in the TTL TLV then the echo response packet will continue specified in the TTL TLV, then the echo response packet will continue
beyond the originating node. This becomes a security issue. beyond the originating node. This becomes a security issue.
To prevent this, the label TTL value used in the MPLS Echo Reply To prevent this, the label TTL value used in the MPLS Echo Reply
packet MUST be modified by deducting the incoming label TTL on the packet MUST be modified by deducting the incoming label TTL on the
received packet from TTL TLV value. If the MPLS Echo Request packet received packet from TTL TLV value. If the MPLS Echo Request packet
is punted to the CPU before the incoming label TTL is deducted, then is punted to the CPU before the incoming label TTL is deducted, then
another 1 MUST be added. In other words: another 1 MUST be added. In other words:
Return TTL Value on the MPLS Echo Reply packet = (TTL TLV Value)- Return TTL Value on the MPLS Echo Reply packet = (TTL TLV Value) -
(Incoming Label TTL) + 1 (Incoming Label TTL) + 1
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This draft allows the setting of the TTL value in the MPLS Label of This document allows the setting of the TTL value in the MPLS Label
an MPLS Echo Reply, so that it can be intercepted by an intermediate of an MPLS Echo Reply, so that it can be intercepted by an
device. This can cause a device to get a lot of LSP Ping packets intermediate device. This can cause a device to get a lot of LSP-
which get redirected to the CPU. Ping packets that get redirected to the CPU.
However the same is possible even without the changes mentioned in However, the same is possible even without the changes mentioned in
this document. A device should rate limit the LSP ping packets this document. A device should rate limit the LSP-Ping packets
redirected to the CPU so that the CPU is not overwhelmed. redirected to the CPU so that the CPU is not overwhelmed.
The recommendation in [RFC4379] security section applies, to check The recommendation in the Security Considerations of [RFC4379]
the source address of the MPLS Echo Request, however the source applies, to check the source address of the MPLS Echo Request;
address can now be any node along the LSP path. however, the source address can now be any node along the LSP path.
A faulty transit node changing the TTL TLV value could make the wrong A faulty transit node changing the TTL TLV value could make the wrong
node reply to the MPLS Echo Request, and/or the wrong node to receive node reply to the MPLS Echo Request, and/or the wrong node to receive
the MPLS Echo Reply. An LSP trace may help identify the faulty the MPLS Echo Reply. An LSP trace may help identify the faulty
transit node. transit node.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign TLV type value to the following TLV from IANA has assigned a TLV type value to the following TLV from the
the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Paths (LSPs) Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub- Ping Parameters" registry in the "TLVs" subregistry.
registry.
Time To Live TLV (See Section 3). The value MUST be assigned from the Time To Live TLV (see Section 3).
range (32768-49161) of optional TLVs.
IANA is requested to allocate the value 32769. IANA has allocated the value 32769.
7. Acknowledgements 7. References
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky for his comments. 7.1 Normative References
8. References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
8.1 Normative References [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.
[1] K. Kompella, G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched [RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
(MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006. Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel
for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085>.
[2] T. Nadeau, et. al, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Acknowledgements
Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires ", RFC 5085,
December 2007.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky for his comments.
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Contributors
Michael Wildt
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
United States
EMail: mwildt@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Sami Boutros Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
3750 Cisco Way 3750 Cisco Way
San Jose, California 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA United States
Email: sboutros@cisco.com EMail: sboutros@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive 2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8 Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8
Canada Canada
Email: msiva@cisco.com EMail: msiva@cisco.com
George Swallow George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road 300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MASSACHUSETTS 01719 Boxborough, MA 01719
United States United States
Email: swallow@cisco.com EMail: swallow@cisco.com
Shaleen Saxena Shaleen Saxena
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue 1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough , MASSACHUSETTS 01719 Boxborough, MA 01719
United States United States
Email: ssaxena@cisco.com EMail: ssaxena@cisco.com
Vishwas Manral Vishwas Manral
Hewlett Packard Co. Ionos Networks
19111 Pruneridge Ave, 4100 Moorpark Ave, Suite 122
Cupertino, CA 95014 USA San Jose, CA 95117
United States
EMail: vishwas.manral@hp.com
Michael Wildt
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough , MASSACHUSETTS 01719
United States United States
Email: mwildt@cisco.com EMail: vishwas@ionosnetworks.com
Sam Aldrin Sam Aldrin
Huawei Technologies, Inc. Huawei Technologies, Inc.
1188 Central Express Way, 1188 Central Express Way,
Santa Clara, CA 95051 Santa Clara, CA 95051
United States United States
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com EMail: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 73 change blocks. 
197 lines changed or deleted 194 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/