From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt | 592 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 592 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..64db861 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt @@ -0,0 +1,592 @@ + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Talaulikar, Ed. +Request for Comments: 9356 P. Psenak +Updates: 9085 Cisco Systems +Category: Standards Track January 2023 +ISSN: 2070-1721 + + + Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in OSPF + +Abstract + + There are deployments where the Layer 3 (L3) interface on which OSPF + operates is a Layer 2 (L2) interface bundle. Existing OSPF + advertisements only support advertising link attributes of the L3 + interface. If entities external to OSPF wish to control traffic + flows on the individual physical links that comprise the L2 interface + bundle, link attribute information for the bundle members is + required. + + This document defines the protocol extensions for OSPF to advertise + the link attributes of L2 bundle members. The document also + specifies the advertisement of these OSPF extensions via the Border + Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) and thereby updates RFC 9085. + +Status of This Memo + + This is an Internet Standards Track document. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on + Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9356. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the + Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described + in the Revised BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction + 1.1. Requirements Language + 2. L2 Bundle Member Attributes + 3. BGP-LS Advertisement + 4. IANA Considerations + 5. Operational Considerations + 6. Security Considerations + 7. References + 7.1. Normative References + 7.2. Informative References + Acknowledgements + Authors' Addresses + +1. Introduction + + There are deployments where the L3 interface on which an OSPF + adjacency is established is a L2 interface bundle, for instance, a + Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX]. This reduces the number + of adjacencies that need to be maintained by the OSPF protocol in + cases where there are parallel links between the neighbors. Entities + external to OSPF such as Path Computation Elements (PCEs) [RFC4655] + may wish to control traffic flows on individual L2 member links of + the underlying bundle interface (e.g., LAG). To do so, link + attribute information for individual bundle members is required. The + protocol extensions defined in this document provide the means to + advertise this information. + + This document defines sub-TLVs to advertise link attribute + information for each of the L2 bundle members that comprise the L3 + interface on which OSPF operates. Similar capabilities were + introduced for IS-IS in [RFC8668]. + + [RFC8665] and [RFC8666] introduced the Adjacency Segment Identifier + (Adj-SID) link attribute for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, respectively, which + can be used as an instruction to forward traffic over a specific link + [RFC8402]. This document enables the advertisement of the Adj-SIDs + using the same Adj-SID sub-TLV at the granularity level of each L2 + bundle member link so that traffic may be steered over that specific + member link. + + Note that the advertisements at the L2 bundle member link level + defined in this document are intended to be provided to entities + external to OSPF and do not alter or change the OSPF route + computation. The following items are intentionally not defined in + and are outside the scope of this document: + + * What link attributes will be advertised. This is determined by + the needs of the external entities. + + * A minimum or default set of link attributes. + + * How these attributes are configured. + + * How the advertisements are used. + + * What impact the use of these advertisements may have on traffic + flow in the network. + + * How the advertisements are passed to external entities. + + BGP Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] was extended for the advertisement + of L2 bundle members and their attributes in [RFC9085], which covered + only IS-IS. This document updates [RFC9085] by specifying the + advertisement from OSPF (refer to Section 3). + +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. L2 Bundle Member Attributes + + A new L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV is introduced to advertise + L2 bundle member attributes in both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. In the case + of OSPFv2, this sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended + Link TLV that is used to describe link attributes via the OSPFv2 + Extended Link Opaque LSA (Link State Advertisement) [RFC7684]. In + the case of OSPFv3, this sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the + Router-Link TLV of the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA [RFC8362]. + + When the OSPF adjacency is associated with an L2 bundle interface, + this sub-TLV is used to advertise the underlying L2 bundle member + links along with their respective link attributes. The inclusion of + this information implies that the identified link is a member of the + L2 bundle associated with an OSPF L3 link and that the member link is + operationally up. Therefore, advertisements of member links MUST NOT + be done when the member link becomes operationally down or is no + longer a member of the identified L2 bundle. + + The advertisement of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV may be + asymmetric for an OSPF link, depending on the underlying L2 + connectivity, i.e., advertised by the router on only one end. + + The L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV has the following format: + + 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 | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | L2 Bundle Member Descriptor | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Member Link Attribute sub-TLVs (variable) // + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 1: L2 Bundle Member Attributes Sub-TLV Format + + Where: + + Type: 24 for OSPFv2 and 29 for OSPFv3 + + Length: The total length (in octets) of the value portion of the TLV + including nested sub-TLVs. + + L2 Bundle Member Descriptor: A 4-octet link-local identifier for the + member link. This identifier is described as "link local + identifier" in [RFC4202] and used as "Local Interface ID" in + [RFC8510]. + + Link attributes for L2 bundle member links are advertised as sub-TLVs + of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. + + In the case of OSPFv2, the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV shares + the sub-TLV space of the Extended Link TLV, and the sub-TLVs of the + Extended Link TLV MAY be used to describe the attributes of the + member link. Table 1 lists sub-TLVs and their applicability for L2 + bundle member links. The sub-TLVs that are not applicable MUST NOT + be used as sub-TLVs for the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. + Specifications that introduce new sub-TLVs of the Extended Link TLV + MUST indicate their applicability to the L2 Bundle Member Attributes + sub-TLV. Typically, attributes that have L3 semantics would not be + applicable, but L2 attributes would apply. An implementation MUST + ignore any sub-TLVs received that are not applicable in the context + of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. + + +=======+======================================+===============+ + | Value | Description | Applicability | + +=======+======================================+===============+ + | 1 | SID/Label | N | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 2 | Adj-SID | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 3 | LAN Adj-SID/Label | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 4 | Network-to-Router Metric | N | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 5 | RTM Capability | N | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 6 | OSPFv2 Link MSD | N | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 7 | Graceful-Link-Shutdown | N | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 8 | Remote IPv4 Address | N | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 9 | Local/Remote Interface ID | N | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 10 | Application-Specific Link Attributes | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 11 | Shared Risk Link Group | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 12 | Unidirectional Link Delay | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 13 | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 14 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 15 | Unidirectional Link Loss | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 16 | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 17 | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 18 | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 19 | Administrative Group | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 20 | Extended Administrative Group | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 22 | TE Metric | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 23 | Maximum Link Bandwidth | Y | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 24 | L2 Bundle Member Attributes | N | + +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+ + + Table 1: Applicability of OSPFv2 Link Attribute Sub-TLVs for + L2 Bundle Members + + Applicability: + + Y: This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub- + TLV. + + N: This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes + sub-TLV. + + In the case of OSPFv3, the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV shares + the sub-TLV space of the Router-Link TLV, and the sub-TLVs of the + Router-Link TLV MAY be used to describe the attributes of the member + link. Table 2 lists sub-TLVs that are applicable to the Router-Link + TLV and their applicability for L2 bundle member links. The sub-TLVs + that are not applicable MUST NOT be used as sub-TLVs for the L2 + Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. Specifications that introduce new + sub-TLVs of the Router-Link TLV MUST indicate their applicability to + the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. An implementation MUST + ignore any sub-TLVs received that are not applicable in the context + of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. + + +=======+=========================================+===============+ + | Value | Description | Applicability | + +=======+=========================================+===============+ + | 1 | IPv6-Forwarding-Address | X | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 2 | IPv4-Forwarding-Address | X | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 3 | Route-Tag | X | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 4 | Prefix SID | X | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 5 | Adj-SID | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 6 | LAN Adj-SID | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 7 | SID/Label | N | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 8 | Graceful-Link-Shutdown | N | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 9 | OSPFv3 Link MSD | N | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 11 | Application-Specific Link Attributes | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 12 | Shared Risk Link Group | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 13 | Unidirectional Link Delay | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 14 | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 15 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 16 | Unidirectional Link Loss | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 17 | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 18 | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 19 | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 20 | Administrative Group | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 21 | Extended Administrative Group | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 22 | TE Metric | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 23 | Maximum Link Bandwidth | Y | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 24 | Local Interface IPv6 Address | N | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 25 | Remote Interface IPv6 Address | N | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 26 | Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) | X | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 27 | Prefix Source OSPF Router-ID | X | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 28 | Prefix Source Router Address | X | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 29 | L2 Bundle Member Attributes | N | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 33 | OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric | X | + +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+ + + Table 2: Applicability of OSPFv3 Link Attribute Sub-TLVs for L2 + Bundle Members + + Applicability: + + Y: This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub- + TLV. + + N: This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes + sub-TLV. + + X: This is not a sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV; it MUST NOT appear + in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. + +3. BGP-LS Advertisement + + The BGP-LS extensions for the advertisement of L2 bundle members and + their attributes were specified in [RFC9085]. Using the OSPF L2 + Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV defined in this document, the L2 + bundle member information can now be advertised from OSPF into BGP-LS + on the same lines as discussed for IS-IS in Section 2.2.3 of + [RFC9085]. + +4. IANA Considerations + + IANA has allocated the following code point in the "OSPFv2 Extended + Link TLV Sub-TLVs" subregistry under the "Open Shortest Path First v2 + (OSPFv2) Parameters" registry: + + Value: 24 + + Designation: L2 Bundle Member Attributes + + IANA has allocated the following code point in the "OSPFv3 Extended- + LSA Sub-TLVs" subregistry under the "Open Shortest Path First v3 + (OSPFv3) Parameters" registry: + + Value: 29 + + Description: L2 Bundle Member Attributes + + IANA has also introduced a column titled "L2BM" in the "OSPFv2 + Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" registry. The "L2BM" column indicates + applicability to the L2 Bundle Attributes Member sub-TLV. The + initial allocations (Y/N) for this column are indicated in Table 1. + The following explanatory note has been added to the registry: + + | The "L2BM" column indicates applicability to the L2 Bundle + | Attributes Member sub-TLV. The options for the "L2BM" column are: + | + | Y - This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes + | sub-TLV. + | + | N - This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member + | Attributes sub-TLV. + + Similarly, IANA has introduced a column titled "L2BM" in the "OSPFv3 + Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry. The "L2BM" column indicates + applicability to the L2 Bundle Attributes Member sub-TLV. The + initial allocations (Y/N/X) for this column are indicated in Table 2. + The following explanatory note has been added to the registry: + + | The "L2BM" column indicates applicability to the L2 Bundle + | Attributes Member sub-TLV. The options for the "L2BM" column are: + | + | Y - This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes + | sub-TLV. + | + | N - This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member + | Attributes sub-TLV. + | + | X - This is not a sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV; it MUST NOT + | appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV. + + Future allocations in these two registries are required to indicate + the applicability of the introduced sub-TLV to the L2 Bundle Member + Attributes sub-TLV. IANA has added this document as a reference for + both registries. + +5. Operational Considerations + + Implementations MUST NOT enable the advertisement of L2 bundle member + links and their attributes in OSPF LSAs by default and MUST provide a + configuration option to enable their advertisement on specific links. + + [RFC9129] specifies the base YANG data model for OSPF. The required + configuration and operational elements for this feature are expected + to be introduced as augmentation to this base YANG data model for + OSPF. + +6. Security Considerations + + The OSPF protocol has supported the advertisement of link attribute + information, including link identifiers, for many years. The + advertisements defined in this document are identical to the existing + advertisements defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4203], [RFC5329], [RFC7471], + [RFC8665], and [RFC8666], but they are associated with L2 links that + are part of a bundle interface on which the OSPF protocol operates. + Therefore, the security considerations of these documents are + applicable, and there are no new security issues introduced by the + extensions in this document. + + As always, if the protocol is used in an environment where + unauthorized access to the physical links on which OSPF packets are + sent occurs, then attacks are possible. The use of authentication as + defined in [RFC5709], [RFC7474], [RFC4552], and [RFC7166] is + recommended for preventing such attacks. + +7. References + +7.1. Normative References + + [IEEE802.1AX] + IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area + Networks--Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX, + DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034, May 2020, + . + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . + + [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions + in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching + (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005, + . + + [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., + Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute + Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November + 2015, . + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC + 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, + May 2017, . + + [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and + F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) + Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April + 2018, . + + [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, + H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF + Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, + . + + [RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions + for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, + December 2019, . + + [RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, + H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State + (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021, + . + +7.2. Informative References + + [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering + (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, + . + + [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in + Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching + (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, + . + + [RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality + for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006, + . + + [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path + Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, + . + + [RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed., + "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", + RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008, + . + + [RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M., + Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic + Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October + 2009, . + + [RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting + Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014, + . + + [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. + Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, + . + + [RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed., + "Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key + Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015, + . + + [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and + S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and + Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, + . + + [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., + Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment + Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, + July 2018, . + + [RFC8510] Psenak, P., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Henderickx, W., and P. + Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF Link-Local Signaling (LLS) + Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement", + RFC 8510, DOI 10.17487/RFC8510, January 2019, + . + + [RFC8668] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri, + M., and E. Aries, "Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link + Attributes in IS-IS", RFC 8668, DOI 10.17487/RFC8668, + December 2019, . + + [RFC9129] Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, I., and A. Lindem, + "YANG Data Model for the OSPF Protocol", RFC 9129, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9129, October 2022, + . + +Acknowledgements + + This document leverages similar work done for IS-IS, and the authors + of this document would like to acknowledge the contributions of the + authors of [RFC8668]. + + The authors would like to thank Anoop Ghanwani, Paul Kyzivat, Dan + Romascanu, and Russ Mundy for their review and feedback on this + document. The authors would also like to thank Acee Lindem for his + detailed shepherd review of this document. The authors would also + like to thank John Scudder for his AD review and the discussion + related to the applicability of TLVs/sub-TLVs to the L2 Bundle Member + Attributes sub-TLV. + +Authors' Addresses + + Ketan Talaulikar (editor) + Cisco Systems + India + Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com + + + Peter Psenak + Cisco Systems + Apollo Business Center + Mlynske nivy 43 + 821 09 Bratislava + Slovakia + Email: ppsenak@cisco.com -- cgit v1.2.3