Internet DRAFT - draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-composite-tunnel
draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-composite-tunnel
BESS Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track J. Rabadan, Ed.
Expires: May 1, 2020 Nokia
A. Sajassi
Cisco Systems
October 29, 2019
MVPN/EVPN Composite Tunnel
draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-composite-tunnel-01
Abstract
EVPN E-Tree defines a composite tunnel to be used for a Root PE to
simultaneously indicate a non-Ingress-Replication tunnel (e.g., P2MP
tunnel) in the transmit direction and an Ingress Replication tunnel
in the receive direction for BUM traffic. This document extends it
to more generic use in both MVPN and general EVPN.
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 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 May 1, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft composite-tunnel October 2019
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.
Table of Contents
1. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. P2MP Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. MP2MP Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. General MVPN/EVPN Use of Composite Tunnels . . . . . . . 4
3.2. EVPN-IP Assisted Replication with BIER-IR Composite
Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Use-cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. BIER-IR Composite Tunnels in EVPN Networks . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Assisted Replication and BIER Composite Tunnels . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Terminologies
Familiarity with BIER/MVPN/EVPN protocols and procedures is assumed.
Some terminologies are listed below for convenience.
[To be added].
2. Introduction
The composite tunnel defined in [RFC8317] is specifically designed
for the particular use case of EVPN E-Tree in that the Root PE only
needs to receive on the Ingress Replication (IR) tunnel and transmit
on the non-IR tunnel encoded in the PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) that
specifies a Composite Tunnel, hence the following language quoted
from [RFC8317]:
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft composite-tunnel October 2019
Composite tunnel type is advertised by the Root PE to
simultaneously indicate a non-Ingress-Replication tunnel (e.g., P2MP
tunnel) in the transmit direction and an Ingress Replication tunnel
in the receive direction for the BUM traffic.
However, the underlying principal of MVPN PMSI A-D route, EVPN IMET
route and the PTA that the routes carry allows the composite tunnel
to be used in more generic use cases for both MVPN and EVPN, as
explained in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2.
The EVPN IMET route is the equivalent of MVPN I-PMSI A-D route. In
the rest of the document, unless explicitly stated, I-PMSI A-D route
refers to MVPN Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route and/or EVPN IMET route.
2.1. P2MP Tunnels
As specified in [RFC6514] [RFC7432], an I-PMSI A-D route advertises a
PE's membership in a VPN or Broadcast Domain (BD). The route carries
a PTA, whose Tunnel Identifier field specifies the tunnel that the
advertising PE uses to send traffic unless the tunnel type is either
"No tunnel information present" or "Ingress Replication". A PE that
imports the route into a VRF/BD/EVI will join the specified tunnel if
it needs to receive traffic from the advertising PE.
As specified in [RFC6514] and clarified in [RFC7988], if the tunnel
type is Ingress Replication, and the Leaf Information Required (LIR)
bit in the PTA's Flags field is set to 0, the advertising PE is
actually not indicating that it uses IR to send traffic, but that it
will receive traffic using the label that is part of the Tunnel
Identifier field of the PTA. A PTA with tunnel type set to IR and
LIR bit set to 1 does indicate that the advertising router will use
IR to send traffic. In that case, the label field in the Tunnel
Identifier is set to 0 and receiving PEs will need to send a Leaf A-D
route to "join" the IR tunnel. The label value in the Tunnel
Identifier of the Leaf A-D route's PTA is used when sending traffic
to the advertiser of the Leaf A-D route.
While [RFC7988] is MVPN specific, the above IR procedures and
clarifications are also applicable to EVPN, as the EVPN IMET route is
the equivalent of an I-PMSI A-D route with the LIR flag set to 0.
In summary, w/o considering composite tunnel, when IR is specified in
I-PMSI A-D routes w/ the LIR bit NOT set, the tunnel is used to
receive traffic (even from PEs not advertising IR in its PMSI A-D
routes). The composite tunnel introduced in [RFC8317] combines a
transmitting non-IR tunnel and a receiving IR tunnel, but a PE
advertising a composite tunnel should be still be able to send to
certain PEs using IR.
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft composite-tunnel October 2019
2.2. MP2MP Tunnels
When the PTA specifies one of the MP2MP tunnels (BIDIR-PIM, mLDP
MP2MP, BIER), it means the advertising PE will use the MP2MP tunnel
for both sending and receiving. While [RFC8317] specifies composite
tunnel only as transmitting non-IR + receiving IR, an MP2MP tunnel
can also be part of composite tunnel to receive traffic. The rest of
the document focuses on BIER, but it equally applies to mLDP MP2MP or
BIDIR-PIM.
3. Specifications
While not previously done so, this document makes it explicit that,
an MVPN/EVPN PE1 advertising a non-IR tunnel can also send to another
PE2 using IR if PE2 advertises to receive traffic with IR (whether
PE2 advertises IR standalone or as part of a composite tunnel), as
long as it is known that PE2 will receive from PE1 the same data only
via IR.
3.1. General MVPN/EVPN Use of Composite Tunnels
This document extends the use of composite tunnel to appropriate
general MVPN/EVPN scenarios where a PE advertises a composite tunnel
in its I-PMSI A-D route to receive traffic on IR tunnel and send
traffic on non-IR tunnel.
This document also allows an MP2MP tunnel to be part of a composite
tunnel so that the advertising PE can use both the MP2MP tunnel and
IR to receive traffic.
For a regular, non-composite tunnel in the PMSI Tunnel Attribute
(PTA) of a PMSI/Leaf A-D route, the PTA includes an "MPLS Label"
field between the "Tunnel Type" field and the "Tunnel Identifier"
field. The label is for "tunnel aggregation" purpose - traffic on
the same tunnel could carry different labels for multiplexing purpose
(e.g. for different VPNs/BDs). For an IR tunnel, the label is
downstream- assigned; for non-IR tunnels, the label is either 0 (no
aggregation) or upstream-assigned, or from a Domain-wide Common Block
(DCB) [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label].
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft composite-tunnel October 2019
+---------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------+
| Tunnel Type (1 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
| MPLS Label (3 octets) |
+---------------------------------+
| Tunnel Identifier (variable) |
+---------------------------------+
PTA Fields [RF6514]
[RFC8317] specifies that the "Tunnel Identifier" field includes a
three-octet label before the actual identifier of the non-IR tunnel,
though the text/diagram about the roles of the labels is unclear/
confusing. For easier reference this document moves the added label
out, so that the "Tunnel Identifier" is the actual identifier of the
non-IR tunnel:
+-------------------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) |
+-------------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Type (1 octet) |
+-------------------------------------------+
| Non-IR Tunnel Aggregation Label (3 octets)|
+-------------------------------------------+
| Ingress Replication MPLS Label (3 octets) |
+-------------------------------------------+
| Non-IR Tunnel Identifier (variable) |
+-------------------------------------------+
PTA Fields for Composite Tunnel [This Document]
An example of composite tunnel is BIER-IR tunnel, where the tunnel
type is set to 0x8B, and BIER Tunnel Aggregation Label and BIER
Tunnel Identifier are as specified in [I-D.ietf-bier-mvpn].
Section Section 4.1 gives an example application of using BIER-IR
tunnel for BIER capable EVPN PEs to send/receive BUM traffic via
BIER, and receive BUM traffic from BIER incapable PEs via IR; BIER
incapable PEs send BUM traffic using IR; BIER traffic from BIER
capable PEs will have the BIER header popped off by a Penultimate Hop
before reaching BIER incapable PEs [I-D.ietf-bier-php]. The same can
be used for MVPN as well.
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft composite-tunnel October 2019
3.2. EVPN-IP Assisted Replication with BIER-IR Composite Tunnel
For the example in Section Section 4.1, instead of having BIER
incapable PEs send BUM traffic using IR to every PE, Assisted
Replication (AR) [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir] can be used for a
BIER incapable PE to send BUM traffic to a BIER capable Assisted
Replication Replicator (AR-R) via IR, who will then relay to other
PEs via BIER.
The same concept applies to MVPN as well, though AR for MVPN is via
Virtual Hub and Spoke (VHS) [RFC7024], similar to AR for EVPN-MPLS
[I-D.keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub]
([I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir] is for EVPN-IP). The procedures
for those two cases will be specified in separate documents.
EVPN-IP AR with BIER-IR composite tunnels follows similar procedures
as in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir], with the following
differences:
o The IMET route from a BIER capable AR-Replicator that has the IR-
IP address in the Originating PE field encodes BIER tunnel in the
PTA, as specified in [EVPN-BIER].
o An AR-Leaf originates an IMET route with BIER-IR tunnel with AR-
Leaf flag. If it is BIER capable, it both sends and receives BM
traffic via BIER. If it is not BIER capable, it sends BM traffic
via IR to the AR-Replicator, who will then relay to other PEs
using BIER.
o The AR-R does NOT relay traffic that arrive with BIER
encapsulation.
o Only non-selective mode is supported.
The above rules are illustrated in further details in
Section Section 4.2. Notice that, composite-tunnel is used because
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir] requires falling back to IR when
the AR-Replicator is not available.
4. Use-cases
This section describes some Composite Tunnel use-cases. We refer to
BIER-IR as the PTA's Tunnel Type with the high-order bit set and BIER
type, I.e., Tunnel Type = 0x8B, as per [RFC8317]. In this section, a
BIER non-capable PE is assumed to be a PE that does not support BIER
tunnel data plane transmission or termination. However, these BIER
non-capable PEs support the required control plane extensions to
advertise BIER tunnel information in the IMET PTAs.
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft composite-tunnel October 2019
4.1. BIER-IR Composite Tunnels in EVPN Networks
BIER-IR composite tunnels may be used in a group of PEs attached to
the same EVPN tenant network. This would allow some of those PEs to
use BIER P-tunnels where other PEs in the same group may use Ingress
Replication (IR). While these BIER-IR composite tunnels can be used
in a similar use case as described in [RFC8317], they can also be
used along with PHP as a way to introduce BIER in EVPN networks where
some of the PEs do not support BIER data plane.
Figure 1 illustrates an example of an EVPN BD where the PE1 and PE2
support BIER data plane, but PE3/PE4/PE5 do not. The network could
still benefit of BIER if the BFRs connected to the receiver PEs (BFR1
and BFR2), either directly or through a tunnel, pop the BIER header
and send the EVPN payload natively to PE3/PE4/PE5, as described in
[I-D.ietf-bier-php].
IMET(BIER-IR)
<--------
PE2 IMET(BIER-IR) PE3
+-----------+ ----------> +-----------+
| +-------+ | | +-------+ |--> R1
| | BD | |<---+ +---------->| | BD | |
| +-------+ | | BFR1 | | +-------+ |--> R2
+-----------+ | +---+ +-----------+
+---->| | PE4
PE1 | +---+ +-----------+
+-----------+ | | | +-------+ |
| +-------+ | | +---------->| | BD | |--> R3
S1--> | | BD | |----+ | +-------+ |
| +-------+ | | +-----------+
+-----------+ | BFR2 PE5
| +---+ +-----------+
+---->| |-------->| +-------+ |
+---+ | | BD | |--> R4
| +-------+ |
| | +-----------+
|<---------------->|
| BIER |
BFIR BFER
(PHP)
| |
|<------------------------------------->|
| EVPN |
Figure 1 - BIER Composite Tunnels in EVPN
In this example:
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft composite-tunnel October 2019
o All the PEs advertise an IMET route containing a BIER-IR composite
tunnel in the PTA (PMSI Tunnel Attribute):
* The Tunnel Type has a value of 0x8B (BIER-IR composite tunnel).
* The BIER Tunnel Identifier (composed Sub-Domain ID, BFR-ID and
BFR-Prefix) and Flags are populated as in [EVPN-BIER]. The IR
Label is a downstream allocated Label that allows remote PEs to
send BUM traffic to the advertising PE using Ingress
Replication, as in [RFC8317].
o When PE1/PE2 need to transmit BUM packets, they follow the
procedures in [EVPN-BIER]. BUM packets received on PE1/PE2 from
other BIER capable PEs will be received with a BIER encapsulation
and procedures in [EVPN-BIER] will be followed. PHP nodes pop the
BIER header before delivering the EVPN packets to PE3/PE4/PE5.
o When PE3/PE4/PE5 need to send BUM packets to each other or to PE1/
PE2, they use Ingress Replication and the IR label that is
received from the other PEs as part of the composite tunnel Tunnel
Identifier.
4.2. Assisted Replication and BIER Composite Tunnels
The use case in section Section 4.1 allows the introduction of BIER
in EVPN tenant networks where BIER capable and BIER non-capable PEs
are attached to the same EVPN tenant network. However, BIER non-
capable PEs still send multiple copies of the same BUM packet to
reach the other PEs.
In overlay networks, the use case can be optimized so that the BIER
non-capable PEs send a single copy per packet by using Assisted
Replication along with BIER-IR composite tunnels. Figure 2
illustrates this use case with an example, where AR-L1/AR-L2/AR-L3
and AR-L4 are Assisted Replication Leaf routers [AR] that do not
support BIER data plane. AR-R1/AR-R2 are Non-Selective Assisted
Replication Replicators [AR] that do support BIER data plane and are
connected to other BFRs, such as BFR1 and BFR2.
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft composite-tunnel October 2019
AR-L2
+-------+ --> R1
+--->| BD |
IMET BFR1 | +-------+ --> R2
(BIER-IR,AR-Leaf) +---+
---> +-->| |
| +---+ AR-L3
AR-L1 AR-R1 | | +-------+
+-------+ +-------+ | +--->| BD | --> R3
S1-->| BD |------->| BD |--+ +-------+
+-------+ +-------+ |
|
<---- AR-R2 | BFR2 AR-L4
IMET +-------+ | +---+ +-------+
(AR,AR-R) | BD | +-->| |->| BD | --> R4
+-------+ +---+ +-------+
| |
|<------------>|
| BIER |
BFIR BFER
(PHP)
| |
|<------------------------------------->|
| EVPN |
Figure 2 - BIER-IR Composite Tunnels and AR
In this example:
o The AR-R PEs issue two IMET routes each:
* An IMET route that includes the AR-IP in the Originating PE,
Tunnel Type AR, IR label, Flags Type = 01 (AR-Replicator) and L
= 0 (no Leaf Information Required). The IR Label is a
downstream allocated Label that will be used by the AR-L PEs
that transmit BUM traffic to the receiving AR-R for replication
to remote AR-L PEs. No change with respect to [AR].
* And an IMET route that includes the IR-IP in the Originating PE
field, Tunnel Type and Tunnel Identifier with BIER information,
as in [EVPN-BIER].
o Each AR-L PE issues an IMET route with:
* The Flags field populated as in [AR] with AR Type set to AR-
LEAF.
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft composite-tunnel October 2019
* The Tunnel Type and Tunnel Identifier have composite BIER-IR
information, as in Section Section 4.1. The IR Label is a
downstream allocated Label that will be used by the remote AR-L
PEs when IR is used for unknown unicast traffic. The MPLS
Label field in the PTA MAY be zero.
When an AR-R receives a BM packet encapsulated in an overlay tunnel,
it will do a tunnel destination IP lookup and if the destination IP
is the AR-R IR-IP Address, the AR-R will proceed as in [AR]. If the
destination IP is the AR-R AR-IP Address, the AR-R MUST forward the
packet to the BIER network and any local AC (if any). When creating
the BIER header, the AR-R will behave as a BFIR and will include all
the remote AR-L and AR-R in the BIER header, excluding the AR-L from
which the BM packet was received.
If an AR-R receives a BM packet encapsulated in BIER, it will follow
the procedures in [EVPN-BIER] as any other BIER PE. It MUST NOT send
the BM packets to any overlay tunnels, only to local ACs.
In the example of Figure 2, when AR-R1 receives a BM packet from
AR-L1 in an overlay tunnel with its AR-IP as tunnel destination
address, it will forward the packet encapsulated with a BIER header
that includes AR-L2, AR-L3 and AR-L4 as BFERs, but not AR-L1.
As in [AR], if the AR-L does not discover any AR-R in the service, it
MUST use IR to send BM traffic to the remote AR-L PEs and AR-R PEs
with local ACs. If there is one or more AR-Rs (discovered by
tracking the received AR-R routes) the AR-L selects a AR-R to send
the BM traffic to. The selection rules are described in [AR]. The
AR-L encapsulates the BM packets into an overlay tunnel that uses the
AR-IP and AR Label advertised by the selected AR-R. In the example
of Figure 2, AR-L1 selects AR-R1 as the AR-R. If AR-R1 becomes
unavailable, AR-R2 is selected. If no AR-R is available, AR-L1 would
use IR to send the BM packets to the remote AR-L PEs.
AR-L PEs receive the BUM packets without a BIER header (since it is
popped by the PHP node) and with the MPLS Label / VNI imposed by the
AR-R (or the source AR-L if there is no AR for the packet).
5. Security Considerations
This specification does not introduce additional security concerns.
6. IANA Considerations
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft composite-tunnel October 2019
7. Acknowledgements
8. References
8.1. 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>.
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
[RFC8317] Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Drake, J., Uttaro, J.,
Boutros, S., and J. Rabadan, "Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree)
Support in Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and Provider Backbone
Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 8317, DOI 10.17487/RFC8317,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8317>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir]
Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Lin, W., Katiyar, M., and A.
Sajassi, "Optimized Ingress Replication solution for
EVPN", draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-06 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label]
Zhang, Z., Rosen, E., Lin, W., Li, Z., and I. Wijnands,
"MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels", draft-
ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-03 (work in
progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-bier-evpn]
Zhang, Z., Przygienda, T., Sajassi, A., and J. Rabadan,
"EVPN BUM Using BIER", draft-ietf-bier-evpn-01 (work in
progress), April 2018.
[I-D.ietf-bier-mvpn]
Rosen, E., Sivakumar, M., Aldrin, S., Dolganow, A., and T.
Przygienda, "Multicast VPN Using BIER", draft-ietf-bier-
mvpn-11 (work in progress), March 2018.
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft composite-tunnel October 2019
[I-D.ietf-bier-php]
Zhang, Z., "BIER Penultimate Hop Popping", draft-ietf-
bier-php-03 (work in progress), October 2019.
[I-D.keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub]
Patel, K., Sajassi, A., Drake, J., Zhang, Z., and W.
Henderickx, "Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP EVPNs", draft-
keyupate-bess-evpn-virtual-hub-02 (work in progress),
September 2019.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC7024] Jeng, H., Uttaro, J., Jalil, L., Decraene, B., Rekhter,
Y., and R. Aggarwal, "Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS
VPNs", RFC 7024, DOI 10.17487/RFC7024, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7024>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
Authors' Addresses
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks
EMail: zzhang@juniper.net
Jorge Rabadan (editor)
Nokia
EMail: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
Ali Sajassi
Cisco Systems
EMail: sajassi@cisco.com
Zhang, et al. Expires May 1, 2020 [Page 12]
