Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery
BESS Working Group P. Brissette, Ed.
Internet-Draft A. Sajassi
Updates: 8584 (if approved) LA. Burdet
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: 11 January 2024 J. Drake
Juniper
J. Rabadan
Nokia
10 July 2023
Fast Recovery for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-08
Abstract
The Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) solution provides
Designated Forwarder (DF) election procedures for multihomed Ethernet
Segments. These procedures have been enhanced further by applying
Highest Random Weight (HRW) algorithm for Designated Forwarder
election in order to avoid unnecessary DF status changes upon a
failure. This document improves these procedures by providing a fast
Designated Forwarder election upon recovery of the failed link or
node associated with the multihomed Ethernet Segment. This document
updates Section 2.1 of [RFC8584] by optionally introducing delays
between some of the events therein.
The solution is independent of the number of EVPN Instances (EVIs)
associated with that Ethernet Segment and it is performed via a
simple signaling between the recovered node and each of the other
nodes in the multihoming group.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 January 2024.
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Challenges with Existing Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4. Design Principles for a Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. DF Election Synchronization Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. BGP Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Updates to RFC8584 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Synchronization Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Concurrent Recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) solution [RFC7432] is
becoming pervasive in data center (DC) applications for Network
Virtualization Overlay (NVO) and DC inte)rconnect (DCI) services, and
in service provider (SP) applications for next generation virtual
private LAN services.
[RFC7432] describes Designated Frowarder (DF) election procedures for
multihomed Ethernet Segments. These procedures are enhanced further
in [RFC8584] by applying the Highest Random Weight (HRW) algorithm
for DF election in order to avoid unnecessary DF status changes upon
a link or node failure associated with the multihomed Ethernet
Segment. This document makes further improvements to the DF election
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
procedures in [RFC8584] by providing an option for a fast DF election
upon recovery of the failed link or node associated with the
multihomed Ethernet Segment. This DF election is achieved
independent of the number of EVPN Instances (EVIs) associated with
that Ethernet Segment and it is performed via simple signaling
between the recovered node and each of the other nodes in the
multihomed group.
This document updates the state machine described in Section 2.1 of
[RFC8584], by optionally introducing delays between some events, as
further detailed in Section 2.2. The solution is based on a simple
one-way signaling mechanism.
1.1. Requirements Language
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.
1.2. Terminology
PE: Provider Edge device.
Designated Forwarder (DF): A PE that is currently forwarding
(encapsulating/decapsulating) traffic for a given VLAN in and out
of a site.
EVI: An EVPN instance spanning the Provider Edge (PE) devices
participating in that EVPN.
1.3. Challenges with Existing Mechanism
In EVPN technology, multiple Provider Edge (PE) devices have the
ability to encap and decap data belonging to the same VLAN. In
certain situations, this may cause L2 duplicates and even loops if
there is a momentary overlap of forwarding roles between two or more
PE devices, leading to broadcast storms.
EVPN [RFC7432] currently uses timer based synchronization among PE
devices in a redundancy group that can result in duplications (and
even loops) because of multiple DFs if the timer is too short or
packets being dropped if the timer is too long.
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
Using split-horizon filtering (Section 8.3 of [RFC7432]) can prevent
loops (but not duplicates). However, if there are overlapping DFs in
two different sites at the same time for the same VLAN, the site
identifier will be different upon the packet re-entering the Ethernet
Segment and hence the split-horizon check will fail, leading to L2
loops.
The updated DF procedures in [RFC8584] use the well known Highest
Random Weight (HRW) algorithm to avoid reshuffling of VLANs among PE
devices in the redundancy group upon failure/recovery. This reduces
the impact to VLANs not assigned to the failed/recovered ports and
eliminates loops or duplicates at failure/recovery events.
However, upon PE insertion or a port being newly added to a
multihomed Ethernet Segment, HRW also cannot help as a transfer of DF
role to the new port must occur while the old DF is still active.
+---------+
+-------------+ | |
| | | |
/ | PE1 |----| | +-------------+
/ | | | MPLS/ | | |---CE3
/ +-------------+ | VxLAN/ | | PE3 |
CE1 - | Cloud | | |
\ +-------------+ | |---| |
\ | | | | +-------------+
\ | PE2 |----| |
| | | |
+-------------+ | |
+---------+
Figure 1: CE1 multihomed to PE1 and PE2.
In Figure 1, when PE2 is inserted in the Ethernet Segment or its
CE1-facing interface recovered, PE1 will transfer the DF role of some
VLANs to PE2 to achieve load balancing. However, because there is no
handshake mechanism between PE1 and PE2, duplication of DF roles for
a given VLAN is possible. Duplication of DF roles may eventually
lead to duplication of traffic as well as L2 loops.
Current EVPN specifications [RFC7432] and [RFC8584] rely on a timer-
based approach for transferring the DF role to the newly inserted
device. This can cause the following issues:
* Loops/Duplicates if the timer value is too short
* Prolonged Traffic Blackholing if the timer value is too long
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
1.4. Design Principles for a Solution
The clock-synchronization solution presented in this document follows
several design principles and presents multiples advantages, namely:
* Complicated handshake signamling mechanisms and state machines are
avoided in favor of a simple uni-directional signaling approach.
* The solution is backwards-compatible (see Section 4), by PEs
simply discarding the unrecognized new BGP Extended Community.
* Existing DF Election algorithms are supported.
* The solution is independent of any BGP delays in propagation of
Ethernet Segment routes (Route Type 4)
* The solution is agnostic of the actual time synchronization
mechanism used.
2. DF Election Synchronization Solution
The solution relies on the concept of common clock alignment between
partner PEs participating in a common Ethernet Segment i.e. PE1 and
PE2 in Figure 1. The main idea is to have all peering PEs of that
Ethernet Segment perform DF election, and apply the result at the
same pre-announced time.
The DF Election procedure, as described in [RFC7432] and as
optionally signalled in [RFC8584], is applied. All PEs attached to a
given Ethernet Segment are clock-synchronized using a networking
protocol for clock synchronization (e.g., NTP, PTP). When a new PE
is inserted in an Ethernet Segment or a failed PE device of the
Ethernet Segment recovers, that PE communicates to peering partners
the current time plus the value of the timer for partner discovery
from step 2 in Section 8.5 of [RFC7432]. This constitutes an "end
time" or "absolute time" as seen from the local PE. That absolute
time is called the "Service Carving Time" (SCT).
A new BGP Extended Community, the Service Carving Timestamp is
advertised along with the Ethernet Segment route (RT-4) to
communicate the Service Carving Time to other partners.
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
Upon receipt of that new BGP Extended Community, partner PEs can
determine the service carving time of the newly insterted PE. The
notion of skew is introduced to eliminate any potential duplicate
traffic or loops. The receiving partner PEs add a skew (default =
-10ms) to the Service Carving Time to enforce this. The previously
inserted PE(s) must carve first, followed shortly (skew) by the newly
insterted PE.
To summarize, all peering PEs carve almost simultaneously at the time
announced by the newly added/recovered PE. The newly inserted PE
initiates the SCT, and carves immediately on its local timer expiry.
The previously inserted PE(s) receiving Ethernet Segment route (RT-4)
with a SCT BGP extended community, carve shortly before Service
Carving Time.
2.1. BGP Encoding
A new BGP extended community is defined to communicate the Service
Carving Timestamp for each Ethernet Segment.
A new transitive extended community where the Type field is 0x06, and
the Sub-Type is 0x0F is advertised along with the Ethernet Segment
route. The expected Service Carving Time is encoded as an 8-octet
value as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x06 | Sub-Type(0x0F)| Timestamp Seconds ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Timestamp Seconds | Timestamp Fractional Seconds |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The timestamp exchanged uses the NTP epoch of January 1, 1900
[RFC5905]. As the current NTP era value is not exchanged, a local
clock which is "synchronized" but to the wrong era is outside of the
scope of this document.
The 64-bit timestamp of NTP consists of a 32-bit part for seconds and
a 32-bit part for fractional second:
* Timestamp Seconds: 32-bit NTP seconds are encoded in this field.
* Timestamp Fractional Seconds: the high order 16 bits of the NTP
fractional seconds are encoded in this field. The use of a 16-bit
fractional seconds yields adequate precision of 15 microseconds
(2^-16 s).
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
This document introduces a new flag called "T" (for Time
Synchronization) to the bitmap field of the DF Election Extended
Community defined in [RFC8584].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0x06 | Sub-Type(0x06)| RSV | DF Alg | |A| |T| ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Bitmap | Reserved = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
* Bit 3: Time Synchronization (corresponds to Bit 27 of the DF
Election Extended Community). When set to 1, it indicates the
desire to use Time Synchronization capability with the rest of the
PEs in the Ethernet Segment.
This capability is used in conjunction with the agreed upon DF Type
(DF Election Type). For example if all the PEs in the Ethernet
Segment indicate having Time Synchronization capability and are
requesting the DF type to be HRW, then the HRW algorithm is used in
conjunction with this capability.
2.2. Updates to RFC8584
This document introduces an additional delay to the events and
transitions defined for the default DF election algorithm FSM in
Section 2.1 of [RFC8584] without changing the FSM states or events
itself.
The peering PE's FSM in DF_DONE which receives a RECV_ES transitions
to DF_CALC. Because of the SCT carried in the Ethernet-Segment
update, the output of the DF_CALC and transition back into DF_DONE
are delayed, as are accompanying forwarding updates to DF/NDF state.
The corresponding actions when transitions are performed or states
are entered/exited is modified as follows:
9. DF_CALC on CALCULATED: Mark the election result for the VLAN or
Bundle.
9.1 Where SCT timestamp is present on the RECV_ES event of
Action 11, wait until the time indicated by the SCT before
continuing to 9.2.
9.2 Assume a DF/NDF for the local PE for the VLAN or VLAN
Bundle, and transition to DF_DONE.
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
3. Synchronization Scenarios
Let's take Figure 1 as an example where initially PE2 had failed and
PE1 had taken over. This example shows the problem with the
DF-Election mechanism in Section 8.5 of [RFC7432], using the value of
the timer configured for all PEs on the Ethernet Segment.
Based on Section 8.5 of [RFC7432] and using the default 3 second
timer in step 2:
1. Initial state: PE1 is in steady-state, PE2 is recovering
2. PE2 recovers at (absolute) time t=99
3. PE2 advertises RT-4 (sent at t=100) to partner PE1
4. PE2 starts a 3 second timer to allow the reception of RT-4 from
other PE nodes
5. PE1 carves immediately on RT-4 reception, i.e. t=100 + minimal
BGP propagation delay
6. PE2 carves at time t=103
[RFC7432] aims of favouring traffic being dropped over duplicate
traffic. With the above procedure, traffic drops will occur as part
of each PE recovery sequence since PE1 has transitioned some VLANs to
Non-Designated-Forwarder (NDF) immediately upon reception.
The timer value (default = 3 seconds) has a direct effect on the
duration of the packets being dropped. A shorter (especially zero)
timer may, however, result in duplicate traffic or traffic loops.
Based on the Service Carving Time (SCT) approach:
1. Initial state: PE1 is in steady-state, PE2 is recovering
2. PE2 recovers at (absolute) time t=99
3. PE2 advertises RT-4 (sent at t=100) with target SCT value t=103
to partner PE1
4. PE2 starts a 3 second timer to allow the reception of RT-4 from
other PE nodes
5. PE1 starts service carving timer, with remaining time until t=103
6. Both PE1 and PE2 carve at (absolute) time t=103
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
In fact, PE1 should carve slightly before PE2 (skew) to maintain the
preference of minimal loss over duplicate traffic. The previously
inserted PE2 that is recovering performs both transitions DF to NDF
and NDF to DF per VLANs at the timer's expiry. Since the goal is to
prevent duplicates, the original PE1, which received the SCT will
apply:
* DF to NDF transition at t=SCT minus skew, where both PEs are NDF
for 'skew' amount of time
* NDF to DF transition at t=SCT
It is this split-behaviour which ensures a good transition of DF role
with contained amount of loss.
Using SCT approach, the negative effect of the timer to allow the
reception of RT-4 from other PE nodes is mitigated. Furthermore, the
BGP Ethernet Segment route (RT-4) transmission delay (from PE2 to
PE1) becomes a non-issue. The use of SCT approach remedies the
problem associated with this timer: the 3 second timer window is
shortened to the order of milliseconds.
3.1. Concurrent Recoveries
In the eventuality 2 or more PEs in a peering Ethernet Segment group
are recovering concurrently or roughly the same time, each will
advertise a Service Carving Timestamp. This SCT value would
correspond to what each recovering PE considers the "end time" for DF
Election. A similar situation arises in staggered recovering PEs,
when a second PE recovers at rougly a first PE's advertised SCT
expiry, and with its own new SCT-2 outside of the initial SCT window.
In the case of multiple outstanding DF elections, one requested by
each of the recovering PEs, the SCTs must simply be time-ordered and
all PEs execute only a single DF Election at the service carving time
corresponding to the largest received timestamp value. The DF
Election will involve all the active PEs in a single DF Election
update.
Example:
1. Initial state: PE1 is in steady-state, all services elected at
PE1.
2. PE2 recovers at time t=100, advertises RT-4 with target SCT value
t=103 to partners (PE1)
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
3. PE2 starts a 3 second timer to allow the reception of RT-4 from
other PE nodes
4. PE1 starts service carving timer, with remaining time until t=103
5. PE3 recovers at time t=102, advertises RT-4 with target SCT value
t=105 to partners (PE1, PE2)
6. PE3 starts a 3 second timer to allow the reception of RT-4 from
other PE nodes
7. PE2 cancels the running timer, starts service carving timer with
remaining time until t=105
8. PE1 updates service carving timer, with remaining time until
t=105
9. PE1, PE2 and PE3 carve at (absolute) time t=105
In the eventuality a PE in a Ethernet Segment group recovers during
the discovery window specified in Section 8.5 of [RFC7432], and does
not support or advertise the T-bit, then all PEs in the current
peering sequence SHALL immediately revert to the default [RFC7432]
behavior.
4. Backwards Compatibility
Per redundancy group, for the DF election procedures to be globally
convergent and unanimous, it is necessary that all the participating
PEs agree on the DF Election algorithm to be used. It is, however,
possible that some PEs continue to use the existing modulo-based DF
election and do not rely on the new SCT BGP extended community. PEs
running a baseline DF election mechanism will simply discard the new
SCT BGP extended community as unrecognized.
A PE can indicate its willingness to support clock-synched carving by
signaling the new 'T' DF Election Capability as well as including the
new Service Carving Time BGP extended community along with the
Ethernet Segment Route (Type-4). In the case where one or more PEs
attached to the Ethernet Segment do not signal T=1, all PEs in the
Ethernet Segment SHALL revert back to the [RFC7432] timer approach.
This is especially important in the context of the VLAN shuffling
with more than 2 PEs.
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
5. Security Considerations
The mechanisms in this document use EVPN control plane as defined in
[RFC7432]. Security considerations described in [RFC7432] are
equally applicable.
For the new SCT Extended Community, attack vectors may be setting the
value to zero, to a value in the past or to large times in the
future. The procedures in this document address implicitly what
occurs with a carving time in the past, as this would be a naturally
occurring event with a large BGP propagation delay: the receiving PE
SHALL treat the DF Election at the peer as having occurred already,
and proceed without starting any carving delay timer. For timestamp
values in the future, a rogue PE may be advertising a value
inconsistent with its local behaviour. This is no different than a
rogue PE setting all its DF Election results inconstently to its
peers using (or ignoring adherence to) the procedures from [RFC7432],
and the result would similarly be duplicate or dropped traffic.
This document uses MPLS and IP-based tunnel technologies to support
data plane transport. Security considerations described in [RFC7432]
and in [RFC8365] are equally applicable.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "EVPN Extended Community Sub-Types" registry set
up by [RFC7153]. IANA is requested to confirm the First Come First
Served assignment as follows:
Sub-Type Value Name Reference Date
-------------- ------------------------- ------------- ----
0x0F Service Carving Timestamp This document TBD
IANA should replace the field TBD with the date of publicaton of this
document as an RFC.
IANA maintains the "DF Election Capabilities" registry set up by
[RFC8584]. IANA is requested to make the following assignment from
this registry:
Bit Name Reference Date
---- ---------------- ------------- ----
3 Time Synchronization This document TBD
IANA should replace the field TBD with the date of publicaton of this
document as an RFC.
7. Normative References
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[RFC7153] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "IANA Registries for BGP
Extended Communities", RFC 7153, DOI 10.17487/RFC7153,
March 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7153>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[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>.
[RFC8584] Rabadan, J., Ed., Mohanty, S., Ed., Sajassi, A., Drake,
J., Nagaraj, K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for Ethernet
VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility",
RFC 8584, DOI 10.17487/RFC8584, April 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8584>.
Appendix A. Contributors
In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
co-authors have also contributed substantially to this document:
Gaurav Badoni
Cisco
Email: gbadoni@cisco.com
Dhananjaya Rao
Cisco
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Fast Recovery for EVPN DF-Election July 2023
Email: dhrao@cisco.com
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to acknowledge helpful comments and contributions
of Satya Mohanty and Bharath Vasudevan. Also thank you to Anoop
Ghanwani for his thorough review with valuable comments and
corrections.
Authors' Addresses
Patrice Brissette (editor)
Cisco
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco
Email: sajassi@cisco.com
Luc Andre Burdet
Cisco
Email: lburdet@cisco.com
John Drake
Juniper
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Jorge Rabadan
Nokia
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Brissette, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 13]
