Internet DRAFT - draft-minto-idr-bgp-autodiscovery
draft-minto-idr-bgp-autodiscovery
Internet Engineering Task Force J.M. Jeganathan
Internet-Draft V.S.K.R. Avula
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: 25 July 2022 21 January 2022
BGP Peer Auto-Configuration
draft-minto-idr-bgp-autodiscovery-01
Abstract
This document describes a layer 3 protocol (Service advertisement) to
help bgp to advertise service availability and local configurations .
This enables bgp speakers to discover bgp peers transport endpoints
and peer's configuration within link. With Service advertisement,
receivers could successfully bring up bgp protocol session without
mundane configurations.
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 25 July 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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.
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Protocol overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PUD layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. SA Base message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. Remaining lifetime TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2. Config sequence TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.3. Authentication TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.4. Refresh request TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. BGP service advertisement message . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Local address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Local IPv6 address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.3. Security TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.4. Security Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.5. TCP MSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.6. Link Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Protocol operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Transmit procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Receiver procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Transport endpoint reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Protocol Authentication operation . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Message of SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. TLVs of SA base Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. TLVs of BGP service advertisement message . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
This document describes a layer 3 protocol (Service advertisement)to
help bgp to advertise service availability and local configurations .
This enables bgp speakers to discover bgp peer's transport endpoints
and peer's configuration within link. With Service advertisement,
receivers could successfully bring up bgp protocol session without
mundane configurations.
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
1.1. Requirements Language
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].
2. Protocol overview
This is a simple protocol to periodically send and receive UDP
multicast PDU that contains bgp transport information in the form of
messages and TLVs. Receiver could use this information to bootstrap
the single hop bgp and/or loopback address bgp between directly
connected bgp speakers. The advertised information gets expired if
it is not refreshed before the lifetime ends.
This protocol does not provide any reliability of delivery and relies
on UDP multicast and periodic send. The current version of this
protocol assumes the link MTU is good enough to encode BGP transport
information or underlying IP implementation is able to fragment and
reassemble for link local multicast PDU. But this protocol is
flexible enough to implement a future version of fragment TLV
attachment. This is to bypass smaller link MTU for a system or
environment preventing IP fragment.
Service Advertisement (SA) PDU has multiple types of messages. This
document defines 2 types of messages. The primary/base messages are
required for SA to operate and secondary type messages for BGP
service advertisement.
3. PUD layers
The PDU contains a header followed by variable number of messages.
Each message contains variable number of TLVs.
SA uses type-length-value 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value ..
+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
Type: 1-octet value to interpret the value with in message. Same
type value could be reused in different message.
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
Length: Specifies length in octets of the value field.
Value: Octet string that encodes information to be interpreted as
specified by the Type field.
SA uses message to group set of TLVs
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|message Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLVs
+-----
Figure 2
message Type: This 1-octet value identifies type of message.
Message Length: Specifies the length in octets of the Message ID and
TLVs.
Message ID :32-bit value used to identify this message. Used for
logging purpose.
SA PDU
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version | PDU Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Messages
+-----
Figure 3
Version: This 1-octet unsigned integer indicates the protocol
version. This version of the specification specifies Service
Advertisement version 0.
PDU Length: This 2-octet unsigned integer specifies the length
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
Identifier: 4 octet field that uniquely identifies PDU sender. BGP
id could be used for this purpose. This helps to uniquely identify
sender across the parallel links between same nodes.
4. Messages
The document defines following messages.
1. SA Base message
2. BGP service advertisement message
4.1. SA Base message
The SA Base message is mandatory message and mainly used for the
protocol operation.
The document defines following TLVs for SA Base message.
1. Remaining lifetime TLV
2. Config sequence TLV
3. Authentication TLV
4. Refresh request TLV
4.1.1. Remaining lifetime TLV
Remaining lifetime describes how long receiver should keep the state
without seeing a PDU from the sender. The lifetime gets updated when
receiver accepts the PDU.
Type : 17
Length: 2 octets
Value: Remaining lifetime in seconds
4.1.2. Config sequence TLV
Specifies a 4-octet configuration sequence number. Receiver could
make use the number to detect config change. This will be useful to
restart the bgp session with new parameters.
Type : 18
Length: 4 octets
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
Value: unsigned sequence number
4.1.3. Authentication TLV
Specifies authentication.
? 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | key-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| key-id | Sequence number ..|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Seq no | Hash/digest
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4
Type : 19
Length: variable
key-id : keychain id
Sequence-number - 4 byte sequence number of this SA base message.
Digest - Hash computed for this message using key-id mapped algorithm
4.1.4. Refresh request TLV
Optional TLV to trigger receivers to immediately send SA PDU.
Presence of the TLV indicates sender request refresh. This will be
used during the restart to learn about services quickly from
connected devices to speed up service discovery.
Type : 20
Length: 0 octets
4.2. BGP service advertisement message
BGP Service Advertisement message provides transport information to
bring up the bgp session. This document defines transport
information TLVs and session information TLVs for BGP Service
Advertisement messages.
Message type of BGP Service Advertisement message: 2.
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
Following are the Transport information TLVs
1. Local Address
2. Security TTL
3. Security Authentication
4. Link Address
5. Transport Preference.
6. TCP MSS
4.2.1. Local address
Specifies a local address used for bgp transport connection. Address
encoding uses a below format. 2 octets describe the address and
followed by address value.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| flags | Res | pref | IPv4/v6 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4/v6 Address ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address
L bit - Address of loopback interface.
pref - Preference value of 4 bits. Value from 1 to 15.
0 indicates dont care.
1 higly preferred and 15 means least preferred.
Address - For IPv4 4 octets and IPv6 16 octets
Figure 5
? 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Address1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Address2 ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
Type : 17
Length: variable. multiples of 6 octets
Value: IPv4 addresses with address encoding.
4.2.2. Local IPv6 address
Specifies a IPv6 local address used for bgp transport connection.
Type : 18
Length: multiples of 18 octets
Value: IPv6 addresses with address encoding used for transport
connection.
4.2.3. Security TTL
TTL be accepted for bgp messages
Type : 19
Length: 0
Value: Presence of this TLV indicates that receiver accepts only
packets with 255 TTL.
4.2.4. Security Authentication
Type : 20
Length: 1
Value:This supports only two values 0 and 1.
0 indicates TCP md5. 1 indicates TCP-AO Absence of this TLV
indicates, no authentication used for connection.
4.2.5. TCP MSS
TCP MSS used for the connection
Type : 21
Length: 4
Value:Value in bytes
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
Indicates the preference of TCP MSS for the transport connection.
4.2.6. Link Address
This could be used for receiver to get nexthop information for local
address TLV when sender's running IPv4 PDU and prefer IPv6 transport
and vice-a-versa. This could also be used to provide reachability to
loopback addresses with link address.
Type : 22
Length: 4 for IPv4 address and 16 for IPv6 address 6 for mac address.
Value:interface IPv4 or IPv6 or mac address .
5. Protocol operation
A sender should periodically send PDU to refresh the advertised
information before its lifetime expires. An implementation may send
PDU well before the lifetime expires based on specific events. These
events could be a local config change or discovering a new
advertiser. Also, implementation could switch to fast refresh when
content of the pdu changes and move back to regular refresh interval.
The fast refresh will help in quicker discovery and may help update
content in case of auto order delivery. As stated above, this is
purely an implementation technique than the protocol mandate.
To discover multi-data(IPv4/IPv6) protocol environment(mixed
transport mode in a single link) sender shall send both data-protocol
pdu based on local configuration. When sender choose to send both
data protocol PDU it should make sure that semantic content of the
messages should be same. An implementation may choose to use
preferred data protocol PDU as primary send PDU and only send other
data protocol PDU during the interesting events. This optimization
is only possible when all the known advertisers participates in both
data-protocol.
A sender should send PDU to refresh before previously advertised
lifetime expires. If bgp is configured with only one transport
address family(IPv4/v6) then sender shall only send corresponding
data protocol PDU. If both addresses are configured, then it shall
use both data protocol PDUs. PDUs are sent with source address as
link primary address and destination is link local all- routers with
TTL 255. If authentication is enabled then add authentication TLV
using the authentication procedure described in authentication
section. Populate other TLVs based on local preference and send the
PDU on configured link. Semantic content (transport and session
information) of the PDU should be same irrespective of data protocol.
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
Receiver resets the state when it accepts new PDU irrespective of the
data protocol. Receiver shall add a route for the address in local
address TLV with nexthop as source address of the PDU if PDU(PUD)
data protocol and local address is same address family. Otherwise if
link address is available, it could be used as nexthop for the
address in local address TLV. Receivers consolidate state from
various TLVs and pass it on to BGP for the session opening. An
implementation could only notify if the state change from previous
reported state to bgp or the configuration sequence number changes
from the receiver. How bgp uses this information is beyond the scope
of the document.
5.1. Transmit procedure
PDUs are sent with source address as link's primary address and
destination is link local all-routers with TTL 255. PDU is sent to
SA UDP port(179 if assigned). After the header, SA Base message
should be first message. If authentication is enabled then add
authentication TLV using the authentication procedure described in
authentication section. This authentication TLV should be first TLV
of PDU. Add lifetime and config sequence TLVs defined in this
document. Both these TLVs are mandatory TLVs. After the SA base
message, add bgp service advertisement message with appropriate TLVs.
5.2. Receiver procedure
When a SA PDU received, following sanity procedure must be followed.
If TTL is not 255 then discard the PDU.
If the version is not compatible (Only compatible version is 0) then
discard the PDU.
If the PDU length is greater than IP header length, then discard it.
If the first message is not SA Base, then discard the pdu.
If authentication is enabled and first TLV in the SA base message,
then discard the PDU.
If authentication is enabled, then follow the authentication
procedure.
If authentication is failed, then discard the PDU.
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
With above steps, sanity of the PDU header is verified. Receiver
should start decoding the TLV information. Once all the TLV sanity
checked receiver shall keep the decoded information. If the receiver
decides to keep the information, then it should start a timer with
specified lifetime or refresh lifetime with newer one.
The identifier in PDU header uniquely identifies the advertisement.
An implementation could either implement neighbor semantic or state
semantic from the advertised information along with identifier. This
document does not recommend one or other.
Received and decoded information shall be passed on to bgp if the
content does not match with last received or the local config has
changed. This is a desired optimization, so that SA does not
unnecessarily trigger failed bgp session open attempts. How bgp uses
this information is beyond the scope of the document.
5.3. Transport endpoint reachability
Advertised local address reachability can either be gathered from the
source address or a link address TLV. Source address of the PDU may
not give reachability for all deployment(Sender using the IPv6 data
protocol but prefer v4 transport). In those cases, link address TLV
will provide reachability.
5.4. Protocol Authentication operation
A sender that wants to authenticate Service messages should include
Authentication TLV as part of SA base message.
Sender needs to include all the fields of Authentication TLV as shown
in section 4.1.3. It needs to assign a unique KEY-ID to each
authentication combination configured on the device. Key-length
needs to be set to configured key's length in bytes. Sequence number
is a 32-bit unsigned integer that may increment by one each time a
new message is sent. Any change in TLVs for a previously advertised
local address needs to be sent with an incremented TLV. Digest value
can be of variable length depending upon type of authentication being
used. This value is calculated over all the contents of service
message.
Receiver on receiving this TLV has a sequential processing of
individual fields of TLV. Sequence number is read from TLV and is
compared against any existing state from this sender. If sequence
number is lesser than previously received, this packet is dropped
except when bgp session goes down.If last received sequence number
was m and current received sequence number is n, n needs be in range
of [m+1, m + 2^(32 - 1)]. This exception is needed to handle a
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
restarted sender who is unable to retrieve earlier sequence number
due to restart. This is required when SA uses bigger lifetime.
After getting KEY-id, it checks for a matching KEY-ID on it. If it
does not exist, packet is dropped. Next Key-length of locally
configured key is compared against key-length received in this TLV,
if they do not match packet is dropped. Similarly, a comparison is
done for authentication types of locally configured key and received
TLV. If they do not match, packet is dropped. After above checks,
hash is computed for all the contents of service with locally
configured key and compared against received hash value. If they are
same, authentication information matches with local configuration and
messages can be further processed with protocol operations depending
on type of this message.
6. Acknowledgements
Jeffrey Hass provided many useful technical and editorial comments
and suggestions for improvement.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to allocate a new UDP port (179 is the
preferred number ) and 2 message type code for service advertisments.
Value TLV Name Reference -----
------------------------------------ ------------- Service Name:
Service advertisements Transport Protocol: UDP Assignee: IESG
iesg@ietf.org Description: Service advertisments for auto
configuration. Reference: This document --
draft-minto-idr-bgp-autodiscovery.txt Port Number: 179 -- To be
assigned by IANA.
Figure 7
7.1. Message of SA
This document requests IANA to create a new registry following
messages "Messages of SA " with the following registration procedure:
? Registry Name: Messages of SA protocol
Value Message name Reference
------- ---------------------------------- -------------
0 Reserved This document
1 Base message This document
2 BGP Service Advertisement This document
Figure 8
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
7.2. TLVs of SA base Message
This document requests IANA to create a new registry following
messages "TLVs of SA base Message" with the following registration
procedure:
Registry Name: TLVs of SA base Message.
Value TLV Name Reference
-------- ---------------------------------- -------------
0-16 Reserved This document
17 Remaining lifetime TLV This document
18 Config sequence TLV This document
19 Authentication This document
20 Refresh request TLV This document
224-255 Experimental
Figure 9
7.3. TLVs of BGP service advertisement message
This document requests IANA to create a new registry following
messages "TLVs of BGP Service Advertisement" with the following
registration procedure:
? Registry Name: TLVs of BGP Services.
Value TLV Name Reference
-------- ---------------------------------- -------------
0-16 Reserved This document
17 Local Address This document
18 Local IPv6 Address This document
19 Security TTL This document
20 Security Authentication This document
21 TCP MSS This document
22 Link Address This document
224-255 Experimental This document
Figure 10
8. Security Considerations
This security considerations for BGP [RFC4271] apply equally to this
extension for BGP session establishment.
BGP sessions transport end points discovered over this protocol can
be protected against various attacks by using authentication for
packets as described in Section 5.4.
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
Usage of seqeunce number and authentication reduces likelihood of
replay attacks. As the protocol is not connection-oriented, it makes
it feasible to change authentication parameters for protocol
messages. This further reduces the likelihood of replay-attacks.
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>.
9.2. Informative References
[bgp-autoconf-considerations]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
autoconf-considerations/>.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4271>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Appendix A. Additional Stuff
This becomes an Appendix.
Authors' Addresses
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2022
Jeyananth Minto Jeganathan
Juniper Networks
Juniper Networks, 1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America
Email: minto@juniper.net
Venkata Shiva Krishna Reddy Avula
Juniper Networks
Juniper Networks, 1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America
Email: venkatashiva@juniper.net
Jeganathan & Avula Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 15]
