Dynamic-Anycast Architecture
draft-li-dyncast-architecture-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Yizhou Li , Luigi Iannone , Dirk Trossen , Peng Liu , Cheng Li | ||
| Last updated | 2022-01-20 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| 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-li-dyncast-architecture-01
rtgwg Y. Li
Internet-Draft L. Iannone
Intended status: Informational D. Trossen
Expires: 25 July 2022 Huawei Technologies
P. Liu
China Mobile
C. Li
Huawei Technologies
21 January 2022
Dynamic-Anycast Architecture
draft-li-dyncast-architecture-01
Abstract
This document describes a proposal for an architecture for the
Dynamic-Anycast (Dyncast). It includes an architecture overview,
main components that shall exist, and the workflow. An example of
workflow is provided, focusing on the load-balance multi-edge based
service use-case, where load is distributed in terms of both
computing and networking resources through the dynamic anycast
architecture.
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 25 July 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Architecture Main Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Dyncast Architecture Workflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Service Notification/Metrics Update . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Service Demand Dispatch and Instance Affinity . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Service Demand Dispatch and Instance Affinity on
D-Routers ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Service Demand Dispatch and Instance Affinity on
D-Forwarders ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Dyncast Control-plane vs Data-plane operations . . . . . . . 13
6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Edge computing is expanding from a single edge nodes to multiple
networked collaborating edge nodes to solve the issues like response
time, resource optimization, and network efficiency.
The current network architecture in edge computing provides
relatively static service dispatching, for example, to the closest
edge from an IGP perspective, or to the server with the most
computing resources without considering the network status, and even
sometimes just based on static configuration.
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
Networking taking into account computing resource metrics seems to be
an interesting paradigm that fits numbers of use-cases that would
benefit from such capability [I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases]. Yet,
more investigation is still needed in key areas for this paradigm
and, to this end, this document aims at providing an architectural
framework, which will enable service notification, status update, and
service dispatch in edge computing..
The Dyncast architecture presents an anycast based service and access
model addressing the problematic aspects of existing network layer
edge computing service deployment, including the unawareness of
computing resource information of service, static edge selection,
isolated network and computing metrics and/or slow refresh of status.
Dyncast assumes that there are multiple equivalent service instances
running on different edge nodes, globally providing (from a logical
point of view) one single service. A single edge may have limited
computing resources available, and different edges likely have
different resources available, such as CPU or GPU. The main
principle of Dyncast is that multiple edge nodes are interconnected
and collaborate with each other to achieve a holistic objective,
namely to dispatch service demands taking into account both service
instances status as well as network state (e.g., paths length and
their congestion). For this, computing resources available to serve
a request is one of the top metrics to be considered. At the same
time, the quality of the network path to an edge node may vary over
time and may hence be another key attribute to be considered for said
dispatching of service demands.
2. Definition of Terms
Dyncast: As defined in [I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases], Dynamic
Anycast, taking the dynamic nature of computing resource metrics
into account to steer an anycast routing decision.
Service: As defined in [I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases], a service
represents a defined endpoint of functionality encoded according to
the specification for said service.
Service instance: As defined in [I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases], one
service can have several instances running on different nodes.
Service instance is a running environment (e.g., a node) that makes
the functionality of a service available.
D-Router: A node supporting Dyncast functionalities as described in
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
this document. Namely it is able to understand both network-
related and service-instances-related metrics, take forwarding
decision based upon and manitain instance affinity, i.e., forwards
packets belonging to the same service demand to the same instance.
D-MA: Dyncast Metric Agent (D-MA): A dyncast specific agent able to
gather and send metric updates (from both network and instance
prespective) but not performing forwarding decisions. May run on a
D-Router, but it can be also implementated as a separate module
(e.g., a software library) collocated with a service instance.
D-Forwarder: An optional element able to forward packets towards a
service instance, while not receiving any metric and as such not
being able to make any decision when a new service demand arrives.
it relies on a D-Router for the decision, it only guarantees
instance affinity.
D-SID: Dyncast Service ID, an identifier representing a service,
which the clients use to access said service. Such identifier
identifies all of the instances of the same service, no matter on
where they are actually running. D-SID is independent of which
service instance serves the service demand. Usually multiple
instances provide a (logically) single service, and service demands
are dispatched to the different instance through an anycast model,
i.e., choosing one instance among all available instances.
D-BID: Dyncast Binding D-Node, an address to reach a service
instance for a given D-SID. It is usually a unicast IP where
service instances are attached. Different service instances
provide the same service identified through D-SID but with
different Dyncast Binding IDs.
Service demand: The demand for a specific service and addressed to a
specific D-SID.
Service request: The request for a specific service and addressed to
a specific service instance identified with D-BID.
3. Architecture Main Concepts
Edge sites (edges for short) are normally the sites where edge
computing is performed. Service instances are initiated at different
edge sites. Thus, a single service can actually have a significant
number of instances running on different edges. A Dyncast Service ID
(D-SID) is used to uniquely identify a service (e.g., a matrix
computation for face recognition, or a game server). Service
instances can be hosted on servers, virtual machines, access routers
or gateway in edge data center.
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
Close to (one or more) Service instances is the Dyncast Metric Agent
(D-MA). This element has the task to gather information about
resources and status of the different instances as well as network-
related information. Such element may also run in a dyncast-enable
router (named D-Router), while other deployement scenarios may lead
to this element running separately on edge nodes.
A D-Router is actually the main element in a Dyncast network,
providing the capability to exchange the information about the
computing resources information of service instances which have been
gathered through D-MAs. A D-Router can also be a service access
point for clients. When a service demand arrives, it will be
delivered to the most appropriate service instance. A service demand
may be the first packet of a data flow rather than an explicit out of
band service request. This achitectural document does not make any
specific assumption on this matter. This documents only assumes
that:
* D-Routers are able to identify new service demands. The Dyncast
architecture presented in this document allows then to deliver
such a packet to the most appropriate service instance according
to information received from D-MAs and other D-Routers.
* D-Router are able to identify packets belonging to an existing
service demand. The Dyncast architecture presented in this
document allows to deliver these packets always to the same
service instance selected at the initial service demand. We term
this capability as 'instance affinity'.
The element introduced above are depicted in Figure 1, which shows
the proposed Dyncast architecture. In Figure 1, the "infrastructure"
indicates the general IP infrastrucutre that does not necessarily
need to suppoort Dyncats, i.e., not all routers of the infrastructure
need to be D-Routers.
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
edge site 1 edge site 2 edge site 3
+------------+ +------------+
+------------+ | +------------+ |
| service | | | service | |
| instance |-+ | instance |-+
+------------+ +------------+
| |
+----------+ |
| D-MA | |
+----------+ +----------+
| +-----------------+ | D-MA |
+----------+ | | +----------+
|D-Router 1| ----| Infrastructure |---- |D-Router 3|
+----------+ | | +----------+
| +-----------------+ |
| | |
| | |
+-----------+ +----------+ |
|D-Forwarder| |D-Router 2| |
+-----------+ +----------+ |
| | |
| | |
+-----+ +------+ +------+
+------+| +------+ | +------+ |
|client|+ |client|-+ |client|-+
+------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 1: Dyncast Architecture.
Figure 2 shows an example of Dyncast deployement, with 2 service
instatiated twice (2 instances) on two different edges, namely edge
site 2 and 3. Those service instances utilize different D-BIDs to
serve service demands. The edge site 3 uses a standalone D-MA to
report its metrics to the Dyncast system and, since no client is
present at that edge, there is no need of a D-Router. Edge site 2
instead, collocates the D-MA with a D-router since client are
present.
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
D-SID: Dyncast Service ID
D-BID: Dyncast Binding ID
Service/Metrics Information
(D-SID 1, D-BID 21, <metrics>)
(D-SID 2, D-BID 22, <metrics>)
<----------------->
+-------+
+-------+ | D-SID 1
|Clients|-+ +--------+
+-------+ +--|D-BID 21| instance 1
| | +--------+
+----------+----+ | Edge 2
|D-Router 2|D-MA|--| D-SID 2
+----------+----+ | +--------+
| +--|D-BID 22| instance 2
+----------------+ +--------+
| |
| |
+------+ +----------+ | |
|Client|--|D-Router 1|--| Infrastructure |
+------+ +----------+ | |
| | D-SID 2
| | +--------+
+----------------+ +---|D-BID 32| instance 3
| | +--------+
| +------+ Edge 3
+-------| D-MA |
+------+ D-SID 1
| +--------+
+---|D-BID 31| instance 4
+--------+
<---------------------------------->
(D-SID 2, D-BID 32, <metrics>)
(D-SID 1, D-BID 31, <metrics>)
Service/Metrics Information
Figure 2: Dyncast deployment example.
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
In Figure 2, the Dyncast Service ID (D-SID) follows an anycast
semantic, such as provided through an IP anycast address. It is used
to access a specific service no matter which service instance
eventually handles the service demand of the client. Clients or
other entities which want to access a service need to know about its
D-SID in advance. It can be achieved in different ways, for example,
using a special range of addresses associated to a certain service or
coding of anycast IP address as D-SID, or using DNS.
The Dyncast Binding ID (D-BID) is a unicast IP address. It is
usually the interface IP address through to reach a specific service
instance. Mapping and binding a D-SID to a D-BID is dynamic and
depends on the computing and network status at the time the service
demand first arrives (see Section 4.1 for the reporting of such
status). To ensure instance affinity, D-Routers are requested to
remember the instance that has been selected (e.g., by storing the
mapping) for delivering all packets to the same instance (see
Section 4.2 for discussing this aspect).
4. Dyncast Architecture Workflow
The following subsections provide an overview of how the
architectural elements introduced in the previous section do work
together.
4.1. Service Notification/Metrics Update
When a service instance is instantiated/terminated the service
information consisting in the mapping between the D-SID and the D-BID
has to be updated/deletetd as well. An update can also be triggered
by a change in relevant metrics (e.g., an instance becomes
overloaded). Computing resource information of service instance is
key information in Dyncast. Some of them may be relatively static
like CPU/GPU capacity, and some may be very dynamic, for example,
CPU/GPU utilization, number of sessions associated, number of queuing
requests. Changes in service-related relavant information has to be
collected by D-MA associated to each service instance. Various ways
can be used, for example, via routing protocols like EBGP or via an
API of a management system. Conceptually a D-Router collects
information coming from D-MA and keeps track of the IDs and computing
metrics of all service instances.
Figure 2 shows an example of information shared by the Dyncast
elements. The D-MA which is deployed with D-Router2 shares binding
information concerning the two instances of the two services running
on edge 2 (upper right hand side of the figure). These information
is:
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
* (D-SID 1, D-BID 21, metrics)
* (D-SID 2, D-BID 22, metrics)
The D-MA which is deployed as a separate module on edge 3 (lower
right hand side of the figure) shares binding information concerning
the two instances of the two services running on edge 3. These
information is:
* (D-SID 1, D-BID 31, metrics)
* (D-SID 2, D-BID 32, metrics)
Dyncast nodes share among themselves the service information
including the associated computing metrics for the service instances
attached to them. As a network node, a D-Router can also monitor the
network cost or metrics (e.g., congestion) to reach other D-Routers.
This is the focus of Dyncast control plane. Different mechanisms can
be used to share such information, for instance BGP ([RFC4760]), an
IGP, or a controller based mechanism. The specific mechanism is
beyond the scope of this document. The architecture assumes that the
Dyncast elements are able to share relevant information.
If, for instance, the client on the left hand side of Figure 2 sends
a service demand for D-SID1, D-Router1 has the knowledge of the
status of the service instance on both edge 2 and edge 3 and can make
a decision toward which D-BID to forward the demand.
There are different ways to represent the computing metrics. A
single digitalized value calculated from weighted attributes like
CPU/GPU consumption and/or number of sessions associated may be used
for simplicity reasons. However, it may not accurately reflect the
computing resources of interest. Multi-dimensional values give finer
information. This architectural document does not make any specific
assumption about metrics and how to encode or even use them. As
stated in Section 3, the only assumption is that a D-Node is able to
use such metrics so to take a decision when a service demand arrives
in order to map the demand onto a suitable service request.
As explained in the problem statement document
[I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases], computing metrics may change very
frequently, when and how frequent such information should be
exchanged among Dyncats elements should be determined also in
accordance with the distribution protocol used for such purpose. A
spectrum of approaches can be employed,such as interval based
updates, threshhold triggered updates, policy based updates, etc.
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
4.2. Service Demand Dispatch and Instance Affinity
This is the focus of the Dyncast data plane. When a new flow
(representing a service demand) arrives at a Dyncast ingress, such
ingress node selects the most appropriate egress according to the
network status and the computing resource of the attached service
instances.
In the Dyncast Architecture there are two possible type of ingress,
namely D-Routers and D-Forwarders, which are discussed in the
following.
4.2.1. Service Demand Dispatch and Instance Affinity on D-Routers
ingress
Instance affinity is one of the key features that Dyncast should
support. It means that packets from the same 'flow' for a service
should always be sent to the same egress to be processed by the same
service instance. The affinity is determined at the time of newly
formulated service demand.
It is worth noting that different services may have different notions
of what constitutes a 'flow' and may thus identify a flow
differently. Typically a flow is identified by the 5-tuple value.
However, for instance, an RTP video streaming may use different port
numbers for video and audio, and it may be identified as two flows if
5-tuple flow identifier is used. However they certainly should be
treated by the same service instance. Therefore a 3-tuple based flow
identifier is more suitable for this case. Hence, it is desired to
provide certain level of flexibility in identifying flows, or from a
more general perspective, in identifying the set of packets for which
to apply instance affinity. More importantly, the means for
identifying a flow for the purpose of ensuring instance affinity must
be application-independent to avoid the need for service-specific
instance affinity methods.
Specifically, Instance affinity information should be configurable on
a per-service basis. For each service, the information can include
the flow/packets identification type and means, affinity timeout
value, and etc. For instance, the affinity configuration can
indicate what are the values, e.g., 5-tuple or 3-tuple, to be used as
the flow identifier.
When the most appropriate egress and service instance is determined
when a new flow for a service demand arrives, a binding table should
save this association between new service demand and service instance
selection. The information in such binding table may include flow/
packets identification, affinity timeout value, etc. The subsequent
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
packets matching the entry are forwarded based on the table.
Figure 3 shows a possible example of flow binding table at the
ingress D-Router.
+-----------------------------------------+----------------+--------+
| Flow/Packets Identifier | | |
+------+--------+---------+--------+------+ D-BID egress | timeout|
|src_IP| dst_IP |src_port |dst_port|proto | | |
+------+--------+---------+--------+------+----------------+--------+
| X | D-SID 2| - | 8888 | tcp | D-BID 32 | xxx |
+------+--------+---------+--------+------+----------------+--------+
| Y | D-SID 2| - | 8888 | tcp | D-BID 12 | xxx |
+------+--------+---------+--------+------+----------------+--------+
Figure 3: Example of what a binding table can look like.
4.2.2. Service Demand Dispatch and Instance Affinity on D-Forwarders
ingress
When a D-Router maintains the binding table, the memory consumed is
determined by the number of different service demands that a Dyncast
ingress node handles. The ingress node can be an edge data center
gateway, hence it may cover hundreds of thousands of users and each
user may have tens of flows, creating a concern regarding the memory
space consumption for the binding table at the Dyncast ingress node.
To alleviate that concern, the Dyncast Forwarder (D-Forwarder for
short) can be used and take an active role.
The D-Forwarder is deployed closer to the clients and it normally
handles the traffic and service demands of a single or a few clients.
In this case, the memory required by the binding table will be much
smaller since the number of entries is now limited to the number of
local clients only. Furthermore, the D-Forwarder is not a D-Router,
that is to say, it does not participate in the status update about
network and computing metrics among D-Routers. A D-Forwarder does
not determine the best egress to forward packets when there is a new
service demand. Instead, it has to learn such information from a
D-Router and maintains it to ensure the instance affinity for
subsequent packets. In this way, the D-routers may be relieved from
binding table maintenance.
Figure 4 shows the interaction between D-Forwarders and D-Routers.
The figures show a scenario similar to Figure 2, with the addition of
a D-Forwarder in front of D-Router1. When a new service demand
arrives at a D-Forwarder, the latter has no suitable entry in its
binding table that allows forwarding the packet to an egress. As a
consequence, the D-Forwarder forwards the service demand to a
D-Router, while marking the 'miss' of matching the demand onto a
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
suitable binding address in the forwarded packet. Upon receiving the
service demand, the D-Router, having access to all of the relevant
metric information, will select the most suitable egress, i.e.,
service instance, and forward the packet as a service request to the
chosen service instance. Based on the 'miss' indication in the
received service demand, the D-Router will also inform the
D-Forwarder about the selected egress. This will allow the
D-Forwarder to maintain the binding table to ensure the mapping of
any subsequent service demand.
The control messages exchange between the D-Forwarder and its
corresponding D-Router needs to be defined, but is out of the scope
of this document. D-Routers have to be also able to inform
D-Forwarders if there is any issue concerning packet delivery. For
instance, an ingress D-Router may find out that the traffic from the
D-Forwarder is going to an unreachable egress, e.g., due to node
failure. In such a case, it should inform the D-Forwarder about the
issue as soon as possible. The information exchange may also contain
possible countermeasures.
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
D-SID: Dyncast Service ID
D-BID: Dyncast Binding ID
+-------+
+-------+ | D-SID 1
|Clients|-+ +--------+
+-------+ +--|D-BID 21|
| | +--------+
+----------+----+ |
|D-Router 2|D-MA|--| D-SID 2
+------+ +----------+----+ | +--------+
|Client| | +--|D-BID 22|
+------+ +----------------+ +--------+
| Service Demand | |
| (Flow X, D-SID 2) | |
| ---------------> | |
+-----------+ +----------+ | |
|D-Forwarder|-----|D-Router 1|--| Infrastructure |
+-----------+ +----------+ | |
| <--------------- | |
|(Flow X, D-SID 2, D-BID 32) | | D-SID 2
| Binding Info | | +--------+
+------+ +----------------+ +---|D-BID 32|
|Client| | | +--------+
+------+ | +------+
+-------| D-MA |
+------+ D-SID 1
| +--------+
+---|D-BID 31|
+--------+
Figure 4: Service Demand in presence of a D-Forwarder
5. Dyncast Control-plane vs Data-plane operations
In summary, Dyncast consists of the following Control-plane and Data-
plane operations:
* Dyncast Control Plane:
- Dyncast Service ID Notification: the D-SID, an anycast IP
address, should be available and known. This can be achieved
in different ways. For example, use a special range or coding
of anycast IP address as service IDs or using the DNS.
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
- Dyncast Binding ID Notification: the mapping of (D-SID, D-BID),
i.e., service ID and the binding address, should be notified to
the D-Routers when the service instance starts (or stops).
Various ways can be used, for example, EBGP or management
system notification.
- Metrics Notification: D-MA have to be able to share the metrics
for a service and its binding ID so that D-Routers can select
the "best" instance for each new service demand.
- Mapping Update Notification: D-Router notifies D-Forwarder of
incoming service demand of mapping from service ID to binding
IP according to the local metric information. This
notification is sent upon receiving a service demand (from
D-Forwarder) with 'miss' indication.
* Dyncast Data Plane:
- New service demand: an ingress D-Router selects the most
appropriate egress in terms of the network status and the
computing resources of the instances of the requested service.
An ingress D-Forwarder selects the binding address information
for the received service ID, if available. Otherwise, the
service demand is forwarded with 'miss' indication set.
- Instance Affinity: Make sure the subsequent packets of an
existing service demand are always delivered to the same
service instance so that they can be served by the same service
instance.
6. Summary
This draft introduces a Dyncast architecture that enables the service
demand to be sent to an optimal service instance. It can dynamically
adapt to the computing resources consumption and network status
change. Dyncast is a network based architecture that supports a
large number of edges and is independent of the applications or
services hosted on the edge.
More discussion and input on control plane and data plane approach
are welcome.
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
7. Security Considerations
The computing resource information changes over time very frequent
with the creation and termination of service instance. When such
information is carried in routing protocol, too many updates can make
the network fluctuate. Control plane approach should take it into
considerations.
More thorough security analysis to be provided in future revisions.
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not make any request to IANA.
9. References
9.1. Informative References
[I-D.liu-dyncast-ps-usecases]
Liu, P., Willis, P., and D. Trossen, "Dynamic-Anycast
(Dyncast) Use Cases and Problem statement", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-li-dyncast-ps-usecases-01,
February 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-li-dyncast-ps-usecases-01>.
9.2. Informative References
[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>.
Acknowledgements
TBD
Authors' Addresses
Yizhou Li
Huawei Technologies
Email: liyizhou@huawei.com
Luigi Iannone
Huawei Technologies
Email: Luigi.iannone@huawei.com
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Dyncast Architecture January 2022
Dirk Trossen
Huawei Technologies
Email: dirk.trossen@huawei.com
Peng Liu
China Mobile
Email: liupengyjy@chinamobile.com
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Email: c.l@huawei.com
Li, et al. Expires 25 July 2022 [Page 16]