Internet DRAFT - draft-yong-pim-igp-multicast-arch
draft-yong-pim-igp-multicast-arch
Network Working Group L. Yong
Internet-Draft D. Cheng
Intended status: Standards Track W. Hao
Expires: September 10, 2015 D. Eastlake
Huawei Technologies Ltd.
A. Qu
MediaTek
J. Hudson
Brocade
U. Chunduri
Ericsson Inc.
March 9, 2015
IGP Multicast Architecture
draft-yong-pim-igp-multicast-arch-01
Abstract
This document specifies the architecture of IP multicast routing
using an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP).
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 [RFC2119].
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 September 10, 2015.
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(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
1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Conventions used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. An Overview of IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Routing IP Multicast Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Multicast Distribution Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Bidirectional Distribution Tree . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Advertising Multicast Group Membership . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Requirements of Edge Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Intra-Area Multicast Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5. Inter-Area Multicast Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5.1. Behavior of IS-IS Level 2 Router . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5.2. Behavior of OSPF ABR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. Heterogeneous Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.7. TE (Traffic Engineering) Support . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.8. Applications to Overlay Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.9. IPv6 and IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
In an IP network, an IGP is used to route and forward IP unicast
packets. In doing so, the routers collect and maintain the network
information and store it in their database. The network information
includes the identity of the routers and their interconnections. In
a traffic engineering enabled network, the information also includes
traffic related parameters such as link bandwidth. The network
information that is already maintained on routers, along with some
minor IGP protocol extensions as proposed in this document, are
sufficient to also route IP multicast packets. This means a single
IGP can be used for routing both unicast packets and multicast
packets. This document describes the architecture of routing IP
multicast packets using the network information that is disseminated
by an IGP.
1.2. Motivation
With the explosion of IP technology based applications, the support
of IP multicast delivery over the same IP network that carries IP
unicast traffic becomes mandatory. In many aspects, some basic
requirements for routing IP multicast packets are the same as those
for routing IP unicast packets; e.g., the "plug and play" nature of
bringing up the routing engine and enabling the packets forwarding.
It is desirable to use an IGP that requires minimum configuration and
currently only routes and forwards IP unicast packets, to also route
and forward IP multicast packets.
Current practice in an IP network is to use a separate protocol, such
as Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM - [RFC4601]), to route and
forward IP multicast packets, whereby some network information are
actually retrieved from IGP. Using a single protocol, i.e., an IGP,
to route both IP unicast and multicast packets is more efficient;
this eliminates additional convergence time that would otherwise be
introduced by the second protocol. Using one protocol also reduces
operational complexity.
In an advanced data center network, the decoupling of network IP
space from service IP space, for example a VxLAN based network
overlay [RFC7348], is required. To support all service applications,
such an IP network fabric must support both unicast and multicast.
Decoupling network IP space from service IP address space also
provides network agility and programmability. If network IP space is
decoupled from service IP space, the network itself no longer needs
manual configuration; an IP network fabric can be formed
automatically.
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
1.3. Conventions used in this Document
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].
1.4. Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
o Edge Router: A router that has direct interfaces with one or more
IP hosts.
o Distribution Tree: a rooted distribution tree with one root and
one or more leaves that facilitate routing multicast packets.
o IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol.
o Intra-Area: Refers to the communication between IGP routing nodes
within a single IGP's area.
o Inter-Area: Refer to the communication between IGP routing nodes
across an area boundary.
o IP Multicast Group
o Link State Database: The database constructed and maintained by a
router running link state based routing algorithm such as IS-IS
and OSPF. It contains network based information including
identity of routers and their interconnections, reachable IP
addresses, etc.
o Local Group Database: The database constructed and maintained by
an edge router that stores and maintains entries of { multicast-
address, host } pairs for hosts interested in traffic for a multi-
cast address.
o Pruned Tree: A subset of IGP's topology graph with a tree root,
using which multicast packets are forwarded to one or more
destination nodes with optimization of the usage of links and
nodes.
o Root Node: A router serving as the root of a multicast
distribution tree.
o TE (Traffic Engineering) Database: The database constructed and
maintained by a router running a link state based routing
algorithm with TE extensions such as ISIS-TE and OSPF-TE. It
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
contains TE parameters (such as bandwidth) that are associated
with links and nodes.
o Transit Router: A router that is capable of receiving an IP
multicast packet, then replicates it and sends to one or more
other routers in the same multicast distribution tree.
2. An Overview of IGP
There are currently two heavily deployed IGPs, IS-IS
[RFC1195]/[RFC5308] and OSPF [RFC2328]/[RFC2740]. IS-IS and OSPF are
different in many aspects, but they both use a link-state algorithm
and the network information they disseminate for the same IP network
is the same, including routers' IP addresses, routers'
interconnections, reachable IP addresses, the network topology, etc.
An IGP operation can have a hierarchy of two levels. An IGP runs
within an area, where each participating router originates and
advertises its own information (router's identity, interface IP
addresses, identity of directly connected neighbors, etc.), and this
information is flooded to all participating routers the entire area
but not beyond. As a result, within an IGP area, each participating
router maintains the information of all routers and their
interconnections. This collection of network information is the Link
State Database, which is currently used as a base to calculate IP
routing table for unicast packets within an IGP area. Sometimes we
refer to the topology within an IGP area as a topology graph.
Separate IGP areas may be interconnected and, between areas, only
reachability information is advertised across area boundaries by
Level-2 routers in IS-IS or Area Border Routers (ABR) in OSPF.
[RFC1195] specifies an IGP for routing IPv4 unicast packets using IS-
IS protocol (ISO), whereas [RFC5308] specifies the extensions to
support routing IPv6 unicast packets.
OSPFv2 [RFC2328] is an IGP for routing IPv4 unicast packets whereas
OSPFv3 [RFC2740] is an IGP for routing IPv6 unicast packets.
The link state based routing algorithm in OSPF and IS-IS calculates
the shortest path from the source to the destination. A routing
table for routing unicast packets is generated on every participating
IGP router.
For some applications, path restrictions (e.g., link bandwidth) need
to be considered. As a result, extensions have been added to both
IS-IS and OSPF to support traffic engineering based unicast routing
as follows:
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
o [RFC3630] - Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2
o [RFC3784] - Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)
o [RFC5329] - Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3
A TE-capable IGP router, in addition to constructing a Link State
Database, also constructs and maintains a TE Database that stores the
traffic parameters (e.g., bandwidth) associated with links and nodes.
This information is used for constraint based consideration during
normal shortest path calculation.
3. Scope
To support IP multicast routing, either IS-IS or OSPF can be used
and, in the architectural perspective of this document, there is no
difference between them. It requires no change in IS-IS or OSPF
other than extensions to advertise and store distribution tree root
node address and multicast group receiver information (refer to
Section 4.2).
Using IGP to route IP multicast packets is within IGP's architecture
and routing paradigm. IP multicast routing within an IGP area is
called intra-area multicast routing, and IP multicast routing across
IGP area is called inter-area multicast routing. The concept, rules
and behavior regarding intra-area unicast routing and inter-area
unicast routing are all similarly applicable to intra-area and inter-
area multicast routing, respectively.
In an IPv4 network, IPv4 multicast packets can be routed using IS-IS
(based on [RFC1195]) or OSPFv2 as introduced by this document.
Similarly in an IPv6 network, IPv6 multicast packets can be routed
using IS-IS (based on [RFC5308]) or OSPFv3 [RFC2740]. As the
networking industry is currently under transition from IPv4 to IPv6,
co-existence of the two is sometimes required. Using the
architecture described in this document, IPv4 multicast packets can
be transported over an IPv6 network and IPv6 multicast packets can be
transported over an IPv4 network.
4. Routing IP Multicast Packets
As illustrated in Figure 1, a single IGP can support both IP unicast
and multicast routing.
This section describes routing IP multicast packets using the
existing network information that IGP collects, the related functions
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
and characteristics, along with the required extensions to existing
IGPs.
+-------------+ +-------------+
| IP Unicast | | IP Multicast|
| Routing | | Routing |
+------^------+ +------^------+
| |
+------o------+ +------o------+
| Unicast | | Multicast |
|Routing Table| |Routing Table|
+------^------+ +------^------+
| |
+------o------+ +------o------+
| Shortest | | Distribution|
| Path Tree | | Path Tree |
+------^------+ +------^------+
| |
+------o---------------o------+
| Link State Database |
+--------------^--------------+
|
+--------------o--------------+
| IGP |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| | OSPF | | IS-IS | |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
+-----------------------------+
Figure 1: Using an IGP to Route both IP Unicast and Multicast Packets
4.1. Multicast Distribution Tree
To route IP multicast packets, a distribution tree is used. A
distribution tree consists of a tree root, one or more tree leaves,
and some branch nodes. The tree root is identified by the IP address
(or Router ID) of an arbitrary router. The tree root can be
configured for a specific IP multicast address group, or
automatically elected via an algorithm. A tree leaf is an edge
router and is a multicast destination. A tree leaf is identified by
an edge router's IP address and it is directly attached to one or
more hosts that advertise the IP multicast group addresses (see
Section 4.2 for details). A router that is not a tree root but
transmits a received IP multicast packet to one or more other router
is called a Transit Router, which is a branch node in the
distribution tree.
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
In the most general case, there is a single multicast distribution
tree for each IP multicast address group. Once a distribution tree
is formed, an IP packet with the multicast destination address is
forwarded according to the multicast distribution tree, that is, from
the source to all tree leaves.
Via configuration, additional distribution trees can be constructed
for the same IP multicast address group, however with different tree
roots and tree branches (paths). This option provides a redundancy
for routing path protection, and it can also be used to support load
balance.
When a leaf node of a multicast distribution tree is in the same IGP
area as the tree root, the packet flow in the tree is within a single
IGP area. This behavior is called IGP intra-area multicast routing.
When a leaf node of a multicast distribution tree is in a different
IGP area from the tree root, the packet flow in the tree must cross
IGP area boundary. This behavior is called IGP inter-area multicast
routing.
Unicast routing in an IGP domain requires minimum configuration.
This characteristic is inherited by multicast routing, that is, it
requires minimal configuration and a multicast distribution tree can
generally be constructed quickly in the same manner as a unicast
routing table.
4.1.1. Bidirectional Distribution Tree
A multicast distribution tree is bi-directional. In such a tree, IP
multicast packets destined to a given multicast address could
traverse any tree branch in either direction; that means any leaf
node on the tree can be a multicast receiver and sender. When a leaf
node is a multicast source, it transmits the packet on the tree by
which it is distributed to all other leaves of that tree. The bi-
directionality of distribution tree is useful for applications such
as video conference.
By configuration, a multicast distribution tree can be uni-
directional, i.e., all leaf nodes can only receive multicast packets
destined to a given multicast address. In this scenario, the tree
root may be the traffic source and if not, the source must unicast
packets to the tree root, which then distributes the packets
according to the distribution tree. The uni-directionality of
distribution tree is useful for applications such as video
broadcasting.
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
For optimization purpose, i.e., to build an efficient pruned
multicast distribution tree in both cases, care must be taken in
choosing the location of tree root in a given network; e.g., to
consider the average path length from the root to leaf nodes, the
total links (branches) used for the distribution, etc.
4.2. Advertising Multicast Group Membership
In order to support multicast routing, an IGP must be extended to
store and advertise IP multicast addresses in the similar manner
currently for IP unicast addresses.
Pairs of { multicast-group, host } can be configured on an edge
router, or learned from the interaction with IGMP/MLD(see
Section 4.3). In either case, the router must advertise the IP
multicast group membership throughout the IGP area. The advertising,
refresh, aging, and removal of IP multicast addresses are handled in
the same manner as the existing database element, i.e., LSP in IS-IS
and LSA in OSPF.
IP multicast addresses can also be advertised across an IGP area
boundary using mechanisms similar to those used for IP unicast
addresses. IP multicast addresses may be summarized in a way similar
to IP unicast addresses for scaling purpose.
The details of storing and advertising IP multicast address using IS-
IS and OSPF will be specified in a separate documents.
4.3. Requirements of Edge Routers
To support routing IP multicast packets, edge routers, i.e., routers
that have interfaces directly connected to IP hosts, are required to
run IGMP (IGMPv2/[RFC2236] or IGMPv3/[RFC3376]) for IPv4 based hosts
and MLD (MLD/[RFC2710] or MLDv2/[RFC3810]) for IPv6 based hosts.
As the result of interaction with hosts, an edge router would build a
Local Group Database where each entry is a { multicast-group, host }
pair, which indicates that the attached host belonging to the IP
multicast group. This process is on-going in order to keep track of
the IP group membership addresses of attached hosts according to
protocol specification of IGMP/MLD.
Use of the Local Group Database is two fold. First, when an edge
router receives an inbound IP multicast packet, it checks in the
database to see if any entry has an IP multicast-group address
matching the destination address in the received packet. If so, the
packet is forwarded to the local host(s); otherwise the packet is
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
dropped. Note this behavior already exists on edge routers that
support IP multicast forwarding.
Second, an edge router is required to advertise/flood the IP
multicast addresses learnt/withdrawn from IGMP/MLD to/from other
routers in the same IGP area, in the similar manner as advertising/
flooding its own interface IP addresses. With this information, an
IP multicast distribution tree can be built for each IP multicast
address group. The details for advertising multicast addresses by
IS-IS and OSPF will be documented separately.
In some deployment, a host as a multicast destination or source may
connect to more than one edge routers for the purpose of reliability
or/and load balance, which is normally termed multi-homing. In this
scenario, care must be taken in order to prevent forwarding loops or
packets duplication.
4.4. Intra-Area Multicast Routing
An IP multicast distribution tree within an IGP area is a sub-graph
of the IGP's area topology graph (see Section 2). All routers that
receive advertisement of IP multicast addresses in the IGP area must
build the multicast distribution tree for each IP multicast address
group. The construction of the distribution is based on the IGP's
Link State Database, which is currently used for routing IP unicast
packets. All routers in an IGP area must calculate and construct the
intra-area distribution tree using IGP's Link State Database with the
same algorithm, so that a pruned tree can be constructed for the
distribution tree. Care must be taken to avoid forwarding loops and
routing optimization is highly desirable.
The algorithm for constructing an IP multicast distribution tree, and
other related functions, do not require changes to existing IGP
function other than the addition of extensions.
The specific algorithm and related details for intra-area multicast
routing will be in a separate document.
4.5. Inter-Area Multicast Routing
In inter-area unicast routing, an IP packet from one IGP area
forwarded to another area is sent to an area border node (ABR for
OSPF) or L2 router (for IS-IS) first, which then forwards the packet
to/in the neighboring area. This is also the scenario for inter-area
multicast routing, and as such, an ABR/L2-Router functions as a
Transit Router, or a branch node in the multicast distribution tree.
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
Note that IGP's Link State Database is per area, so the multicast
distribution tree constructed on routers in the transmitting area in
generally terminated at the ABR/L2-Router due to lack of routing
information. The ABR/L2-Router in question would require extending
the distribution in the receiving area based on the separate Link
State Database.
The specific procedure and related details for inter-area multicast
routing will be in a separate document.
4.5.1. Behavior of IS-IS Level 2 Router
For IS-IS, the area boundary is in the border router, which extends
the distribution tree for that area.
To support inter-area multicast routing, an IS-IS Level 2 Router is
required to propagate IP multicast addresses received in one area to
all Level 2 Routers in other areas it is connected. This behavior is
similar to the advertisement of IS-IS Reachability Information PDU.
4.5.2. Behavior of OSPF ABR
For OSPF, the area boundary is on the ABR. When an ABR attached to
both transmitting area and receiving area, it extends the
distribution tree in the receiving area.
To support inter-area multicast routing, an OSPF ABR is required to
propagate IP multicast addresses received in one area to all other
areas to which it is attached. This behavior is similar to the
advertisement of OSPF Summary LSAs.
4.6. Heterogeneous Environment
To deploy IP multicast routing using IGP as described in this
document, all routers in the IGP area are required to do the
following:
o Implement the extensions to IS-IS (documented separately) or to
OSPF (documented separately), depending on the IGP in use, for
advertising multicast addresses.
o Support the new functions as described in Section 4.
A heterogeneous network environment is one where not all routers in
an IGP area implement the above extensions. A multicast distribution
tree within such an area cannot be segregated, but tunneling
mechanism can be used to support multicast routing there. When there
are routers that would be on a multicast distribution tree but do not
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
supporting the required extensions, a tunnel is constructed
connecting two routers capable of routing multicast across one or
more intervening non-capable routers, such that the tunnel becomes a
single branch on the distribution tree. An IP multicast packet sent
from a tunnel end to the other is encapsulated in an IP packet with
the sending router's IP address as the source address and the
receiving router's IP address as the destination address.
4.7. TE (Traffic Engineering) Support
The existing IP multicast routing practice (e.g., PIM) does not
consider route constraints (e.g., link bandwidth). Both OSPF and IS-
IS support traffic engineering based unicast routing by constructing
and maintaining a TE Database. Like the Link State Database, the TE
Database can also be used to support IP multicast routing when one or
more path constraints are considered.
To perform TE based multicast routing using IGP, routers must support
TE extensions, and otherwise, there requires no other change in the
IGP.
4.8. Applications to Overlay Model
Using a single IGP as a uniform routing engine for both IP unicast
and multicast routing enables a simple but efficient IP networking
fabric that can serve various applications above it using a overlay
model. These applications are viewed as at the service level,
completely decoupled from the underneath IP networking fabric;
however, they enjoy both IP unicast and multicast transportation
infrastructure. In the multicast perspective, the applications can
be IP based, but can also be layer-2 based such as Ethernet.
4.9. IPv6 and IPv4
The architecture as outlined in this document supports IPv4 multicast
routing in IPv4 networks, and also IPv6 multicast routing in IPv6
networks.
With mechanisms such as tunneling or address translation, the same
architecture can also support IPv4 multicast routing in IPv6
networks, and IPv6 multicast routing in IPv4 networks. The details
are specified in other documents.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA actions.
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
6. Acknowledgement
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, November 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October
1999.
[RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC
2740, December 1999.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
[RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
RFC 3784, June 2004.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, October
2008.
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
[RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", RFC
5329, September 2008.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, August 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Lucy Yong
Huawei Technologies Ltd.
Austin, TX
USA
Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com
Dean Cheng
Huawei Technologies Ltd.
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95135
USA
Email: dean.cheng@huawei.com
Weiguo Hao
Huawei Technologies Ltd.
101 Software Avenue
Nanjing 210012
China
Email: haoweiguo@huawei.com
Donald Eastlake
Huawei Technologies Ltd.
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757
USA
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IGP Multicast Architecture March 2015
Andrew Qu
MediaTek
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: laodulaodu@gmail.com
Jon Hudson
Brocade
130 Holger Way
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: jon.hudson@gmail.com
Uma Chunduri
Ericsson Inc.
300 Holger Way
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: uma.chunduri@ericsson.com
Yong, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 15]
