BESS Working Group G. Mishra
Internet-Draft Verizon Inc.
Intended status: Best Current Practice M. Mishra
Expires: October 11, 2021 Cisco Systems
J. Tantsura
L. Wang
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Q. Yang
Arista Networks
A. Simpson
Nokia
S. Chen
Huawei Technologies
April 9, 2021
Deployment Guidelines for Edge Peering IPv4-NLRI with IPv6-NH
draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03
Abstract
As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or
green field MPLS/SR core to an IPv6 transport, Multiprotocol BGP (MP-
BGP)now plays an important role in the transition of the core as well
as an edge from IPv4 to IPv6. Operators can now continue to support
the legacy IPv4, Virtual Private Network (VPN)-IPv4, and Multicast
VPN-IPv4 customers.
This document describes the critical use case and OPEX savings of
being able to leverage the MP-BGP capability exchange usage as a pure
transport, allowing both IPv4 and IPv6 to be carried over the same
(Border Gateway Protocol) BGP TCP session. By doing so, provides for
the elimination of Dual Stacking on the Provider Edge - Customer Edge
connections. Thus making the eBGP peering IPv6-ONLY to now carry
both IPv4 and IPv6 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI).
This document now provides a solution for Internet Exchange Point
(IXP) that are facing IPv4 address depletion at these peering points
to use BGP-MP capability exchange defined in [RFC8950] to carry IPv4
(Network Layer Reachability Information) NLRI in an IPv6 next hop
using the [RFC5565] softwire mesh framework.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH April 2021
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 October 11, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. External BGP PE-CE Peering IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI over a single
IPv6 Next Hop Peer Interoperability Testing . . . . . . . . . 5
4. RFC 8950 updates to RFC 5549 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Operational Improvements with Single IPv6 transport peer . . 7
6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. IPv4 NLRI IPv6 Next Hop Vendor Testing . . . . . . . 10
A.1. Router and Switch Vendors Support and Quality Assurance
Engineering Lab Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.2. Router and Switch Vendors Interoperability Lab Results. . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH April 2021
1. Introduction
As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or
green field MPLS/SR core to an IPv6 transport such as MPLS LDPv6, SR-
MPLSv6 or SRv6, Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) now plays an important
role in the transition of the core from IPv4 to IPv6. Operators can
now continue to support legacy IPv4 address family and Sub-Address-
Family Virtual Private Network (VPN)-IPv4, and Multicast VPN IPv4
customers.
IXP are also facing IPv4 address depletion at their peering points,
which are large Layer 2 transit backbones that service providers peer
and exchange IPv4 and IPv6 Network Layer Reachability Information
(NLRI). Today, these transit exchange points are dual stacked. One
proposal to solve this issue is to use [RFC8950] to carry IPv4
(Network Layer Reachability Information) NLRI in an IPv6 next hop and
eliminate the IPv4 peering completely using the concept of [RFC5565]
softwire mesh framework. So now, with the Multiprotocol Extension
for Border Gateway Protocol (MP-BGP) MP-REACH capability exchanged
for an IPv4 AFI/SAFI over an IPv6 next hop peer, we can now advertise
IPv4(Network Layer Reachability Information) NLRI over IPv6 peering
using the [RFC5565] softwire mesh framework.
MP-BGP specifies that the set of usable next-hop address families is
determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent
Address Family Identifier (SAFI). Historically the AFI/SAFI
definitions for the IPv4 address family only have provisions for
advertising a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv4 protocol when
advertising IPv4 or VPN-IPv4. [RFC8950] specifies the extensions
necessary to allow advertising IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a Next
Hop address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. This comprises an
extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the address of the
Next Hop for IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6
Protocol. [RFC8950] defines the encoding of the Next Hop to
determine which of the protocols the address actually belongs to, and
a new BGP Capability allowing MP-BGP Peers to discover dynamically
whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN-IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6
Next Hop.
This new MP-BGP capability exchange allows the BGP peering session to
act as a pure transport to allow the session to carry AFI and SAFI
for both IPv4 and IPv6.
Furthermore, a number of these existing AFI/SAFIs allow the Next Hop
to belong to either the IPv4 Network Layer Protocol or the IPv6
Network Layer Protocol, and specify the encoding of the Next Hop
information to determine which of the protocols the address actually
belongs to. For example, [RFC4684] allows the Next Hop address to be
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH April 2021
either IPv4 or IPv6 and states that the Next Hop field address shall
be interpreted as an IPv4 address whenever the length of the Next Hop
address is 4 octets, and as an IPv6 address whenever the length of
the Next Hop address is 16 octets.
The current specification for carrying IPv4 NLRI of a given address
family via a Next Hop of a different address family is now defined in
[RFC8950], and specifies the extensions necessary to do so. This
comprises an extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the
address of the Next Hop for IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to belong to
either the IPv4 or the IPv6 protocol, the encoding of the Next Hop
information to determine which of the protocols the address belongs
to, and a new BGP Capability allowing MP-BGP peers to dynamically
discover whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN- IPv4 NLRI with
an IPv6 Next Hop.
With the new extensions defined in [RFC8950] supporting NLRI and next
hop address family mismatch, the BGP peer session can now be treated
as a pure transport and carry both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI at the Provider
Edge (PE) - Customer Edge (CE) over a single IPv6 TCP session. This
allows for the elimination of dual stack from the PE-CE peering
point, and now enable the peering to be IPv6-ONLY. The elimination
of IPv4 on the PE-CE peering points translates into OPEX expenditure
savings of point-to-point infrastructure links as well as /31 address
space savings and administration and network management of both IPv4
and IPv6 BGP peers. This reduction decreases the number of PE-CE BGP
peers by fifty percent, which is a tremendous cost savings for all
Enterprises and Service Providers.
While the savings exists at the PE-CE peering, on the core side PE to
Route Reflector peering carrying <AFI/SAFI> IPv4 <1/1>, VPN-IPV4
<1/128>, and Multicasat VPN <1/129>, the cost savings nets to a break
even to be the same as with an IPV4 Core carrying IPv6 NLRI IPV6
<2/1>, VPN-IPV6 <2/128>, and Multicasat VPN <2/129>.
This document also provides a possible solution for IXP that are
facing IPv4 address depletion at these peering points to use BGP-MP
capability exchange defined in [RFC8950] to carry IPv4 NLRI in an
IPv6 next hop using the [RFC5565] softwire mesh framework concept of
IPv4 NLRI edge over an IPv6 core.
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.
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH April 2021
3. External BGP PE-CE Peering IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI over a single IPv6
Next Hop Peer Interoperability Testing
Today the IPv4 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI are carried over separate BGP
sessions based on the address family of the NLRI being transported.
The goal of this document is to provide operators interoperability
test result data from external BGP PE-CE edge peering between vendors
Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei. The goal is also to
provide critical test results to operators to depict that all the
features and functionality of carrying IPv4 NLRI over a separate IPv4
peer that exists today is not only viable but recommended to be
carried over a single IPv6 peer along with IPv6 NLRI. Proving to
operators that this scenario can be accomplished with no loss of
features and functionality using [RFC8950] IPv6 next hop encoding.
The test results published from this document provide concrete
evidence that this is now the Best Practice for Edge peering. The
document will be the de-facto standard for operators to now use a
single PE-CE Edge IPv6 peer to carry both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI.
With the use case defined in this document, IPv6 NLRI Unicast SAFI
along with now the IPv4 NLRI Unicast SAFI, can now being carried by
the single transport style IPv6 next hop peer.
This document describes the use case of advertising with IPv4 NLRI
over IPv6 Next hop with MP_REACH_NLRI with:
o AFI = 1
o SAFI = 1
o Length of Next Hop Address = 16 or 32
o Next Hop Address = IPv6 address of next hop (potentially followed
by the link-local IPv6 address of the next hop). This field is to
be constructed as per Section 3 of [RFC2545].
The BGP speaker receiving the advertisement MUST use the Length of
Next Hop Address field to determine which network-layer protocol the
next hop address belongs to.
Note that this method of using the Length of the Next Hop Address
field to determine which network-layer protocol the next hop address
belongs to (out of the set of protocols allowed by the AFI/SAFI
definition) is the same as used in [RFC4684] and [RFC6074].
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH April 2021
4. RFC 8950 updates to RFC 5549
This section describes the updates to [RFC8950] next hop encoding
from [RFC5549]. In [RFC5549] when AFI/SAFI 1/128 is used, the next-
hop address is encoded as an IPv6 address with a length of 16 or 32
bytes. This document modifies how the next-hop address is encoded to
accommodate all existing implementations and bring consistency with
VPNv4oIPv4 and VPNv6oIPv6. The next-hop address is now encoded as a
VPN-IPv6 address with a length of 24 or 48 bytes [RFC8950] (see
Sections 3 and 6.2 of this document). This change addresses Erratum
ID 5253 (Err5253). As all known and deployed implementations are
interoperable today and use the new proposed encoding, the change
does not break existing interoperability.
[RFC5549] next hop encoding of MP_REACH_NLRI with:
o NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition
Advertising with [RFC4760] MP_REACH_NLRI with:
o AFI = 1
o SAFI = 128 or 129
o Length of Next Hop Address = 16 or 32
o NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition
[RFC8950] next hop encoding of MP_REACH_NLRI with:
o NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition
Advertising with [RFC4760] MP_REACH_NLRI with:
o AFI = 1
o SAFI = 128 or 129
o Length of Next Hop Address = 24 or 48
o Next Hop Address = VPN-IPv6 address of next hop with an 8-octet RD
set to zero (potentially followed by the link-local VPN-IPv6
address of the next hop with an 8-octet RD is set to zero).
o NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH April 2021
5. Operational Improvements with Single IPv6 transport peer
As Enterprises and Service Providers migrate their IPv4 core to an
MPLS LDPv6 or SRv6 transport, they must continue to be able to
support the legacy IPv4 customers. With the new extensions defined
in [RFC4760], supporting NLRI and next hop address family mismatch,
the BGP peer session can now be treated as a pure transport and carry
both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI at the PE-CE edge. This paves the way to now
eliminate dual stacking on all PE-CE peering points to customers
making the peering IPv6 only. With this change, all IPv4 and IPv6
NLRI will now be carried over a single BGP session. This also solves
the dual stack issue with IXP having to maintain separate peering for
both IPv4 and IPv6. From an operations perspective the PE-CE edge
peering will be drastically simplified by eliminating of IPv4 peers
yielding a reduction of peers by 50 percent. From an operations
perspective, prior to elimination of IPv4 peers, an audit is
recommended to identify and IPv4 and IPv6 peering incongruencies that
may exist and to rectify them. No operational impacts or issues are
expected with this change.
6. Operational Considerations
With a single IPv6 Peer carrying both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI there are
some operational considerations in terms of what changes and what
does not change.
What does not change with a single IPv6 transport peer carrying IPv4
NLRI and IPv6 NLRI below:
Routing Policy configuration is still separate for IPv4 and IPv6
configured by capability as previously.
Layer 1, Layer 2 issues such as one-way fiber or fiber cut will
impact both IPv4 and IPv6 as previously.
If the interface is in the Admin Down state, the IPv6 peer would go
down, and IPv4 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI would be withdrawn as previously.
Changes resulting from a single IPv6 transport peer carrying IPv4
NLRI and IPv6 NLRI below:
Physical interface is no longer dual stacked.
Any change in IPv6 address or DAD state will impact both IPv4 and
IPv6 NLRI exchange.
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH April 2021
Single BFD session for both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI fate sharing as the
session is now tied to the transport, which now is only IPv6 address
family.
Both IPv4 and IPv6 peer now exists under the IPv6 address family
configuration.
Fate sharing of IPv4 and IPv6 address family from a logical
perspective now carried over a single physical IPv6 peer.
7. IANA Considerations
There are not any IANA considerations.
8. Security Considerations
The extensions defined in this document allow BGP to propagate
reachability information about IPv6 routes over an MPLS IPv4 core
network. As such, no new security issues are raised beyond those
that already exist in BGP-4 and the use of MP-BGP for IPv6. The
security features of BGP and corresponding security policy defined in
the ISP domain are applicable. For the inter-AS distribution of IPv6
routes according to case (a) of Section 4 of this document, no new
security issues are raised beyond those that already exist in the use
of eBGP for IPv6 [RFC2545].
9. Acknowledgments
10. References
10.1. 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>.
[RFC2545] Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol
Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2545, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2545>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH April 2021
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.
[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>.
[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-dynamic-cap]
Ramachandra, S. and E. Chen, "Dynamic Capability for BGP-
4", draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-14 (work in progress),
December 2011.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4659>.
[RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684,
November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4684>.
[RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur,
"Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6
Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4798, February 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798>.
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH April 2021
[RFC4925] Li, X., Ed., Dawkins, S., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and A.
Durand, Ed., "Softwire Problem Statement", RFC 4925,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4925, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4925>.
[RFC5549] Le Faucheur, F. and E. Rosen, "Advertising IPv4 Network
Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop",
RFC 5549, DOI 10.17487/RFC5549, May 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5549>.
[RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh
Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5565>.
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
"Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6074, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6074>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8950] Litkowski, S., Agrawal, S., Ananthamurthy, K., and K.
Patel, "Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability
Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop", RFC 8950,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8950, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8950>.
Appendix A. IPv4 NLRI IPv6 Next Hop Vendor Testing
IPv4 NLRI with IPv6 Next Hop encoding is supported for all BGP peers
both iBGP and eBGP.
This section details the vendor support QA testing of RFC 8950 Next
Hop Encoding for "PE-CE eBGP" using GUA (Global Unicast Address),
Link Local (LL) peering. This drafts goal is to first ensure that QA
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH April 2021
testing of all features and functionality works with "eBGP PE-CE" use
case single peer carrying both IPv4 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI and that the
routing policy features are all still fully functionality do not
change.
A.1. Router and Switch Vendors Support and Quality Assurance
Engineering Lab Results.
+-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+
| Vendor | PE-CE eBGP GUI | PE-CE eBGP LL | QA Tested |
+-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+
| Cisco | *** | | |
| Juniper | *** | | |
| Nokia/ALU | *** | | |
| Arista | *** | | |
| Huawei | *** | | |
+-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+
Table 1: Vendor Support
A.2. Router and Switch Vendors Interoperability Lab Results.
This section details the vendor interoperability testing and support
of RFC5549 that all features and functionality works with "eBGP PE-
CE" use case with having a single peer carrying both IPv4 NLRI and
IPv6 NLRI and that the routing policy features are fully tested for
quality assurance.
+-----------+-------+---------+-----------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | Cisco | Juniper | Nokia/ALU | Arista | Huawei |
+-----------+-------+---------+-----------+--------+--------+
| Cisco | N/A | | | | |
| Juniper | | N/A | | | |
| Nokia/ALU | | | N/A | | |
| Arista | | | | N/A | |
| Huawei | | | | | N/A |
+-----------+-------+---------+-----------+--------+--------+
Table 2: Vendor Interop
Authors' Addresses
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc.
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH April 2021
Mankamana Mishra
Cisco Systems
821 Alder Drive,
MILPITAS CALIFORNIA 95035
Email: mankamis@cisco.com
Jeff Tantsura
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Lili Wang
Juniper Networks, Inc.
10 Technology Park Drive,
Westford MA 01886
US
Email: liliw@juniper.net
Qing Yang
Arista Networks
Email: qyang@arista.com
Adam Simpson
Nokia
Email: adam.1.simpson@nokia.com
Shuanglong Chen
Huawei Technologies
Email: chenshuanglong@huawei.com
Mishra, et al. Expires October 11, 2021 [Page 12]