PCE Working Group S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft S. Sivabalan
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: December 23, 2020 J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks
M. Negi
RtBrick India
C. Li
Huawei Technologies
June 21, 2020
Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extension for
associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-10
Abstract
This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to
a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP).
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 December 23, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
(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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Policy based Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Policy Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Policy Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Cisco's Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Association object Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.6. Impact on Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication
Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between
two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655]. [RFC5394] provides
additional details on policy within the PCE architecture and also
provides context for the support of PCE Policy.
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of
extensions to PCEP to enable active control of Multiprotocol Label
Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS)
tunnels. [RFC8281] describes the set-up and teardown of PCE-
initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need
for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic
network. Currently, the LSPs can either be signalled via Resource
Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) or can be segment
routed as specified in [RFC8664].
[RFC8697] introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs
which can then be used to define associations between a set of LSPs
and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or
behaviours) and is equally applicable to stateful PCE (active and
passive modes) and stateless PCE.
This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one or more
LSPs with policies using the generic association mechanism.
A PCEP speaker may want to influence the PCEP peer with respect to
path selection and other policies. This document describes a PCEP
extension to associate policies by creating Policy Association Group
(PAG) and encoding this association in PCEP messages. The
specification is applicable to both stateful and stateless PCEP
sessions.
1.1. 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.
2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document.
Association parameters: As described in [RFC8697], the combination
of the mandatory fields Association type, Association ID and
Association Source in the ASSOCIATION object uniquely identify the
association group. If the optional TLVs - Global Association
Source or Extended Association ID are included, then they are
included in combination with mandatory fields to uniquely identify
the association group.
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
Association information: As described in [RFC8697], the ASSOCIATION
object could include other optional TLVs based on the association
types, that provides 'information' related to the association.
LSR: Label Switch Router.
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
PAG: Policy Association Group.
PAT: Policy Association Type.
PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application,
or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or
route based on a network graph and applying computational
constraints.
PCEP: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol.
3. Motivation
Paths computed using PCE can be subjected to various policies on both
PCE and PCC. For example, in a centralized traffic engineering
scenario, network operators may instantiate LSPs and specifies
policies for traffic steering, path monitoring, etc., for some LSPs
via the Stateful PCE. Similarly, a PCC could request a user- or
service-specific policy to be applied at the PCE, such as constraints
relaxation to meet optimal QoS and resiliency.
PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per [RFC8697] to
associate a set of LSPs with a policy, without the need to know the
details of such a policy, which simplifies network operations, avoids
frequent software upgrades, as well as provides an ability to
introduce new policy faster.
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
PAG Y
{Service-Specific Policy
for constraint
Initiate & Monitor LSP relaxation}
| |
| PAG X PCReq/PCRpt |
V {Monitor LSP} {PAG Y} V
+-----+ ----------------> +-----+
_ _ _ _ _ _| PCE | | | PCE |
| +-----+ | ----------> +-----+
| PCInitiate | | PCReq/PCRpt
|{PAG X} | | {PAG Y}
| | |
| .-----. | | .-----.
| ( ) | +----+ ( )
| .--( )--. | |PCC1|--.--( )--.
V ( ) | +----+ ( )
+---+ ( ) | ( )
|PCC|----( (G)MPLS network ) +----+ ( (G)MPLS network )
+---+ ( ) |PCC2|------( )
PAG X ( ) +----+ ( )
{Monitor '--( )--' '--( )--'
LSP} ( ) ( )
'-----' '-----'
Case 1: Policy requested by PCE Case 2: Policy requested by
and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by
PCE
Figure 1: Sample use-cases for carrying policies over PCEP session
3.1. Policy based Constraints
In the context of policy-enabled path computation [RFC5394], path
computation policies may be applied at both a PCC and a PCE.
Consider an Label Switch Router (LSR) with a policy enabled PCC, it
receives a service request via signalling, including over a Network-
Network Interface (NNI) or User Network Interface (UNI) reference
point, or receives a configuration request over a management
interface to establish a service. The PCC may also apply user- or
service-specific policies to decide how the path selection process
should be constrained, that is, which constraints, diversities,
optimization criterion, and constraint relaxation strategies should
be applied in order for the service LSP(s) to have a likelihood to be
successfully established and provide necessary QoS and resilience
against network failures. The user- or service-specific policies
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
applied to PCC and are then passed to the PCE along with the Path
computation request, in the form of constraints [RFC5394].
PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per [RFC8697] to
associate a set of LSPs with policy and its resulting path
computation constraints. This would simplify the path computation
message exchanges in PCEP.
4. Overview
As per [RFC8697], LSPs are associated with other LSPs with which they
interact by adding them to a common association group. Grouping can
also be used to define association between LSPs and policies
associated to them. One new Association type is defined in this
document, based on the generic Association object -
o Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association Type (PAT)" ) for
Policy Association Group (PAG).
[RFC8697] specify the mechanism for the capability advertisement of
the Association types supported by a PCEP speaker by defining a
ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an OPEN object. This
capability exchange for the association type described in this
document (i.e. PAT) MUST be done before using the policy
association. Thus the PCEP speaker MUST include the PAT (TBD1) in
the ASSOC-Type-List TLV before using the PAG in the PCEP messages.
This Association type is operator-configured association in nature
and created by the operator manually on the PCEP peers. An LSP
belonging to this association is conveyed via PCEP messages to the
PCEP peer. Operator-configured Association Range need not be set for
this association-type, and MUST be ignored, so that the full range of
association identifier can be utilized.
A PAG can have one or more LSPs and its associated policy. The
association parameters including association identifier, Association
type (Policy), as well as the association source IP address is
manually configured by the operator and is used to identify the PAG
as described in [RFC8697]. The Global Association Source and
Extended Association ID MAY also be included.
As per the processing rules specified in section 6.4 of [RFC8697], if
a PCEP speaker does not support this Policy Association type, it
would return a PCErr message with Error-Type 26 "Association Error"
and Error-Value 1 "Association type is not supported". Since the PAG
is opaque in nature, the PAG and the policy MUST be configured on the
PCEP peers as per the operator-configured association procedures.
All further processing is as per section 6.4 of [RFC8697]. If a PCE
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
speaker receives PAG in a PCEP message, and the policy association
information is not configured, it MUST return a PCErr message with
Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error- Value 4 "Association
unknown". If some of the association information [RFC8697] (the TLVs
defined in this document) received from the peer does not match the
local configured values, the PCEP speaker MUST reject the PCEP
message and send a PCErr message with Error-Type 26 "Association
Error" and Error-Value 5 "Operator-configured association information
mismatch".
Associating a particular LSP to multiple policy groups is authorized
from a protocol perspective, however there is no assurance that the
PCE will be able to apply multiple policies.
5. Policy Association Group
Association groups and their memberships are defined using the
ASSOCIATION object defined in [RFC8697]. Two object types for IPv4
and IPv6 are defined. The ASSOCIATION object includes "Association
type" indicating the type of the association group. This document
add a new Association type -
Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association type") for PAG.
PAG may carry optional TLVs including but not limited to -
o POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV: Used to communicate opaque information
useful to apply the policy, described in Section 5.1.
o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor
specific behavioural information, described in [RFC7470].
5.1. Policy Parameters TLV
The POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV is an optional TLV that can be carried in
ASSOCIATION object (for PAT) to carry opaque information needed to
apply the policy at the PCEP peer. In some cases to apply a PCE
policy successfully, it is required to also associate some policy
parameters that needs to be evaluated, to successfully apply the said
policy. This TLV is used to carry those policy parameters. The TLV
could include one or more policy related parameter. The encoding
format and the order MUST be known to the PCEP peers, this could be
done during the configuration of the policy (and its association
parameters) for the PAG. The TLV format is as per the format of the
PCEP TLVs, as defined in [RFC5440], and shown in Figure 2. Only one
POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV can be carried and only the first occurrence is
processed and any others MUST be ignored.
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Policy Parameters //
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: The POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV format
The type of the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV is TBD2 and it has a variable
length. The Value field is variable field padded to a 4-bytes
alignment; padding is not included in the Length field. The PCEP
peer implementation need to be aware of the encoding format, order,
and meaning of the 'Policy Parameters' well in advance based on the
policy. Note that from the protocol point of view this data is
opaque and can be used to carry parameters in any format understood
by the PCEP peers and associated to the policy. The exact use of
this TLV is beyond the scope of this document.
If the PCEP peer is unaware of the policy parameters associated with
the policy and it receives the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV, it MUST ignore
the TLV and SHOULD log this event. Further, if one or more
parameters received in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV received by the PCEP
speaker are considered as unacceptable in the context of the
associated policy (e.g. out of range value, badly encoded value...),
the PCEP speaker MUST NOT apply the received policy and SHOULD log
this event.
Note that, the vendor specific behavioural information is encoded in
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV which can be used along with this TLV.
6. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalogue of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
6.1. Cisco's Implementation
o Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
o Implementation: IOS-XR PCE and PCC.
o Description: The PCEP extension specified in this document is used
to convey traffic steering policies.
o Maturity Level: In shipping product.
o Coverage: Partial.
o Contact: msiva@cisco.com.
7. Security Considerations
This document defines one new type for association, which do not add
any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440],
[RFC8231] and [RFC8697] in itself.
Extra care needs to be taken by the implementation with respect to
POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV while decoding, verifying and applying these
policy variables. This TLV parsing could be exploited by an
attacker.
Some deployments may find policy associations and their implications
as extra sensitive and thus securing the PCEP session using Transport
Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best
current practices in BCP 195 [RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED.
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Association object Type Indicators
This document defines a new Association type. The sub-registry
"ASSOCIATION Type Field" of the "Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) Numbers" registry was originally defined in [RFC8697]. IANA
is requested to make the following allocation.
Value Name Reference
TBD1 Policy Association [This.I-D]
8.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
The following TLV Type Indicator value is requested within the "PCEP
TLV Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is requested to make the
following allocation.
Value Description Reference
TBD2 POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV [This.I-D]
9. Manageability Considerations
9.1. Control of Function and Policy
An operator MUST be allowed to configure the policy associations at
PCEP peers and associate it with the LSPs. They MAY also allow
configuration to related policy parameters, in which case the an
operator MUST also be allowed to set the encoding format and order to
parse the associated policy parameters TLV.
9.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects for
this document.
The PCEP YANG module is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. This
module supports associations as defined in [RFC8697] and thus support
the Policy Association groups.
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the PAG
configured. Further implementation SHOULD allow to view associations
reported by each peer, and the current set of LSPs in the PAG.
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
9.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
9.6. Impact on Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network
operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440],
[RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
10. Acknowledgments
A special thanks to author of [RFC8697], this document borrow some of
the text from it.
11. References
11.1. 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>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[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>.
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8697>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5394, December 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5394>.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module",
RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-13 (work in progress), October 2019.
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Qin Wu
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China
EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Udayasree Palle
EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com
Authors' Addresses
Stephane Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc.
11 Rue Camille Desmoulins
Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130
France
EMail: slitkows@cisco.com
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-POLICY June 2020
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
EMail: msiva@cisco.com
Jeff Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
EMail: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Jonathan Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks
100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex
UK
EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com
Mahendra Singh Negi
RtBrick India
N-17L, Floor-1, 18th Cross Rd, HSR Layout Sector-3
Bangalore, Karnataka 560102
India
EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: chengli13@huawei.com
Litkowski, et al. Expires December 23, 2020 [Page 15]