wdiff rfc8112.alt-original rfc8112.txt


Internet Engineering Task Force
Independent Submission                                      D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8112                                   lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental
Category: Informational                                          A. Jain
Expires: June 18, 2015
ISSN: 2070-1721                                         Juniper Networks
                                                             I. Kouvelas
                                                                  Arista
                                                                D. Lewis
                                                           cisco
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                       December 15, 2014

                LISP-DDT
                                                                May 2017

   Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT)
                     Referral Internet Groper (RIG)
                      draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-05

Abstract

   A simple tool called the LISP-DDT Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
   Database Tree (LISP-DDT) Referral Internet Groper or 'rig' (RIG), also
   referred to in this document as "rig", can be used to query the LISP-DDT LISP-
   DDT hierarchy.  This draft document describes how the 'rig' "rig" tool works.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This is submitted in full conformance with a contribution to the
   provisions RFC Series, independently of BCP 78 any other
   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
   its discretion and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts makes no statement about its value for
   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by
   the RFC Editor are working documents not a candidate for any level of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum status of six months this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 June 18, 2015.
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8112.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2 ...........................................3
   3.  Definition Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3 ............................................3
   4. Basic Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5 ..................................................5
   5. Implementation Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7 ..........................................7
   6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9 .........................................9
   7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9 .............................................9
   8. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9 ......................................................9
      8.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9 .......................................9
      8.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A. ....................................10
   Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10 ...................................................11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11 ................................................11

1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Introduction

   LISP

   "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)" [RFC6830] specifies an
   architecture and mechanism for replacing the semantics of an address
   currently used by IP with two separate
   name spaces: namespaces: Endpoint IDs
   Identifiers (EIDs), used within sites, sites; and Routing Locators (RLOCs),
   used on the transit networks that make up the Internet
   infrastructure.  To achieve this separation, the Locator/ID
   Separation Protocol (LISP) LISP defines protocol
   mechanisms for mapping from EIDs to RLOCs.  In addition, LISP assumes
   the existence of a database to store and propagate those mappings
   globally.  This document focuses on the LISP-DDT [LISP-DDT] LISP Delegated Database Tree
   (LISP-DDT) [RFC8111] mapping database system.

   The 'rig' "rig" tool is a manual management tool to query the LISP-DDT
   mapping database hierarchy.  It can be run by all devices which that
   implement LISP, including ITRs, ETRs, PITRs, PETRs, Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs), Egress
   Tunnel Routers (ETRs), Proxy ITRs (PITRs), Proxy ETRs (PETRs),
   Map-Resolvers, Map-Servers, and LISP-DDT nodes, as well as by a host
   system at either a LISP-
   capable LISP-capable or non-LISP-capable site.

   The LISP-DDT 'rig' "rig" tool is similar to the 'lig' [RFC6835] "LISP Internet Groper"
   ("lig") tool [RFC6835] in that they are both diagnostic tools to
   query a database.  However,
   'rig' the "rig" tool is used to find
   Map-Servers serving an EID-prefix, specifically within a LISP-DDT
   mapping database framework.  And 'lig' "lig" can be used on top of any
   mapping database system to retrieve locators used for packet
   encapsulation.

1.

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Definition  Definitions of Terms

   Endpoint ID Identifier (EID):   An EID is  a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for IPv6)
      value (or an address encoded by [LISP-LCAF]) per [RFC8060]) used in the source and
      destination address fields of the first (most inner) (innermost) LISP header of
      a packet.  The host obtains a destination EID the same way it
      obtains a destination address today, today -- for example example, through a
      Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] lookup or a Session
      Invitation Initiation
      Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange.  The source EID is obtained via
      existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local" IP address.  An
      EID used on the public Internet must have the same properties as
      any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among other
      things, that it must be globally unique.  An EID is allocated to a
      host from an EID-prefix block associated with the site where the
      host is located.  An EID can be used by a host to refer to other
      hosts.  EIDs MUST NOT be used as LISP RLOCs.  Note that EID blocks
      MAY be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the
      network topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database.
      In addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local
      structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure
      is not visible to the global routing system.  In theory, the bit
      string that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC
      for a different device.  As the architecture is realized, if a
      given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the
      same entity in both cases.  When used in discussions "discussions" with other
      Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called a an
      "LEID".  Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refers refer
      to an LEID.

   Extended EID (XEID):   A  a LISP EID, optionally extended with a non-
      zero non-zero
      Instance ID (IID) if the EID is intended for use in a context
      where it may not be a unique value, such as on in a Virtual Private
      Network where "private" private address space [RFC1918] is used.  See "Using
      Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP" in
      Section 5.5 of [RFC6830] for more discussion of Instance IDs. IIDs.

   Routing Locator (RLOC):   A RLOC is  an IPv4 [RFC0791] [RFC791] or IPv6 [RFC2460] address
      of an egress tunnel router Egress Tunnel Router (ETR).  A  An RLOC is the output of an
      EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup.  An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.
      Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically- topologically aggregatable
      blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it
      attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by
      the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as PA
      Provider-Assigned (PA) addresses.  Multiple RLOCs can be assigned
      to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.

   DDT Node:   A node:  a network infrastructure component responsible for
      specific XEID-prefix XEID-prefix(es) and for the delegation of more-specific sub-
      prefixes
      sub-prefixes to other DDT nodes.

   DDT Client:   A client:  a network infrastructure component that sends Map-
      Request DDT
      Map-Request messages and implements the iterative following of Map-
      Referral
      Map-Referral results.  Typically, a DDT client will be a Map Resolver
      Map-Resolver (as defined by [RFC6833]), but it is also possible
      for an ITR to implement DDT client functionality.  A DDT client
      can be a device that is originating
      'rig' "rig" requests.

   DDT Map Server:   A Map-Server:  a DDT node that also implements Map Server Map-Server
      functionality (forwarding Map-Requests and/or returning Map-
      Replies
      Map-Replies if offering proxy-mode a proxy Map-Reply service) for a subset of
      its delegated prefixes.  Map-Server functions, including proxying
      Map-Replies, are described in [RFC6833].

   DDT Map Resolver:   A Map-Resolver:  a network infrastructure element that accepts a
      Map-Request, adds the XEID to its lookup queue, then queries one
      or more DDT nodes for the requested EID, following returned
      referrals until it receives one with the the ms-ack action. MS-ACK action code
      [RFC8111].  This indicates that the Map-Request has been sent to a
      Map-Server that will forward it to an ETR that, in turn, will
      provide a Map-Reply to the original sender.  A DDT Map Resolver Map-Resolver
      maintains both (1) a cache of Map-Referral message results (termed
      the "referral cache") containing RLOCs for DDT nodes responsible
      for XEID-prefixes of interest (termed the "referral
      cache") plus and (2) a lookup queue of XEIDs that
      are being resolved through iterative querying of DDT nodes.

   Encapsulated Map-Request:   A  a LISP Map-Request that is carried within
      an Encapsulated Control Message, which Message (ECM) and that has an additional
      LISP header prepended.  Sent to UDP destination port 4342.  The
      "outer" addresses are globally-routable globally routable IP addresses, also known
      as RLOCs.  Used by an ITR when sending a Map-Request to a
      Map-Resolver and by a Map-Server when forwarding a Map-Request to
      an ETR as documented in [RFC6833].

   Map-Referral:   A  a LISP message sent by a DDT node when it receives a
      DDT Map-Request for an XEID that matches a configured XEID-prefix
      delegation.  The  A non-Negative Map-Referral message includes a "referral",
      "referral" -- a set of RLOCs for DDT nodes that have more
      information about the sub-
      prefix; sub-prefix; a DDT client "follows the
      referral" by sending another DDT Map-Request to one of those RLOCs
      to obtain either an answer or another referral to DDT nodes
      responsible for a more-specific XEID-prefix.

   Authoritative XEID-prefix:   An  an XEID-prefix delegated to a DDT node
      and for which the DDT node may provide further delegations of
      more-specific sub-prefixes.

4.  Basic Overview

   The LISP Delegated Database Tree [LISP-DDT],

   LISP-DDT [RFC8111] is a hierarchical, hierarchical distributed database which that
   embodies the delegation of authority to provide mappings from LISP Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs)
   EIDs to Routing
   Locators (RLOCs). RLOCs.  It is a statically-defined statically defined distribution of the EID
   namespace among a set of LISP-speaking servers, servers called DDT nodes. "DDT nodes".
   Each DDT node is configured as "authoritative" for one or more EID-
   prefixes,
   EID-prefixes, along with the set of RLOCs for Map Servers Map-Servers or "child"
   DDT nodes to which more-specific EID-prefixes are delegated.

   Map-Resolvers send Map-Requests to the DDT hierarchy and maintain
   referral-caches
   referral caches by receiving Map-Referral messages from DDT nodes.
   Map-Resolvers follow the DDT hierarchy for a given EID lookup based
   on the EID-prefix and delegation referrals contained in the Map-
   Referral
   Map-Referral messages.  The intention of rig "rig" tool is intended to perform the
   same operation as that of a Map-Resolver but to also be used as a
   management tool for the network administrator.

   When the rig "rig" command is run, an Encapsulated Control Message Map-
   Request
   Map-Request is sent for a destination EID.  When a LISP-DDT
   Map-Referral is returned, the contents are displayed to the user.
   The information displayed includes:

   o  A delegated EID-prefix configured in a DDT-node DDT node or a configured
      site EID-prefix in a DDT Map-Server that matches the
      requested EID.

   o  The type of DDT-node which DDT node that sent the Map-Referral.

   o  The action code and TTL set by the sender of the Map-Referral.

   o  The referral RLOC addresses from the Map-Referral message.

   o  A round-trip-time estimate for the ECM-Map-Request/Map-Referral ECM-Map-Request / Map-Referral
      message exchange.

   A possible syntax for a rig "rig" command MAY be:

   rig [instance-id <iid>] <eid> to <ddt-node> [follow-all-referrals]

   Parameter description: descriptions:

   [instance-id <iid>>]: <iid>]:  <iid> is the instance-ID IID portion of the Extended
      EID XEID used as a
      VPN identifier or for other future purposes.  When the DDT
      hierarchy is not configured with instance-IDs, IIDs, this argument is omitted
      from the command line.

   <eid>:  <eid> is either a Fully Qualified Domain Name or a
      destination EID that is being queried in the LISP-DDT mapping
      database.

   <ddt-node>:  <ddt-node> is the RLOC address of any DDT-node DDT node in the
      DDT hierarchy.  This can be the DDT root node, a DDT transit node,
      or a DDT Map-Server.

   [follow-all-referrals]:   when  When this keyword is used used, each referral
      RLOC is queried so rig "rig" can descend the entire DDT hierarchy
      starting from the node <ddt-node>.  When this keyword is not used,
      one of the referral RLOCs will be selected to descend a branch of
      the DDT hierarchy.

   The rig "rig" utility not only shows branches of the delegation hierarchy
   but can also report:

   o  When a DDT Map-Server would forward a Map-Request to the ETRs at a
      registered LISP site.  This is known as a 'ms-acknowledgement' an "MS-ACK" action.

   o  When a DDT Map-Server sends a negative referral Negative Map-Referral indicating
      that a requested EID is configured but not registered to the
      mapping database system.  This is known as an 'ms-not-registered' "MS-NOT-REGISTERED"
      action.

   o  When a DDT node is sending referrals for a transit or leaf node in
      the hierarchy.  These are known as 'node-referral' "NODE-REFERRAL" and 'ms-
      referral'
      "MS-REFERRAL" actions, respectively.

   o  When a DDT-node DDT node finds a hole in the address space that has not
      been allocated or configured in the delegation hierarchy.  This is
      typically associated with a hole in a DDT node's configured
      authoritative prefix.  This is known as a 'delegation-hole' "DELEGATION-HOLE"
      action.

   o  When a DDT-node DDT node finds a hole in the address space that has not
      been allocated or configured in the delegation hierarchy at all.
      This is typically associated with a hole that is outside of a DDT
      node's authoritative prefix.  This is known as 'non-authoritative' a
      "NOT-AUTHORITATIVE" action.

   Refer to [LISP-DDT] [RFC8111] for more detail details about Map-Referral actions.

5.  Implementation Details

   The cisco Cisco LISP prototype implementations on IOS and NX-OS has rig have "rig"
   support for IPv4 and IPv6 EIDs in either the default instance or a
   non-zero instance-ID. IID.

   The IOS syntax is:

   rig [instance-id <iid>] <eid> to <ddt-node> [follow-all-referrals]

   The NX-OS syntax is:

   rig [instance-id <iid>] { <hostname> | {<eid> | <eid6>}} <eid6>} }
                           to {<ddt-hostname> { <ddt-hostname> | {<ddt> | <ddt6>}} <ddt6>} }

   Here is some sample IOS output:

   Router# rig 12.0.1.1 to 1.1.1.1

   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 1.1.1.1 ... node referral, rtt: 0 ms
   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.0.0/16, ttl: 1440
   referrals: 2.2.2.2

   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 2.2.2.2 ... node referral, rtt: 0 ms
   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/24, ttl: 1440
   referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5

   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 4.4.4.4 ... map-server acknowledgement,
                                            rtt: 0 ms
   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440
   referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5

   Router# rig 12.0.1.1 to 1.1.1.1 follow-all-referrals

   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 1.1.1.1 ... node referral, rtt: 4 ms
   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.0.0/16, ttl: 1440
   referrals: 2.2.2.2
   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 2.2.2.2 ... node referral, rtt: 0 ms
   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/24, ttl: 1440
   referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5

   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 4.4.4.4 ... map-server acknowledgement,
                                            rtt: 0 ms
   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440
   referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5

   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 5.5.5.5 ... map-server acknowledgement,
                                            rtt: 0 ms
   EID-prefix: [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440
   referrals: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5

   No more referrals to pursue.

   Here is some sample NX-OS output:

   Router# rig 12.0.1.1 to 1.1.1.1

   rig LISP-DDT hierarchy for EID [0] 12.0.1.1
   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 1.1.1.1 ... replied, rtt: 0.003509 secs
   EID-prefix [0] *, ttl: 1440, action: node-referral, referrals:
     2.2.2.2, priority/weight: 0/0

   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 2.2.2.2 ... replied, rtt: 0.003173 secs
   EID-prefix [0] 12.0.0.0/20, ttl: 1440, action: node-referral,
     referrals:
     3.3.3.3, priority/weight: 0/0

   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 3.3.3.3 ... replied, rtt: 0.004145 secs
   EID-prefix [0] 12.0.1.0/24, ttl: 1440, action: node-referral,
     referrals:
     5.5.5.5, priority/weight: 0/0
     6.6.6.6, priority/weight: 0/0

   Send Map-Request to DDT-node 6.6.6.6 ... replied, rtt: 0.005800 secs
   EID-prefix [0] 12.0.1.0/28, ttl: 1440, action: ms-ack, referrals:
     5.5.5.5, priority/weight: 0/0
     6.6.6.6, priority/weight: 0/0

6.  Security Considerations

   The use of rig "rig" does not affect the security of the LISP
   infrastructure
   infrastructure, as it is simply a tool that facilities facilitates diagnostic
   querying.  See [RFC6830], [LISP-DDT], [RFC6833], [RFC7835], and [LISP-THREATS] [RFC8111] for
   descriptions of the security properties of the LISP infrastructure.

   LISP rig "rig" provides easy access to the information in the public
   mapping database.  Therefore, it is important to protect the mapping
   information for private use.  This can be provided by disallowing
   access to specific mapping entries or to place placing such entries in a
   private mapping database system.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of the IANA. does not require any IANA actions.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [LISP-DDT]
              Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., and A. Jain, "LISP
              Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-04.txt (work
              in progress), September 2014.

   [RFC0791]

   [RFC791]   Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September
              1981. 1981,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987. 1987,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January
              2013. 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

   [RFC6833]  Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January
              2013. 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.

   [RFC6835]  Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013.

8.2.  Informative References

   [LISP-LCAF]
              Farinacci, D., Meyer, 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.

   [RFC8111]  Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
              Address Format (LCAF)", draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07 (work A.
              Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
              Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
              May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
              progress), .

   [LISP-THREATS]
              Iannone, L., Saucez,
              RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
              and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Threats
              Analysis", draft-ietf-lisp-threats-09.txt (work in
              progress), April 2014. E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998. 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002.

Appendix A. 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

   [RFC7835]  Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>.

   [RFC8060]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
              Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
              February 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Damien Saucez and Fabio Maino for
   their ideas and comments.  Appreciation also goes to Joel Halpern,
   Luigi Iannone, and Nevil Brownlee for progressing their help with this document to
   Informational RFC. document.

Authors' Addresses

   Dino Farinacci
   lispers.net
   San Jose, California
   USA
   United States of America

   Phone: 408-718-2001
   Email: farinacci@gmail.com

   Amit Jain
   Juniper Networks
   San Jose, California
   USA
   United States of America

   Email: atjain@juniper.net

   Isidor Kouvelas
   cisco Systems
   Tasman Ave.
   San Jose,
   Arista
   Santa Clara, California
   USA
   United States of America

   Email: kouvelas@cisco.com kouvelas@arista.com

   Darrel Lewis
   cisco
   Cisco Systems
   Tasman Ave.
   San Jose, California
   USA
   United States of America

   Email: darlewis@cisco.com