Internet DRAFT - draft-hao-trill-centralized-replication
draft-hao-trill-centralized-replication
TRILL Weiguo Hao
Yizhou Li
Tao Han
Internet Draft Huawei
S. Hares
Hickory Hill Consulting
Muhammad Durrani
Brocade
Sujay Gupta
IP Infusion
Intended status: Standard Track August 29, 2014
Expires: February 2015
Centralized Replication for BUM traffic in active-active edge
connection
draft-hao-trill-centralized-replication-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
published except as an Internet-Draft.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it
as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 29, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
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.
Abstract
In TRILL active-active access scenario, RPF check failure issue may
occur when pseudo-nickname mechanism in [TRILLPN] is used. This
draft describes a solution to the RPF check failure issue through
centralized replication for BUM (Broadcast, Unknown unicast,
Mutlicast) traffic. The solution has all ingress RBs send BUM
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
traffic to a centralized node via unicast TRILL encapsulation. When
the centralized node receives the BUM traffic, it decapsulates the
traffic and forwards the BUM traffic to all destination RBs using a
distribution tree established via the TRILL base protocol. To avoid
RPF check failure on a RBridge sitting between the ingress RBridge
and the centralized replication node, some change of RPF calculation
algorithm is required. RPF calculation on each RBridge should use
the centralized node as ingress RB instead of the real ingress
RBridge of RBv to perform the calculation.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Conventions used in this document............................ 4
3. Centralized Replication Solution Overview.................... 5
4. Frame duplication from remote RB............................. 6
5. Local forwarding behavior on ingress RBridge................. 6
6. Loop prevention among RBridges in a edge group............... 7
7. Centralized replication forwarding process................... 9
8. BUM traffic loadbalancing among multiple centralized nodes...10
8.1. Vlan-based loadbalancing............................... 10
8.2. Flow-based loadbalancing............................... 11
9. Network Migration Analysis.................................. 11
10. TRILL protocol extension................................... 12
10.1. The Unicast BUM Nickname sub-TLV...................... 12
11. Security Considerations.................................... 12
12. IANA Considerations........................................ 12
13. References ................................................ 12
13.1. Normative References.................................. 12
13.2. Informative References................................ 13
14. Acknowledgments ........................................... 13
1. Introduction
The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
[RFC6325] protocol provides loop free and per hop based multipath
data forwarding with minimum configuration. TRILL uses IS-IS
[RFC6165] [RFC6326bis] as its control plane routing protocol and
defines a TRILL specific header for user data.
Classic Ethernet device (CE) devices typically are multi-homed to
multiple edge RBridges which form an edge group. All of the uplinks
of CE are bundled as a Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG). An
active-active flow-based load sharing mechanism is normally
implemented to achieve better load balancing and high reliability. A
CE device can be a layer 3 end system by itself or a bridge switch
through which layer 3 end systems access to TRILL campus.
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
In active-active access scenario, pseudo-nickname solution in
[TRILLPN] can be used to avoid MAC flip-flop on remote RBs. The
basic idea is to use a virtual RBridge of RBv with a single pseudo-
nickname to represent an edge group that MC-LAG connects to. Any
member RBridge of that edge group should use this pseudo-nickname
rather than its own nickname as ingress nickname when it injects
TRILL data frames to TRILL campus. The use of the nickname solves
the address flip flop issue by making the MAC address learnt by the
remote RBridge bound to pseudo-nickname. However, it introduces
another issue, which is incorrect packet drop by RPF check failure.
Due to edge RBridges which use a pseudo-nickname other than own
nicknames as the ingress nickname (Eg. Nick-Y) when the RBbridge
forwards BUM traffic from local CE, the traffic will be treated by
an RBridge (RBn) sitting between the ingress RB and distribution
tree root as traffic whose ingress point is the virtual RBridge of
RBv. If same distribution tree is used by these different edge
RBridges, the traffic may arrive at RBn from different ports. Then
the RPF check fails, and some of the traffic receiving from
unexpected ports will be dropped by RBn.
This document proposes a centralized replication solution for
broadcast, unknown unicast, multicast(BUM) traffic to solve the
issue of incorrect packet drop by RPF check failure. The basic idea
is that all ingress RBs send BUM traffic to a centralized node which
is recommended to be a distribution tree root using unicast TRILL
encapsulation. When the centralized node receives that traffic, it
decapsulates it and then forwards the BUM traffic to all destination
RBs using a distribution tree established as per TRILL base protocol.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119
[RFC2119].The acronyms and terminology in [RFC6325] is used herein
with the following additions:
BUM - Broadcast, Unknown unicast, and Multicast
CE - As in [CMT], Classic Ethernet device (end station or bridge).
The device can be either physical or virtual equipment.
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
3. Centralized Replication Solution Overview
When an edge RB receives BUM traffic from a CE device, it acts as
ingress RB and uses unicast TRILL encapsulation instead of multicast
TRILL encapsulation to send the traffic to a centralized node. The
centralized node is recommended to be a distribution tree root.
The TRILL header of the unicast TRILL encapsulation contains an
"ingress RBridge nickname" field and an "egress RBridge nickname"
field. If ingress RB receives the traffic from the port which is in
a MC-LAG, it should set the ingress RBridge nickname to be the
pseudo-nickname to avoid MAC flip-flop on remote RBs as per
[TRILLPN]. Otherwise the ingress nickname should be set to ingress
RBridge's own nickname. The egress RBridge nickname is set to the
special nickname of the centralized node which is used to
differentiate the unicast TRILL encapsulation BUM traffic from
normal unicast TRILL traffic.
When the centralized node receives the unicast TRILL encapsulated
BUM traffic from ingress RB, the node decapsulates the packet. Then
the centralized node replicates and forwards the BUM traffic to all
destination RBs using one of the distribution trees established as
per TRILL base protocol, if the centralized node is the root of a
distribution tree, the recommended distribution tree is the tree
whose root is the centralized node itself. When the centralized node
forwards the BUM traffic, ingress nickname remains the same as that
in frame it received to ensure that the MAC address learnt by all
egress RBridges bound to pseudo-nickname.
When the replicatedtraffic is forwarded on each RBridge along the
distribution tree starting from the centralized node, RPF check will
be performed as per RFC6325. For any RBridge sitting between the
ingress RBridge and the centralized replication node, the traffic
incoming port should be the centralized node facing port as the
multicast traffic always comes from the centralized node in this
solution. However the RPF port as result of distribution tree
calculation as per RFC 6325 will be the real ingress RB facing port
as it uses virtual RBridge as ingress RB, so RPF check will fail. To
solve this problem, some change of RPF calculation algorithm is
required. RPF calculation on each RBridge should use the centralized
node as ingress RB instead of the real ingress virtual RBridge to
perform the calculation. As a result, RPF check will point to the
centralized node facing port on the RBridge for multi-destination
traffic. It prevents the incorrect frame discard by RPF check.
To differentiate the unicast TRILL encapsulation BUM traffic from
normal unicast TRILL traffic on a centralized node, besides the
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
centralized node's own nickname, a special nickname should be
introduced for centralized replication. Only when the centralized
node receives unicast TRILL encapsulation traffic with egress
nickname equivalent to the special nickname, the node does unicast
TRILL decapsulaton and then forwards the traffic to all destination
RBs through a distribution tree. The centralized nodes should
announce its special use nickname to all TRILL campus through TRILL
LSP extension.
4. Frame duplication from remote RB
Frame duplication may occur when a remote host sends multi-
destination frame to a local CE which has an active-active
connection to the TRILL campus. To avoid local CE receiving multiple
copies from a remote RBridge, the designated forwarder (DF)
mechanism should be supported for egress direction multicast traffic.
DF election mechanism allows only one port in one RB of MC-LAG to
forward multicast traffic from TRILL campus to local access side for
each VLAN. The basic idea of DF is to elect one RBridge per VLAN
from an edge group to be responsible for egressing the multicast
traffic. [draft-hao-trill-dup-avoidance-active-active-02] describes
the detail DF mechanism and TRILL protocol extension for DF election.
If DF-election mechanism is used for frame duplication prevention,
access ports on an RB are categorized as three types: non mc-lag,
mc-lag DF port and mc-lag non-DF port. The last two types can be
called mc-lag port. For each of the mc-lag port, there is a pseudo-
nickname associated. If consistent nickname allocation per edge
group RBridges is used, it is possible that same pseudo-nickname
associated to more than one port on a single RB. A typical scenario
is that CE1 is connected to RB1 & RB2 by mc-lag1 while CE2 is
connected to RB1 & RB2 by mc-lag 2. In order to save the number of
pseudo-nickname used, member ports for both mc-lag1 and mc-lag2 on
RB1 & RB2 are all associated to pseudo-nickname pn1.
5. Local forwarding behavior on ingress RBridge
When a ingress RBridge(RB1) receives BUM traffic from an active-
active accessing CE(CE1) device, the traffic will be injected to
TRILL campus through TRILL encapsulation, and it will be replicated
and forwarded to all destination RBs which include ingress RB itself
along a TRILL distribution tree. So the traffic will return to the
ingress RBridge. To avoid the traffic looping back to original
sender CE, ingress nickname can be used for traffic filtering.
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
If there are two local connecting CE(CE1 and CE2) devices on ingress
RB, the BUM traffic between these two CEs can't be forwarded locally
and through TRILL campus simultaneously, otherwise duplicated
traffic will be received by destination CE. Local forwarding
behavior on ingress RBridge should be carefully designed.
To avoid duplicated traffic on receiver CE, local replication
behavior on RB1 is as follows:
1. Local replication to the ports associated with the same pseudo-
nickname as that associated to the incoming port as per RFC6325.
2. Do not replicate to mc-lag port associated with different pseudo-
nickname.
3. Do not replicate to non mc-lag ports.
The above local forwarding behavior on the ingress RB of RB1 can be
called centralized local forwarding behavior A.
If ingress RB of RB1 itself is the centralized node, BUM traffic
injected to TRILL campus won't loop back to RB1. In this case, the
local forwarding behavior is called centralized local forwarding
behavior B. The local replication behavior on RB1 is as follows:
1. Local replication to non mc-lag ports as per RFC6325.
2. Local replication to the ports associated with the same pseudo-
nickname as that associated to the incoming port as per RFC6325.
3. Local replication to the mc-lag DF port associated with different
pseudo-nickname as per RFC6325. Do not replicate to mc-lag non-DF
port associated with different pseudo-nickname.
6. Loop prevention among RBridges in a edge group
If a CE sends a broadcast, unknown unicast, or multicast (BUM)
packet through DF port to a ingress RB, it will forward that packet
to all or subset of the other RBs that only have non-DF ports for
that MC-LAG. Because BUM traffic forwarding to non-DF port isn't
allowed, in this case the frame won't loop back to the CE.
If a CE sends a BUM packet through non-DF port to a ingress RB, say
RB1, then RB1 will forward that packet to other RBridges that have
DF port for that MC-LAG. In this case the frame will loop back to
the CE and traffic split-horizon filtering mechanism should be used
to avoid looping back among RBridges in a edge group.
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
Split-horizon mechanism relies on ingress nickname to check if a
packet's egress port belongs to a same MC-LAG with the packet's
incoming port to TRILL campus.
When the ingress RBridge receives BUM traffic from an active-active
accessing CE device, the traffic will be injected to TRILL campus
through TRILL encapsulation, and it will be replicated and forwarded
to all destination RBs which include ingress RB itself through TRILL
distribution tree. If same pseudo-nickname is used for two active-
active access CEs as ingress nickname, egress RB can use the
nickname to filter traffic forwarding to all local CE. In this case,
the traffic between these two CEs goes through local RB and another
copy of the traffic from TRILL campus is filtered. If different
ingress nickname is used for two connecting CE devices, the access
ports connecting to these two CEs should be isolated with each other.
The BUM traffic between these two CEs should go through TRILL campus,
otherwise the destination CE connected to same RB with the sender CE
will receive two copies of the traffic.
Do note that the above sections on techniques to avoid frame
duplication, loop prevention is applicable assuming the Link
aggregation technology in use is unaware of the frame duplication
happening. For example using mechanisms like IEEE802.1AX,
Distributed Resilient Network Interconnect (DRNI) specs implements
mechanism similar to DF and also avoids some cases of frame
duplication & looping.
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
7. Centralized replication forwarding process
+-----------+
| (RB5) |
+-----------+
|
+-----------+
| (RB4) |
+-----------+
| | |
-------- | --------
| | |
+------+ +------+ +------+
|(RB1) | |(RB2) | | (RB3)|
+------+ +------+ +------+
* | * | * | ^
* | * | * | ^
* -------------------------------^
***************************** | ^
MC-LAG1 * MC-LAG2 | ^
+------+ +------+ +------+
| CE1 | | CE2 | | CE3 |
+------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 1 TRILL Active-active access
Assuming the centralized replication solution is used in the network
of above figure 1, RB5 is the distribution tree root and centralized
replication node, CE1 and CE2 are active-active accessed to RB1,RB2
and RB3 through MC-LAG1 and MC-LAG2 respectively, CE3 is single
homed to RB3. The RBridge's own nickname of RB1 to RB5 are nick1 to
nick5 respectively. RB1,RB2 and RB3 use same pseudo-nickname for MC-
LAG1 and MC-LAG2, the pseudo-nickname is P-nick. The special use
nickname on the centralized replication node of RB5 is S-nick.
The BUM traffic forwarding process from CE1 to CE2,CE3 is as follows:
1. CE1 sends BUM traffic to RB3.
2. RB3 replicates and sends the BUM traffic to CE2 locally. RB2 also
sends the traffic to RB5 through unicast TRILL encapsulation.
Ingress nickname is set as P-nick, egress nickname is set as S-
nick.
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
3. RB5 decapsulates the unicast TRILL packet. Then it uses the
distribution tree whose root is RB5 to forward the packet. The
egress nickname in the trill header is the nick5. Ingress
nickname is still P-nick.
4. RB4 receives multicast TRILL traffic from RB5. Traffic incoming
port is the up port facing to distribution tree root, RPF check
will be correct based on the changed RPF port calculation
algorithm in this document. After RPF check is performed, it
forwards the traffic to all other egress RBs(RB1,RB2 and RB3).
5. RB3 receives multicast TRILL traffic from RB4. It decapsulates
the multicast TRILL packet. Because ingress nickname of P-nick is
equivalent to the nickname of local MC-LAGs connecting CE1 and
CE2, it doesn't forward the traffic to CE1 and CE2 to avoid
duplicated frame. RB3 only forwards the packet to CE3.
6. RB1 and RB2 receive multicast TRILL traffic from RB4. The
forwarding process is similar to the process on RB3, i.e, because
ingress nickname of P-nick is equivalent to the nickname of local
MC-LAGs connecting CE1 and CE2, they also don't forward the
traffic to local CE1 and CE2.
8. BUM traffic loadbalancing among multiple centralized nodes
To support unicast TRILL encapsulation BUM traffic load balancing,
multiple centralized replication node can be deployed and the
traffic can be load balanced on these nodes in vlan-based or flow-
based mode.
8.1. Vlan-based loadbalancing
Assuming there are k centralized nodes in TRILL campus, VLAN-
based(or FGL-based, etc) loadbalancing algorithm used by ingress
active-active access RBridge is as follows:
1. All centralized nodes are ordered and numbered from 0 to k-1
in ascending order according to the 7-octet IS-IS ID.
2. For VLAN ID m, choose the centralized node whose number equals
(m mod k).
An example of the m mod K, is that for 3 centralized nodes (CN) and
5 VLANs is: VLAN 0 goes to CN0, VLAN1 goes to CN1, VLAN2 goes to CN2,
VLAN4 goes to CN0, and VLAN5 goes to CN1.
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
When a ingress RBridge participating active-active connection
receives BUM traffic from local CE, the RB decides to send the
traffic to which centralized node based on the VLAN-based
loadbalancing algorithm, vlan-based loadbalancing for the BUM
traffic can be achieved among multiple centralized nodes.
8.2. Flow-based loadbalancing
To support flow-based loadbalancing for BUM traffic between
different centralized node, anycast special use nickname mechanism
should be introduced, which means a same special use nickname is
attached to both physical centralized node at the same time. Each
centralized node announces the special use nickname through the
Nickname Sub-Tlv specified in [RFC6326] to TRILL network and MUST
ignore the nickname collision check as defined in basic TRILL
protocol.
The egress nickname of unicast TRILL encapsulation for BUM traffic
from ingress RB is the special use nickname. The unicast TRILL
encapsulation BUM traffic would go to any one of the physical
centralized nodes by the natural support of ECMP from TRILL protocol.
The physical centralized node will decapsulate the unicast TRILL
encapsulation and forwards it through any one of the distribution
trees established per RFC 6325 with the original source, and BUM
destination. Because ECMP of the unicast TRILL encapsulation BUM
traffic is supported among multiple centralized nodes, so it can
achieve better link bandwidth usage than VLAN-based(or FGL-based,
etc)loadbalancing.
9. Network Migration Analysis
Centralized nodes need software and hardware upgrade to support
centralized replication process, which stitches TRILL unicast
traffic decapsulation process and the process of normal TRILL
multicast traffic forwarding along distribution tree.
Active-active connection edge RBs need software and hardware upgrade
to support unicast TRILL encapsulation for BUM traffic, the process
is similar to normal head-end replication process.
Transit nodes need software upgrade to support RPF port calculation
algorithm change.
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
10. TRILL protocol extension
The Unicast BUM Nickname TLV is introduced to announce its special
use nickname for centralized replication by centralized node. It is
carried in an LSP PDU. Ingress RBs rely on the TLV to learn the
egress nickname of TRILL unicast encapsulation for BUM traffic.
10.1. The Unicast BUM Nickname sub-TLV
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+
| Uni BUM Nickname | (4 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+|
o Type: Router Capability sub-TLV type, TBD (Uni-BUM-VLANs).
o Length: indicates the length of Uni BUM Nickname field, it
is a fixed value of 4.
o Uni BUM Nickname: The nickname is exclusively used for
centralized replication solution purpose. Ingress RBs use the
nickname as egress nickname in trill header of unicast TRILL
encapsulation for BUM traffic.
11. Security Considerations
This draft does not introduce any extra security risks. For general
TRILL Security Considerations, see [RFC6325].
12. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA Actions. RFC Editor: Please remove
this section before publication.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[1] [RFC6165] Banerjee, A. and D. Ward, "Extensions to IS-IS for
Layer-2 Systems", RFC 6165, April 2011.
[2] [RFC6325] Perlman, R., et.al. "RBridge: Base Protocol
Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011.
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
[3] [RFC6326bis] Eastlake, D., Banerjee, A., Dutt, D., Perlman, R.,
and A. Ghanwani, "TRILL Use of IS-IS", draft-eastlake-isis-
rfc6326bis, work in progress.
13.2. Informative References
[4] [TRILLPN] Zhai,H., et.al., "RBridge: Pseduonode nickname",
draft-hu-trill-pseudonode-nickname, Work in progress, November
2011.
[5] [TRILAA] Li,Y., et.al., " Problem Statement and Goals for
Active-Active TRILL Edge", draft-ietf-trill-active-active-
connection-prob-00, Work in progress, July 2013.
[6] [CMT] Senevirathne, T., Pathangi, J., and J. Hudson,
"Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT)for TRILL", draft-ietf-
trill-cmt-00.txt Work in Progress, April 2012.
14. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the important contributions of
Hongjun Zhai, Xiaomin Wu, Liang Xia.
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
Authors' Addresses
Weiguo Hao
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Phone: +86-25-56623144
Email: haoweiguo@huawei.com
Yizhou Li
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Phone: +86-25-56625375
Email: liyizhou@huawei.com
Tao Han
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Phone: +86-25-56623454
Email: billow.han@huawei.com
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic August 2014
Susan Hares
Hickory Hill Consulting
7453 Hickory Hill
Saline, CA 48176
USA
Email: shares@ndzh.com
Muhammad Durrani
Brocade communications Systems, Inc
EMail: mdurrani@Brocade.com
Sujay Gupta
IP Infusion,
RMZ Centennial
Mahadevapura Post
Bangalore - 560048
India
EMail: sujay.gupta@ipinfusion.com
Hao & Li,etc Expires February 28, 2015 [Page 15]
