rfc9081.original   rfc9081.txt 
BESS Z. Zhang Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Z. Zhang
Internet-Draft L. Giuliano Request for Comments: 9081 L. Giuliano
Updates: 6514 (if approved) Juniper Networks Updates: 6514 Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track May 24, 2021 Category: Standards Track July 2021
Expires: November 25, 2021 ISSN: 2070-1721
MVPN and MSDP SA Interoperation Interoperation between Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) and
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-08 Multicast Source Directory Protocol (MSDP) Source-Active Routes
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the procedures for interoperation between This document specifies the procedures for interoperation between
Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) Source Active routes and Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN) Source-Active (SA) routes
customer Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) Source Active and customer Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP) SA routes,
routes, which is useful for MVPN provider networks offering services which is useful for MVPN provider networks offering services to
to customers with an existing MSDP infrastructure. Without the customers with an existing MSDP infrastructure. Without the
procedures described in this document, VPN-specific MSDP sessions are procedures described in this document, VPN-specific MSDP sessions are
required among the PEs that are customer MSDP peers. This document required among the Provider Edge (PE) routers that are customer MSDP
updates RFC6514. peers. This document updates RFC 6514.
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.
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 November 25, 2021. 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/rfc9081.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. MVPN RPT-SPT Mode
2.1. MVPN RPT-SPT Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology
3. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Requirements Language
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Specification
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. References
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Informative References
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Terminologies
Familiarity with MVPN [RFC6513] [RFC6514] and MSDP [RFC3618]
protocols and procedures is assumed. Some terminologies are listed
below for convenience.
o ASM: Any source multicast.
o SPT: Source-specific Shortest-path Tree.
o RPT: Rendezvous Point Tree.
o C-S: A multicast source address, identifying a multicast source
located at a VPN customer site.
o C-G: A multicast group address used by a VPN customer.
o C-RP: A multicast Rendezvous Point for a VPN customer.
o C-Multicast: Multicast for a VPN customer.
o EC: Extended Community.
o GTM: Global Table Multicast, i.e., multicast in the default or
global routing table vs. VRF table.
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
Section "14. Supporting PIM-SM without Inter-Site Shared C-Trees" of Section 14 ("Supporting PIM-SM without Inter-Site Shared C-Trees") of
[RFC6514] specifies the procedures for MVPN PEs to discover (C-S,C-G) [RFC6514] specifies the procedures for MVPN PEs to discover (C-S,C-G)
via MVPN Source Active A-D routes and then send Source Tree Join via MVPN Source-Active A-D routes and then send Source Tree Join
(C-S,C-G) C-multicast routes towards the ingress PEs, to establish (C-S,C-G) C-multicast routes towards the ingress PEs to establish
SPTs for customer ASM flows for which they have downstream receivers. shortest path trees (SPTs) for customer Any-Source Multicast (ASM)
(C-*,C-G) C-multicast routes are not sent among the PEs so inter-site flows for which they have downstream receivers. (C-*,C-G)
shared C-Trees are not used and the method is generally referred to C-multicast routes are not sent among the PEs, so inter-site shared
as "spt-only" mode. C-Trees are not used, and the method is generally referred to as
"spt-only" mode.
With this mode, the MVPN Source Active routes are functionally With this mode, the MVPN Source-Active routes are functionally
similar to MSDP Source-Active messages. For a VPN, one or more of similar to MSDP Source-Active messages. For a VPN, one or more of
the PEs, say PE1, either acts as a C-RP and learns of (C-S,C-G) via the PEs, say PE1, either acts as a C-RP and learns of (C-S,C-G) via
PIM Register messages, or has MSDP sessions with some MSDP peers and PIM Register messages or has MSDP sessions with some MSDP peers and
learn (C-S,C-G) via MSDP SA messages. In either case, PE1 will then learns of (C-S,C-G) via MSDP SA messages. In either case, PE1 will
originate MVPN SA routes for other PEs to learn the (C-S,C-G). then originate MVPN SA routes for other PEs to learn (C-S,C-G).
[RFC6514] only specifies that a PE receiving the MVPN SA routes, say [RFC6514] only specifies that a PE receiving the MVPN SA routes, say
PE2, will advertise Source Tree Join (C-S,C-G) C-multicast routes if PE2, will advertise Source Tree Join (C-S,C-G) C-multicast routes if
it has corresponding (C-*,C-G) state learnt from its CE. PE2 may it has corresponding (C-*,C-G) state learnt from its Customer Edge
also have MSDP sessions for the VPN with other C-RPs at its site, but (CE). PE2 may also have MSDP sessions for the VPN with other C-RPs
[RFC6514] does not specify that PE2 advertises MSDP SA messages to at its site, but [RFC6514] does not specify that PE2 advertises MSDP
those MSDP peers for the (C-S,C-G) that it learns via MVPN SA routes. SA messages to those MSDP peers for the (C-S,C-G) that it learns via
PE2 would need to have an MSDP session with PE1 (that advertised the MVPN SA routes. PE2 would need to have an MSDP session with PE1
MVPN SA messages) to learn the sources via MSDP SA messages, for it (that advertised the MVPN SA messages) to learn the sources via MSDP
to advertise the MSDP SA to its local peers. To make things worse, SA messages for it to advertise the MSDP SA to its local peers. To
unless blocked by policy control, PE2 would in turn advertise MVPN SA make things worse, unless blocked by policy control, PE2 would in
routes because of those MSDP SA messages that it receives from PE1, turn advertise MVPN SA routes because of those MSDP SA messages that
which are redundant and unnecessary. Also notice that the PE1-PE2 it receives from PE1, which are redundant and unnecessary. Also
MSDP session is VPN-specific (i.e., only for a single VPN), while the notice that the PE1-PE2 MSDP session is VPN specific (i.e., only for
BGP sessions over which the MVPN routes are advertised are not. a single VPN), while the BGP sessions over which the MVPN routes are
advertised are not.
If a PE does advertise MSDP SA messages based on received MVPN SA If a PE does advertise MSDP SA messages based on received MVPN SA
routes, the VPN-specific MSDP sessions with other PEs are no longer routes, the VPN-specific MSDP sessions with other PEs are no longer
needed. Additionally, this MVPN/MSDP SA interoperation has the needed. Additionally, this MVPN/MSDP SA interoperation has the
following inherent benefits for a BGP based solution. following inherent benefits for a BGP-based solution.
o MSDP SA refreshes are replaced with BGP hard state. * MSDP SA refreshes are replaced with BGP hard state.
o Route Reflectors can be used instead of having peer-to-peer * Route reflectors can be used instead of having peer-to-peer
sessions. sessions.
o VPN Extranet [RFC2764] mechanisms can be used to propagate * VPN extranet [RFC2764] mechanisms can be used to propagate
(C-S,C-G) information across VPNs with flexible policy control. (C-S,C-G) information across VPNs with flexible policy control.
While MSDP Source Active routes contain the source, group and RP While MSDP Source-Active routes contain the source, group, and RP
addresses of a given multicast flow, MVPN Source Active routes only addresses of a given multicast flow, MVPN Source-Active routes only
contain the source and group. MSDP requires the RP address contain the source and group. MSDP requires the RP address
information in order to perform MSDP peer-RPF. Therefore, this information in order to perform MSDP peer Reverse Path Forwarding
document describes how to convey the RP address information into the (RPF). Therefore, this document describes how to convey the RP
MVPN Source Active route using an Extended Community so this address information into the MVPN Source-Active route using an
information can be shared with an existing MSDP infrastructure. Extended Community so this information can be shared with an existing
MSDP infrastructure.
The procedures apply to Global Table Multicast (GTM) [RFC7716] as The procedures apply to Global Table Multicast (GTM) [RFC7716] as
well. well.
2.1. MVPN RPT-SPT Mode 1.1. MVPN RPT-SPT Mode
For comparison, another method of supporting customer ASM is For comparison, another method of supporting customer ASM is
generally referred to as "rpt-spt" mode. Section "13. Switching generally referred to as "rpt-spt" mode. Section 13 ("Switching from
from a Shared C-Tree to a Source C-Tree" of [RFC6514] specifies the a Shared C-Tree to a Source C-Tree") of [RFC6514] specifies the MVPN
MVPN SA procedures for that mode, but those SA routes are a SA procedures for that mode, but those SA routes are a replacement
replacement for PIM-ASM assert and (s,g,rpt) prune mechanisms, not for PIM-ASM assert and (s,g,rpt) prune mechanisms, not for source
for source discovery purposes. MVPN/MSDP SA interoperation for the discovery purposes. MVPN/MSDP SA interoperation for the "rpt-spt"
"rpt-spt" mode is outside the scope of this document. In the rest of mode is outside the scope of this document. In the rest of the
the document, the "spt-only" mode is assumed. document, the "spt-only" mode is assumed.
2. Terminology
Familiarity with MVPN [RFC6513] [RFC6514] and MSDP [RFC3618]
protocols and procedures is assumed. Some terminology is listed
below for convenience.
ASM: Any-Source Multicast
SPT: source-specific Shortest Path Tree
RPT: Rendezvous Point Tree
C-S: a multicast source address, identifying a multicast
source located at a VPN customer site
C-G: a multicast group address used by a VPN customer
C-RP: a multicast Rendezvous Point for a VPN customer
C-multicast: a multicast for a VPN customer
EC: Extended Community
GTM: Global Table Multicast, i.e., a multicast in the
default or global routing table vs. a VPN Routing and
Forwarding (VRF) table
2.1. 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.
3. Specification 3. Specification
The MVPN PEs that act as customer RPs or have one or more MSDP The MVPN PEs that act as customer RPs or have one or more MSDP
sessions in a VPN (or the global table in case of GTM) are treated as sessions in a VPN (or the global table in case of GTM) are treated as
an MSDP mesh group for that VPN (or the global table). In the rest an MSDP mesh group for that VPN (or the global table). In the rest
of the document, it is referred to as the PE mesh group. This PE of the document, it is referred to as the PE mesh group. This PE
mesh group MUST NOT include other MSDP speakers, and is integrated mesh group MUST NOT include other MSDP speakers and is integrated
into the rest of MSDP infrastructure for the VPN (or the global into the rest of the MSDP infrastructure for the VPN (or the global
table) following normal MSDP rules and practices. table) following normal MSDP rules and practices.
When an MVPN PE advertises an MVPN SA route following procedures in When an MVPN PE advertises an MVPN SA route following procedures in
[RFC6514] for the "spt-only" mode, it MUST attach an "MVPN SA RP- [RFC6514] for the "spt-only" mode, it MUST attach an "MVPN SA RP-
address Extended Community". This is a Transitive IPv4-Address- address Extended Community". This is a Transitive IPv4-Address-
Specific Extended Community. The Local Administrative field is set Specific Extended Community. The Local Administrator field is set to
to zero and the Global Administrative field is set to an RP address zero, and the Global Administrator field is set to an RP address
determined as the following: determined as the following:
o If the (C-S,C-G) is learnt as result of PIM Register mechanism, * If the (C-S,C-G) is learnt as a result of the PIM Register
the local RP address for the C-G is used. mechanism, the local RP address for the C-G is used.
o If the (C-S,C-G) is learnt as result of incoming MSDP SA messages, * If the (C-S,C-G) is learnt as a result of incoming MSDP SA
the RP address in the selected MSDP SA message is used. messages, the RP address in the selected MSDP SA message is used.
In addition to procedures in [RFC6514], an MVPN PE may be provisioned In addition to the procedures in [RFC6514], an MVPN PE may be
to generate MSDP SA messages from received MVPN SA routes, with or provisioned to generate MSDP SA messages from received MVPN SA
without local policy control. If a received MVPN SA route triggers routes, with or without local policy control. If a received MVPN SA
an MSDP SA message, the MVPN SA route is treated as if a route triggers an MSDP SA message, the MVPN SA route is treated as if
corresponding MSDP SA message was received from within the PE mesh a corresponding MSDP SA message was received from within the PE mesh
group and normal MSDP procedure is followed (e.g. an MSDP SA message group and normal MSDP procedure is followed (e.g., an MSDP SA message
is advertised to other MSDP peers outside the PE mesh group). The is advertised to other MSDP peers outside the PE mesh group). The
(S,G) information comes from the (C-S,C-G) encoding in the MVPN SA (S,G) information comes from the (C-S,C-G) encoding in the MVPN SA
NLRI and the RP address comes from the "MVPN SA RP-address EC" Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI), and the RP address
mentioned above. If the received MVPN SA route does not have the EC comes from the "MVPN SA RP-address EC" mentioned above. If the
(this could be from a legacy PE that does not have the capability to received MVPN SA route does not have the EC (this could be from a
attach the EC), the local RP address for the C-G is used. In that legacy PE that does not have the capability to attach the EC), the
case, it is possible that the RP inserted into the MSDP SA message local RP address for the C-G is used. In that case, it is possible
for the C-G is actually the MSDP peer to which the generated MSDP that the RP inserted into the MSDP SA message for the C-G is actually
message is advertised, causing the peer to discard it due to RPF the MSDP peer to which the generated MSDP message is advertised,
failure. To get around that problem the peer SHOULD use local policy causing the peer to discard it due to RPF failure. To get around
to accept the MSDP SA message. that problem, the peer SHOULD use local policy to accept the MSDP SA
message.
An MVPN PE MAY treat only the best MVPN SA route selected by the BGP An MVPN PE MAY treat only the best MVPN SA route selected by the BGP
route selection process (instead of all MVPN SA routes) for a given route selection process (instead of all MVPN SA routes) for a given
(C-S,C-G) as a received MSDP SA message (and advertise the (C-S,C-G) as a received MSDP SA message (and advertise the
corresponding MSDP message). In that case, if the selected best MVPN corresponding MSDP message). In that case, if the selected best MVPN
SA route does not have the "MVPN SA RP-address EC" but another route SA route does not have the "MVPN SA RP-address EC" but another route
for the same (C-S, C-G) does, then the next best route with the EC for the same (C-S, C-G) does, then the next best route with the EC
SHOULD be chosen. As a result, when/if the best MVPN SA route with SHOULD be chosen. As a result, if/when the best MVPN SA route with
the EC changes, a new MSDP SA message is advertised if the RP address the EC changes, a new MSDP SA message is advertised if the RP address
determined according to the newly selected MVPN SA route is different determined according to the newly selected MVPN SA route is different
from before. The MSDP SA state associated with the previously from before. The MSDP SA state associated with the previously
advertised MSDP SA message with the older RP address will be timed advertised MSDP SA message with the older RP address will be timed
out. out.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
RFC6514 specifies the procedure for a PE to generate an MVPN SA upon [RFC6514] specifies the procedure for a PE to generate an MVPN SA
discovering a (C-S,C-G) flow (e.g. via a received MSDP SA message) in upon discovering a (C-S,C-G) flow (e.g., via a received MSDP SA
a VPN. This document extends this capability in the reverse message) in a VPN. This document extends this capability in the
direction - upon receiving an MVPN SA route in a VPN generate a reverse direction -- upon receiving an MVPN SA route in a VPN,
corresponding MSDP SA and advertise it to MSDP peers in the same VPN. generate a corresponding MSDP SA and advertise it to MSDP peers in
As such, the capabilities specified in this document introduce no the same VPN. As such, the capabilities specified in this document
additional security considerations beyond those already specified in introduce no additional security considerations beyond those already
RFC6514 and RFC3618. Moreover, the capabilities specified in this specified in [RFC6514] and [RFC3618]. Moreover, the capabilities
document actually eliminate the control message amplification that specified in this document actually eliminate the control message
exists today where VPN-specific MSDP sessions are required among the amplification that exists today where VPN-specific MSDP sessions are
PEs that are customer MSDP peers, which lead to redundant messages required among the PEs that are customer MSDP peers, which lead to
(MSDP SAs and MVPN SAs) being carried in parallel between PEs. redundant messages (MSDP SAs and MVPN SAs) being carried in parallel
between PEs.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document introduces a new Transitive IPv4 Address Specific IANA registered the following in the "Transitive IPv4-Address-
Extended Community "MVPN SA RP-address Extended Community". IANA has Specific Extended Community Sub-Types" registry:
registered subcode 0x20 in the Transitive IPv4-Address-Specific
Extended Community Sub-Types registry for this EC.
6. Acknowledgements +=======+=======================================+
| Value | Description |
+=======+=======================================+
| 0x20 | MVPN SA RP-address Extended Community |
+-------+---------------------------------------+
The authors thank Eric Rosen and Vinod Kumar for their review, Table 1
comments, questions and suggestions for this document. The authors
also thank Yajun Liu for her review and comments.
7. References 6. References
7.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3618] Fenner, B., Ed. and D. Meyer, Ed., "Multicast Source [RFC3618] Fenner, B., Ed. and D. Meyer, Ed., "Multicast Source
Discovery Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, Discovery Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3618, October 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3618, October 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3618>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3618>.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP [RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012, VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC2764] Gleeson, B., Lin, A., Heinanen, J., Armitage, G., and A. [RFC2764] Gleeson, B., Lin, A., Heinanen, J., Armitage, G., and A.
Malis, "A Framework for IP Based Virtual Private Malis, "A Framework for IP Based Virtual Private
Networks", RFC 2764, DOI 10.17487/RFC2764, February 2000, Networks", RFC 2764, DOI 10.17487/RFC2764, February 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2764>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2764>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/ [RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>. 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC7716] Zhang, J., Giuliano, L., Rosen, E., Ed., Subramanian, K., [RFC7716] Zhang, J., Giuliano, L., Rosen, E., Ed., Subramanian, K.,
and D. Pacella, "Global Table Multicast with BGP Multicast and D. Pacella, "Global Table Multicast with BGP Multicast
VPN (BGP-MVPN) Procedures", RFC 7716, VPN (BGP-MVPN) Procedures", RFC 7716,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7716, December 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7716, December 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7716>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7716>.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Eric Rosen, Vinod Kumar, Yajun Liu, Stig Venaas,
Mankamana Mishra, Gyan Mishra, Qin Wu, and Jia He for their reviews,
comments, questions, and suggestions for this document.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Zhaohui Zhang Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
EMail: zzhang@juniper.net Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Lenny Giuliano Lenny Giuliano
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
EMail: lenny@juniper.net Email: lenny@juniper.net
 End of changes. 39 change blocks. 
160 lines changed or deleted 170 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/