IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement
draft-decraene-lsr-isis-flooding-speed-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Bruno Decraene , Chris Bowers , Jayesh , Tony Li , Gunter Van de Velde | ||
| Last updated | 2020-03-09 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-decraene-lsr-isis-flooding-speed-03
Network Working Group B. Decraene
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track C. Bowers
Expires: September 10, 2020 Jayesh. J
Juniper Networks, Inc.
T. Li
Arista Networks
G. Van de Velde
Nokia
March 9, 2020
IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement
draft-decraene-lsr-isis-flooding-speed-03
Abstract
This document proposes a mechanism that can be used to increase the
speed at which link state information is exchanged between two
routers when multiple LSPs need to be flooded, such as in case of a
node failure. It also reduces the likelihood of overloading the
router receiving the LSPs. This document defines a new TLV to be
advertised in SNP and or Hello messages. This TLV may carry a set of
parameters indicating the performance capacity to receive LSPs: the
number of LSPs which can the received back to back, the minimum delay
between further two consecutive LSPs and the minimum delay before
retransmission of an LSP.
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 September 10, 2020.
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 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
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Flooding Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. InterfaceLSPReceiveWindow sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. minimumInterfaceLSPTransmissionInterval sub-TLV . . . . . 5
2.3. minimumLSPTransmissionInterval sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Operation on a point to point interface . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Faster acknowledgments of LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Faster retransmission of lost LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Operation on a LAN interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Interaction with other LSP rate limiting mechanisms . . . . . 9
8. Determining values to be advertised in the Flooding
Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
IGP flooding is paramount for Link State IGP as routing computations
assume that the Link State DataBases (LSDBs) are always in sync
across all nodes in the flooding domain.
Slow flooding directly translates to delayed network reaction to
failure and LSDB inconsistencies across nodes. The former increases
packet loss. The latter translates to routing inconsistencies and
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 2020
possibly micro-loops leading to packet loss, link overload, and
jitter for all classes of service. Note that across the network,
multiple links may be affected by these forwarding issues, even in
the case of a single link failure.
In addition, one single event in the network can require the flooding
of multiple LSPs. The typical case is a node failure which requires
the flooding of at least one LSP per neighbor of the failed node.
Hence, if a node has N IGP neighbors, the failure of this node
requires the advertisement and flooding of at least N LSPs. The
network won't be able to converge to the new topology until all N
LSPs are received by all nodes. Hence there is a need to be able to
quickly exchange N LSPs. This document addresses this requirement by
allowing the fast flooding of some number of consecutive LSPs.
IGP flooding is hard. One would want fast flooding when the network
is stable and slow enough flooding to not overload the neighbor(s)
when the network is less stable. Since flooding is performed hop by
hop, not overloading the adjacent receiver is sufficient. This
document addresses these requirements by having the receiving node
advertise the rate at which it can receive LSPs, using a TLV in SNP
and/or IS-IS Hello (IIH) messages. This allows the LSP transmitter
to adapt to the receiver capability and to send LSP quickly, but not
too quickly. This avoids both unnecessary transmission delays and
overloading the receiving IS. Multiple flooding parameters may be
advertised through the use of sub-TLVs.
One parameter in the advertisement is the LSP receive window. This
is the number of un-acknowledged LSPs that the IS transmitter may
send at any rate, including back to back.
Another parameter in the advertisement is the shaping delay between
two consecutive LSPs, once the received window is full.
Note that this parameterization of flooding behavior is aligned with
existing implementations: with an LSP receive window of 1, most
implementations already implement the shaping between LSPs. And some
implementations allows for the fast sending of N LSPs with no shaping
delay. Existing implementations rely on parameters statically
configured on the transmitter to control the transmission rate.
However, the need is to prevent overloading the receiver. In theory,
the transmission rate parameter could be configured on each IS
transmitter using the knowledge of each of its neighbor in the
topology and the receiving capabilities of those neighbors. However,
in practice, this configuration is difficult to maintain over time as
the network topology change. In addition, as things currently stand,
each network operator needs to evaluate the receiving capacity of
each type of platform, depending on its hardware, software version
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 2020
and number of IS-IS adjacencies. Such platform performance is better
known by its designer (the vendor). Even if validation tests are
required, one single validation test by the vendor is more effective
than N validations from N network providers. Finally, the reasoning
behind the original choices of default value is not clear. Default
values have largely remained unchanged over many years, despite very
large increases in interface speeds and processing speed. This has
resulted in default values that are very sub-optimal. For example,
typical default values are one LSP per 33ms or 100ms, resulting in
the ability to only send 30 or 10 LSPs per second. In contrast, the
same vendors recommend setting a BGP DDoS policer to 10,000 packets
per second, which is two or three order of magnitude higher.
A third parameter in the advertisement is the minimum delay before
re-transmitting a lost LSP.
Improving the communication speed and efficiency between IS-IS
neighbhors improves IS-IS scaling. These extensions do not compete
with proposed extensions to reduce LSP flooding traffic by reducing
the flooding topology such as [I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding].
Instead, the extensions complement those proposals. Indeed reducing
the flooding topology does not reduce the size of the LSDB or the
total number of LSPs to exchange between two nodes. So increasing
the overall flooding speed can be beneficial for nodes implementing
dynamic flooding. The reverse is also true: as dynamic flooding
reduces the number of neighbhors with flooding enabled, this allows
nodes implementing the flooding parameter extensions to focus their
flooding resources on those neighbhors by sending better parameters
to the selected flooding nodes and worse parameters to non-selected
flooding nodes.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2. Flooding Parameters TLV
This document defines a new TLV called "Flooding Parameters TLV" that
may be included in SNP and/or IIH PDUs.
Type: TBD1.
Length: variable, the size in octet of the Value field.
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 2020
Value: a list of sub-TLVs.
Three sub-TLVs are defined in this document.
2.1. InterfaceLSPReceiveWindow sub-TLV
The sub-TLV InterfaceLSPReceiveWindow advertises the maximum number
of un-acknowledged LSPs that the node can receive/process with no
separation interval between LSPs.
Type: 1.
Length: 4 octets.
Value: number of un-acknowledged LSPs which can be sent back to back
.
2.2. minimumInterfaceLSPTransmissionInterval sub-TLV
The sub-TLV minimumInterfaceLSPTransmissionInterval advertises the
minimum interval, in micro-seconds, between LSPs arrivals which can
be processed/received on this interface, once the maximum number of
un-acknowledged LSPs has been sent.
Type: 2.
Length: 4 octets.
Value: minimum interval, in micro-seconds, between two consecutive
LSPs sent after the receive window has been used.
2.3. minimumLSPTransmissionInterval sub-TLV
The sub-TLV minimumLSPTransmissionInterval advertises the ISO
minimumLSPTransmissionInterval, in micro-seconds, that the LSP
transmitter may use.
Type: 3.
Length: 4 octets.
Value: minimum interval, in micro-seconds, before further propagating
another Link State PDU from the same source system.
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 2020
3. Operation on a point to point interface
By sending the InterfaceLSPReceiveWindow sub-TLV with a value N1, the
node advertises to its IS-IS neighbor, its ability to receive, over
that interface, a maximum of N1 un-acknowledged LSPs with no
separation interval. This is akin to a reception window or sliding
window in flow control.
By sending the minimumInterfaceLSPTransmissionInterval sub-TLV with a
value N2, the node advertises to its IS-IS neighbor, its ability to
receive, over that interface, after the receive window is full, LSPs
separated by at least N2 micro-seconds.
The IS transmitter MUST NOT exceed these parameters. After having
send N1 un-acknowledged LSPs, it MUST send the following LSPs with an
interval of at least N2 micro-seconds between each LSP.
Note however that if either the LSP transmitter or receiver does not
adhere to these parameters, for example because of transient
conditions, this causes no fatal condition to the operation of IS-IS.
The worst case, the loss of LSP on the IS receiver, is already
accounted for in [ISO10589]. As per [ISO10589], after a few seconds,
respectively 2 and 10 by default in [ISO10589], neighbors will
exchange PSNP (for point to point interface) or CSNP (for broadcast
interface) and recover from the lost LSPs. This worst case,
overrunning the receiver, should however be avoided as those
additional seconds are impacting the network and the traffic as the
LSDB in not fully synchronized. Hence it is better to err on the
conservative side and to underun the receiver rather then overrun it.
For a given IS-IS adjacency, the Flooding Parameters TLV does not
need to be advertised in each SNP and IIS. The IS transmitter uses
the latest value received of each parameter (sub-TLV) until a new
value is advertised by the IS receiver. Note however that CSNP and
IIH are not reliability exchanged, hence some PDU may never be
received. For a parameter which has never been advertised, the IS
transmitter use its local default value. That value SHOULD be
configurable on a per node basis and MAY be configurable on a per
interface basis.
4. Faster acknowledgments of LSPs
As per [ISO10589], on point to point interfaces, the LSP receiver
dynamically acknowledges the received LSPs by sending PSNP messages.
By acknowledging the LSPs before the InterfaceLSPReceiveWindow is
exhausted, the receiver can achieve dynamic flow control and increase
the flooding speed without risking to overload any IS-IS router. If
the InterfaceLSPReceiveWindow is large enough, the downstream
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 2020
flooding node can acknowledge a set of multiple LSPs up to the
maximum size of a PSNP (90 LSPs) which allows dynamic flow control
with limited or even no increasing in the number of PSNPs.
The way LSPs are acknowledged faster is a local decision on the
receiving IS. Without limiting the possibilities, there are at least
two options:
o Reduce partialSNPInterval. Possibly reduce it even further when
the IS-IS adjacency initially transitions to the UP state, when a
large number of LSPs need to be received quickly, until the LSDB
has been synchronized. The choice of this lower value is a local
choice. It may depends on the (available) processing power of the
node, the number of adjacencies been brought up at the same time,
the requirement to synchronise the LSDB more quickly.
o Track the number of received and un-acknowledged LSP per interface
and level, and send a PSNP when the number reaches 90 (max per
PSNP) or is significant enough e.g., 10 or
InterfaceLSPReceiveWindow/2.
5. Faster retransmission of lost LSPs
As per [ISO10589], an IS transmitter resends a un-acknowledged LSP no
sooner than minimumLSPTransmissionInterval, which is 5 seconds by
default. As this document allows the faster transmission of LSP
acknoledgement, the transmitter should be able to retransmit faster,
with a delay compatible (higher) than the partialSNPInterval or the
delay needed to acknowledge the received LSPs.
The reception of the parameter minimumLSPTransmissionInterval means
that the IS transmitter MAY set its minimumLSPTransmissionInterval to
this value or higher.
The interval advertised in minimumLSPTransmissionInterval MUST be
higher than the effective partialSNPInterval of the receiver plus the
Round Trip Time (RTT) of the interface. The effective
partialSNPInterval of the receiver is the maximum amount of time that
the receiver is expected to take to acknowledge the LSP. This would
be the partialSNPInterval on a receiver following only [ISO10589], or
an effective value if the receiver has implemented a faster method to
acknowledge LSPs faster, as discussed in Section 4 . The goal is
that the receiver should not be telling the transmitter to resend un-
acknowledged LSPs after waiting for a time shorter than the receiver
is planning acknowledge LSPs it has actually received.
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 2020
An IS receiver MAY update this value depending on certain conditions.
For example, it can advertise a higher minimumLSPTransmissionInterval
value when a large number of LSPs are been received and hence it is
busy. Or it can advertise a lower value when an LSP storm has
passed, especially if there is reason to believe that some LSPs may
have been lost.
6. Operation on a LAN interface
On a LAN interface an IS receiver will generally receive LSPs from
many IS transmitters. And the LSPs sent by a given IS transmitter
will be received by all of the IS receivers. In this section, we
clarify how the flooding paramaters should be interpretted in the
context of a LAN.
An IS receiver on a LAN will communicate its desired flooding
paramaters using a single Flooding Parameters TLV, copies of which
will be received by all N transmitters. The flooding parameters sent
by the IS receiver MUST be understood as instructions from the
receiver to each transmitter about the desired maximum transmit
characteristics of each transmitter. For example, the receiver will
be aware that there are N transmitters that can send LSPs to the
receiver LAN interface. In this example, the receiver might want to
take that into account by advertising a higher value of
InterfaceLSPTransmissionInterval on this LAN interface than what it
would advertise on a point to point interface. When the transmitters
receive the InterfaceLSPTransmissionInterval value advertised by the
DIS receiver, the transmitters should rate limit LSPs according to
the advertised flooding parameters. They should not apply any
further interpretation to the flooding parameters advertised by the
receiver.
On the other hand, a given IS trasmitter will receive flooding
paramater advertisements using N different Flooding Parameters TLVs,
which could carry different flooding parameter values. A given
transmitter SHOULD adjust the flooding behavior on this LAN interface
such that none of the receivers receives more un-acknowledged LSPs or
LSPs at a higher rate than indicated by their individual flooding
parameter advertisements.
In order for the InterfaceLSPReceiveWindow to be a useful parameter,
an IS transmitter needs to be able to keep track of the number of un-
acknowledged LSPs it has sent to a given IS receiver. On a LAN there
is no explicit acknowledgement of the reciept of LSPs between a given
IS transmitter and a given IS receiver. However, an IS transmitter
on a LAN can infer whether or not any IS receivers on the LAN have
requested retransmission of LSPs from the DIS by monitoring PSNPs
generated on the LAN. If no PSNPs have been generated on the LAN for
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 2020
a suitable period of time, then an IS transmitter can safely set the
number of un-acknowledged LSPs to zero.
7. Interaction with other LSP rate limiting mechanisms
[ISO10589] describes a mechanism that limits the rate at which LSPs
from the same source system are sent out on interfaces. (See the
description of the parameter
minimumBroadcastLSPTranLSPTransmissionInterval in section 7.3.15.6 of
[ISO10589] .) In practice, however, router vendors have implemented
mechanisms that limit the rate of LSPs sent on a given interface.
This is often configurable on a per-interface basis using 'lsp-
interval' or 'lsp-pacing-interval' CLI configuration.) The mechanism
described in the current document extends the practice of limiting
the rate of LSPs sent on a given interface, by using parameters
advertised by the LSP receiver. When the mechanism described in the
current document is used, the mechanism described in section 7.3.15.6
of [ISO10589] is not used.
8. Determining values to be advertised in the Flooding Parameters TLV
The values that a receiving IS advertises do not need to be close to
perfection. It is OK to be too low and hence not to use the full
bandwidth or CPU resources. It is OK to be too high during some
situation and hence have the receiver drop some LSPs as the IS-IS
protocol has mechanisms to recover. What is not OK is to flood
multiple order of magnitudes slower than both nodes can achieve, or
to consistently overload the receiver.
The values may not need to be dynamic as a form of dynamicity is
provided by the dynamic acknowledgment of LSPs in SNP messages which
provides a feedback loop on how fast/slower the LSPs are processed by
the receiver. By advertising relatively static parameters, we expect
to produce overall flooding behavior similar to what might be
achieved by manually configuring per-interface LSP rate limiting on
all interfaces in the network. The advertised values may be based,
for example, on an off line tests of the overall LSP processing speed
for a particular set of hardware and the number of interfaces
configured for IS-IS. With such a formula, the values advertised in
the Flooding Parameters TLV would only change when additional IS-IS
interfaces are configured.
Nevertheless, the values may also be changed dynamically. In this
case, care must be taken when choosing the parameters influencing the
values, in order to avoid undesirable feedback loops. It would be
undesirable to use a formula that depends, for example, on an active
measurement of the instantaneous CPU load to modify the values
advertised in the Flooding Parameters TLV. This could introduce
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 2020
feedback into the IGP flooding process that could produce unexpected
behavior. The value may also be based on average measured flooding
statistics: if LSPs are regularly dropped, or the queue regularly
comes close to being filled, then values may be too high. On the
other hand, if the queue is barely used (by IS-IS), then values may
be too low.
9. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate one TLV from the IS-IS TLV codepoint
registry.
Type Description IIH LSP SNP Purge
---- --------------------------- --- --- --- ---
TBD Flooding Parameters TLV y n y n
Figure 1
TBD: registry for sub-TLVs of the Flooding Parameters TLV.
10. Security Considerations
Any new security issues raised by the procedures in this document
depend upon the ability of an attacker to inject a false but
apparently valid SNP, the ease/difficulty of which has not been
altered.
As with others TLV advertisements, the use of a cryptographic
authentication as defined in [RFC5304] or [RFC5310] allows the
authentication of the peer and the integrity of the message. As this
document defines a TLV for SNP message, the relevant cryptographic
authentication is for SNP message.
In the absence of cryptographic authentication, as IS-IS does not run
over IP but directly over the link layer, it's considered difficult
to inject false SNP without having access to the link layer.
If a false SNP is sent with a Flooding Parameters TLV set to low
values, the attacker can reduce the flooding speed between the two
adjacent neighbors which can result in LSDB inconsistencies and
transient forwarding loops. However, is not significantly different
than filtering or altering LSPDUs which would also be possible with
access to the link layer. In addition, if the downstream flooding
neighbor has multiple IGP neighbors, which is typically the case for
reliability or topological reasons, it would receive LSPs at a
regular speed from its other neighbors and hence would maintain LSDB
consistency.
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 2020
If a false SNP is sent with a Flooding Parameters TLV set to high
values, the attacker can increase the flooding speed which can either
overload a node or more likely generate loss of LSPs. However, it is
not significantly different than sending many LSPs which would also
be possible with access to the link layer, even with cryptographic
authentication enabled. In addition, IS-IS has procedures to detect
the loss of LSPs and recover.
This TLV advertisement is not flooded across the network but only
sent between adjacent IS-IS neighbors. This would limit the
consequences in case of forged messages, and also limits the
dissemination of such information.
10.1. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Henk Smit for his review and
comments.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[ISO10589]
International Organization for Standardization,
"Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain
routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/
IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, Nov 2002.
[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>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[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>.
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 2020
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding]
Li, T., Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Chen, H., Przygienda,
T., Cooper, D., Jalil, L., and S. Dontula, "Dynamic
Flooding on Dense Graphs", draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
flooding-04 (work in progress), November 2019.
Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes
[RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication]
00: Initial version.
01: Two notes added in section 3 "Operation".
02: Refresh, no technical change.
03: Flooding Parameters TLV: name changed, moved to SNP rather than
Hello, contains sub-TLVs, parameters encoded in 4 octets.
Terminology: upstream/downstream terms removed, in favor of terms
from ISO specification (transmitter, receiver); burst-size rename to
receive-window.
Significant editorials changes.
New section on the faster acknowledgment of LSPs.
New section on the faster retransmission of lost LSPs.
Authors' Addresses
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Chris Bowers
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: cbowers@juniper.net
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding Parameters advertisement March 2020
Jayesh J
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: jayeshj@juniper.net
Tony Li
Arista Networks
5453 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, California 95054
USA
Email: tony.li@tony.li
Gunter Van de Velde
Nokia
Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018
Belgium
Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com
Decraene, et al. Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 13]