RFC 7897
Domain Subobjects for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Pages: 35
Experimental
Experimental
Part 2 of 2 – Pages 17 to 35
4. Examples
The examples in this section are for illustration purposes only to highlight how the new subobjects could be encoded. They are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all possible use cases and combinations.4.1. Inter-Area Path Computation
In an inter-area path computation where the ingress and the egress nodes belong to different IGP areas within the same AS, the domain sequence could be represented using an ordered list of area subobjects.
----------------- ----------------- | | | | | +--+ | | +--+ | | +--+ | | | | | | | | | | +--+ | | +--+ +--+ | | +--+ | | | | | | | | +--+ | | +--+ | | | | | | | | +--+ | | +--+ | | | | | | | -------------------------- | +--+ | | +--+ +--+ | | | | +--+ | | | |Area 2 +--+ | | +--+ Area 4 | ----------------- | +--+ | ----------------- | | | +--+ | | +--+ | | | | | | +--+ | | +--+ | | | | | | | | | | +--+ | | | | | | +--+ | ----------------- | | ------------------ | +--+ +--+ | | | | | | | | +--+ Area 0 +--+ | | | -------------------------- | +--+ | | +--+ | | | | | | | | | | +--+ | | +--+ +--+ | | | | | | | | +--+ | | +--+ | | | | | | | | +--+ | | +--+ | | | | | | | | +--+ | | +--+ | | | | | | | | +--+ | | | | | | Area 1 | | Area 5 | ----------------- ------------------ Figure 1: Inter-Area Path Computation
The AS Number is 100.
If the ingress is in area 2, the egress is in area 4, and transit is
through area 0, here are some possible ways a PCC can encode the IRO:
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- |
|Object | |object | |object |
|Header | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
or
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- |
|Object | |object | |object | |object |
|Header | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
or
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- |
|Object | |object AS| |object | |object | |object |
|Header | |100 | |Area 2 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
The domain sequence can further include encompassing AS information
in the AS subobject.
4.2. Inter-AS Path Computation
In inter-AS path computation, where the ingress and egress belong to
different ASes, the domain sequence could be represented using an
ordered list of AS subobjects. The domain sequence can further
include decomposed area information in the area subobject.
4.2.1. Example 1
As shown in Figure 2, where AS has a single area, the AS subobject in the domain sequence can uniquely identify the next domain and PCE. AS A AS E AS C <-------------> <----------> <-------------> A4----------E1---E2---E3---------C4 / / \ / / \ / / AS B \ / / <----------> \ Ingress------A1---A2------B1---B2---B3------C1---C2------Egress \ / / \ / / \ / / \ / / A3----------D1---D2---D3---------C3 <----------> AS D * All ASes have one area (area 0) Figure 2: Inter-AS Path Computation
If the ingress is in AS A, the egress is in AS C, and transit is through AS B, here are some possible ways a PCC can encode the IRO: +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object | |Header | |AS B | |AS C | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ or +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object | |object | |Header | |AS A | |AS B | |AS C | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ or +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object | |object | |object | |object | |object | |Header | |AS A | |Area 0 | |AS B | |Area 0 | |AS C | |Area 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ Note that to get a domain disjoint path, the ingress could also request the backup path with: +-------+ +-------+ |XRO | |Sub | |Object | |Object | |Header | |AS B | | | | | +-------+ +-------+
As described in Section 3.4.3, a domain subobject in IRO changes the domain information associated with the next set of subobjects till you encounter a subobject that changes the domain too. Consider the following IRO: +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object | |object | |object | |object | |Header | |AS B | |IP | |IP | |AS C | |IP | | | | | |B1 | |B3 | | | |C1 | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ On processing subobject "AS B", it changes the AS of the subsequent subobjects till we encounter another subobject "AS C" that changes the AS for its subsequent subobjects. Consider another IRO: +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object | |object | |object | |Header | |AS D | |IP | |IP | |IP | | | | | |D1 | |D3 | |C3 | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ Here as well, on processing "AS D", it changes the AS of the subsequent subobjects till you encounter another subobject "C3" that belongs in another AS and changes the AS for its subsequent subobjects. Further description for the boundary node and inter-AS link can be found in Section 4.3.4.2.2. Example 2
In Figure 3, AS 200 is made up of multiple areas.
| | +-------------+ +----------------+ | |Area 2 | |Area 4 | | | +--+| | +--+ | | | | || | | B| | | | +--+ +--+| | +--+ +--+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +--+ | | +--+ | | | +--+ | | +--+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +--+ | | +--+ +--+ | | | +--+ |+--------------+| | | | | | | | +--+ +--+ +--+ | +-------------+| | +--+ | | | | | | || | +--+ +--+ | | +--+|| +-------------+| |+----------------+ | | ||| | +--+ | | +--+|| | | | | | +--+ || | +--+ | | | | +---+ +--+ | | +--+ | |----------------| | | | +---+ Inter-AS +--+ +--+ | |+--+ || Links | | | | ||A | +---+ +--+ +--+ | |+--+ | |----------------| | | | +---+ +--+ +--+ | | +--+ || +------------+ | | | |+----------------+ | | | || |Area 3 +--+ +--+ +--+ Area 5 | | +--+ || | | | | | | | || | +--+ +--+ | | +--+|| | +--+ | | Area 0 || +--+ | | | ||| | | | | +--------------+| | | | | +--+|| | +--+ | | +--+ | | || | | | +--+ | |Area 0 || | +--+ | | +--+ | | | +-------------+| | | | | | | | +--+ | | | +--+ +--+ | +--+ | | | | | | | | | +--+ | +--+ | | | +--+ | | | C| | | | | | | | +--+ | | | +--+ | | | | | | | | | +------------+ +----------------+ | AS 100 | AS 200 | Figure 3: Inter-AS Path Computation
For LSP (A-B), where ingress A is in (AS 100, area 0), egress B is in (AS 200, area 4), and transit is through (AS 200, area 0), here are some possible ways a PCC can encode the IRO: +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object | |object | |Header | |AS 200 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ or +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object | |object | |object | |object | |Header | |AS 100 | |Area 0 | |AS 200 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ For LSP (A-C), where ingress A is in (AS 100, area 0), egress C is in (AS 200, area 5), and transit is through (AS 200, area 0), here are some possible ways a PCC can encode the IRO: +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object | |object | |Header | |AS 200 | |Area 0 | |Area 5 | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ or +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object | |object | |object | |object | |Header | |AS 100 | |Area 0 | |AS 200 | |Area 0 | |Area 5 | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
4.3. Boundary Node and Inter-AS Link
A PCC or PCE can include additional constraints covering which boundary nodes (ABR or ASBR) or border links (inter-AS link) to be traversed while defining a domain sequence. In which case, the boundary node or link can be encoded as a part of the domain sequence. Boundary nodes (ABR/ASBR) can be encoded using the IPv4 or IPv6 prefix subobjects, usually with a loopback address of 32 and a prefix length of 128, respectively. An inter-AS link can be encoded using the IPv4 or IPv6 prefix subobjects or unnumbered interface subobjects. For Figure 1, an ABR (say, 203.0.113.1) to be traversed can be specified in IRO as: +---------+ +---------+ +---------++---------+ +---------+ |IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- ||Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object ||object | |object | |Header | |Area 2 | |IPv4 ||Area 0 | |Area 4 | | | | | |203.0. || | | | | | | | |112.1 || | | | +---------+ +---------+ +---------++---------+ +---------+ For Figure 3, an inter-AS link (say, 198.51.100.1 - 198.51.100.2) to be traversed can be specified as: +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ |IRO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object AS| |object | |object AS| |Header | |100 | |IPv4 | |200 | | | | | |198.51. | | | | | | | |100.2 | | | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+4.4. PCE Serving Multiple Domains
A single PCE can be responsible for multiple domains; for example, PCE function deployed on an ABR could be responsible for multiple areas. A PCE that can support adjacent domains can internally handle those domains in the domain sequence without any impact on the other domains in the domain sequence.
4.5. P2MP
[RFC7334] describes an experimental inter-domain P2MP path computation mechanism where the path domain tree is described as a series of domain sequences; an example is shown in the figure below: +----------------+ | |Domain D1 | R | | | | A | | | +-B------------C-+ / \ / \ / \ Domain D2 / \ Domain D3 +-------------D--+ +-----E----------+ | | | | | F | | | | G | | H | | | | | | | | | +-I--------------+ +-J------------K-+ /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / Domain D4 \ Domain D5 / Domain D6 \ +-L-------------W+ +------P---------+ +-----------T----+ | | | | | | | | | Q | | U | | M O | | S | | | | | | | | V | | N | | R | | | +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ Figure 4: Domain Tree Example The domain tree can be represented as a series of domain sequences: o Domain D1, Domain D3, Domain D6 o Domain D1, Domain D3, Domain D5 o Domain D1, Domain D2, Domain D4
The domain sequence handling described in this document could be applied to the P2MP path domain tree.4.6. Hierarchical PCE
In case of H-PCE [RFC6805], the parent PCE can be requested to determine the domain sequence and return it in the path computation reply, using the ERO. For the example in Section 4.6 of [RFC6805], the domain sequence can possibly appear as: +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ |ERO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object | |object | |Header | |Domain 1 | |Domain 2 | |Domain 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ or +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ |ERO | |Sub- | |Sub- | |Object | |object | |object | |Header | |BN 21 | |Domain 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+5. Other Considerations
5.1. Relationship to PCE Sequence
Instead of a domain sequence, a sequence of PCEs MAY be enforced by policy on the PCC, and this constraint can be carried in the PCReq message (as defined in [RFC5886]). Note that PCE Sequence can be used along with domain sequence, in which case PCE Sequence MUST have higher precedence in selecting the next PCE in the inter-domain path computation procedures.5.2. Relationship to RSVP-TE
[RFC3209] already describes the notion of abstract nodes, where an abstract node is a group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the ingress node of the LSP. It further defines a subobject for AS but with a 2-byte AS number.
[RFC7898] extends the notion of abstract nodes by adding new subobjects for IGP areas and 4-byte AS numbers. These subobjects can be included in ERO, XRO, or EXRS in RSVP-TE. In any case, subobject types defined in RSVP-TE are identical to the subobject types defined in the related documents in PCEP.6. IANA Considerations
6.1. New Subobjects
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>. Within this registry, IANA maintains two sub-registries: o IRO Subobjects o XRO Subobjects IANA has made identical additions to those registries as follows: Value Description Reference ----- ---------------- ------------------- 5 4-byte AS number RFC 7897, [RFC7898] 6 OSPF Area ID RFC 7897, [RFC7898] 7 IS-IS Area ID RFC 7897, [RFC7898] Further, IANA has added a reference to this document to the new RSVP numbers that are registered by [RFC7898], as shown on <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>.7. Security Considerations
The protocol extensions defined in this document do not substantially change the nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security considerations set out in [RFC5440] apply unchanged. Note that further security considerations for the use of PCEP over TCP are presented in [RFC6952]. This document specifies a representation of the domain sequence and new subobjects, which could be used in inter-domain PCE scenarios as explained in [RFC5152], [RFC5441], [RFC6805], [RFC7334], etc. The security considerations set out in each of these mechanisms remain unchanged by the new subobjects and domain sequence representation in this document.
But the new subobjects do allow finer and more specific control of the path computed by a cooperating PCE(s). Such control increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted, modified, or spoofed because it allows the attacker to exert control over the path that the PCE will compute or to make the path computation impossible. Consequently, it is important that implementations conform to the relevant security requirements of [RFC5440]. These mechanisms include: o Securing the PCEP session messages using TCP security techniques (Section 10.2 of [RFC5440]). PCEP implementations SHOULD also consider the additional security provided by the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] or Transport Layer Security (TLS) [PCEPS]. o Authenticating the PCEP messages to ensure the messages are intact and sent from an authorized node (Section 10.3 of [RFC5440]). o PCEP operates over TCP, so it is also important to secure the PCE and PCC against TCP denial-of-service attacks. Section 10.7.1 of [RFC5440] outlines a number of mechanisms for minimizing the risk of TCP-based denial-of-service attacks against PCEs and PCCs. o In inter-AS scenarios, attacks may be particularly significant with commercial- as well as service-level implications. Note, however, that the domain sequence mechanisms also provide the operator with the ability to route around vulnerable parts of the network and may be used to increase overall network security.8. Manageability Considerations
8.1. Control of Function and Policy
The exact behavior with regards to desired inclusion and exclusion of domains MUST be available for examination by an operator and MAY be configurable. Manual configurations are needed to identify which PCEP peers understand the new domain subobjects defined in this document.8.2. Information and Data Models
A MIB module for management of the PCEP is being specified in a separate document [RFC7420]. This document does not imply any new extension to the current MIB module.
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness detection and monitoring requirements aside from those already listed in [RFC5440].8.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation verification requirements aside from those already listed in [RFC5440].8.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
In case of per-domain path computation [RFC5152], where the full path of an inter-domain TE LSP cannot be determined (or is not determined) at the ingress node, a signaling message can use the domain identifiers. The subobjects defined in this document SHOULD be supported by RSVP-TE. [RFC7898] extends the notion of abstract nodes by adding new subobjects for IGP areas and 4-byte AS numbers. Apart from this, mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any requirements on other protocols aside from those already listed in [RFC5440].8.6. Impact on Network Operations
The mechanisms described in this document can provide the operator with the ability to exert finer and more specific control of the path computation by inclusion or exclusion of domain subobjects. There may be some scaling benefit when a single domain subobject may substitute for many subobjects and can reduce the overall message size and processing. Backward compatibility issues associated with the new subobjects arise when a PCE does not recognize them, in which case PCE responds according to the rules for a malformed object as per [RFC5440]. For successful operations, the PCEs in the network would need to be upgraded.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[ISO10589] International Organization for Standardization, "Information technology -- Telecommunications and information exchange between systems -- Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, 2002. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>. [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>. [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. [RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux, "A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441, DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.
[RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, DOI 10.17487/RFC5521, April 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5521>. [RFC6805] King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>. [RFC7896] Dhody, D., "Update to the Include Route Object (IRO) Specification in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 7896, DOI 10.17487/RFC7896, June 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7896>. [RFC7898] Dhody, D., Palle, U., Kondreddy, V., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects for Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 7898, DOI 10.17487/RFC7898, June 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7898>.9.2. Informative References
[PCEPS] Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure Transport for PCEP", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-pce-pceps-09, November 2015. [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. [RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering", RFC 4726, DOI 10.17487/RFC4726, November 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4726>. [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873, May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>. [RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874, April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>.
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang, "A Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter- Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5152, DOI 10.17487/RFC5152, February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5152>. [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>. [RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A Set of Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 5886, DOI 10.17487/RFC5886, June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5886>. [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>. [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>. [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>. [RFC7334] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., King, D., Ali, Z., and R. Casellas, "PCE-Based Computation Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 7334, DOI 10.17487/RFC7334, August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7334>. [RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to especially thank Adrian Farrel for his detailed reviews as well as providing text to be included in the document. Further, we would like to thank Pradeep Shastry, Suresh Babu, Quintin Zhao, Fatai Zhang, Daniel King, Oscar Gonzalez, Chen Huaimo, Venugopal Reddy, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Boina, Avantika Sergio Belotti, and Jonathan Hardwick for their useful comments and suggestions. Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this document. Thanks to Deborah Brungard for being the responsible AD. Thanks to Amanda Baber for the IANA review. Thanks to Joel Halpern for the Gen-ART review. Thanks to Klaas Wierenga for the SecDir review. Thanks to Spencer Dawkins and Barry Leiba for comments during the IESG review.
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Huawei Technologies Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 India Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Udayasree Palle Huawei Technologies Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 India Email: udayasree.palle@huawei.com Ramon Casellas CTTC Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7 Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860 Spain Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es