rfc9786.original | rfc9786.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
BESS Working Group P. Brissette | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Brissette | |||
Internet-Draft LA. Burdet, Ed. | Request for Comments: 9786 LA. Burdet, Ed. | |||
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems | Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems | |||
Expires: 8 June 2025 B. Wen | ISSN: 2070-1721 B. Wen | |||
Comcast | Comcast | |||
E. Leyton | E. Leyton | |||
Verizon Wireless | Verizon Wireless | |||
J. Rabadan | J. Rabadan | |||
Nokia | Nokia | |||
5 December 2024 | May 2025 | |||
EVPN Port-Active Redundancy Mode | EVPN Port-Active Redundancy Mode | |||
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-13 | ||||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
The Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG) technology enables | The Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) group technology enables | |||
establishing a logical link-aggregation connection with a redundant | establishing a logical link-aggregation connection with a redundant | |||
group of independent nodes. The objective of MC-LAG is to enhance | group of independent nodes. The objective of MC-LAG is to enhance | |||
both network availability and bandwidth utilization through various | both network availability and bandwidth utilization through various | |||
modes of traffic load-balancing. RFC7432 defines EVPN-based MC-LAG | modes of traffic load balancing. RFC 7432 defines an EVPN-based MC- | |||
with Single-active and All-active multi-homing redundancy modes. | LAG with Single-Active and All-Active multi-homing redundancy modes. | |||
This document builds on the existing redundancy mechanisms supported | This document builds on the existing redundancy mechanisms supported | |||
by EVPN and introduces a new active/standby redundancy mode, called | by EVPN and introduces a new active/standby redundancy mode, called | |||
'Port-Active'. | 'Port-Active'. | |||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This is an Internet Standards Track document. | |||
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 | This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | received public review and has been approved for publication by the | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on | |||
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. | ||||
This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 June 2025. | Information about the current status of this document, any errata, | |||
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at | ||||
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9786. | ||||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are | include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the | |||
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. | Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described | |||
in the Revised BSD License. | ||||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction | |||
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1.1. Requirements Language | |||
1.2. Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1.2. Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) | |||
2. Port-Active Redundancy Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Port-Active Redundancy Mode | |||
2.1. Overall Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.1. Overall Advantages | |||
2.2. Port-Active Redundancy Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.2. Port-Active Redundancy Procedures | |||
3. Designated Forwarder Algorithm to Elect per Port-Active PE . 6 | 3. Designated Forwarder Algorithm to Elect per Port-Active PE | |||
3.1. Capability Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.1. Capability Flag | |||
3.2. Modulo-based Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.2. Modulo-Based Algorithm | |||
3.3. Highest Random Weight Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.3. Highest Random Weight Algorithm | |||
3.4. Preference-based DF Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.4. Preference-Based DF Election | |||
3.5. AC-Influenced DF Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.5. AC-Influenced DF Election | |||
4. Convergence considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4. Convergence Considerations | |||
4.1. Primary / Backup per Ethernet-Segment . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4.1. Primary/Backup Bits per Ethernet Segment | |||
4.2. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 4.2. Backward Compatibility | |||
5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5. Applicability | |||
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 7. Security Considerations | |||
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 8. References | |||
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 8.1. Normative References | |||
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 8.2. Informative References | |||
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | Acknowledgements | |||
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | Contributors | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | Authors' Addresses | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
EVPN [RFC7432] defines the All-Active and Single-Active redundancy | EVPN [RFC7432] defines the All-Active and Single-Active redundancy | |||
modes. All-Active redundancy provides per-flow load-balancing for | modes. All-Active redundancy provides per-flow load balancing for | |||
multi-homing, while Single-Active redundancy ensures service carving | multi-homing, while Single-Active redundancy ensures service carving | |||
where only one of the Provider Edge (PE) devices in a redundancy | where only one of the Provider Edge (PE) devices in a redundancy | |||
relationship is active per service. | relationship is active per service. | |||
Although these two multi-homing scenarios are widely utilized in data | Although these two multi-homing scenarios are widely utilized in data | |||
center and service provider access networks, there are cases where | center and service provider access networks, there are cases where | |||
active/standby multi-homing at the interface level is beneficial and | active/standby multi-homing at the interface level is beneficial and | |||
necessary. The primary consideration for this new mode of load- | necessary. The primary consideration for this new mode of load | |||
balancing is the determinism of traffic forwarding through a specific | balancing is the determinism of traffic forwarding through a specific | |||
interface, rather than statistical per-flow load-balancing across | interface rather than statistical per-flow load balancing across | |||
multiple PEs providing multi-homing. This determinism is essential | multiple PEs providing multi-homing. This determinism is essential | |||
for certain QoS features to function correctly. Additionally, this | for certain QoS features to function correctly. Additionally, this | |||
mode ensures fast convergence during failure and recovery, which is | mode ensures fast convergence during failure and recovery, which is | |||
expected by customers. | expected by customers. | |||
This document defines the Port-Active redundancy mode as a new type | This document defines the Port-Active redundancy mode as a new type | |||
of multi-homing in EVPN and details how this mode operates and is | of multi-homing in EVPN and details how this mode operates and is | |||
supported via EVPN. | supported via EVPN. | |||
1.1. Requirements Language | 1.1. Requirements Language | |||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | |||
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP | "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in | |||
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all | BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all | |||
capitals, as shown here. | capitals, as shown here. | |||
1.2. Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) | 1.2. Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) | |||
When a CE device is multi-homed to a set of PE nodes using the | When a Customer Equipment (CE) device is multi-homed to a set of PE | |||
[IEEE_802.1AX_2014] Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP), the PEs | nodes using the Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP) | |||
must function as a single LACP entity for the Ethernet links to form | [IEEE_802.1AX_2014], the PEs must function as a single LACP entity | |||
and operate as a Link Aggregation Group (LAG). To achieve this, the | for the Ethernet links to form and operate as a Link Aggregation | |||
PEs connected to the same multi-homed CE must synchronize LACP | Group (LAG). To achieve this, the PEs connected to the same multi- | |||
configuration and operational data among them. Historically, the | homed CE must synchronize LACP configuration and operational data | |||
Interchassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) [RFC7275] has been used | among them. Historically, the Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol | |||
for this synchronization. EVPN, as described in [RFC7432], covers | (ICCP) [RFC7275] has been used for this synchronization. EVPN, as | |||
the scenario where a CE is multi-homed to multiple PE nodes, using a | described in [RFC7432], covers the scenario where a CE is multi-homed | |||
LAG to simplify the procedure significantly. This simplification, | to multiple PE nodes, using a LAG to simplify the procedure | |||
however, comes with certain assumptions: | significantly. However, this simplification comes with certain | |||
assumptions: | ||||
* a CE device connected to EVPN multi-homing PEs MUST have a single | * A CE device connected to EVPN multi-homing PEs MUST have a single | |||
LAG with all its links connected to the EVPN multi-homing PEs in a | LAG with all its links connected to the EVPN multi-homing PEs in a | |||
redundancy group. | redundancy group. | |||
* identical LACP parameters MUST be configured on peering PEs, | * Identical LACP parameters MUST be configured on peering PEs, | |||
including system ID, port priority, and port key. | including the system ID, port priority, and port key. | |||
This document presumes proper LAG operation as specified in | This document presumes proper LAG operation as specified in | |||
[RFC7432]. Issues resulting from deviations in the aforementioned | [RFC7432]. Issues resulting from deviations in the aforementioned | |||
assumptions, LAG misconfiguration, and miswiring detection across | assumptions, LAG misconfiguration, and miswiring detection across | |||
peering PEs are considered outside the scope of this document. | peering PEs are considered outside the scope of this document. | |||
+-----+ | +-----+ | |||
| PE3 | | | PE3 | | |||
+-----+ | +-----+ | |||
+-----------+ | +-----------+ | |||
skipping to change at page 4, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at line 161 ¶ | |||
I1 I2 | I1 I2 | |||
\ / | \ / | |||
\ / | \ / | |||
\ / | \ / | |||
+---+ | +---+ | |||
|CE1| | |CE1| | |||
+---+ | +---+ | |||
Figure 1: MC-LAG Topology | Figure 1: MC-LAG Topology | |||
Figure 1 shows a MC-LAG multi-homing topology where PE1 and PE2 are | Figure 1 shows an MC-LAG multi-homing topology where PE1 and PE2 are | |||
part of the same redundancy group providing multi-homing to CE1 via | part of the same redundancy group providing multi-homing to CE1 via | |||
interfaces I1 and I2. Interfaces I1 and I2 are members of a LAG | interfaces I1 and I2. Interfaces I1 and I2 are members of a LAG | |||
running LACP. The core, shown as IP or MPLS enabled, provides a wide | running LACP. The core, shown as IP or MPLS enabled, provides a wide | |||
range of L2 and L3 services. MC-LAG multi-homing functionality is | range of L2 and L3 services. MC-LAG multi-homing functionality is | |||
decoupled from those services in the core and it focuses on providing | decoupled from those services in the core, and it focuses on | |||
multi-homing to the CE. In Port-Active redundancy mode, only one of | providing multi-homing to the CE. In Port-Active redundancy mode, | |||
the two interfaces I1 or I2 would be in forwarding and the other | only one of the two interfaces, I1 or I2, would be in forwarding, and | |||
interface will be in standby. This also implies that all services on | the other interface would be in standby. This also implies that all | |||
the active interface are in active mode and all services on the | services on the active interface operate in active mode and all | |||
standby interface operate in standby mode. | services on the standby interface operate in standby mode. | |||
2. Port-Active Redundancy Mode | 2. Port-Active Redundancy Mode | |||
2.1. Overall Advantages | 2.1. Overall Advantages | |||
The use of Port-Active redundancy in EVPN networks provides the | The use of Port-Active redundancy in EVPN networks provides the | |||
following benefits: | following benefits: | |||
a. Port-Active redundancy offers open standards-based active/standby | a. It offers open-standards-based active/standby redundancy at the | |||
redundancy at the interface level, rather than VLAN granularity | interface level rather than VLAN granularity [RFC7432]. | |||
[RFC7432]. | ||||
b. Port-Active redundancy eliminates the need for ICCP and LDP | b. It eliminates the need for ICCP and LDP [RFC5036] (e.g., Virtual | |||
[RFC5306] (e.g., VXLAN [RFC7348] or SRv6 [RFC8402] may be used in | eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348] or Segment | |||
the network). | Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) [RFC8402] may be used in the network). | |||
c. This mode is agnostic of the underlying technology (MPLS, VXLAN, | c. This mode is agnostic of the underlying technology (MPLS, VXLAN, | |||
SRv6) and associated services (L2, L3, Bridging, E-LINE, etc.) | and SRv6) and associated services (Layer 2 (L2), Layer 3 (L3), | |||
Bridging, E-LINE, etc.) | ||||
d. It enables deterministic QoS over MC-LAG attachment circuits. | d. It enables deterministic QoS over MC-LAG attachment circuits. | |||
e. Port-Active redundancy is fully compliant with [RFC7432] and does | e. It is fully compliant with [RFC7432] and does not require any new | |||
not require any new protocol enhancements to existing EVPN RFCs. | protocol enhancements to existing EVPN RFCs. | |||
f. It can leverage various Designated Forwarder (DF) election | f. It can leverage various Designated Forwarder (DF) election | |||
algorithms, such as modulo ([RFC7432]), Highest Random Weight | algorithms, such as modulo [RFC7432], Highest Random Weight (HRW) | |||
(HRW, [RFC8584]), etc. | [RFC8584], etc. | |||
g. Port-Active redundancy replaces legacy MC-LAG ICCP-based | g. It replaces legacy MC-LAG ICCP-based solutions and offers the | |||
solutions and offers the following additional benefits: | following additional benefits: | |||
* Efficient support for 1+N redundancy mode (with EVPN using BGP | * Efficient support for 1+N redundancy mode (with EVPN using BGP | |||
Route Reflector), whereas ICCP requires a full mesh of LDP | Route Reflector), whereas ICCP requires a full mesh of LDP | |||
sessions among PEs in the redundancy group. | sessions among PEs in the redundancy group. | |||
* Fast convergence with mass-withdraw is possible with EVPN, | * Fast convergence with mass withdraw is possible with EVPN, | |||
which has no equivalent in ICCP. | which has no equivalent in ICCP. | |||
2.2. Port-Active Redundancy Procedures | 2.2. Port-Active Redundancy Procedures | |||
The following steps outline the proposed procedure for supporting | The following steps outline the proposed procedure for supporting | |||
Port-Active redundancy mode with EVPN LAG: | Port-Active redundancy mode with EVPN LAG: | |||
a. The Ethernet-Segment Identifier (ESI) MUST be assigned per access | a. The Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) MUST be assigned per access | |||
interface as described in [RFC7432]. The ESI can be auto-derived | interface as described in [RFC7432]. The ESI can be auto-derived | |||
or manually assigned and the access interface MAY be a Layer-2 or | or manually assigned, and the access interface MAY be an L2 or L3 | |||
Layer-3 interface. | interface. | |||
b. The Ethernet-Segment (ES) MUST be configured in Port-Active | b. The Ethernet Segment (ES) MUST be configured in Port-Active | |||
redundancy mode on peering PEs for the specified access | redundancy mode on peering PEs for the specified access | |||
interface. | interface. | |||
c. When ESI is configured on a Layer-3 interface, the Ethernet- | c. When ESI is configured on an L3 interface, the ES route (Route | |||
Segment (ES) route (Route Type-4) can be the only route exchanged | Type-4) can be the only route exchanged by PEs in the redundancy | |||
by PEs in the redundancy group. | group. | |||
d. PEs in the redundancy group leverage the DF election defined in | d. PEs in the redundancy group leverage the DF election defined in | |||
[RFC8584] to determine which PE keeps the port in active mode and | [RFC8584] to determine which PE keeps the port in active mode and | |||
which one(s) keep it in standby mode. Although the DF election | which one(s) keep it in standby mode. Although the DF election | |||
defined in [RFC8584] is per [ES, Ethernet Tag] granularity, the | defined in [RFC8584] is per [ES, Ethernet Tag] granularity, the | |||
DF election is performed per [ES] in Port-Active redundancy mode. | DF election is performed per [ES] in Port-Active redundancy mode. | |||
The details of this algorithm are described in Section 3. | The details of this algorithm are described in Section 3. | |||
e. The DF router MUST keep the corresponding access interface in an | e. The DF router MUST keep the corresponding access interface in an | |||
up and forwarding active state for that Ethernet-Segment. | up and forwarding active state for that ES. | |||
f. Non-DF routers SHOULD implement a bidirectional blocking scheme | f. Non-DF routers SHOULD implement a bidirectional blocking scheme | |||
for all traffic comparable to the Single-Active blocking scheme | for all traffic comparable to the Single-Active blocking scheme | |||
described in [RFC7432], albeit across all VLANs. | described in [RFC7432], albeit across all VLANs. | |||
* Non-DF routers MAY bring and keep the peering access interface | * Non-DF routers MAY bring and keep the peering access interface | |||
attached to them in an operational down state. | attached to them in an operational down state. | |||
* If the interface is running the LACP protocol, the non-DF PE | * If the interface is running the LACP protocol, the non-DF PE | |||
MAY set the LACP state to OOS (Out of Sync) instead of setting | MAY set the LACP state to Out of Sync (OOS) instead of setting | |||
the interface to a down state. This approach allows for | the interface to a down state. This approach allows for | |||
better convergence during the transition from standby to | better convergence during the transition from standby to | |||
active mode. | active mode. | |||
g. The primary/backup bits of the EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended | g. The primary/backup bits of the EVPN Layer 2 Attributes (L2-Attr) | |||
Community [RFC8214] SHOULD be used to achieve better convergence, | Extended Community [RFC8214] SHOULD be used to achieve better | |||
as described in Section 4.1. | convergence, as described in Section 4.1. | |||
3. Designated Forwarder Algorithm to Elect per Port-Active PE | 3. Designated Forwarder Algorithm to Elect per Port-Active PE | |||
The Ethernet-Segment (ES) routes operating in Port-Active redundancy | The ES routes operating in Port-Active redundancy mode are advertised | |||
mode are advertised with the new Port Mode Load-Balancing capability | with the new Port Mode Load-Balancing capability bit in the DF | |||
bit in the DF Election Extended Community as defined in [RFC8584]. | Election Extended Community as defined in [RFC8584]. Additionally, | |||
Additionally, the ES associated with the port utilizes the existing | the ES associated with the port utilizes the existing Single-Active | |||
Single-Active procedure and signals the Single-Active Multihomed site | procedure and signals the Single-Active multi-homed site redundancy | |||
redundancy mode along with the Ethernet-AD per-ES route (refer to | mode along with the Ethernet A-D per-ES route (refer to Section 7.5 | |||
Section 7.5 of [RFC7432]). Finally, The ESI label-based | of [RFC7432]). Finally, The ESI label-based split-horizon procedures | |||
split-horizon procedures specified in Section 8.3 of [RFC7432] SHOULD | specified in Section 8.3 of [RFC7432] SHOULD be employed to prevent | |||
be employed to prevent transient echo packets when Layer-2 circuits | transient echo packets when L2 circuits are involved. | |||
are involved. | ||||
Various algorithms for DF Election are detailed in Sections 3.2 to | Various algorithms for DF election are detailed in Sections 3.2 to | |||
3.5 for comprehensive understanding, although the choice of algorithm | 3.5 for comprehensive understanding, although the choice of algorithm | |||
in this solution does not significantly impact complexity or | in this solution does not significantly impact complexity or | |||
performance compared to other redundancy modes. | performance compared to other redundancy modes. | |||
3.1. Capability Flag | 3.1. Capability Flag | |||
[RFC8584] defines a DF Election extended community, and a Bitmap (2 | [RFC8584] defines a DF Election Extended Community and a Bitmap (2 | |||
octets) field to encode "DF Election Capabilities" to use with the DF | octets) field to encode "DF Election Capabilities" to use with the DF | |||
election algorithm in the DF algorithm field: | election algorithm in the DF algorithm field: | |||
Bit 0: D bit or 'Don't Pre-empt' bit, as explained in | Bit 0: D bit or 'Don't Preempt' bit, as described in [RFC9785]. | |||
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df]. | ||||
Bit 1: AC-Influenced DF election, as explained in [RFC8584]. | Bit 1: AC-Influenced DF (AC-DF) election, as described in | |||
[RFC8584]. | ||||
1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 | |||
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
|D|A| |P| | | |D|A| |P| | | |||
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
Figure 2: Amended DF Election Capabilities in the DF Election | Figure 2: Amended DF Election Capabilities in the DF Election | |||
Extended Community | Extended Community | |||
This document defines the following value and extends the DF Election | This document defines the following value and extends the DF Election | |||
Capabilities bitmap field: | Capabilities bitmap field: | |||
Bit 5: Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election. This bit | Bit 5: Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election. This bit | |||
determines that the DF Election algorithm SHOULD be | determines that the DF election algorithm SHOULD be | |||
modified to consider the port ES only and not the Ethernet | modified to consider the port ES only and not the Ethernet | |||
Tags. | Tags. | |||
3.2. Modulo-based Algorithm | 3.2. Modulo-Based Algorithm | |||
The default DF Election algorithm, or modulo-based algorithm, as | The default DF election algorithm, or modulo-based algorithm, as | |||
described in [RFC7432] and updated by [RFC8584], is applied here at | described in [RFC7432] and updated by [RFC8584], is applied here at | |||
the granularity of ES only. Given that the ES-Import Route Target | the granularity of ES only. Given that the ES-Import Route Target | |||
extended community may be auto-derived and directly inherits its | extended community may be auto-derived and directly inherits its | |||
auto-derived value from ESI bytes 1-6, many operators differentiate | auto-derived value from ESI bytes 1-6, many operators differentiate | |||
ESIs primarily within these bytes. Consequently, bytes 3-6 are | ESIs primarily within these bytes. Consequently, bytes 3-6 are | |||
utilized to determine the designated forwarder using the modulo-based | utilized to determine the designated forwarder using the modulo-based | |||
DF assignment, achieving good entropy during modulo calculation | DF assignment, achieving good entropy during modulo calculation | |||
across ESIs. | across ESIs. | |||
Assuming a redundancy group of N PE nodes, the PE with ordinal i is | Assuming a redundancy group of N PE nodes, the PE with ordinal i is | |||
designated as the DF for an <ES> when (Es mod N) = i, where Es | designated as the DF for an <ES> when (Es mod N) = i, where Es | |||
represents bytes 3-6 of that ESI. | represents bytes 3-6 of that ESI. | |||
3.3. Highest Random Weight Algorithm | 3.3. Highest Random Weight Algorithm | |||
An application of Highest Random Weight (HRW) to EVPN DF Election is | An application of Highest Random Weight (HRW) to EVPN DF election is | |||
defined in [RFC8584] and MAY also be used and signaled. For Port- | defined in [RFC8584], and it MAY be used and signaled. For Port- | |||
Active this is modified to operate at the granularity of <ES> rather | Active, this is modified to operate at the granularity of <ES> rather | |||
than per <ES, VLAN>. | than per <ES, VLAN>. | |||
Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] describes computing a 32-bit CRC over the | Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] describes computing a 32-bit Cyclic | |||
concatenation of Ethernet Tag (V) and ESI (Es). For Port-Active | Redundancy Check (CRC) over the concatenation of Ethernet Tag (V) and | |||
redundancy mode, the Ethernet Tag is omitted from the CRC computation | ESI (Es). For Port-Active redundancy mode, the Ethernet Tag is | |||
and all references to (V, Es) are replaced by (Es). | omitted from the CRC computation and all references to (V, Es) are | |||
replaced by (Es). | ||||
The algorithm to detemine the DF Elected and Backup-DF Elected (BDF) | The algorithm to determine the DF Elected and Backup-DF Elected (BDF) | |||
at Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] is repeated and summarized below using | at Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] is repeated and summarized below using | |||
only (Es) in the computation: | only (Es) in the computation: | |||
1. DF(Es) = Si| Weight(Es, Si) >= Weight(Es, Sj), for all j. In the | 1. DF(Es) = Si| Weight(Es, Si) >= Weight(Es, Sj), for all j. In the | |||
case of a tie, choose the PE whose IP address is numerically the | case of a tie, choose the PE whose IP address is numerically the | |||
least. Note that 0 <= i,j < number of PEs in the redundancy | least. Note that 0 <= i,j < number of PEs in the redundancy | |||
group. | group. | |||
2. BDF(Es) = Sk| Weight(Es, Si) >= Weight(Es, Sk), and Weight(Es, | 2. BDF(Es) = Sk| Weight(Es, Si) >= Weight(Es, Sk), and Weight(Es, | |||
Sk) >= Weight(Es, Sj). In the case of a tie, choose the PE whose | Sk) >= Weight(Es, Sj). In the case of a tie, choose the PE whose | |||
skipping to change at page 8, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at line 351 ¶ | |||
Where: | Where: | |||
* DF(Es) is defined to be the address Si (index i) for which | * DF(Es) is defined to be the address Si (index i) for which | |||
Weight(Es, Si) is the highest; 0 <= i < N-1. | Weight(Es, Si) is the highest; 0 <= i < N-1. | |||
* BDF(Es) is defined as that PE with address Sk for which the | * BDF(Es) is defined as that PE with address Sk for which the | |||
computed Weight is the next highest after the Weight of the DF. j | computed Weight is the next highest after the Weight of the DF. j | |||
is the running index from 0 to N-1; i and k are selected values. | is the running index from 0 to N-1; i and k are selected values. | |||
3.4. Preference-based DF Election | 3.4. Preference-Based DF Election | |||
When the new capability 'Port Mode' is signaled, the preference-based | When the new capability 'Port Mode' is signaled, the preference-based | |||
DF Election algorithm in [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df] is modified to | DF election algorithm [RFC9785] is modified to consider the port only | |||
consider the port only and not any associated Ethernet Tags. The | and not any associated Ethernet Tags. The Port Mode capability is | |||
Port Mode capability is compatible with the 'Don't Pre-empt' bit and | compatible with the 'Don't Preempt' bit and both may be signaled. | |||
both may be signaled. When an interface recovers, a peering PE | When an interface recovers, a peering PE signaling the D bit enables | |||
signaling D bit enables non-revertive behavior at the port level. | non-revertive behavior at the port level. | |||
3.5. AC-Influenced DF Election | 3.5. AC-Influenced DF Election | |||
The AC-DF bit defined in [RFC8584] MUST be set to 0 when advertising | The AC-DF bit defined in [RFC8584] MUST be set to 0 when advertising | |||
Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election capability (P=1). When an AC | Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election capability (P=1). When an AC | |||
(sub-interface) goes down, any resulting Ethernet A-D per EVI | (sub-interface) goes down, any resulting Ethernet A-D per EVI | |||
withdrawal does not influence the DF Election. | withdrawal does not influence the DF election. | |||
Upon receiving the AC-DF bit set (A=1) from a remote PE, it MUST be | Upon receiving the AC-DF bit set (A=1) from a remote PE, it MUST be | |||
ignored when performing Port Mode DF Election. | ignored when performing Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election. | |||
4. Convergence considerations | 4. Convergence Considerations | |||
To enhance convergence during failure and recovery when Port-Active | To enhance convergence during failure and recovery when the Port- | |||
redundancy mode is employed, prior synchronization between peering | Active redundancy mode is employed, prior synchronization between | |||
PEs may be beneficial. | peering PEs may be beneficial. | |||
The Port-Active mode poses a challenge to synchronization since the | The Port-Active mode poses a challenge to synchronization since the | |||
"standby" port may be in a down state. Transitioning a "standby" | "standby" port may be in a down state. Transitioning a "standby" | |||
port to an up state and stabilizing the network requires time. For | port to an up state and stabilizing the network requires time. For | |||
Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) and Layer 3 services, prior | Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) and L3 services, prior | |||
synchronization of ARP / ND caches is recommended. Additionally, | synchronization of ARP / Neighbor Discovery (ND) caches is | |||
associated VRF tables may need to be synchronized. For Layer 2 | recommended. Additionally, associated Virtual Routing and Forwarding | |||
services, synchronization of MAC tables may be considered. | (VRF) tables may need to be synchronized. For L2 services, | |||
synchronization of MAC tables may be considered. | ||||
Moreover, for members of a LAG running LACP, the ability to set the | Moreover, for members of a LAG running LACP, the ability to set the | |||
"standby" port to an "out-of-sync" state, also known as "warm- | "standby" port to an "out-of-sync" state, also known as "warm- | |||
standby," can be utilized to improve convergence times. | standby," can be utilized to improve convergence times. | |||
4.1. Primary / Backup per Ethernet-Segment | 4.1. Primary/Backup Bits per Ethernet Segment | |||
The EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community ("L2-Attr") defined in | The EVPN L2-Attr Extended Community defined in [RFC8214] SHOULD be | |||
[RFC8214] SHOULD be advertised in the Ethernet A-D per ES route to | advertised in the Ethernet A-D per ES route to enable fast | |||
enable fast convergence. | convergence. | |||
Only the P and B bits of the Control Flags field in the L2-Attr | Only the P and B bits of the Control Flags field in the L2-Attr | |||
Extended Community are relevant to this document, specifically in the | Extended Community are relevant to this document, specifically in the | |||
context of Ethernet A-D per ES routes: | context of Ethernet A-D per ES routes: | |||
* When advertised, the L2-Attr Extended Community SHALL have only | * When advertised, the L2-Attr Extended Community SHALL have only | |||
the P or B bits set in the Control Flags field, and all other bits | the P or B bits set in the Control Flags field, and all other bits | |||
and fields MUST be zero. | and fields MUST be zero. | |||
* A remote PE receiving the optional L2-Attr Extended Community in | * A remote PE receiving the optional L2-Attr Extended Community in | |||
Ethernet A-D per ES routes SHALL consider only the P and B bits | Ethernet A-D per ES routes SHALL consider only the P and B bits | |||
and ignore other values. | and ignore other values. | |||
For L2-Attr Extended Community sent and received in Ethernet A-D | For the L2-Attr Extended Community sent and received in Ethernet A-D | |||
per EVI routes used in [RFC8214], [RFC7432] and | per EVI routes used in [RFC8214], [RFC7432], and [RFC9744]: | |||
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc]: | ||||
* P and B bits received SHOULD be considered overridden by "parent" | * P and B bits received SHOULD be considered overridden by "parent" | |||
bits when advertised in the Ethernet A-D per ES. | bits when advertised in the Ethernet A-D per ES. | |||
* Other fields and bits of the extended community are used according | * Other fields and bits of the extended community are used according | |||
to the procedures outlined in the referenced documents. | to the procedures outlined in the referenced documents. | |||
By adhering to these procedures, the network ensures proper handling | By adhering to these procedures, the network ensures proper handling | |||
of the L2-Attr Extended Community to maintain robust and efficient | of the L2-Attr Extended Community to maintain robust and efficient | |||
convergence across Ethernet Segments. | convergence across Ethernet Segments. | |||
4.2. Backward Compatibility | 4.2. Backward Compatibility | |||
Implementations that comply with [RFC7432] or [RFC8214] only (i.e., | Implementations that comply with [RFC7432] or [RFC8214] only (i.e., | |||
implementations that predate this specification) which receive an | implementations that predate this specification) and that receive an | |||
L2-Attr Extended Community in Ethernet A-D per ES routes will ignore | L2-Attr Extended Community in Ethernet A-D per ES routes will ignore | |||
it and continue to use the default path resolution algorithms of the | it and continue to use the default path resolution algorithms of the | |||
two specifications above: | two specifications above: | |||
* The L2-Attr Extended Community in Ethernet A-D per ES route is | * The L2-Attr Extended Community in Ethernet A-D per ES route is | |||
ignored | ignored. | |||
* The remote ESI Label Extended Community ([RFC7432]) signals | * The remote ESI label extended community [RFC7432] signals Single- | |||
Single-Active (Section 3) | Active (Section 3). | |||
* the remote MAC and/or Ethernet A-D per EVI routes are unchanged, | * The remote Media Access Control (MAC) and/or Ethernet A-D per EVI | |||
the P and B bits in the L2-Attr Extended Community in Ethernet A-D | routes are unchanged; the P and B bits in the L2-Attr Extended | |||
per EVI routes are used. | Community in Ethernet A-D per EVI routes are used. | |||
5. Applicability | 5. Applicability | |||
A prevalent deployment scenario involves providing L2 or L3 services | A prevalent deployment scenario involves providing L2 or L3 services | |||
on PE devices that offer multi-homing capabilities. The services may | on PE devices that offer multi-homing capabilities. The services may | |||
include any L2 EVPN solutions such as EVPN VPWS or standard EVPN as | include any L2 EVPN solutions such as EVPN Virtual Private Wire | |||
defined in [RFC7432]. Additionally, L3 services may be provided | Service (VPWS) or standard EVPN as defined in [RFC7432]. | |||
within a VPN context, as specified in [RFC4364], or within a global | Additionally, L3 services may be provided within a VPN context, as | |||
routing context. When a PE provides first-hop routing, EVPN IRB may | specified in [RFC4364], or within a global routing context. When a | |||
also be deployed on the PEs. The mechanism outlined in this document | PE provides first-hop routing, EVPN IRB may also be deployed on the | |||
applies to PEs providing L2 and/or L3 services where active/standby | PEs. The mechanism outlined in this document applies to PEs | |||
redundancy at the interface level is required. | providing L2 and/or L3 services where active/standby redundancy at | |||
the interface level is required. | ||||
An alternative solution to the one described in this document is | An alternative solution to the one described in this document is MC- | |||
Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG) with ICCP active- | LAG with ICCP active/standby redundancy, as detailed in [RFC7275]. | |||
standby redundancy, as detailed in [RFC7275]. However, ICCP requires | However, ICCP requires LDP to be enabled as a transport for ICCP | |||
LDP to be enabled as a transport for ICCP messages. There are | messages. There are numerous scenarios where LDP is not necessary, | |||
numerous scenarios where LDP is not necessary, such as deployments | such as deployments utilizing VXLAN or SRv6. The solution using | |||
utilizing VXLAN or SRv6. The solution described in this document | EVPN, as described in this document, does not mandate the use of LDP | |||
using EVPN does not mandate the use of LDP or ICCP and remains | or ICCP and remains independent of the underlay encapsulation. | |||
independent of the underlay encapsulation. | ||||
6. IANA Considerations | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
This document solicits the allocation of the following values from | Per this document, IANA has added the following entry to the "DF | |||
the "BGP Extended Communities" registry group : | Election Capabilities" registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol | |||
(BGP) Extended Communities" registry group: | ||||
* Bit 5 in the [RFC8584] DF Election Capabilities registry, "Port | +=====+=========================================+===========+ | |||
Mode Designated Forwarder Election". | | Bit | Name | Reference | | |||
+=====+=========================================+===========+ | ||||
| 5 | Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election | RFC 9786 | | ||||
+-----+-----------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
Table 1 | ||||
7. Security Considerations | 7. Security Considerations | |||
The Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] and [RFC8584] are | The security considerations described in [RFC7432] and [RFC8584] are | |||
applicable to this document. | applicable to this document. | |||
Introducing a new capability necessitates unanimity among PEs. | Introducing a new capability necessitates unanimity among PEs. | |||
Without consensus on the new DF Election procedures and Port Mode, | Without consensus on the new DF election procedures and Port Mode, | |||
the DF Election algorithm defaults to the procedures outlined in | the DF election algorithm defaults to the procedures outlined in | |||
[RFC8584] and [RFC7432].This fallback behavior could be exploited by | [RFC8584] and [RFC7432].This fallback behavior could be exploited by | |||
an attacker who modifies the configuration of one PE within the | an attacker who modifies the configuration of one PE within the ES. | |||
Ethernet Segment (ES). Such manipulation could force all PEs in the | Such manipulation could force all PEs in the ES to revert to the | |||
ES to revert to the default DF Election algorithm and capabilities. | default DF election algorithm and capabilities. In this scenario, | |||
In this scenario, the PEs may be subject to unfair load balancing, | the PEs may be subject to unfair load balancing, service disruption, | |||
service disruption, and potential issues such as black-holing or | and potential issues such as black-holing or duplicate traffic, as | |||
duplicate traffic, as mentioned in the security sections of those | mentioned in the security sections of those documents. | |||
documents. | ||||
8. Acknowledgements | ||||
The authors thank Anoop Ghanwani for his comments and suggestions and | ||||
Stephane Litkowski and Gunter van de Velde for their careful reviews. | ||||
9. Contributors | ||||
In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following | ||||
people have also contributed to this document: | ||||
Ali Sajassi | ||||
Cisco Systems | ||||
United States of America | ||||
Email: sajassi@cisco.com | ||||
Samir Thoria | ||||
Cisco Systems | ||||
United States of America | ||||
Email: sthoria@cisco.com | ||||
10. References | ||||
10.1. Normative References | 8. References | |||
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df] | 8.1. Normative References | |||
Rabadan, J., Sathappan, S., Lin, W., Drake, J., and A. | ||||
Sajassi, "Preference-based EVPN DF Election", Work in | ||||
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-13, | ||||
9 October 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ | ||||
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-13>. | ||||
[IEEE_802.1AX_2014] | [IEEE_802.1AX_2014] | |||
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area | IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area | |||
networks -- Link Aggregation", IEEE 802-1ax-2014, | networks -- Link Aggregation", IEEE 802-1ax-2014, | |||
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.7055197, 5 March 2015, | DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.7055197, 5 March 2015, | |||
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7055197>. | <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7055197>. | |||
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
skipping to change at page 12, line 43 ¶ | skipping to change at line 524 ¶ | |||
Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet | Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet | |||
VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017, | VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>. | |||
[RFC8584] Rabadan, J., Ed., Mohanty, S., Ed., Sajassi, A., Drake, | [RFC8584] Rabadan, J., Ed., Mohanty, S., Ed., Sajassi, A., Drake, | |||
J., Nagaraj, K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for Ethernet | J., Nagaraj, K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for Ethernet | |||
VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility", | VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility", | |||
RFC 8584, DOI 10.17487/RFC8584, April 2019, | RFC 8584, DOI 10.17487/RFC8584, April 2019, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8584>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8584>. | |||
10.2. Informative References | [RFC9785] Rabadan, J., Ed., Sathappan, S., Lin, W., Drake, J., and | |||
A. Sajassi, "Preference-Based EVPN Designated Forwarder | ||||
(DF) Election", RFC RFC9785, DOI 10.17487/RFC9785, May | ||||
2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9785>. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc] | 8.2. Informative References | |||
Sajassi, A., Brissette, P., Uttaro, J., Drake, J., | ||||
Boutros, S., and J. Rabadan, "EVPN VPWS Flexible Cross- | ||||
Connect Service", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- | ||||
ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-10, 4 December 2024, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess- | ||||
evpn-vpws-fxc-10>. | ||||
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private | [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private | |||
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February | Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February | |||
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>. | 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>. | |||
[RFC5306] Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for IS-IS", | [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., | |||
RFC 5306, DOI 10.17487/RFC5306, October 2008, | "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5306>. | October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>. | |||
[RFC7275] Martini, L., Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Bocci, M., | [RFC7275] Martini, L., Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Bocci, M., | |||
Matsushima, S., and T. Nadeau, "Inter-Chassis | Matsushima, S., and T. Nadeau, "Inter-Chassis | |||
Communication Protocol for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network | Communication Protocol for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network | |||
(L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE) Redundancy", RFC 7275, | (L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE) Redundancy", RFC 7275, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC7275, June 2014, | DOI 10.17487/RFC7275, June 2014, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7275>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7275>. | |||
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, | [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, | |||
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual | L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual | |||
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for | eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for | |||
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 | Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 | |||
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, | Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>. | |||
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., | [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., | |||
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment | Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment | |||
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, | Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, | |||
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. | July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. | |||
[RFC9744] Sajassi, A., Ed., Brissette, P., Uttaro, J., Drake, J., | ||||
Boutros, S., and J. Rabadan, "EVPN Virtual Private Wire | ||||
Service (VPWS) Flexible Cross-Connect (FXC) Service", | ||||
RFC 9744, DOI 10.17487/RFC9744, March 2025, | ||||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9744>. | ||||
Acknowledgements | ||||
The authors thank Anoop Ghanwani for his comments and suggestions and | ||||
Stephane Litkowski and Gunter Van de Velde for their careful reviews. | ||||
Contributors | ||||
In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following | ||||
people have also contributed to this document: | ||||
Ali Sajassi | ||||
Cisco Systems | ||||
United States of America | ||||
Email: sajassi@cisco.com | ||||
Samir Thoria | ||||
Cisco Systems | ||||
United States of America | ||||
Email: sthoria@cisco.com | ||||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Patrice Brissette | Patrice Brissette | |||
Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
Ottawa ON | Ottawa ON | |||
Canada | Canada | |||
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com | Email: pbrisset@cisco.com | |||
Luc Andre Burdet (editor) | Luc André Burdet (editor) | |||
Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
Canada | Canada | |||
Email: lburdet@cisco.com | Email: lburdet@cisco.com | |||
Bin Wen | Bin Wen | |||
Comcast | Comcast | |||
United States of America | United States of America | |||
Email: Bin_Wen@comcast.com | Email: Bin_Wen@comcast.com | |||
Edward Leyton | Edward Leyton | |||
Verizon Wireless | Verizon Wireless | |||
United States of America | United States of America | |||
Email: edward.leyton@verizonwireless.com | Email: edward.leyton@verizonwireless.com | |||
Jorge Rabadan | Jorge Rabadan | |||
Nokia | Nokia | |||
United States of America | United States of America | |||
Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com | Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com | |||
End of changes. 74 change blocks. | ||||
231 lines changed or deleted | 231 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. |