Internet DRAFT - draft-iqbal-spring-mpls-ping-algo
draft-iqbal-spring-mpls-ping-algo
Network Working Group N. Nainar, Ed.
Internet-Draft Z. Ali
Updates: 8287 (if approved) C. Pignataro
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: August 27, 2021 F. Iqbal
Arista Networks
D. Rathi
S. Hegde
Juniper Networks
February 23, 2021
LSP Ping/Traceroute for Prefix SID in Presence of Multi-Algorithm/Multi-
Topology Networks
draft-iqbal-spring-mpls-ping-algo-02
Abstract
[RFC8287] defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for
Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier
(SIDs) with an MPLS data plane. The machinery defined in [RFC8287]
works well in single topology, single algorithm deployments where
each Prefix SID is only associated with a single IP prefix. In
multi-topology networks, or networks deploying multiple algorithms
for the same IP Prefix, MPLS echo request needs to carry additional
information in the Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs to properly validate IGP
Prefix SID.
This document updates [RFC8287] by modifying IPv4 and IPv6 IGP-Prefix
Segment ID FEC sub-TLVs to also include algorithm identification
while maintaining backwards compatibility. This document also
introduces new Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs for Prefix SID validation in
multi-topology networks.
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."
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures February 2021
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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 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 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Algorithm Identification for IGP-Prefix SID Sub-TLVs . . . . 5
4.1. IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Multi-topology Support for IGP Prefix SID . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Multi-topology IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV . . . . 6
5.2. Multi-Topology IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV . . . . 7
6. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Single-Topology Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.1. Initiator Node Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.2. Responder Node Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Multi-Topology Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.1. Initiator Node Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.2. Responding Node Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures February 2021
7.1. New Target FEC tack Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Algorithm in the Segment ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
[RFC8287] defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for
Segment Routing IGP-Prefix SID and IGP-Adjacency SID with an MPLS
data plane. [RFC8287] proposes 3 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs to carry
this information. [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] introduces the concept of
Flexible Algorithm that allows IGPs (ISIS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3) to
compute constraint-based path over an MPLS network. The constraint-
based paths enables the IGP of a router to associate one or more
Segment Routing Prefix-SID with a particular Flexible Algorithm, and
steer packets along the constraint-based paths. Multiple Flexible
Algorithms are assigned to the same IPv4/IPv6 Prefix while each
utilizing a different MPLS Prefix SID label. Similarly, operators
may deploy same IP prefix across multiple topologies in the network
using IGP Multi-topology ID (MT-ID). As Flexible-Algorithm based
deployments in particular, and multi-topology networks in general,
become more common, existing OAM machinery requires updates to
correctly diagnose network faults.
Segment Routing architecture [RFC8402] defines the context for IGP
Prefix SID as a unique tuple comprised of prefix, topology, and
algorithm>. Existing MPLS Ping/Traceroute machinery for SR Prefix
SIDs, defined in [RFC8287], carries prefix, prefix length, and IGP
protocol. To correctly identify and validate a Prefix-SID, the
validating device also requires algorithm and topology identification
to be supplied in the FEC Stack sub-TLV. This document extends SR-
IGP IPv4 and IPv6 Prefix SID FECs to validate a particular algorithm
in a single-topology network, while maintaining backwards
compatibility with existing implementations of [RFC8287]. It also
introduces new Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs to perform MPLS Ping and
Traceroute for IGP Prefix SIDs in multi-topology, multi-algorithm
deployments.
2. Conventions
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].
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures February 2021
The term "Must Be Zero" (MBZ) is used in object descriptions for
reserved fields. These fields MUST be set to zero when sent and
ignored on receipt.
Since this document refers to the MPLS Time to Live (TTL) far more
frequently than the IP TTL, the authors have chosen the convention of
using the unqualified "TTL" to mean "MPLS TTL" and using "IP TTL" for
the TTL value in the IP header.
3. Motivation
In presence of multiple algorithms, a single IGP Prefix may be
associated with zero or more IGP Prefix SIDs in addition to the
default (Shortest Path First) Prefix SID. Each Prefix SID will have
a distinct Prefix SID label and may possibly have a distinct set of
next-hops based on associated constraint-based path calculation
criteria. This means that to reach the same destination, an non-
default algorithm IGP-Prefix SID may take a different path than
default IGP Prefix SID algorithm.
R3------R6
/ \
/ \
R1----R2 R7----R8
\ /
\ /
R4------R5
Figure above, which is a simplification of the diagram used in
[RFC8287] illustrates this point through an example. Node Segment
IDs for R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8 for the default algorithm
are 5001, 5002, 5003, 5004, 5005, 5006, 5007, and 5008, respectively.
Nodes R1, R2, R4, R5, R7, and R8 also participate in Flexible
Algorithm 128. Their corresponding Node Segment IDs for the
algorithm are 5801, 5802, 5804, 5805, 5807, and 5808, respectively.
Now consider an MPLS LSP Traceroute request to validate the path to
reach node R8 through Flexible Algorithm 128. The TTL of the first
echo request packet expires at node R2 with incoming label 5808.
Node R2 attempts to validate IGP-Prefix SID Target FEC stack sub-TLV
from the echo request. However, this TFS sub-TLV does not contain
information identifying the algorithm. As a result, R2 will attempt
validation with default algorithm which expects the echo packet to
arrive with Prefix SID label 5008. The validation fails, and node R2
responds with error code 10 resulting in a false negative.
Carrying algorithm identification in the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV of
MPLS echo request will help avoid such false negatives. It will also
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures February 2021
help detect forwarding deviations such as when the packet for a
particular destination is incorrectly forwarded to a device that is
participating in the default algo but does not participate in a given
Flexible Algorithm.
The above problem statement can also be extended to apply in Multi-
Topology networks. In such networks, the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV
MUST carry Multi-Topology ID (MT-ID) in addition to prefix, its
length, IGP identification, and algorithm.
4. Algorithm Identification for IGP-Prefix SID Sub-TLVs
Section 5 of [RFC8287] defines 3 different Segment ID Sub-TLVs that
will be included in Target FEC Stack TLV defined in [RFC8029]. This
section updates IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV and IPv6 IGP-
Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV to also include an additional field
identifying the algorithm.
4.1. IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV
The Sub-TLV format for IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID MUST be set as
shown in the below TLV format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix Length | Protocol | Algo | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Algo field MUST be set to 0 if the default algorithm is used. Algo
field is set to 1 if Strict Shortest Path First (Strict-SPF)
algorithm is used. For Flex-Algo, the Algo field MUST be set with
the algorithm value (values can be 128-255).
4.2. IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV
The Sub-TLV format for IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID MUST be set as
shown in the below TLV format:
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures February 2021
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
| IPv6 prefix |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix Length | Protocol | Algo | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Algo field MUST be set to 0 if the default algorithm is used. Algo
field is set to 1 if Strict Shortest Path First (Strict-SPF)
algorithm is used. For Flex-Algo, the Algo field MUST be set with
the algorithm value (values can be 128-255).
5. Multi-topology Support for IGP Prefix SID
IGP Prefix SID TLVs defined above assume a single-topology network
for path validation. For Multi-Topology networks, this section
introduces new Multi-Topology IGP IPv4 Prefix SID and Multi-Topology
IGP IPv6 Prefix SID sub-TLVs in the Target FEC Stack TLV of MPLS echo
request. These sub-TLVs carry MT-ID for OSPF and IS-IS protocols as
specified in [RFC4915] and [RFC5120] respectively.
5.1. Multi-topology IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV
The Sub-TLV format for Multi-topology IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID MUST
be set as shown in the below TLV format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix Length | Protocol | Algo | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MT-ID identifies the Multi-Topology ID associated with the Prefix
SID. MT-ID is set in trailing 12 bits of the field when the Protocol
is set to IS-IS. Leading 4-bits of the MT-ID MUST be all zeroes for
IS-IS. MT-ID is set to trailing 8 bits when the protocol is
specified as OSPF. The leading octet MUST be set to all zeroes for
OSPF. MBZ MUST be set to all zeroes.
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures February 2021
The Protocol field MUST be set 1 if the responder MUST perform FEC
validation using OSPF as the IGP protocol and MT-ID is an OSPF Multi-
Topology ID. Protocol is set to 2 if the responder MUST perform FEC
validation using IS-IS as the IGP protocol, and the MT-ID is IS-IS
Multi-Topology ID. Protocol MUST not be set to 0 when using Multi-
Topology IPv4 IGP Prefix SID sub-TLV.
5.2. Multi-Topology IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV
The Sub-TLV format for IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID MUST be set as
shown in the below TLV format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
| IPv6 prefix |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix Length | Protocol | Algo | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MT-ID identifies the Multi-Topology ID associated with the Prefix
SID. MT-ID is set in trailing 12 bits of the field when the Protocol
is set to IS-IS. Leading 4-bits of the MT-ID MUST be all zeroes for
IS-IS. MT-ID is trailing 8 bits when the protocol is specified as
OSPF. The leading octet MUST be set to all zeroes for OSPF. MBZ
MUST be set to all zeroes.
The Protocol field MUST be set 1 if the responder MUST perform FEC
validation using OSPF as the IGP protocol and MT-ID is an OSPF Multi-
Topology ID. Protocol is set to 2 if the responder MUST perform FEC
validation using IS-IS as the IGP protocol, and the MT-ID is IS-IS
Multi-Topology ID. Protocol MUST not be set to 0 when using Multi-
Topology IPv6 IGP Prefix SID sub-TLV.
6. Procedures
The below section describes LSP Ping and Traceroute procedures beyond
the text specified in LSP
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures February 2021
6.1. Single-Topology Networks
An array of network operators may deploy flexible algorithms in their
network for constraint-based shortest paths, without deploying multi-
topology. The updated FEC definitions for IGP Prefix SID allows
operator to achieve LSP Ping and Traceroute in these networks while
maintaining backwards compatibility with existing devices in the
network. Below text highlights the handling procedures and initiator
and responder for the updated FEC definitions.
6.1.1. Initiator Node Procedures
A node initiating LSP echo request packet for the Node Segment ID
MUST identify and include the algorithm associated with the IGP
Prefix SID in the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV. If the initiating node
is not aware of the algorithm, the default algorithm (id 0) of
Shortest Path First is assumed.
6.1.2. Responder Node Procedures
This section updates the procedures defined in Section 7.4 of
[RFC8287] for IPv4/IPv6 IGP Prefix SID FEC. If the algorithm is 0,
the procedures from [RFC8287] do not require any change. For any
other algorithm value, if the responding node is validating the FEC
stack, it MUST also validate the IGP Prefix SID advertisement for the
algorithm defined in Algo field.
If the responding node is including IGP Prefix SID FEC in the FEC
stack due to FEC Stack Change operation, it MUST also include
algorithm associated with the Prefix SID.
6.2. Multi-Topology Networks
In presence of Multi-Topology networks, the operators can use the new
Multi-Topology IGP IPv4/IPv6 Prefix SID FEC definitions to achieve
path validation and fault isolation. Below text describes handling
procedures for Multi-Topology networks for initiator and responder.
The procedures defined in [RFC8287] are still applicable and the text
below updates them instead of replacing them.
6.2.1. Initiator Node Procedures
A node initiating LSP echo request packet for Single-Topology network
MAY use Multi-Topology IGP IPv4/IPv6 Prefix SID defined above. A
node initiating LSP echo request for Multi-Topology networks MUST use
Multi-Topology IGP IPv4/IPv6 Prefix SID defined above. The node MUST
identify and include both the IGP MT-ID and the algorithm associated
with the IGP prefix SID in addition to prefix, prefix length, and the
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures February 2021
protocol. If the initiating node is not aware of the algorithm, the
default algorithm (id 0) of Shortest Path First is assumed. The
protocol MUST be set to 1 if the responding node is running OSPF, and
2 if the responding node is running IS-IS.
6.2.2. Responding Node Procedures
This section updates the procedures defined in Section 7.4 of
[RFC8287] for Multi-Topology IPv4/IPv6 IGP Prefix SID FEC. Upon
reception of the sub-TLV, responding node MUST validate that Protocol
field is not 0 to correctly parse MT-ID. In addition to procedures
defined in [RFC8287], if responding node is validating the FEC Stack,
it MUST validate the IGP Prefix SID advertisement for the algorithm
and the MT-ID described in the incoming FEC sub-TLV.
If the responding node is including Multi-Topology IGP Prefix SID FEC
in the FEC stack due to a FEC Stack Change operation, it MUST also
include the algorithm and MT-ID associated with the Prefix SID, and
set the Protocol to 1 or 2, based on the corresponding IGP.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. New Target FEC tack Sub-TLV
IANA is requested to assign two new Sub-TLVs from "Sub-TLVs for TLV
Types 1, 16 and 21" sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" (IANA-
MPLS-LSP-PING) registry.
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference
---------- ----------------- ------------
TBD1 Multi-topology IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID This document
TBD2 Multi-topology IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID This document
7.2. Algorithm in the Segment ID Sub-TLV
IANA is requested to create a new "Algorithm in the Segment ID Sub-
TLV" registry under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry. The initial entries
are requested as below:
Value Meaning Reference
---------- ----------------- ------------
0 Default Algorithm This document
1 Strict Shortest Path First (Strict-SPF) This document
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures February 2021
8. Security Considerations
This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any security
considerations.
9. Acknowledgements
TBA.
10. Contributors
TBA
11. References
11.1. 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
algo-13 (work in progress), October 2020.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22
(work in progress), May 2019.
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures February 2021
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Authors' Addresses
Nagendra Kumar (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Faisal Iqbal
Arista Networks
Email: faisal.ietf@gmail.com
Deepti
Juniper Networks Inc.
Email: deeptir@juniper.net
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures February 2021
Shraddha
Juniper Networks Inc.
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
Nainar, et al. Expires August 27, 2021 [Page 12]
