IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements Extension for Forwarding Exceptions
draft-mvmd-opsawg-ipfix-fwd-exceptions-02
IP Flow Information Export C. Munukutla
Internet-Draft S. Vaid
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks, Inc.
Expires: August 8, 2021 A. Mahale
D. Patel
Google, Inc.
February 4, 2021
IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements Extension for
Forwarding Exceptions
draft-mvmd-opsawg-ipfix-fwd-exceptions-02
Abstract
This draft proposes couple of new Forwarding exceptions related
Information Elements (IEs) and Templates for the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) protocol. These new Information Elements and
Exception Template can be used to export information about any
forwarding errors in a network. This essential information is
adequate to correlate packet drops to any control plane entity and
map it to an impacted service. Once exceptions are correlated to a
particular entity, an action can be assigned to mitigate such
problems essentially enabling self-driving networks.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 8, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. New Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Proposed New Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Definition of Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. forwardingExceptionCode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.2. forwardingNexthopId . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Exception Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. IPFIX Exception Template 1 for Forwarding Exceptions . . 9
5.2. IPFIX Exception Template 2 for Forwarding Exceptions . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Forwarding Exception Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
All networks are susceptible to traffic drops due to a number of
factors. Traffic drops can go unnoticed unless they are service
impacting. In a multi-layered network architecture, it is tedious
manual work to localize and root cause traffic blackholing issues.
Transient drops are even harder to detect. Existing methodologies
that rely on periodically monitoring interfaces on several hosts in a
network does not guarantee timely detection, and are not scalable for
large networks.
In order to eliminate this tedious monitoring work-flow, objective is
to simplify localization and build correlation of dropped packets to
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
particular entity. The network entity shall identify the dropped
packets by monitoring dropped counters or doing a deep packet
inspection of the packet discarded by the forwarding ASIC. The
implementation of the method used to detect the drop is outside the
scope of this document. Dropped packets will be sampled in the
forwarding-path and sent to a host or software queue along with type
of exception, in/out interface information and other relevant meta
data. This will be a push model where the node encountering the
error will emit the information about dropped packets and associated
meta-data. Techniques for IP Packet Selection [RFC5475] describes
Sampling and Filtering techniques for IP packet selection either
using Systematic Sampling or Random Sampling.
The IPFIX Protocol Specification [RFC7011] defines a generic exchange
mechanism for collecting flow information. It supports source-
triggered export of information via the push model approach. The
IPFIX Information Model [IANA-IPFIX] defines a list of standard
Information Elements (IEs) which can be carried by the IPFIX
protocol.
This document focuses on telemetry information for dropped packet
exceptions, and proposes an extension to IPFIX message format for
collecting sampled exceptions. Some of the IPFIX Information
Elements (IEs) already exist, some will be defined along with
corresponding formats. It is also possible to achieve sampling of
the dropped packets by using sampling methods like SFLOW but details
of other sampling methods are outside the scope of this document.
1.1. Terminology
IPFIX-specific terminology (e.g. Information Element, Template,
Template Record, Options Template Record, Template Set, Collector,
Exporter, Data Record) used in this document is defined in Section 2
of [RFC7011]. As in [RFC7011] these IPFIX-specific terms have the
first letter of a word capitalized. This document also makes use of
the same terminology and definitions as Section 2 of [RFC5470].
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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
2. Scope
This document specifies the information model used for reporting
packet-based forwarding exceptions. [RFC7011] provides guidance on
the choices of the transport protocols used for IPFIX and their
effects. Encoded IPFIX exception packets need to be reliably
transported to the collector. The choice of the actual transport
protocol is beyond the scope of this document.
This document assumes that all devices reporting exceptions will use
existing IPFIX framework/module to send encoded packets to the
collector. This would mean that the network device will specify the
template that it is going to use for each of the events. The
templates can be of varying length, and there could be multiple
templates that a network device could use to encode the exceptions.
The implementation details of the collector application are beyond
the scope of this document.
3. Information Elements
The Exception template could contain a subset of the IEs shown in
Table 1, depending upon the exception reported.
Whenever packet drop happens inside forwarding plane, following
information is key to understanding the issue: reason for packet
drop, flow which encountered the drop (packet content), additional
meta-data e.g. flow direction (ingress/egress), nexthop index, input
interface, output interface, etc. on which this packet was flowing.
The following table includes all the existing IEs that a device
reporting IPFIX Exceptions using Exception Template would typically
need. The formats of IEs and IPFIX IDs are listed in the table
below.
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
+-------------------------------+--------+-------+--------------+
| Field Name | Size | IANA | Description |
| | (bits) | IPFIX | |
| | | ID | |
+-------------------------------+--------+-------+--------------+
| flowDirection | 8 | 61 | The direction|
| | | | of the Flow |
| | | | observed at |
| | | | Observation |
| | | | point. |
| | | | |
| ingressInterface | 32 | 10 | Index of IP |
| | | | interface |
| | | | where packets|
| | | | of this flow |
| | | | are being |
| | | | received. |
| | | | |
| egressInterface | 32 | 14 | Index of IP |
| | | | interface |
| | | | where packets|
| | | | of this flow |
| | | | are being |
| | | | sent. |
| | | | |
| dataLinkFrameSize | 16 | 312 | Specified |
| | | | length of |
| | | | data link |
| | | | frame. |
| | | | |
| dataLinkFrameSection | 65535 | 315 | Carries n |
| | | | octets from |
| | | | data link |
| | | | frame of |
| | | | selected |
| | | | frame. |
| commonPropertiesID | 64 | 137 | Identifier of|
| | | | a set of |
| | | | common |
| | | | properties |
| | | | that is |
| | | | unique per |
| | | | observation |
| | | | domain. |
+-------------------------------+--------+-------+--------------+
Table 1: Forwarding Exception Information Elements
Information Elements
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
4. New Information Elements
4.1. Proposed New Information Elements
The proposed new IEs that a device reporting Exceptions using
Exception template would need are listed in Table 2 below.
+---------------------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Field Name | Abstract Data Type | Description |
| | | |
+---------------------------+---------------------+-----------------+
| forwardingExceptionCode | unsigned32 | Unique code for |
| | | every exception |
| | | |
| forwardingNextHopID | unsigned64 | Forwarding NH - |
| | | index associated|
| | | with packet that|
| | | encountered |
| | | this exception |
+---------------------------+---------------------+-----------------+
Table 2: New Information Elements
New Information Elements
The Information Elements defined in Table 2 are proposed to be
incorporated into the IANA IPFIX Information Elements registry
[IANA-IPFIX]
4.2. Definition of Exceptions
Every network will encounter issues like packet loss, from time to
time. Some of the causes for such a loss of traffic or a block in
transmission of data packets include overloaded system conditions,
misconfiguration, profiles and policies that restrict the bandwidth
or priority of traffic, network outages, or disruption with physical
cable faults. Packet loss could also happen because of incorrect
stitching of the forwarding path or a mismatch between control plane
and data plane state. Exception code entails the reason/error code
due to which this packet has been dropped.
4.2.1. forwardingExceptionCode
forwardingExceptionCode will be defined in "IPFIX Information
Elements" registry. This list can be expanded in the future as
necessary. The data record will have corresponding exception code
value to indicate forwarding error that caused the traffic drop.
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
An implementation may choose to encode device internal exception
codes as forwardingExceptionCode. In such scenarios, Enterprise Bit
MUST be set to 1 and corresponding Enterprise Number MUST be present
as described in [RFC7011]
There is an existing IE 89 - forwardingStatus [IANA-IPFIX] but it
allows a very limited number of exceptions to be reported from the
system (6-bit reason code). The exception codes also need to be
standardized for use. Different forwarding ASICs would have
different pipelines and hence discard reasons (which could be very
specific to that pipeline) cannot be generalized. Hence it makes
sense to have a standalone IE for reporting exception which not only
provides support to report larger number of exceptions but also
provides freedom for reporting application specific exceptions using
the enterprise bit.
A list of commonly used forwarding Exception codes will be identified
and listed as part of Table 3 below.
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Forwarding | Reason |
| Exception Code | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | FIREWALL_DISCARD |
| 2 | TTL_EXPIRY |
| 3 | DISCARD_ROUTE |
| 4 | BAD_IPV4_CHECKSUM |
| 5 | REJECT_ROUTE |
| 6 | BAD_IPV4_HEADER (Version incorrect or IHL < 5)|
| 7 | BAD_IPV6_HEADER (Version incorrect) |
| 8 | BAD_IPV4_HEADER_LENGTH (V4 frame is too short) |
| 9 | BAD_IPV6_HEADER_LENGTH |
| 10 | BAD_IPV6_OPTIONS_PACKET(too many option headers) |
| .. | .. |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Table 3: Exception Codes
4.2.2. forwardingNexthopId
In terms of a network device, next hop is the gateway to which packet
should be forwarded corresponding to the path to final destination.
A given router doesn't need to store the entire forwarding path
information for a destination. As long as it can identify the next
hop to be used for forwarding to a destination, the end to end
forwarding can happen. This helps reduce size of forwarding table.
The nexthop index uniquely identifies the egress path a packet would
take to reach the destination. This could include information about
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
the outgoing interface, layer 2 address to be used, forwarding
features configured for the packet path etc.
For instance, consider we have a L3VPN topology like below
CE1 -------- PE1 ----- MPLS Network ----- PE2 ------- CE2
Figure 1: MPLS VPN Network
Figure 1 above illustrates an example where reporting of exception
can provide an insight into the error scenario. CE1 and CE2
communicate with each other over an MPLS VPN network. The labels are
typically advertised using protocols like RSVP or LDP. When a packet
is received from core network on PE1, a lookup on MPLS label results
in packet getting forwarded towards CE1. The entries in MPLS table
are populated by corresponding protocol. If label entries don't get
populated in the MPLS table due to a probable glitch in the protocol
configuration or some software inconsistency, the packets traversing
on that LSP tunnel path shall get discarded on PE1.
In case of route lookups, that result in hierarchical forwarding
chains, the mis-programming may manifest at different levels of the
forwarding structure. The forwarding lookup may fail on any level of
the hierarchy in the forwarding chain. It is expected that software
at least report the nexthop where the lookup terminates. Its
desirable for software to report the top level nexthop in the chain.
Using the mechanism described in this RFC, it will be possible to
capture such packets and report them in IPFIX format with
corresponding exception set (eg. DISCARD_ROUTE) along with relevant
packet bytes and meta-data. This can help the operator/software to
immediately understand root cause of the problem and take appropriate
action.
An implementation may choose to report linecard number, linecard
type, forwarding ASIC type and forwarding ASIC number on which an
exception occurs, but mechanism to export these fields is out of the
scope of this document.
5. Exception Templates
This section presents a list of templates for reporting exceptions
using newly proposed IEs in addition to few existing IEs.
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
5.1. IPFIX Exception Template 1 for Forwarding Exceptions
Exception Template defined in Figure 1 may be used to export
forwarding Exceptions.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Set ID = 2 | Length = N octets |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Template ID = 256 | Field Count = N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| forwardingExceptionCode | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| forwardingNextHopId | Field Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| flowDirection | Field Length = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| ingressInterface | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| egressInterface | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| dataLinkFrameSize | Field Length = 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| dataLinkFrameSection | Field Length = 65535 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Padding (opt) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPFIX Exception Template for Forwarding Exceptions
5.2. IPFIX Exception Template 2 for Forwarding Exceptions
Alternatively, Exception Template defined in Figure 2 may be used.
This includes Information Element 137 to represent following fields:
forwardingNexthopId, ingressInterface, underlyingIngressInterface and
egressInterface.
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Set ID = 2 | Length = N octets |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Template ID = 256 | Field Count = N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| forwardingExceptionCode | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| flowDirection | Field Length = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| commonPropertiesId1 | Field Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| commonPropertiesId2 | Field Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| commonPropertiesId3 | Field Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| commonPropertiesId4 | Field Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| dataLinkFrameSize | Field Length = 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| dataLinkFrameSection | Field Length = 65535 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Padding (opt) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPFIX Exception Template 2 for Forwarding Exceptions
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Information Elements
IANA manages the IPFIX Information Elements registry at [IANA-IPFIX].
This document introduces two new IPFIX Information Elements.
Name: forwardingExceptionCode
ElementID: TBD
Description: Exception code is an identifier uniquely describing
cause of irregularity or traffic drop on a device.
Abstract Data Type: unsigned32
Data Type Semantics: identifier
Name: forwardingNexthopId
ElementID: TBD
Description: Nexthop ID is a unique identifier for a Nexthop on a
device.
Abstract Data Type: unsigned64
Data Type Semantics: identifier
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
6.2. Forwarding Exception Codes
This document requests addition of a new registry for Forwarding
Exception Codes.
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Forwarding | Reason |
| Exception Code | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 1 | FIREWALL_DISCARD |
| 2 | TTL_EXPIRY |
| 3 | DISCARD_ROUTE |
| 4 | BAD_IPV4_CHECKSUM |
| 5 | REJECT_ROUTE |
| 6 | BAD_IPV4_HEADER (Version incorrect or IHL < 5)|
| 7 | BAD_IPV6_HEADER (Version incorrect) |
| 8 | BAD_IPV4_HEADER_LENGTH (V4 frame is too short) |
| 9 | BAD_IPV6_HEADER_LENGTH |
| 10 | BAD_IPV6_OPTIONS_PACKET(too many option headers) |
| .. | .. |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Table 3: Exception Codes
All assignments in this registry are to be performed via Expert
Review.
7. Security Considerations
Security Considerations listed in detail for IPFIX in [RFC7011] apply
to this document as well. As described in [RFC7011], the IPFIX
messages exchanged between network device and collector MUST be
protected to provide confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity.
Without those characteristics, the messages are subject to various
kinds of attacks. These attacks are described in great detail in
[RFC7011].
8. Contributors
Manikandan Musuvathi Poornachary
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Electra Exora Business Park~Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore, KA - 560103
India
Email: mpoornachary@juniper.net
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: vbeeram@juniper.net
Raveendra Torvi
Juniper Networks, Inc.
10 Technology Park Dr
Westford, MA 01886
USA
Email: rtorvi@juniper.net
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References
[IANA-IPFIX]
IANA, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix>.
[RFC5470] Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J. Quittek,
"Architecture for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 5470,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5470, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5470>.
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPFIX for FWD Exceptions February 2021
Authors' Addresses
Venkata Naga Chaitanya Munukutla
Juniper Networks, Inc.
10 Technology Park Dr
Westford, MA 01886
USA
Email: vmunuku@juniper.net
Shivam Vaid
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Electra, Exora Business Park- Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, Karnataka 560103
India
Email: shivamv@juniper.net
Aditya Mahale
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
Email: amahale@google.com
Devang Patel
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
USA
Email: pateldevang@google.com
Munukutla, et al. Expires August 8, 2021 [Page 13]