IPv6 Maintenance L. Colitti
Internet-Draft J. Linkova
Updates: 4862 (if approved) X. Ma, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Google
Expires: 23 January 2025 D. Lamparter
NetDEF, Inc.
22 July 2024
Signalling DHCPv6 Prefix per Client Availability to Hosts
draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag-06
Abstract
This document defines a "P" flag in the Prefix Information Option
(PIO) of IPv6 Router Advertisements (RAs). The flag is used to
indicate that the network prefers that clients do not use the prefix
provided in the PIO for SLAAC but instead request a prefix via DHCPv6
PD, and use that delegated prefix to form addresses.
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 23 January 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. P Flag Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Router Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Host Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Processing the P Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Using Delegated Prefix(es) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. Absence of PIOs with P bit set . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.4. Source Address Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Modifications to RFC-Mandated Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Changes to RFC4862 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
IPv6-capable devices, especially mobile devices, usually have
multiple global IPv6 addresses, such as stable addresses ([RFC8064]),
temporary addresses ([RFC8981]), 464XLAT addresses ([RFC6877]), and
dedicated addresses for virtual systems such as VMs or containers.
Additionally, these devices often extend the network, either
externally to other devices (e.g., when tethering) or internally, to
virtual systems.
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
Extending the network to other devices or virtual systems requires
that the device provide a way for those systems to obtain IP
addresses. These addresses may be part of a prefix that is delegated
to the device. Or they may be obtained by the device via other means
such as by running SLAAC or DHCPv6 address assignment on the shared
on-link prefix, and shared with other devices via ND proxying
[RFC4389].
On large networks, the latter mode creates scalability issues, as the
network infrastructure devices need to maintain state per address:
IPv6 neighbor cache, SAVI mappings ([RFC7039]), VXLAN routes, etc.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device] provides a a solution that uses
DHCPv6 PD [RFC8415] to provide a client with a dedicated prefix,
which can be used to form addresses. This solves the scaling issues
because the amount of state that has to be maintained by the network
depends on the number of devices and does not depend anymore on how
many addresses those devices are using.
On small networks, scaling to support multiple individual IPv6
addresses is less of a concern, because many home routers support
hundreds of neighbor cache entries. On the other hand, address space
is more limited compared to the number of hosts connected - the
smallest home network might only have /60 prefixes, or even just a
single /64. On such networks, using delegated prefixes would not
provide notable scalability benefits, and while these networks might
support a limited amount of prefix delegation, they likely cannot
support a delegating a prefix to every client without running the
risk of prefix exhaustion.
When a host connects to a network which provides a shared prefix in
PIO to be used for SLAAC and also supports delegating per-host prefix
via DHCPv6 PD, the host cannot know in advance which address
assignment method is most appropriate for the network. It's
desirable to have a mechanism for the network to communicate the
preference to the host.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
3. Rationale
The network administrator might want to indicate to hosts that
requesting a prefix via DHCPv6 PD and using that prefix for address
assignment (see [I-D.ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device]) should be
preferred over using individual addresses from the on-link prefix.
The information is passed to the host via a P flag in the Prefix
Information Option (PIO). The reason for it being a PIO flag is as
follows:
* The information must be contained in the Router Advertisement
because it must be available to the host before it decides to form
IPv6 addresses from the PIO prefix using SLAAC. Otherwise, the
host might use SLAAC to form IPv6 addresses from the PIO provided
and start using them, even if a unique per-host prefix is
available via DHCPv6 PD. Forming addresses via SLAAC is
suboptimal because if the host later acquires a prefix using
DHCPv6 PD, it can either use both the prefix and SLAAC addresses,
reducing the scalability benefits of using DHCPv6 PD, or can
remove the SLAAC addresses, which would be disruptive for
applications that are using them.
* This information is specific to the particular prefix being
announced. For example, a network administrator might want hosts
to assign global addresses from delegated prefixes, but use the
PIO prefix to form ULA addresses. Also, in a multihoming
situation, one upstream network might choose to assign prefixes
via prefix delegation, and another via PIOs.
Note that setting the 'P' flag in a PIO option expresses the
operator's preference as to whether hosts should attempt using DHCPv6
PD instead of performing individual address configuration on the
prefix. For hosts that honor this preference by requesting prefix
delegation, the actual delegated prefix will necessarily be a prefix
different from the one from the PIO.
4. P Flag Overview
The P flag (also called DHCPv6-PD preferred flag) is a 1-bit PIO
flag, located after the R flag ([RFC6275]). The presence of a PIO
with the P flag set indicates that that the network prefers that
hosts use Prefix Delegation instead of acquiring individual addresses
via SLAAC or DHCPv6 address assignment. This implies that the
network has a DHCPv6 server capable of making DHCPv6 Prefix
Delegations to every device on the network, as described in
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device].
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
Adding the P flag reduces the PIO Reserved1 field ([RFC4861],
[RFC8425]) from 5 bits to 4 bits. The resulting format of the Prefix
Information Option is as follows:
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 | Prefix Length |L|A|R|P| Rsvd1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Valid Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preferred Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Prefix +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
The P flag is independent from the value of the M and O flags in the
Router Advertisement. If the network desires to delegate prefixes to
devices that support DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation but do not support the
P flag, it SHOULD also set the M or O bits in the RA to 1, because
some devices, such as [RFC7084] CE routers, might not initiate DHCPv6
Prefix Delegation if both the M and O bits are set to zero.
5. Router Behaviour
Routers SHOULD set the P flag to zero by default, unless explicitly
configured by the administrator, and SHOULD allow the operator to set
the P flag value for any given prefix.
6. Host Behaviour
This section uses the term host to refer to any node that processes
Router Advertisements. This includes both hosts and nodes such as CE
Routers [RFC7084] which forward packets but also listen to Router
Advertisements.
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
6.1. Processing the P Flag
This specification only applies to hosts which support DHCPv6 prefix
delegation. Hosts which do not support DHCPv6 prefix delegation MUST
ignore the P flag. The P flag is meaningless for link-local prefixes
and any Prefix Information Option containing the link-local prefix
MUST be ignored as specified in Section 5.5.3 of [RFC4862]. In the
following text, all prefixes are assumed not to be link-local.
For each interface, the host MUST keep a list of every prefix that
was received from a PIO with the P flag set and currently has a non-
zero Preferred Lifetime. The list affects the behaviour of the
DHCPv6 client as follows:
* When a prefix's Preferred Lifetime becomes zero, either due to
expiration or due to the receipt of a PIO with a Preferred
Lifetime of zero, the prefix MUST be removed from the list.
* When the length of the list increases to one, the host SHOULD
start requesting prefixes via DHCPv6 prefix delegation unless it
is already doing so.
* When the length of the list decreases to zero, the host SHOULD
stop requesting or renewing prefixes via DHCPv6 prefix delegation
if it has no other reason to do so. The lifetimes of any prefixes
already obtained via DHCPv6 are unaffected.
* If the host has already received delegated prefix(es) from one or
more servers, then any time a prefix is added to or removed from
the list, the host MUST consider this to be a change in
configuration information as described in Section 18.2.12 of
[RFC8415], and it MUST perform a REBIND, unless it is going to
stop the DHCPv6 client because the list became empty. This is in
addition to performing a REBIND in the other cases required by
that section. Issuing a REBIND allows the host to obtain new
prefixes if necessary, e.g., when the network is being renumbered.
It also refreshes state related to the delegated prefix(es).
When a host requests a prefix via DHCPv6 PD, it MUST use the prefix
length hint Section 18.2.4 of [RFC8415] to request a prefix that is
short enough to form addresses via SLAAC.
In order to achieve the scalability benefits of using DHCPv6 PD, the
host SHOULD prefer to form addresses from the delegated prefix
instead of using individual addresses in the on-link prefix(es).
Therefore, when the host requests a prefix using DHCPv6 PD, the host
SHOULD NOT use SLAAC to obtain IPv6 addresses from PIOs with the P
and A bits set. Similarly, unless the host processes at least one
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
PIO with the P bit not set, the host SHOULD NOT request individual
IPv6 addresses from DHCPv6, i.e., it SHOULD NOT include any IA_NA or
IA_TA options in Solicit, Renew or Rebind messages.
If the host does not obtain any suitable prefixes via DHCPv6 PD that
are suitable for SLAAC, it MAY choose to disable further processing
of the P flag on that interface, allowing the host to fall back to
other address assignment mechanisms, such as forming addresses via
SLAAC (if the PIO has the A flag set to 1) and/or requesting
individual addresses via DHCPv6.
6.2. Using Delegated Prefix(es)
If the delegated prefix is too long to be used for SLAAC, the host
MUST ignore it. If the prefix is shorter than required for SLAAC,
the host SHOULD accept it, allocate one or more longer prefix
suitable for SLAAC and use the prefixes as described below.
For every accepted prefix:
* The host MAY form as many IPv6 addresses from the prefix as it
chooses.
* The host MAY use the prefix to provide IPv6 addresses to internal
components such as virtual machines or containers.
* The host MAY use the prefix to allow devices directly connected to
it to obtain IPv6 addresses, e.g., by routing traffic for that
prefix to the interface and sending a Router Advertisement
containing the prefix on the interface. If the host does so, and
it has has formed addresses from the prefix, then it MUST act as
though the addresses were assigned to that interface for the
purposes of Neighbour Discovery and Duplicate Address Detection.
The host MUST NOT forward packets with destination addresses within a
delegated prefix to the interface that it obtained the prefix on, as
this will cause a routing loop. This problem will not occur if the
host has assigned the prefix to a downstream interface. If the host
has not assigned the prefix to a downstream interface, then one way
to prevent this problem this is to add to its routing table a high-
metric discard route for the delegated prefix. Similarly, the host
MUST NOT send packets with destination addresses in the delegated
prefix to the interface that it obtained the prefix on.
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
6.3. Absence of PIOs with P bit set
The P bit is purely a positive indicator, telling nodes that DHCPv6
Prefix Delegation is available and the network prefers that nodes use
it, even if they do not have any other reason to run a Prefix
Delegation client. The absence of any PIOs with the P bit does not
carry any kind of signal to the opposite, and MUST NOT be processed
to mean that DHCPv6-PD is absent. In particular, nodes that run
DHCPv6 PD due to explicit configuration or by default (e.g., to
extend the network) MUST NOT disable DHCPv6 PD on the absence of PIOs
with the P bit set. A very common example of this are CE routers as
described by [RFC7084].
6.4. Source Address Selection
For the purpose of source address selection [RFC6724], if the host
forms addresses from a delegated prefix, it SHOULD treat those
addresses as if they were assigned to the interface on which the
prefix was received. This includes placing them in the candidate
set, and associating them with the outgoing interface when
implementing rule 5.
7. Multihoming
In multi-prefix multihoming, the host generally needs to associate
the prefix with the router that advertised it (see for example,
[RFC6724] Rule 5.5). If the host supports Rule 5.5, then it SHOULD
associate each prefix with the link-local address of the DHCPv6 relay
from which it received the REPLY packet. When receiving multiple
REPLYs carrying the same prefix from distinct link-local addresses,
the host SHOULD associate that prefix with all of these addresses.
This can commonly happen in networks with redundant routers and
DHCPv6 relays.
8. Modifications to RFC-Mandated Behavior
8.1. Changes to RFC4862
This document makes the following changes to Section 5.5.3 of
[RFC4862]:
OLD TEXT
===
For each Prefix-Information option in the Router Advertisement:
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
a) If the Autonomous flag is not set, silently ignore the Prefix
Information option.
===
NEW TEXT: Insert the following text after "For each Prefix-
Information option in the Router Advertisement:" but before "If the
Autonomous flag is not set, silently ignore the Prefix Information
option.":
===
a) If the P flag is set, the node SHOULD treat the Autonomous flag as
if it was unset, and use prefix delegation to obtain addresses as
described in draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag.
===
9. Security Considerations
The mechanism described in this document relies on the information
provided in the Router Advertisement and therefore shares the same
security model as SLAAC. If the network doesn't implement RA Guard
[RFC6105], an attacker might send RAs containing the PIO used by the
network, set the P flag to 1 and force hosts to ignore the A flag.
In the absence of DHCPv6 PD infrastructure, hosts would either obtain
no IPv6 addresses or, if they fall back to other IPv6 address
assignment mechanisms such as SLAAC and IA_NA, would experience
delays in obtaining IPv6 addresses. If the network does not support
DHCPv6-Shield [RFC7610], the attacker could also run a rogue DHCPv6
server, providing the host with invalid prefixes or other invalid
configuration information.
The attacker might force hosts to oscillate between DHCPv6 PD and
PIO-based SLAAC by sending the same set of PIOs with and then w/o P
flag set. That would cause the clients to issue REBIND requests,
increasing the load on the DHCP infrastructure. However Section 14.1
of [RFC8415] requires that DHCPv6 PD clients rate limit transmitted
DHCPv6 messages.
It should be noted that if the network allows rogue RAs to be sent,
the attacker would be able to disrupt hosts connectivity anyway, so
this document doesn't introduce any fundamentally new security
considerations.
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
10. Privacy Considerations
The privacy implications of implementing the P flag and using DHCPv6
PD to assign prefixes to hosts are similar to privacy implications of
using DHCPv6 for assigning individual addresses. If the DHCPv6
infrastructure assigns the same prefix to the same client, then an
observer might be able to identify clients based on the highest 64
bits of the client's address. Those implications and recommended
countermeasures are discussed in Section 13 of
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device].
Implementing the P flag support on a host / receiving side enables
DHCPv6 on that host. Sending DHCPv6 packets may reveal some minor
additional information about the host, most prominently the hostname.
This is not a new concern and would apply for any network which uses
DHCPv6 and sets 'M' flag in Router Advertoisements.
No privacy considerations result from supporting the P flag on the
sender side.
11. IANA Considerations
This memo requests that IANA allocate bit 3 from the "IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery Prefix Information Option Flags" registry created by
[RFC8425] for use as the P flag as described in this document. The
following entry should be appended:
+================+==============================+=================+
| PIO Option Bit | Description | Reference |
+================+==============================+=================+
| 3 | P - DHCPv6-PD preferred flag | [THIS DOCUMENT] |
+----------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
Table 1
12. References
12.1. 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>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.
[RFC8425] Troan, O., "IANA Considerations for IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery Prefix Information Option Flags", RFC 8425,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8425, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8425>.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC4389] Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery
Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, DOI 10.17487/RFC4389, April
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4389>.
[RFC6105] Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J.
Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device]
Colitti, L., Linkova, J., and X. Ma, "Using DHCPv6-PD to
Allocate Unique IPv6 Prefix per Client in Large Broadcast
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-08, 3 April 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-
dhcp-pd-per-device-08>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
[RFC7039] Wu, J., Bi, J., Bagnulo, M., Baker, F., and C. Vogt, Ed.,
"Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) Framework",
RFC 7039, DOI 10.17487/RFC7039, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7039>.
[RFC7610] Gont, F., Liu, W., and G. Van de Velde, "DHCPv6-Shield:
Protecting against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers", BCP 199,
RFC 7610, DOI 10.17487/RFC7610, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7610>.
[RFC8064] Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu,
"Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>.
[RFC8981] Gont, F., Krishnan, S., Narten, T., and R. Draves,
"Temporary Address Extensions for Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 8981,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8981, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8981>.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Nick Buraglio, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, David Farmer,
Fernando Gont, Suresh Krishnan, Ted Lemon, Andrew McGregor, Tomek
Mrugalski, Michael Richardson, Timothy Winters for the discussions,
the input and all contribution.
Authors' Addresses
Lorenzo Colitti
Google
Shibuya 3-21-3,
Japan
Email: lorenzo@google.com
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft pio-p-flag July 2024
Jen Linkova
Google
1 Darling Island Rd
Pyrmont NSW 2009
Australia
Email: furry13@gmail.com, furry@google.com
Xiao Ma (editor)
Google
Shibuya 3-21-3,
Japan
Email: xiaom@google.com
David 'equinox' Lamparter
NetDEF, Inc.
San Jose,
United States of America
Email: equinox@diac24.net, equinox@opensourcerouting.org
Colitti, et al. Expires 23 January 2025 [Page 13]