draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-00.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-01.txt 
TEAS Working Group A.Wang
Internet Draft China Telecom
Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies
Sudhir Cheruathur
Juniper Networks
Chun Zhu
ZTE Company
Intended status: Standard Track June 26, 2018 PCE Working Group A. Wang
Expires: December 25, 2018 Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track B. Khasanov
Expires: December 28, 2018 Huawei
S. Cheruathur
Juniper Networks
C. Zhu
ZTE Corporation
June 26, 2018
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-00.txt draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-01
Status of this Memo Abstract
This document defines the PCEP extension for CCDR application in
Native IP network. The scenario and architecture of CCDR in native
IP is described in [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. This draft describes the key
information that is transferred between PCE and PCC to accomplish the
end2end traffic assurance in Native IP network under central control
mode.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
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 December 25, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 28, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
This document defines the PCEP extension for CCDR application in
Native IP network. The scenario and architecture of CCDR in native
IP is described in [draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and [draft-
ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. This draft describes the key information
that is transferred between PCE and PCC to accomplish the end2end
traffic assurance in Native IP network under central control mode.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document............................ 2 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. New Objects Extension........................................ 3 3. New Objects Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Object Formats. ............................................. 3 4. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Peer Address List object................................ 3 4.1. Peer Address List object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Peer Prefix Association................................. 4 4.2. Peer Prefix Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object.............................. 6 4.3. 4.3. Explicit Peer Route Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Management Consideration..................................... 6 5. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations...................................... 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Conclusions ................................................. 7 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References .................................................. 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References.................................... 7
9.2. Informative References.................................. 7
10. Acknowledgments ............................................ 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Traditionally, MPLS-TE traffic assurance requires the corresponding Traditionally, MPLS-TE traffic assurance requires the corresponding
network devices support MPLS or the complex RSVP/LDP/Segment Routing network devices support MPLS or the complex RSVP/LDP/Segment Routing
etc. technologies to assure the end-to-end traffic performance. But etc. technologies to assure the end-to-end traffic performance. But
in native IP network, there will be no such signaling protocol to in native IP network, there will be no such signaling protocol to
synchronize the action among different network devices. It is synchronize the action among different network devices. It is
necessary to use the central control mode that described in [draft- necessary to use the central control mode that described in [RFC8283]
ietf-teas-pce-control-function] to correlate the forwarding behavior to correlate the forwarding behavior among different network devices.
among different network devices. Draft [draft-ietf-teas-pce-native- Draft [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] describes the architecture and
ip] describes the architecture and solution philosophy for the solution philosophy for the end2end traffic assurance in Native IP
end2end traffic assurance in Native IP network via Dual/Multi BGP network via Dual/Multi BGP solution. This draft describes the
solution. This draft describes the corresponding PCEP extension to corresponding PCEP extension to transfer the key information about
transfer the key information about peer address list, peer prefix peer address list, peer prefix association and the explicit peer
association and the explicit peer route on on-path router. route on on-path router.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
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].
3. New Objects Extension 3. New Objects Extension
Three new objects are defined in this draft; they are Peer Address Three new objects are defined in this draft:
List Object (PAL Object), Peer Prefix Association Object (PPA Object)
and Explicit Peer Route object (EPR Object).
Peer Address List object is used to tell the network device which o PAL Object: Peer Address List Object, used to tell the network
peer it should be peered with dynamically, Peer Prefix Association device which peer it should be peered with dynamically
is used to tell which prefixes should be advertised via the
corresponding peer and Explicit Peer Route object is used to point
out which route should be to taken to arrive to the peer.
4. Object Formats. o PPA Object: Peer Prefix Association Object,used to tell which
prefixes should be advertised via the corresponding peer
o EPR Objec: Explicit Peer Route object,used to point out which
route should be taken to arrive to the peer.
4. Object Formats
Each extension object takes the similar format, that is to say, it Each extension object takes the similar format, that is to say, it
began with the common object header defined in [RFC5440] as the began with the common object header defined in [RFC5440] as the
following: following:
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Object-Class | OT |Res|P|I| Object Length(bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (Object body) |
| Object-Class | OT |Res|P|I| Object Length (bytes) | // //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Object body) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Different object-class, object type and the corresponding object
body is defined separated in the following section.
4.1. Peer Address List object. Different object-class, object type and the corresponding object body
is defined separated in the following section.
The Peer Address List object is used in a PCE Initiate message 4.1. Peer Address List object
[draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the ip address of peer
that the received network device should establish the BGP
relationship with.
This Object should only be sent to the head and end router of the The Peer Address List object is used in a PCE Initiate
end2end path in case there is no RR involved. If the RR is used message[RFC8281] [draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the ip
between the head end routers, then such information should be sent address of peer that the received network device should establish the
to head router/RR and end router/RR respectively. BGP relationship with. This Object should only be sent to the head
and end router of the end2end path in case there is no RR involved.
If the RR is used between the head and end routers, then such
information should be sent to head router/RR and end router/RR
respectively.
Peer Address List object Object-Class is ** Peer Address List object Object-Class is **
Peer Address List object Object-Type is ** Peer Address List object Object-Type is **
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Num | Peer-Id | AT | Resv. |
| Peer Num | Peer-Id | AT | Resv.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes) |
| Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes) | // Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes) //
// Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peer Num (8 bits): Peer Address Number on the advertised router. Peer Num (8 bits): Peer Address Number on the advertised router.
Peer-Id(8 bits): To distinguish the different peer pair, will be Peer-Id(8 bits): To distinguish the different peer pair, will be
referenced in Peer Prefix Association, if the PCE use multi-BGP referenced in Peer Prefix Association, if the PCE use multi-BGP
solution for different QoS assurance requirement. solution for different QoS assurance requirement.
AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer. AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer.
Equal to 4, if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 4, if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4;
Equal to 6 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6. Equal to 6 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6.
Resv(8 bits): Reserved for future use. Resv(8 bits): Reserved for future use.
Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the local router, used Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the local router, used
to peer with other end router. When AT equal to 4, length is to peer with other end router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
32bit; when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit; when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit.
Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the peer router, used
to peer with the local router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
IPv6 address of the peer when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit;
4.2. Peer Prefix Association Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the peer router, used to
peer with the local router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
IPv6 address of the peer when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit;
THE Peer Prefix Association object is carried within in a PCE 4.2. Peer Prefix Association
Initiate message [draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the
IP prefixes that should be advertised by the corresponding Peer.
This Object should only be sent to the head and end router of the The Peer Prefix Association object is carried within in a PCE
end2end path in case there is no RR involved. If the RR is used Initiate message [RFC8281] to specify the IP prefixes that should be
between the head end routers, then such information should be sent advertised by the corresponding Peer. This Object should only be
to head router/RR and end router/RR respectively. sent to the head and end router of the end2end path in case there is
no RR involved. If the RR is used between the head and end routers,
then such information should be sent to head router/RR and end
router/RR respectively.
Peer Prefix Association object Object-Class is ** Peer Prefix Association object Object-Class is **
Peer Prefix Association object Object-Type is ** Peer Prefix Association object Object-Type is **
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Id | AT | Resv. | Prefixes Num. |
| Peer-Id | AT | Resv. | Prefixes Num.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV |
| Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV | // Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV //
| Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV |
// Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV //
| Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peer-Id(8 bits): To indicate which peer should be used to advertise Peer-Id(8 bits): To indicate which peer should be used to advertise
the following IP Prefix TLV. This value is assigned in the Peer the following IP Prefix TLV. This value is assigned in the Peer
Address List object and is referred in this object. Address List object and is referred in this object.
AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer. AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer.
Equal to 4, if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 4, if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4;
Equal to 6 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6. Equal to 6 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6.
Resv(8 bits): Reserved for future use. Resv(8 bits): Reserved for future use.
Prefixes Num(8 bits): Number of prefixes that advertised by the Prefixes Num(8 bits): Number of prefixes that advertised by the
corresponding Peer. It should be equal to num of the following IP corresponding Peer. It should be equal to number of the following IP
prefix TLV. prefix TLV.
Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV format
to indicate the advertised IP Prefix.
4.3. EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV format to
indicate the advertised IP Prefix.
THE EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object is carried in a PCE Initiate message 4.3. 4.3. Explicit Peer Route Object
[draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the explicit peer
route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is on
the end2end assurance path.
The Explicit Peer Route Object is carried in a PCE Initiate message
[RFC8281] to specify the explicit peer route to the corresponding
peer address on each device that is on the end2end assurance path.
This Object should be sent to all the devices that locates on the This Object should be sent to all the devices that locates on the
end2end assurance path that calculated by PCE. end2end assurance path that calculated by PCE.
EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object Object-Class is ** Explict Peer Route Object Object-Class is **
EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object Object-Type is ** Explict Peer Route Object Object-Type is **
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Id | AT | Resv. |
| Peer-Id | AT | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer(IPv4/IPv6) |
| Next Hop Address to the Peer (IPv4/IPv6) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peer-Id(8 bits): To indicate the peer that the following next hop Peer-Id(8 bits): To indicate the peer that the following next hop
address point to. This value is assigned in the Peer Address List address point to. This value is assigned in the Peer Address List
object and is referred in this object. object and is referred in this object.
AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of explicit
peer route. Equal to 4, if the following next hop address to the
peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following next hop
address to the peer is belong to IPv6.
Resv(16 bits): Reserved for future use.
Next Hop Address to the Peer TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of explicit
format to indicate the next hop address to the corresponding peer peer route. Equal to 4, if the following next hop address to the
that indicated by the Peer-Id. peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following next hop address
to the peer is belong to IPv6. Resv(16 bits): Reserved for future
use.
5. Management Consideration. Next Hop Address to the Peer TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV format
to indicate the next hop address to the corresponding peer that
indicated by the Peer-Id.
6. Security Considerations 5. Management Consideration
TBD TBD
7. IANA Considerations 6. Security Considerations
TBD TBD
8. Conclusions 7. IANA Considerations
TBD TBD
9. References 8. Normative References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC
4655, August 2006,<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5440]Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07]
E.Crabbe, I.Minei, S.Sivabalan, R.Varga, "PCEP Extensions for PCE-
initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model",
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07
(work in progress), July, 2016
[I-D. draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Wang, X.Huang et al. "CCDR Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion"
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-
scenarios/ (work in progress), February, 2018
[I-D. draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Aijun Wang, Quintin Zhao, Boris Khasanov, Huaimo Chen,Raghavendra
Mallya, Shaofu Peng "PCE in Native IP Network",
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip/
(work in progress), February, 2018
[I-D.draft-ietf-teas-pce-control-function] [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Farrel, Q.Zhao "An Architecture for use of PCE and PCEP in a Network Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Huang, L., and K. Mi, "CCDR
with Central Control" Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion", draft-ietf-teas-
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-01 native-ip-scenarios-00 (work in progress), February 2018.
(work in progress),December, 2016 [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., and K. Mi, "PCE in
Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-00 (work
in progress), February 2018.
10. Acknowledgments [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
TBD [RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang Aijun Wang
China Telecom China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing,China Beijing, Beijing 102209
China
Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Boris Khasanov Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd
Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
St.Petersburg 196084 St.Petersburg 196084
Russia Russia
EMail: khasanov.boris@huawei.com Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com
Sudhir Cheruathur Sudhir Cheruathur
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way 1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, California 94089 USA Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Email: scheruathur@juniper.net Email: scheruathur@juniper.net
Chun Zhu Chun Zhu
ZTE Corporation ZTE Corporation
50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China China
Email:zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn
Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn
 End of changes. 69 change blocks. 
235 lines changed or deleted 172 lines changed or added

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