Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mpls-smp-requirements
draft-ietf-mpls-smp-requirements
Network Working Group Y. Weingarten
INTERNET-DRAFT
Intended status: Informational S. Aldrin
Expires: April 1, 2015 Huawei Technologies
P. Pan
Infinera
J. Ryoo
ETRI
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
September 28, 2014
Requirements for MPLS-TP Shared Mesh Protection
draft-ietf-mpls-smp-requirements-09.txt
Abstract
This document presents the basic network objectives for the behavior
of shared mesh protection (SMP) which are not based on control plane
support. This is an expansion of the basic requirements presented in
RFC 5654 "Requirements for the Transport Profile of MPLS" and RFC
6372 "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework". This
document provides requirements for any mechanism that would be used
to implement SMP for MPLS-TP data paths, in networks that delegate
protection switch coordination to the data plane.
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 http://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 April 1, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Terms Defined in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Shared Mesh Protection Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Protection or Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Scope of Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Relationship to MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. SMP Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Coordination of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Control Plane or Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. SMP Network Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Resource Reservation and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. Checking Resource Availability for Multiple
protection Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Multiple Triggers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1. Soft-preemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.2. Hard-preemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Reversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Protection Switching Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6. Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7. Communication Channel and Fate Sharing . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
1. Introduction
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is described in [RFC5921], and
[RFC6372] provides a survivability framework for MPLS-TP and is the
foundation for this document.
Terminology for recovery of connectivity in networks is provided in
[RFC4427] and includes the concept of surviving network faults
(survivability) through the use of re-established connections
(restoration) and switching of traffic to pre-established back-up
paths (protection). MPLS provides control plane tools to support
various survivability schemes, some of which are identified in
[RFC4426]. In addition, recent efforts in the IETF have started
providing for data plane tools to address aspects of data protection.
In particular, [RFC6378] and [RFC7271] define a set of triggers and
coordination protocol for 1:1 and 1+1 linear protection of point-to-
point paths.
When considering a full-mesh network and the protection of different
paths that traverse the mesh, it is possible to provide an acceptable
level of protection while conserving the amount of protection
resources needed to protect the different data paths. As pointed out
in [RFC6372] and [RFC4427], applying 1+1 protection requires that
resources are allocated for use by both the working and protection
paths. Applying 1:1 protection requires that the same resources are
allocated, but allows the resources of the protection path to be
utilized for pre-emptible extra traffic. Extending this to 1:n or m:n
protection allows the resources of the protection path to be shared
in the protection of several working paths. However, 1:n or m:n
protection architecture is limited by the restriction that all of the
n+1 or m+n paths must have the same endpoints. m:n protection
architecture provides m protection paths to protect n working path,
where m or n can be 1.
This document provides requirements for any mechanism that would be
used to implement SMP for MPLS-TP data paths, in networks that
delegate protection switch coordination to the data plane.
2. Terminology and Notation
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 [RFC2119].
Although this document is not a protocol specification, the use of
this language clarifies the instructions to protocol designers
producing solutions that satisfy the requirements set out in this
document.
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
The terminology used in this document is based on the terminology
defined in the MPLS-TP Survivability Framework document [RFC6372]
which in-turn is based on [RFC4427].
2.1. Acronyms
This document uses the following acronyms:
LSP Label Switched Path
SLA Service Level Agreement
SMP Shared Mesh Protection
SRLG Shared Risk Link Group
2.2. Terms Defined in This Document
This document defines the following terms:
SMP Protection Group: the set of different protection paths that
share a common segment.
3. Shared Mesh Protection Reference Model
As described in [RFC6372] Shared Mesh Protection (SMP) supports the
sharing of protection resources, while providing protection for
multiple working paths that need not have common endpoints and do not
share common points of failure. Note that some protection resources
may be shared, while some others may not be. An example of data paths
that employ SMP is shown in Figure 1. It shows two working paths
<ABCDE> and <VWXYZ> that are protected employing 1:1 linear
protection by protection paths <APQRE> and <VPQRZ> respectively. The
two protection paths that traverse segment <PQR> share the protection
resources on this segment.
A----B----C----D----E
\ /
\ /
\ /
P-----Q-----R
/ \
/ \
/ \
V----W----X----Y----Z
Figure 1: Basic SMP architecture
3.1. Protection or Restoration
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
[RFC6372], based upon the definitions in [RFC4427], differentiates
between "protection" and "restoration" dependent upon the dynamism of
the resource allocation. The same distinction is used in [RFC3945],
[RFC4426], and [RFC4428].
This document also uses the same distinction between protection and
restoration as stated in [RFC6372].
3.2. Scope of Document
[RFC5654] establishes that MPLS-TP SHOULD support shared protection
(Requirement 68) and that MPLS-TP MUST support sharing of protection
resources (Requirement 69). This document presents the network
objectives and a framework for applying SMP within an MPLS network,
without the use of control plane protocols. Although there are
existing control plane solutions for SMP within MPLS, a data plane
solution is required for networks that do not employ a full control
plane operation for some reason (e.g. service provider preferences or
limitations), or require service restoration faster than is
achievable with control plane mechanisms.
The network objectives will also address possible additional
restrictions of the behavior of SMP in networks that delegate
protection switching for resiliency to the data plane. Definition of
logic and specific protocol messaging is out of scope of this
document.
3.2.1. Relationship to MPLS
While some of the restrictions presented by this document originate
from the properties of transport networks, nothing prevents the
information presented here being applied to MPLS networks outside the
scope of the Transport Profile of MPLS.
4. SMP Architecture
Figure 1 shows a very basic configuration of working and protection
paths that may employ SMP. We may consider a slightly more complex
configuration, such as the one in Figure 2 in order to illustrate
characteristics of a mesh network that implements SMP.
A----B----C----D----E---N
\ / / \
\ M ---/-- \
\ / \ \
P-----Q-----R-----S----T
/| \ \ \ \
/ F---G---H J--K---L \
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
/ \
V------W-------X-------Y-------Z
Figure 2: Larger sample SMP architecture
Consider the network presented in Figure 2. There are five working
paths
- <ABCDE>
- <MDEN>
- <FGH>
- <JKL>
- <VWXYZ>
Each of these has a corresponding protection path
- <APQRE> (p1)
- <MSTN> (p2)
- <FPQH> (p3)
- <JRSL> (p4)
- <VPQRSTZ> (p5)
The following segments are shared by two or more of the protection
paths - <PQ> is shared by p1, p3, and p5, <QR> is shared by p1 and
p5, <RS> is shared by p4 and p5, and <ST> is shared by p2 and p5. In
Figure 2, we have the following SMP Protection Groups - {p1, p3, p5}
for <PQ>, {p1, p5} for <QR>, {p4, p5} for <RS>, {p2, p5} for <ST>.
We assume that the available protection resources for these shared
segments are not sufficient to support the complete traffic capacity
of the respective working paths that may use the protection paths. We
can further observe that with a method of coordinating sharing and
preemption there is no co-routing constraints on shared components at
the segment level.
The use of preemption in the network is typically a business or
policy decision such that when protection resources are contended,
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
priority can be applied to determine which parties utilize the
protection resources.
As opposed to the case of simple linear protection, where the
relationship between the working and protection paths is defined and
the resources for the protection path are fully dedicated, the
protection path in the case of SMP consists of segments that are used
for the protection of the related working path and also segments that
are shared with other protection paths such that typically the
protection resources are oversubscribed to support working paths that
do not share common points of failure. What is required is a
preemption mechanism to implement business priority when multiple
failure scenarios occur. As such, the protection resources may be
allocated but would not be utilized until requested and resolved in
relation to other members of the SMP Protection Group as part of a
protection switchover.
[RFC6372] defines two types of preemption that can be considered for
how the resources of SMP Protection Groups, are shared. These are
"soft preemption" whereby traffic of lower priority paths is degraded
and "hard preemption" where traffic of lower priority paths is
completely blocked. The traffic of lower priority paths in this
document can be viewed as the extra traffic being preempted in
[RFC6372]. "Hard Preemption" requires the programming of selectors at
the ingress of each shared segment to specify the priorities of
backup paths, so that traffic of lower priority paths can be
preempted. When any protection mechanism whereby the protection end
point may have a choice of protection paths (e.g. m:n or m:1) is
deployed the shared segment selectors require coordination with the
protection end points as well.
Typical deployment of services that use SMP requires various network
planning activities. These include:
o Determining the number of working and protection paths required to
achieve resiliency targets for the service.
o Reviewing network topology to determine which working or
protection paths are required to be disjoint from each other, and
exclude specified resources such as links, nodes, or shared risk
link groups (SRLGs).
o Determining the size (bandwidth) of the shared resource
4.1. Coordination of Resources
When a protection switch is triggered, the SMP network performs two
operations - switch data traffic over to a protection path and
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
coordinate the utilization of the associated shared resources. Both
operations should occur at the same time, or as closely as possible
to provide fast protection. The resource utilization coordination is
dependent upon their availability at each of the shared segments.
When the reserved resources of the shared segments are utilized by a
particular protection path, there may not be sufficient resources
available for an additional protection path. This then implies that
if another working path of the SMP domain triggers a protection
switch, the resource utilization coordination may fail. The different
working paths in the SMP network are involved in the resource
utilization coordination, which is a part of whole SMP protection
switching coordination.
4.2. Control Plane or Data Plane
As stated in both [RFC6372] and [RFC4428], full control of SMP
including both configuration and the coordination of the protection
switching is potentially very complex. Therefore, it is suggested
that this be carried out under the control of a dynamic control plane
based on GMPLS [RFC3945]. Implementations for SMP with GMPLS exist
and the general principles of its operation are well known, if not
fully documented.
However, there are operators, in particular in the transport sector,
that do not operate their MPLS-TP networks under the control of a
control plane or for other reasons have delegated executive action
for resilience to the data plane, and require the ability to utilize
SMP protection. For such networks it is imperative that it be
possible to perform all required coordination of selectors and end
points for SMP via data plane operations.
5. SMP Network Objectives
5.1. Resource Reservation and Coordination
SMP is based on pre-configuration of the working paths and the
corresponding protection paths. This configuration may be based on
either a control protocol or static configuration by the management
system. However, even when the configuration is performed by a
control protocol, e.g. Generalized MPLS (GMPLS), the control
protocol SHALL NOT be used as the primary mechanism for detecting or
reporting network failures, or for initiating or coordinating
protection switch-over. That is, it SHALL NOT be used as the primary
resilience mechanism.
The protection relationship between the working and protection paths
SHOULD be configured and the shared segments of the protection path
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
MUST be identified prior to use of the protection paths. Relative
priority for working paths to be used to resolve contention for
protection path usage by multiple working paths MAY also be specified
ahead of time.
When a protection switch is triggered by any fault condition or
operator command, the SMP network MUST perform two operations -
switch data traffic over to a protection path and coordinate the
utilization of the associated shared resources. Both operations MUST
occur at the same time, or as closely as possible to provide fast
protection.
In the case of multiple working paths failing, the shared resource
utilization coordination SHALL be between the different working paths
in the SMP network.
5.1.1. Checking Resource Availability for Multiple protection Paths
In a hard-preemption scenario, when an end point identifies a
protection switching trigger and has more than one potential action
(e.g. m:1 protection) it MUST verify that the necessary protection
resources are available on the selected protection path. The
resources may not be available because they already have been
utilized for the protection of, for example, one or more higher
priority working paths.
5.2. Multiple Triggers
If more than one working path is triggering a protection switch such
that a protection segment is oversubscribed, there are two different
actions that the SMP network can choose - soft preemption and hard
preemption [RFC6372].
5.2.1. Soft-preemption
For networks that support multiplexing packets over the shared
segments, the requirement is:
o All of the protection paths MAY be allowed to share the resources
of the shared segments
5.2.2. Hard-preemption
There are networks that require the exclusive use of the protection
resources when a protection segment is oversubscribed. Traffic of
lower priority paths is completely blocked. These include networks
that support the requirements in [RFC5654], and in particular support
requirement 58. For such networks, the following requirements apply:
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
1. Relative priority MAY be assigned to each of the working paths of
an SMP domain. If the priority is not assigned, the working paths
are assumed to have equal priority.
2. Resources of the shared segments SHALL be utilized by the
protection path according to the highest priority amongst those
requesting use of the resources.
3. If multiple protection paths of equal priority are requesting the
shared resources, the resources SHALL be utilized on a first come
first served basis. Traffic of the protection paths that request
the shared resources late SHALL be preempted. In order to cover
the situation where the first come first served principle cannot
resolve the contention among multiple equal priority requests,
i.e., when the requests occur simultaneously, tie-breaking rules
SHALL be defined in scope of an SMP domain.
4. If a higher priority path requires the protection resources that
are being utilized by a lower priority path, the resources SHALL
be utilized by the higher priority path. Traffic with the lower
priority SHALL be preempted.
5. Once resources of shared segments have been successfully utilized
by a protection path, the traffic on that protection path SHALL
NOT be interrupted by any protection traffic whose priority is
equal or lower than the protecting path currently in-use.
6. During preemption, shared segment resources MAY be used by both
existing traffic (that is being preempted) and higher priority
traffic.
5.3. Notification
When a working path endpoint has a protection switch triggered, it
SHOULD attempt to switch the traffic to the protection path and
request the coordination of the shared resource utilization. If the
necessary shared resources are unavailable, the endpoints of the
requesting working path SHALL be notified of protection switchover
failure, and switchover will not be completed.
Similarly, if preemption is supported and the resources currently
utilized by a particular working path are being preempted then the
endpoints of the affected working path whose traffic is being
preempted SHALL be notified that the resources are being preempted.
As described in [RFC6372], the event of preemption may be detected by
OAM and reported as a fault or a degradation of traffic delivery.
5.4. Reversion
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
When the condition that triggered the protection switch is cleared,
it is possible to either revert to using the working path resources
or continue to utilize the protection resources. Continuing the use
of protection resources allows the operator to delay the disruption
of service caused by the switchover until periods of lighter traffic.
The switchover would need to be performed via an explicit operator
command unless the protection resources are preempted by a higher
priority fault. Hence, both automatic and manual revertive behaviors
MUST be supported for hard-preemption in an SMP domain. Normally the
network should revert to use of the working path resources in order
to clear the protection resources for protection of other path
triggers. However, the protocol MUST support non-revertive
configurations.
5.5. Protection Switching Time
Protection switching time refers to the transfer time (Tt) defined in
[G.808.1] and recovery switching time defined in [RFC4427], and is
defined as the interval after a switching trigger is identified until
the traffic begins to be transmitted on the protection path. This
time does not include the time needed to initiate the protection
switching process after a failure occurred, and the time needed to
complete preemption of existing traffic on the shared segments as
described in Section 4.2. The time needed to initiate the protection
switching process, which is known as detection and correlation time
in [RFC4427], is related to the OAM or management process, but the
time needed to complete preemption is related to the actions within
an SMP domain. Support for a protection switching time of 50ms is
dependent upon the initial switchover to the protection path, but the
preemption time SHOULD also be taken into account to minimize total
service interruption time.
When triggered, protection switching action SHOULD be initiated
immediately to minimize service interruption time.
5.6. Timers
In order to prevent multiple switching actions for a single switching
trigger, when there are multiple layers of networks, SMP SHOULD be
controlled by a hold-off timer that would allow lower layer
mechanisms to complete their switching actions before invoking SMP
protection actions as described in [RFC6372].
In order to prevent an unstable recovering working path from invoking
intermittent switching operation, SMP SHOULD employ a wait-to-restore
timer during any reversion switching as described in [RFC6372].
5.7. Communication Channel and Fate Sharing
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
SMP SHOULD provide a communication channel, along the protection
path, between the endpoints of the protection path to support fast
protection switching.
SMP in hard-preemption mode SHOULD include support for communicating
information to coordinate the use of the shared protection resources
among multiple working paths. The message encoding and communication
channel between the nodes of the shared protection resource and the
endpoints of the protection path are out of the scope of this
document.
Bidirectional protection switching SHOULD be supported in SMP.
6. Manageability Considerations
The network management architecture and requirements for MPLS-TP are
specified in [RFC5951]. They derive from the generic specifications
described in ITU-T G.7710/Y.1701 [G.7710] for transport technologies.
This document does not introduce any new manageability requirements
beyond those covered in those documents.
7. Security Considerations
General security considerations for MPLS-TP are covered in [RFC5921].
The security considerations for the generic associated control
channel are described in [RFC5586].
Security considerations for any proposed solution should consider
exhaustion of resources related to preemption, especially by a
malicious actor as a threat vector to protect against. Protections
should also be considered to prevent a malicious actor from
attempting to cause an alternate path to force traffic by a
sensor/device, thereby enabling pervasive monitoring [RFC7258].
8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
9. Acknowledgements
This document is the outcome of discussions on Shared Mesh Protection
for MPLS-TP. The authors would like to thank all contributors to
these discussions, and especially Eric Osborne for facilitating them.
We would also like to thank Matt Hartley for working on the English
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
review and Lou Berger for his valuable comments and suggestions on
this document.
10. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, Oct 2004.
[RFC4426] Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., and Papadimitriou, D.E. "GMPLS
Recovery Functional Specification", RFC 4426, March 2006.
[RFC4427] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Recovery (Protection and
Restoration) Terminology for GMPLS", RFC 4427, March 2006.
[RFC4428] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Analysis of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery
Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration)",
RFC 4428, March 2006.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Nadeau, T., and C. Pignataro,
"Requirements for the Transport Profile of MPLS",
RFC 5654, Sept 2009.
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", RFC 5921, July 2010.
[RFC5951] Lam, K., Mansfield, S., and E. Gray, "Network Management
Requirements for MPLS-based Transport Networks", RFC 5951,
September 2010.
[RFC6372] Sprecher, N. and A. Farrel, "MPLS-TP Survivability
Framework", RFC 6372, Sept 2011.
[RFC6378] Sprecher, N., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Fulignoli, A., and
Y. Weingarten, "MPLS-TP Linear Protection", RFC 6378,
Nov 2011.
[RFC7271] Ryoo, J., Gray, E., van Helvoort, H., D'Alessandro, A.,
Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational
Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network
Operators", RFC 7271, June 2014.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", RFC 7258, May 2014.
[G.808.1] ITU, "Generic Protection Switching - Linear trail and
subnetwork protection", ITU-T G.808.1, May 2014.
11. Contributing Authors
David Allan
Ericsson
Email: david.i.allan@ericsson.com
Daniel King
Old Dog Consulting
Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk
Taesik Cheung
ETRI
Email: cts@etri.re.kr
12. Authors' Addresses
Yaacov Weingarten
34 Hagefen St.
Karnei Shomron, 4485500
Israel
Email: wyaacov@gmail.com
Sam Aldrin
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Express Way
Santa Clara, CA 95951
United States
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Ping Pan
Infinera
Email: ppan@infinera.com
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS SMP Req September 28, 2014
Jeong-dong Ryoo
ETRI
218 Gajeongno
Yuseong, Daejeon 305-700
South Korea
Email: ryoo@etri.re.kr
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com
Weingarten, et al. Expires April 1, 2015 [Page 15]
