Internet DRAFT - draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd
draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd
INTERNET-DRAFT V. Govindan
Intended status: Proposed Standard M. Mudigonda
A. Sajassi
Cisco Systems
G. Mirsky
ZTE
D. Eastlake
Futurewei Technologies
Expires: July 1, 2020 January 2, 2020
Fault Management for EVPN networks
draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04
Abstract
This document specifies proactive, in-band network OAM mechanisms to
detect loss of continuity and miss-connection faults that affect
unicast and multi-destination paths (used by Broadcast, Unknown
Unicast and Multicast traffic) in an Ethernet VPN (EVPN) network.
The mechanisms specified in the draft are based on the widely adopted
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent
to the authors or the BESS working group mailing list: bess@ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
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
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
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html. The list of Internet-Draft
Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Govindan, et al [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................3
1.1 Terminology............................................3
2. Scope of this Document..................................5
3. Motivation for Running BFD at the EVPN Network Layer....6
4. Fault Detection for Unicast Traffic.....................7
5. Fault Detection for BUM Traffic.........................8
5.1 Ingress Replication....................................8
5.2 P2MP Tunnels (Label Switched Multicast)................8
6. BFD Packet Encapsulation................................9
6.1 MPLS Encapsulation.....................................9
6.1.1 Unicast..............................................9
6.1.2 Ingress Replication.................................10
6.1.3 LSM (Label Switched Multicast, P2MP)................11
6.2 VXLAN Encapsulation...................................11
6.2.1 Unicast.............................................11
6.2.2 Ingress Replication.................................13
6.2.3 LSM (Label Switched Multicast, P2MP)................13
7. BGP Distribution of BFD Discriminators.................14
8. Scalability Considerations.............................14
9. IANA Considerations....................................15
9.1 Pseudowire Associated Channel Type....................15
9.2 MAC Address...........................................15
10. Security Considerations...............................15
Acknowledgement...........................................15
Normative References......................................16
Informative References....................................18
Govindan, et al [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
1. Introduction
[ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk] outlines the OAM requirements of
Ethernet VPN networks (EVPN [RFC7432]). This document specifies
mechanisms for proactive fault detection at the network (overlay)
layer of EVPN. The mechanisms proposed in the draft use the widely
adopted Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD [RFC5880]) protocol.
EVPN fault detection mechanisms need to consider unicast traffic
separately from Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM)
traffic since they map to different Forwarding Equivalency Classes
(FECs) in EVPN. Hence this document proposes different fault
detection mechanisms to suit each type, for unicast traffic using BFD
[RFC5880] and for BUM traffic using BFD or [RFC8563] depending on
whether an MP2P or P2MP tunnel is being used.
Packet loss and packet delay measurement are out of scope for this
document.
1.1 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The following acronyms are used in this document.
BFD - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880]
BUM - Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast
CC - Continuity Check
CV - Connectivity Verification
EVI - EVPN Instance
EVPN - Ethernet VPN [RFC7432]
FEC - Forwarding Equivalency Class
GAL - Generic Associated Channel Label [RFC5586]
LSM - Label Switched Multicast (P2MP)
LSP - Label Switched Path
Govindan, et al [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
MP2P - Multi-Point to Point
OAM - Operations Administration, and Maintenance
P2MP - Point to Multi-Point (LSM)
PE - Provider Edge
VXLAN - Virtual eXtesible Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348]
Govindan, et al [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
2. Scope of this Document
This document specifies BFD based mechanisms for proactive fault
detection for EVPN both as specified in [RFC7432] and also for EVPN
using VXLAN encapsulation [ietf-vxlan-bfd]. It covers the following:
o Unicast traffic.
o BUM traffic using Multi-point-to-Point (MP2P) tunnels (ingress
replication).
o BUM traffic using Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) tunnels (Label
Switched Multicast (LSM)).
o MPLS and VXLAN encapsulation.
This document does not discuss BFD mechanisms for:
o EVPN variants like PBB-EVPN [RFC7623]. It is intended to
address this in future versions.
o Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) solution based on EVPN
[ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding]. It is intended to
address this in future versions.
o EVPN using other encapsulations such as NVGRE or MPLS over GRE
[RFC8365].
o BUM traffic using MP2MP tunnels.
This specification specifies procedures for BFD asynchronous mode.
BFD demand mode is outside the scope of this specification except as
it is used in [RFC8563]. The use of the Echo function is outside the
scope of this specification.
Govindan, et al [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
3. Motivation for Running BFD at the EVPN Network Layer
The choice of running BFD at the network layer of the OAM model for
EVPN [ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk] was made after considering the
following:
o In addition to detecting link failures in the EVPN network, BFD
sessions at the network layer can be used to monitor the
successful setup of MP2P and P2MP EVPN tunnels transporting
Unicast and BUM traffic such as label programming. The scope of
reachability detection covers the ingress and the egress EVPN PE
nodes and the network connecting them.
o Monitoring a representative set of path(s) or a particular path
among the multiple paths available between two EVPN PE nodes could
be done by exercising entropy mechanisms such as entropy labels,
when they are used, or VXLAN source ports. However, paths that
cannot be realized by entropy variations cannot be monitored.
Fault monitoring requirements outlined by
[ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk] are addressed by the mechanisms
proposed by this draft.
BFD testing between EVPN PE nodes does not guarantee that the EVPN
service is functioning. (This can be monitored at the service level,
that is CE to CE.) For example, an egress EVPN-PE could understand
EVPN labeling received but could switch data to an incorrect
interface. However, BFD testing in the EVPN Network Layer does
provide additional confidence that data transported using those
tunnels will reach the expected egress node. When BFD testing in the
EVPN overlay fails, that can be used as an indication of a Loss-of-
Connectivity defect in the EVPN underlay that would cause EVPN
service failure.
Govindan, et al [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
4. Fault Detection for Unicast Traffic
The mechanisms specified in BFD for MPLS LSPs [RFC5884] [RFC7726] are
applied to test the handling of unicast EVPN traffic. The
discriminators required for de-multiplexing the BFD sessions are
advertised through BGP as specified in Section 7. This is needed for
MPLS since the label stack does not contain enough information to
disambiguate the sender of the packet.
The usage of MPLS entropy labels or various VXLAN source ports takes
care of the requirement to monitor various paths of the multi-path
server layer network [RFC6790]. Each unique realizable path between
the participating PE routers MAY be monitored separately when such
entropy is used. At least one path of multi-path connectivity
between two PE routers MUST be tracked with BFD, but in that case the
granularity of fault-detection will be coarser. To support unicast
OAM, each PE node MUST allocate a BFD discriminator to be used for
BFD messages to that PE and MUST advertise this discriminator with
BGP as specified in Section 7. Once the BFD session for the EVPN
label is UP, the ends of the BFD session MUST NOT change the local
discriminator values of the BFD Control packets they generate, unless
they first bring down the session as specified in [RFC5884].
Govindan, et al [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
5. Fault Detection for BUM Traffic
Section 5.1 below discusses fault detection for MP2P tunnels using
ingress replication and Section 5.2 discusses fault detection for
P2MP tunnels.
5.1 Ingress Replication
Ingress replication uses separate MP2P tunnels for transporting BUM
traffic from the ingress PE (head) to a set of one or more egress PEs
(tails). The fault detection mechanism specified by this document
takes advantage of the fact that the head makes a unique copy for
each tail.
Another key aspect to be considered in EVPN is the advertisement of
the inclusive multicast route. The BUM traffic flows from a head
node to a particular tail only after the head receives the inclusive
multicast route. This contains the BUM EVPN label (downstream
allocated) corresponding to the MP2P tunnel for MPLS encapsulation
and contains the IP address of the PE originating the inclusive
multicast route for use in VXLAN encapsulation.
There MAY exist multiple BFD sessions between a head PE and an
individual tail due to (1) the usage of MPLS entropy labels [RFC6790]
or VXLAN source ports for an inclusive multicast FEC and (2) due to
multiple MP2P tunnels indicated by different tail labels or IP
addresses for MPLS or VXLAN. The BFD discriminator to be used is
distributed by BGP as specified in Section 7. Once the BFD session
for the EVPN label is UP, the BFD systems terminating the BFD session
MUST NOT change the local discriminator values of the BFD Control
packets they generate, unless they first bring down the session as
specified in [RFC5884].
5.2 P2MP Tunnels (Label Switched Multicast)
Fault detection for BUM traffic distributed using a P2MP tunnel uses
active tail multipoint BFD [RFC8563] in one of the three scenarios
providing head notification (see Section 5.2 of [RFC8563]).
For MPLS encapsulation of the head to tails BFD, Label Switched
Multicast is used. For VXLAN encapsulation, BFD is delivered to the
tails through underlay multicast using an outer multicast IP address.
Govindan, et al [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
6. BFD Packet Encapsulation
The sections below describe the MPLS and VXLAN encapsulations of BFD
for EVPN OAM use.
6.1 MPLS Encapsulation
This section describes use of the Generic Associated Channel Label
(GAL) for BFD encapsulation in MPLS based EVPN OAM.
6.1.1 Unicast
The packet initially contains the following labels: LSP label
(transport), the optional entropy label, and the EVPN Unicast label.
The G-ACh type is set to TBD1. The G-ACh payload of the packet MUST
contain the destination L2 header (in overlay space) followed by the
IP header that encapsulates the BFD packet. The MAC address of the
inner packet is used to validate the <EVI, MAC> in the receiving
node.
- The destination MAC MUST be the dedicated MAC TBD-A (see Section
9) or the MAC address of the destination PE.
- The destination IP address MUST be in the 127.0.0.0/8 range for
IPv4 or in the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6.
- The destination IP port MUST be 3784 [RFC5881].
- The source IP port MUST be in the range 49152 through 65535.
- The discriminator values for BFD are obtained through BGP as
specified in Section 7 or are exchanged out-of-band or through
some other means outside the scope of this document.
Govindan, et al [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
<---------- 4 bytes ---------->
+-------------------------------+ -----
| LSP Label | |
+-------------------------------+ |
: entropy label indicator : |
+ (optional) + MPLS Label Stack
: entropy label : |
+-------------------------------+ |
| EVPN Unicast label |
+-------------------------------+ |
| Generic Assoc. Channel Label | |
+-------------------------------+ -----
| ACH word, Type TBD1 no TLVs |
+-------------------------------+ --- -------
| Destination MAC Address | | |
+ +---------------+ | |
| TBD-A | | | |
+---------------+ + L2 Header |
| Source MAC Address | | |
+---------------+---------------+ | |
| VLAN Ethertype| VLAN-ID | | |
+---------------+---------------+ | |
|IP4/6 Ethertype| | |
+---------------+---------------+ --- |
/ / G-ACh Payload
/... IP4/6 Header .../ |
/ / |
+-------------------------------+ |
| | |
+ UDP Header + |
| | |
+-------------------------------+ |
| | |
+ BFD Control Packet + |
/ / |
/... .../ ---------------
6.1.2 Ingress Replication
The packet initially contains the following labels: LSP label
(transport), the optional entropy label, the BUM label, and the split
horizon label [RFC7432] (where applicable). The G-ACh type is set to
TBD1. The G-ACh payload of the packet is as described in Section
6.1.1.
Govindan, et al [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
6.1.3 LSM (Label Switched Multicast, P2MP)
The encapsulation is the same as in Section 6.1.2 for ingress
replication except that the transport label identifies the P2MP
tunnel, in effect the set of tail PEs, rather than identifying a
single destination PE at the end of an MP2P tunnel.
6.2 VXLAN Encapsulation
This section describes the use of the VXLAN [RFC7348] for BFD
encapsulation in VXLAN based EVPN OAM. This specification conforms to
[ietf-bfd-vxlan].
6.2.1 Unicast
The outer and inner IP headers have a unicast source IP address of
the BFD message source and a destination IP address of the BFD
message destination
The destination UDP port MUST be 3784 [RFC5881]. The source port MUST
be in the range 49152 through 65535. If the BFD source has multiple
IP addresses, entropy MAY be further obtained by using any of those
addresses assuming the source is prepared for responses directed to
the IP address used.
The Your BFD discriminator is the value distributed for this unicast
OAM purpose by the destination using BGP as specified in Section 7 or
is exchanged out-of-band or through some other means outside the
scope of this document.
Govindan, et al [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
<---------- 4 bytes ---------->
+-------------------------------+ ---
| Destination MAC Address | |
+ +---------------+ |
| | | |
+---------------+ + L2 Header
| Source MAC Address | |
+-------------------------------+ |
| VLAN Tag | |
+---------------+---------------+ |
|IP4/6 Ethertype| |
+---------------+---------------+ ---
/ /
/... IP4/6 Header .../
/ /
+-------------------------------+
| |
+ UDP Header +
| |
+-------------------------------+
| |
+ VXLAN Header +
| |
+-------------------------------+ ---
| Destination MAC Address | |
+ +---------------+ |
| | | |
+---------------+ + L2 Header
| Source MAC Address | |
+---------------+---------------+ |
| IP4 Ethertype | |
+---------------+---------------+ ---
/ /
/... IP4 Header .../
/ /
+-------------------------------+
| |
+ UDP Header +
| |
+---------------+---------------+
| |
+ BFD Control Packet +
| |
/... .../
Govindan, et al [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
6.2.2 Ingress Replication
The BFD packet construction is as given in Section 6.2.1 except as
follows:
(1) The destination IP address used by the BFD message source is that
advertised by the destination PE in its Inclusive Multicast EVPN
route for the MP2P tunnel in question; and
(2) The Your BFD discriminator used is the one advertised by the BFD
destination using BGP as specified in Section 7 for the MP2P
tunnel in question or is exchanged out-of-band or through some
other means outside the scope of this document.
6.2.3 LSM (Label Switched Multicast, P2MP)
The VXLAN encapsulation for the head-to-tails BFD packets uses the
multicast destination IP corresponding to the VXLAN VNI.
The destination port MUST be 3784. For entropy purposes, the source
port can vary but MUST be in the range 49152 through 65535 [RFC5881].
If the head PE has multiple IP addresses, entropy MAY be further
obtained by using any of those addresses.
The Your BFD discriminator is the value distributed for this unicast
OAM purpose by the BFD message using BGP as specified in Section 7 or
is exchanged out-of-band or through some other means outside the
scope of this document.
Govindan, et al [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
7. BGP Distribution of BFD Discriminators
BGP is used to distribute BFD discriminators for use in EVPN OAM as
follows using the BGP-BFD Attribute as specified in
[ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover]. This attribute is included with
appropriate EVPN routes as follows:
Unicast: MAC/IP Advertisement Route [RFC7432].
MP2P Tunnel: Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route [RFC7432].
P2MP: TBD
[Need more text on BFD sessions reacting to the new advertisement
and withdrawal of the BGP-BFD Attribute.]
8. Scalability Considerations
The mechanisms proposed by this draft could affect the packet load on
the network and its elements especially when supporting
configurations involving a large number of EVIs. The option of
slowing down or speeding up BFD timer values can be used by an
administrator or a network management entity to maintain the overhead
incurred due to fault monitoring at an acceptable level.
Govindan, et al [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
9. IANA Considerations
The following IANA Actions are requested.
9.1 Pseudowire Associated Channel Type
IANA is requested to assign a channel type from the "Pseudowire
Associated Channel Types" registry in [RFC4385] as follows.
Value Description Reference
----- ------------ ------------
TBD1 BFD-EVPN OAM [this document]
9.2 MAC Address
IANA is requested to assign a multicast MAC address under the IANA
OUI [0x01005E900004 suggested] as follows:
Address Usage Reference
------- -------- ---------------
TBD-A EVPN OAM [this document]
10. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5883], and
[RFC8029] apply.
MPLS security considerations [RFC5920] apply to BFD Control packets
encapsulated in a MPLS label stack. When BPD Control packets are
routed, the authentication considerations discussed in [RFC5883]
should be followed.
VXLAN BFD security considerations in [ietf-vxlan-bfd] apply to BFD
packets encapsulate in VXLAN.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the following for their comments and
suggestions:
Mach Chen
Govindan, et al [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
Normative References
[ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding] Sajassi, A., Salam, S.,
Thoria, S., Rekhter, Y., Drake, J., Yong, L., and L.
Dunbar, "Integrated Routing and Bridging in EVPN",
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-08, work in
progress, March 2019.
[ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover] Morin, T., Kebler, R., Mirsky, G.,
"Multicast VPN fast upstream failover",
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-05 (work in progress),
February 2019.
[ietf-bfd-vxlan] Pallagatti, S., Paragiri, S., Govindan, V.,
Mudigonda, M., G. Mirsky, "BFD for VXLAN",
draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07 (work in progress), May 2019.
[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>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, DOI
10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, DOI
10.17487/RFC5881, June 2010, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5881>.
[RFC5883] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, DOI 10.17487/RFC5883,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5883>.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5884>.
Govindan, et al [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L.
Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", RFC
6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC7623] Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and W.
Henderickx, "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with
Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 7623, DOI 10.17487/RFC7623,
September 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7623>.
[RFC7726] Govindan, V., Rajaraman, K., Mirsky, G., Akiya, N., and S.
Aldrin, "Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD
Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7726,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7726, January 2016, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7726>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, DOI
10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119
Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365, DOI
10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8365>.
[RFC8563] Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky,
Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Multipoint
Active Tails", RFC 8563, DOI 10.17487/RFC8563, April 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8563>.
Govindan, et al [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
Informative References
[ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk] Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Aldrin, S., J.
Drake, and D. Eastlake, "EVPN Operations, Administration
and Maintenance Requirements and Framework",
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-00, work in progress,
February 2019.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
Govindan, et al [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
Authors' Addresses
Vengada Prasad Govindan
Cisco Systems
Email: venggovi@cisco.com
Mudigonda Mallik
Cisco Systems
Email: mmudigon@cisco.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134, USA
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Gregory Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Donald Eastlake, 3rd
Futurewei Technologies
2386 Panoramic Circle
Apopka, FL 32703 USA
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Govindan, et al [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Fault Management for EVPN
Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Govindan, et al [Page 20]
