Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd
draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd
MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Updates: 8562 (if approved) G. Mishra
Intended status: Standards Track Verizon Inc.
Expires: 3 September 2024 D. Eastlake
Futurewei Technologies
2 March 2024
BFD for Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multi-Point MPLS LSP
draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-07
Abstract
This document describes procedures for using Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for multipoint networks to detect data plane failures
in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) point-to-multipoint (p2mp)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and Segment Routing (SR) point-to-
multipoint policies with SR-MPLS data plane.
Furthermore, this document also updates RFC 8562 and recommends the
use of an IPv6 loopback address (:::1/128) and discourages the use of
an IPv4 loopback address mapped to IPv6.
It also describes the applicability of LSP Ping, as in-band, and the
control plane, as out-band, solutions to bootstrap a BFD session.
It also describes the behavior of the active tail for head
notification.
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 3 September 2024.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multi-Point BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP March 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Multipoint BFD Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Bootstrapping Multipoint BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. LSP Ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Operation of Multipoint BFD with Active Tail over P2MP MPLS
LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
[RFC8562] defines a method of using Bidirectional Detection (BFD)
[RFC5880] to monitor and detect unicast failures between the sender
(head) and one or more receivers (tails) in multipoint or multicast
networks.
[RFC8562] added two BFD session types - MultipointHead and
MultipointTail. Throughout this document, MultipointHead and
MultipointTail refer to the value to which the bfd.SessionType is set
on a BFD endpoint.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multi-Point BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP March 2024
This document describes procedures for using such modes of BFD
protocol to detect data plane failures in Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) point-to-multipoint (p2mp) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) and Segment Routing (SR) point-to-multipoint policies with SR-
MPLS data plane
The document also describes the applicability of out-band solutions
to bootstrap a BFD session in this environment.
Furthermore, this document also updates [RFC8562] and recommends the
use of an IPv6 loopback address (:::1/128) and discourages the use of
an IPv4 loopback address mapped to IPv6.
It also describes the behavior of the active tail for head
notification.
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology
* MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
* LSP: Label Switched Path
* BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
* p2mp: Point-to-Multipoint
* FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class
* G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel
* ACH: Associated Channel Header
* GAL: G-ACh Label
* LSR: Label Switching Router
* SR: Segment Routing
* SR-MPLS: SR with MPLS data plane
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multi-Point BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP March 2024
2.2. 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.
3. Multipoint BFD Encapsulation
[RFC8562] uses BFD in the Demand mode from the very start of a point-
to-multipoint (p2mp) BFD session. Because the head doesn't receive
any BFD Control packet from a tail, the head of the p2mp BFD session
transmits all BFD Control packets with the value of Your
Discriminator field set to zero. As a result, a tail cannot
demultiplex BFD sessions using Your Discriminator, as defined in
[RFC5880]. [RFC8562] requires that to demultiplex BFD sessions, the
tail uses the source IP address, My Discriminator, and the identity
of the multipoint tree from which the BFD Control packet was
received. If the BFD Control packet is encapsulated in IP/UDP, then
the source IP address MUST be used to demultiplex the received BFD
Control packet as described in Section 3.1. The non-IP encapsulation
case is described in Section 3.2.
3.1. IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD
[RFC8562] defines IP/UDP encapsulation for multipoint BFD over p2mp
MPLS LSP. This document updates [RFC8562] regarding the selection of
the IPv6 destination address:
* [RFC4291] defines a single IPv6 loopback address. Hence, for
IPv6, the IPv6 loopback address ::1/128 SHOULD be used.
* The sender of an echo request MAY select the IPv6 destination
address from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range.
The Motivation section [RFC6790] lists several advantages of
generating the entropy value by an ingress Label Switching Router
(LSR) compared to when a transit LSR infers entropy using the
information in the MPLS label stack or payload. Thus this
specification further clarifies that:
if multiple alternative paths for the given p2mp LSP Forwarding
Equivalence Class (FEC) exist, the MultipointHead SHOULD use the
Entropy Label [RFC6790] used for LSP Ping [RFC8029] to exercise
those particular alternative paths;
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multi-Point BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP March 2024
or the MultipointHead MAY use the UDP port number to possibly
exercise those particular alternate paths.
3.2. Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD
In some environments, the overhead of extra IP/UDP encapsulations may
be considered burdensome, making the use of more compact G-ACh
encapsulation attractive. Also, the validation of the IP/UDP
encapsulation of a BFD Control packet in a p2mp BFD session may fail
because of a problem related to neither the MPLS label stack nor to
BFD. Avoiding unnecessary encapsulation of p2mp BFD over an MPLS LSP
improves the accuracy of the correlation of the detected failure and
defect in MPLS LSP. Non-IP encapsulation for multipoint BFD over
p2mp MPLS LSP (shown in Figure 1) MUST use Generic Associated Channel
(G-ACh) Label (GAL) (see [RFC5586]) at the bottom of the label stack
followed by an Associated Channel Header (ACH). If a BFD Control
packet in PW-ACH encapsulation (without IP/UDP Headers) is to be used
in ACH, an implementation would not be able to verify the identity of
the MultipointHead and, as a result, will not properly demultiplex
BFD packets. Hence, a new channel type value is needed. The Channel
Type field in ACH MUST be set to TBA1 value Section 7. To provide
the identity of the MultipointHead for the particular multipoint BFD
session, a Source Address TLV, as defined in Section 4.1 [RFC7212],
MUST immediately follow a BFD Control message. The use of other TLVs
defined in Section 4 of [RFC7212] is outside the scope of this
document.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GAL | TC |1| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | Channel Type = TBA1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ BFD Control Message ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=0 | Reserved | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (16 bits) | Address Family (16 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Non-IP Encapsulation for Multipoint BFD Over a
Multicast MPLS LSP
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multi-Point BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP March 2024
4. Bootstrapping Multipoint BFD
4.1. LSP Ping
LSP Ping is the part of the on-demand OAM toolset used to detect and
localize defects in the data plane and verify the control plane
against the data plane by ensuring that the LSP is mapped to the same
FEC at both egress and ingress endpoints.
LSP Ping, as defined in [RFC6425], MAY be used to bootstrap
MultipointTail. If LSP Ping is used, it MUST include the Target FEC
TLV and the BFD Discriminator TLV defined in [RFC5884]. For the case
of p2mp MPLS LSP, the Target FEC TLV MUST use sub-TLVs defined in
Section 3.1 [RFC6425]. For the case of p2mp SR policy with SR-MPLS
data plane, an implementation of this specification MUST follow
procedures defined in [RFC8287]. Setting the value of Reply Mode
field to "Do not reply" [RFC8029] for the LSP Ping to bootstrap
MultipointTail of the p2mp BFD session is RECOMMENDED. Indeed,
because BFD over a multipoint network uses BFD Demand mode, the LSP
echo reply from a tail has no useful information to convey to the
head, unlike in the case of the BFD over a p2p MPLS LSP [RFC5884]. A
MultipointTail that receives an LSP Ping that includes the BFD
Discriminator TLV:
* MUST validate the LSP Ping;
* MUST associate the received BFD Discriminator value with the p2mp
LSP;
* MUST create a p2mp BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
MultipointTail as described in [RFC8562];
* MUST use the source IP address of LSP Ping, the value of BFD
Discriminator from the BFD Discriminator TLV, and the identity of
the p2mp LSP to properly demultiplex BFD sessions.
Besides bootstrapping a BFD session over a p2mp LSP, LSP Ping SHOULD
be used to verify the control plane against the data plane
periodically by checking that the p2mp LSP is mapped to the same FEC
at the MultipointHead and all active MultipointTails. The rate of
generation of these LSP Ping Echo request messages SHOULD be
significantly less than the rate of generation of the BFD Control
packets because LSP Ping requires more processing to validate the
consistency between the data plane and the control plane. An
implementation MAY provide configuration options to control the rate
of generation of the periodic LSP Ping Echo request messages.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multi-Point BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP March 2024
4.2. Control Plane
The BGP-BFD Attribute [RFC9026] MAY be used to bootstrap multipoint
BFD session on a tail.
5. Operation of Multipoint BFD with Active Tail over P2MP MPLS LSP
[RFC8562] defined how the BFD Demand mode can be used in multipoint
networks. When applied in MPLS, procedures specified in [RFC8562]
allow an egress LSR to detect a failure of the part of the MPLS p2mp
LSP from the ingress LSR. The ingress LSR is not aware of the state
of the p2mp LSP. [RFC8563], using mechanisms defined in [RFC8562],
defined an "active tail" behavior. An active tail might notify the
head of the detected failure and responds to a poll sequence
initiated by the head. The first method, referred to as Head
Notification without Polling, is mentioned in Section 5.2.1
[RFC8563], is the simplest of all described in [RFC8563]. The use of
this method in BFD over MPLS p2mp LSP is discussed in this document.
Analysis of other methods of a head learning of the state of an MPLS
p2mp LSP is outside the scope of this document.
As specified in [RFC8563] for the active tail mode, BFD variables
MUST be as follows:
On an ingress LSR:
* bfd.SessionType is MultipointHead;
* bfd.RequiredMinRxInterval is set to nonzero, allowing egress LSRs
to send BFD Control packets.
On an egress LSR:
* bfd.SessionType is MultipointTail;
* bfd.SilentTail is set to zero.
In Section 5.2.1 [RFC8563] is noted that "the tail sends unsolicited
BFD packets in response to the detection of a multipoint path
failure" but without the specifics on the information in the packet
and frequency of transmissions. This document defines below the
procedure of an active tail with unsolicited notifications for p2mp
MPLS LSP.
Upon detecting the failure of the p2mp MPLS LSP, an egress LSR sends
BFD Control packet with the following settings:
* the Poll (P) bit is set;
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multi-Point BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP March 2024
* the Status (Sta) field set to Down value;
* the Diagnostic (Diag) field set to Control Detection Time Expired
value;
* the value of the Your Discriminator field is set to the value the
egress LSR has been using to demultiplex that BFD multipoint
session;
* BFD Control packet MAY be encapsulated in IP/UDP with the
destination IP address of the ingress LSR and the UDP destination
port number set to 4784 per [RFC5883]. If non-IP encapsulation is
used, then a BFD Control packet is encapsulated using PW-ACH
encapsulation (without IP/UDP Headers) with Channel Type 0x0007
[RFC5885];
* these BFD Control packets are transmitted at the rate of one per
second until either it receives a control packet valid for this
BFD session with the Final (F) bit set from the ingress LSR or the
defect condition clears. However, to improve the likelihood of
notifying the ingress LSR of the failure of the p2mp MPLS LSP, the
egress LSR SHOULD initially transmit three BFD Control packets
defined above in short succession. The actual transmission of the
periodic BFD Control message MUST be jittered by up to 25% within
one-second intervals. Thus, the interval MUST be reduced by a
random value of 0 to 25%, to reduce the possibility of congestion
on the ingress LSR's data and control planes.
As described above, an ingress LSR that has received the BFD Control
packet sends the unicast IP/UDP encapsulated BFD Control packet with
the Final (F) bit set to the egress LSR. In some scenarios, e.g.,
when a p2mp LSP is broken close to its root, and the number of egress
LSRs is significantly large, the root might receive a large number of
notifications. The notifications from leaves to the root will not
use DetNet resources and, as a result, will not congest DetNet flows,
although they may negatively affect other flows. However, the
control plane of the ingress LSR might be congested by the BFD
Control packets transmitted by egress LSRs and the process of
generating unicast BFD Control packets, as noted above. To mitigate
that, a BFD implementation that supports this specification is
RECOMMENDED to use a rate limiter of received BFD Control packets
passed to the ingress LSR’s control plane for processing.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security considerations but
inherits all security considerations from [RFC5880], [RFC5884],
[RFC7726], [RFC8562], [RFC8029], and [RFC6425].
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multi-Point BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP March 2024
Also, BFD for p2mp MPLS LSP MUST follow the requirements listed in
section 4.1 [RFC4687] to avoid congestion in the control plane or the
data plane caused by the rate of generating BFD Control packets. An
operator SHOULD consider the amount of extra traffic generated by
p2mp BFD when selecting the interval at which the MultipointHead will
transmit BFD Control packets. The operator MAY consider the size of
the packet the MultipointHead transmits periodically as using IP/UDP
encapsulation, which adds up to 28 octets, more than 50% of the BFD
Control packet length, comparing to G-ACh encapsulation.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate value (TBA1) from its MPLS Generalized
Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types registry.
+=======+========================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+========================+===============+
| TBA1 | Multipoint BFD Session | This document |
+-------+------------------------+---------------+
Table 1: Multipoint BFD Session G-ACh Type
8. Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely appreciate the comments received from Andrew
Malis, Italo Busi, Shraddha Hegde, and thought stimulating questions
from Carlos Pignataro.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multi-Point BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP March 2024
[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>.
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885>.
[RFC6425] Saxena, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A.,
Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane
Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP
Ping", RFC 6425, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6425>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7212] Frost, D., Bryant, S., and M. Bocci, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel (G-ACh) Advertisement Protocol",
RFC 7212, DOI 10.17487/RFC7212, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7212>.
[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>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multi-Point BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP March 2024
[RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.
[RFC8562] Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky,
Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
Multipoint Networks", RFC 8562, DOI 10.17487/RFC8562,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8562>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4687] Yasukawa, S., Farrel, A., King, D., and T. Nadeau,
"Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Point-
to-Multipoint MPLS Networks", RFC 4687,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4687, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4687>.
[RFC9026] Morin, T., Ed., Kebler, R., Ed., and G. Mirsky, Ed.,
"Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover", RFC 9026,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9026, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9026>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc.
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multi-Point BFD over P2MP MPLS LSP March 2024
Donald Eastlake, 3rd
Futurewei Technologies
2386 Panoramic Circle
Apopka, FL 32703
United States of America
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 September 2024 [Page 12]
