Use Cases for MPLS Function Indicators and Ancillary Data
draft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tarek Saad , Kiran Makhijani , Haoyu Song , Greg Mirsky | ||
| Last updated | 2022-04-04 (Latest revision 2022-03-07) | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | Candidate for WG Adoption | |
| Document shepherd | Loa Andersson | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | loa@pi.nu |
draft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases-01
MPLS Working Group T. Saad
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Informational K. Makhijani
Expires: 8 September 2022 H. Song
Futurewei Technologies
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
7 March 2022
Use Cases for MPLS Function Indicators and Ancillary Data
draft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases-01
Abstract
This document presents a number of use cases that have a common need
for encoding MPLS function indicators and ancillary data inside MPLS
packets. There has been significant recent interest in extending the
MPLS data plane to carry such ancillary data to address a number of
use cases described in this document.
The use cases described are not an exhaustive set, but rather the
ones that are actively discussed by members of the IETF MPLS, PALS
and DETNET working groups participating in the MPLS Open Design Team.
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 8 September 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 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
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. No Further Fastreroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. In-situ OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1. Global Identifier as Flow-Aggregate Selector . . . . 6
2.3.2. Forwarding Label as a Flow-Aggregate Selector . . . . 6
2.4. Time Sensitive Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.1. Stack Based Methods for Latency Control . . . . . . . 7
2.4.2. Stack Entry Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5. NSH Based Service Function Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6. Network Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.7. Application Aware Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Co-existence of Usecases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. IOAM with Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. IOAM with Time-Sensitive Networking . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
This document describes important cases that require carrying
additional ancillary data within the MPLS packets, as well as the
means to indicate ancillary data is present.
These use cases have been identified by the MPLS working group design
team working on defining MPLS function Indicators and Ancillary Data
(MIAD) for the MPLS data plane. The MPLS ancillary data can be
classified as:
* implicit, or "no-data" associated with a funciton indicator,
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 2022
* within the label stack, e.g., encoded as labels, referred to as In
Stack Data (ISD), and
* after the Bottom of Stack (BoS), referred to as Post Stack Data
(PSD).
The use cases described in this document will be used to assist in
identifying requirements and issues to be considered for future
resolution by the working group.
* ID: [I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam] describes the applicability of IOAM to
MPLS data plane.
* [RFC8986] describes the network programming use case for SRv6
dataplane.
* [RFC8595] describes how Service Function Chaining (SFC) can be
achieved in an MPLS network by means of a logical representation
of the Network Service Header (NSH) in an MPLS label stack. Some
limitations of this approach that may be addressed by MIAD are
described in [I-D.lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification].
1.1. Terminology
The following terminology is used in the document:
IETF Network Slice:
a well-defined composite of a set of endpoints, the connectivity
requirements between subsets of these endpoints, and associated
requirements; the term 'network slice' in this document refers to
'IETF network slice' as defined in
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].
IETF Network Slice Controller (NSC):
controller that is used to realize an IETF network slice
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].
Network Resource Partition:
the collection of resources that are used to support a slice
aggregate.
Time Sensitive Networking:
Networks that transport time sensitive traffic.
1.2. Acronyms and Abbreviations
ISD: In-stack data
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 2022
PSD: Post-stack data
MIAD: MPLS Indicators and Ancillary Data
2. Use Cases
2.1. No Further Fastreroute
MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) [RFC4090], [RFC5286] and [RFC7490] is a
useful and widely deployed tool for minimizing packet loss in the
case of a link or node failure.
Several cases exist where, once FRR has taken place in an MPLS
network and resulted in rerouting a packet away from the failure, a
second FRR that impacts the same packet to rerouting is not helpful,
and may even be disruptive.
For example, in such a case, the packet may continue to loop until
its TTL expires. This can lead to link congestion and further packet
loss. Thus, the attempt to prevent a packet from being dropped may
instead affect many other packets. A proposal to address this is
presented in [I-D.kompella-mpls-nffrr].
2.2. In-situ OAM
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) may record
operational and telemetry information within the packet while the
packet traverses a particular path in a network domain.
The term "in-situ" refers to the fact that the IOAM data fields are
added to the data packets rather than being sent within the probe
packets specifically dedicated to OAM or Performance Measurement
(PM).
IOAM can run in two modes End-to-End (E2E) and Hop-by-Hop (HbH). In
E2E mode, only the encapsulating and decapsulating nodes will process
IOAM data fields. In HbH mode, the encapsulating and decapsulating
nodes as well as intermediate IOAM-capable nodes process IOAM data
fields.
The IOAM data fields are defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], and
can be used for various use-cases of OAM and PM.
[I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr] defines how IOAM data fields are
transported using the MPLS data plane encapsulations, including
Segment Routing (SR) with MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS).
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 2022
The IOAM data may be added after the bottom of the MPLS label stack.
The IOAM data fields can be of fixed or incremental size as defined
in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. [I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam] describes
applicability of IOAM to MPLS dataplane. The encapsulating MPLS node
needs to know if the decapsulating MPLS node can process the IOAM
data before adding it in the packet. In HbH IOAM mode, nodes that
are capable of processing IOAM will intercept and process the IOAM
data. The presence of IOAM data will be transparent to nodes that
does not support or do not participate in the IOAM process.
2.3. Network Slicing
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices] specifies the definition of an
IETF Network Slice. It further discusses the general framework for
requesting and operating IETF Network Slices, their characteristics,
and the necessary system components and interfaces.
Multiple network slices can be realized on top of a single shared
network.
In order to overcome scale challenges, IETF Network Slices may be
aggregated into groups according to similar characteristics. The
slice aggregate [I-D.bestbar-teas-ns-packet] is a construct that
comprises of the traffic flows of one or more IETF Network Slices of
similar characteristics.
A router that requires forwarding of a packet that belongs to a slice
aggregate may have to decide on the forwarding action to take based
on selected next-hop(s), and the forwarding treatment (e.g.,
scheduling and drop policy) to enforce based on the associated per-
hop behavior.
The routers in the network that forward traffic over links that are
shared by multiple slice aggregates need to identify the slice
aggregate packets in order to enforce the associated forwarding
action and treatment.
An IETF network slice MAY support the following key features:
1. A Slice Selector
2. A Network Resource Partition associated with a slice aggregate.
3. A Path selection criteria
4. Verification that per slice SLOs are being met. This may be done
by active measurements (inferred) or by using hybrid measurement
methods, e.g., IOAM.
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 2022
5. Additionally, there is an on-going discussion on using Service
Functions (SFs) with network slices. This may require insertion
of an NSH.
6. For multi-domain scenarios, a packet that traverses multiple
domains may encode different identifiers within each domain.
2.3.1. Global Identifier as Flow-Aggregate Selector
A Global Identifier as a Flow-Aggregate Selector (FAS) can be encoded
in the MPLS packet as defined in [I-D.kompella-mpls-mspl4fa],
[I-D.li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id], and
[I-D.decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id]. The FAS is used
to associate the packets with a flow aggregate that utilizes
resources defined by Network Resource Partition (NRP) as described in
[I-D.bestbar-teas-ns-packet].
The FAS can be encoded within an MPLS label carried in the packet's
MPLS label stack. All packets that belong to the same flow aggregate
MAY carry the same FAS in the MPLS label stack.
LSRs use the MPLS forwarding label to determine the forwarding next-
hop(s), and can use the FAS present in the MPLS packet to infer the
specific forwarding treatment that needs to be applied on the packet.
2.3.2. Forwarding Label as a Flow-Aggregate Selector
[RFC3031] states in Section 2.1 that: 'Some routers analyze a
packet's network layer header not merely to choose the packet's next
hop, but also to determine a packet's "precedence" or "class of
service"'.
It is possible by assigning a unique MPLS forwarding label to each
flow aggregate (FEC) to distinguish the packets forwarded to the same
destination. from other flow aggregates. In this case, LSRs can use
the top forwarding label to infer both the forwarding action and the
forwarding treatment to be invoked on the packets. A similar
approach is described in [I-D.ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments]
and [I-D.bestbar-teas-ns-packet].
2.4. Time Sensitive Networking
The routers in a network can perform two distinct functions on
incoming packets, namely forwarding (where the packet should be sent)
and scheduling (when the packet should be sent). Time Sensitive
Networking (TSN) and Deterministic Networking provide several
mechanisms for scheduling under the assumption that routers are time
synchronized. The most effective mechanisms for delay minimization
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 2022
involve per-flow resource allocation.
Segment Routing (SR) is a forwarding paradigm that allows encoding
forwarding instructions in the packet in a stack data structure,
rather than being programmed into the routers. The SR instructions
are contained within a packet in the form of a First-in First-out
stack dictating the forwarding decisions of successive routers.
Segment routing may be used to choose a path sufficiently short to be
capable of providing a low end-to-end latency but does not influence
the queueing of individual packets in each router along that path.
TSN is required for networks transporting such time sensitive
traffic, whose packets are required to be delivered to their final
destination by a given time.
2.4.1. Stack Based Methods for Latency Control
One efficient data structure for inserting local deadlines into the
headers is a "stack", similar to that used in Segment Routing to
carry forwarding instructions. The number of deadline values in the
stack equals the number of routers the packet needs to traverse in
the network, and each deadline value corresponds to a specific
router. The Top-of-Stack (ToS) corresponds to the first router's
deadline while the Bottom-of-Stack (BoS) refers to the last's. All
local deadlines in the stack are later or equal to the current time
(upon which all routers agree), and times closer to the ToS are
always earlier or equal to times closer to the BoS.
The ingress router inserts the deadline stack into the packet
headers; no other router needs to be aware of the requirements of the
time sensitive flows. Hence admitting a new flow only requires
updating the information base of the ingress router.
MPLS LSRs that expose the Top of Stack (ToS) label can also inspect
the associated "deadline" carried in the packet (either in MPLS stack
or after BoS).
2.4.2. Stack Entry Format
A number of different time formats commonly used in networking
applications and can be used to encode the local deadlines.
For the forwarding sub-entry we could adopt like SR-MPLS standard
32-bit MPLS labels (which contain a 20-bit label and BoS bit), and
thus SR-TSN stack entries could be 64-bits in size comprising a
32-bit MPLS label and the aforementioned nonstandard 32-bit
timestamp.
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 2022
Alternatively, an SR-TSN stack entry could be 96 bits in length
comprising a 32-bit MPLS label and either of the standardized 64-bit
timestamps.
2.5. NSH Based Service Function Chaining
[RFC8595] describes how Service Function Chaining (SFC) can be
realized in an MPLS network by emulating the NSH by using only MPLS
label stack elements.
A reference to the NSH SFC use case is defined in [RFC8596].
The approach in [RFC8595] introduces some limitations that are
discussed in [I-D.lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification]. This approach,
however, can benefit from the solution framework introduced with
MIAD.
For example, it may be possible for the Network Service Header (NSH)
to be embedded in an Extended Header (EH) to support the Path ID and
any metadata that needs to be carried and and exchanged between
Service Function Forwarders (SFFs).
2.6. Network Programming
In SR, an ingress node steers a packet through an ordered list of
instructions, called "segments". Each one of these instructions
represents a function to be called at a specific location in the
network. A function is locally defined on the node where it is
executed and may range from simply moving forward in the segment list
to any complex user-defined behavior.
Network Programming combines Segment Routing (SR) functions to
achieve a networking objective that goes beyond mere packet routing.
It may be desirable to encode a pointer to function and its arguments
within an MPLS packet transport header. For example, in MPLS we can
encode the FUNC::ARGs within the label stack or after the Bottom of
Stack to support the equivalent of FUNC::ARG in SRv6 as described in
[RFC8986].
2.7. Application Aware Networking
Application-aware Networking (APN) as described in
[I-D.li-apn-problem-statement-usecases] allows application-aware
information (i.e., APN attributes) including APN identification (ID)
and/or APN parameters (e.g. network performance requirements) to be
encapsulated at network edge devices and carried in packets
traversing an APN domain.
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 2022
The APN data is carried in packets to facilitate service
provisioning, perform fine-granularity traffic steering and network
resource adjustment. To support APN in MPLS networks, mechanisms are
needed to carry such APN data in MPLS encapsulated packets.
3. Co-existence of Usecases
Two or more of the aforementioned use cases MAY co-exist in the same
packet. Some examples of such use cases are described below.
3.1. IOAM with Network Slicing
IOAM may provide key functions with network slicing to help ensure
that critical network slice SLOs are being met by the network
provider.
In such a case, IOAM is able to collect key performance measurement
parameters of network slice traffic flows as it traverses the
transport network.
This may require, in addition to carrying a specific network slice
selector (e.g., GISS), the MPLS network slice packets may have to
also carry IOAM ancillary data.
Note that the IOAM ancillary data may have to be modified, and
updated on some/all LSRs traversed by the network slice MPLS packets.
3.2. IOAM with Time-Sensitive Networking
IOAM operation may also be desirable on MPLS packets that carry time-
sensitive related data. Similarly, this may require the presence of
multiple ancilary data (whether In-stack or Post-stack ancillary
data) to be present in the same MPLS packet.
4. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
5. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations.
6. Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the input of the members of the
MPLS Open Design Team.
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 2022
7. Contributors
The following individuals contributed to this document:
Loa Andersson
Bronze Dragon Consulting
Email: loa@pi.nu
8. Informative References
[I-D.bestbar-teas-ns-packet]
Saad, T., Beeram, V. P., Dong, J., Wen, B., Ceccarelli,
D., Halpern, J., Peng, S., Chen, R., Liu, X., Contreras,
L. M., Rokui, R., and L. Jalil, "Realizing Network Slices
in IP/MPLS Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08, 2 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-
packet-08.txt>.
[I-D.decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id]
Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Henderickx, W., Saad, T.,
Beeram, V. P., and L. Jalil, "Using Entropy Label for
Network Slice Identification in MPLS networks.", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-decraene-mpls-slid-
encoded-entropy-label-id-03, 11 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-decraene-mpls-slid-
encoded-entropy-label-id-03.txt>.
[I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam]
Gandhi, R., Ali, Z., Brockners, F., Wen, B., Decraene, B.,
and V. Kozak, "MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ
OAM Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-gandhi-
mpls-ioam-04, 2 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-
04.txt>.
[I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr]
Gandhi, R., Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Brockners, F., Wen, B.,
and V. Kozak, "MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ
OAM Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-gandhi-
mpls-ioam-sr-06, 18 February 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-
sr-06.txt>.
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 2022
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-ippm-ioam-data-17, 13 December 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-17.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments]
Dong, J., Bryant, S., Miyasaka, T., Zhu, Y., Qin, F., Li,
Z., and F. Clad, "Introducing Resource Awareness to SR
Segments", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
spring-resource-aware-segments-04, 5 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
resource-aware-segments-04.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]
Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rokui, R., Homma, S., Makhijani,
K., Contreras, L. M., and J. Tantsura, "Framework for IETF
Network Slices", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-08, 6 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
network-slices-08.txt>.
[I-D.kompella-mpls-mspl4fa]
Kompella, K., Beeram, V. P., Saad, T., and I. Meilik,
"Multi-purpose Special Purpose Label for Forwarding
Actions", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
kompella-mpls-mspl4fa-02, 9 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kompella-mpls-
mspl4fa-02.txt>.
[I-D.kompella-mpls-nffrr]
Kompella, K. and W. Lin, "No Further Fast Reroute", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-kompella-mpls-nffrr-02,
12 July 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
kompella-mpls-nffrr-02.txt>.
[I-D.li-apn-problem-statement-usecases]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Voyer, D., Xie, C., Liu, P., Qin, Z.,
and G. Mishra, "Problem Statement and Use Cases of
Application-aware Networking (APN)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-li-apn-problem-statement-usecases-
06, 7 March 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
li-apn-problem-statement-usecases-06.txt>.
[I-D.li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id]
Li, Z. and J. Dong, "Carrying Virtual Transport Network
Identifier in MPLS Packet", Work in Progress, Internet-
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 2022
Draft, draft-li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id-02, 7 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-li-mpls-enhanced-
vpn-vtn-id-02.txt>.
[I-D.lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification]
Yao, L. and G. Mirsky, "MPLS-based Service Function
Path(SFP) Consistency Verification", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification-02, 21
February 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-lm-
mpls-sfc-path-verification-02.txt>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.
[RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.
[RFC8595] Farrel, A., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "An MPLS-Based
Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining", RFC 8595,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8595, June 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8595>.
[RFC8596] Malis, A., Bryant, S., Halpern, J., and W. Henderickx,
"MPLS Transport Encapsulation for the Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8596,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8596, June 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8596>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MIAD Usecases March 2022
Authors' Addresses
Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks
Email: tsaad@juniper.net
Kiran Makhijani
Futurewei Technologies
Email: kiranm@futurewei.com
Haoyu Song
Futurewei Technologies
Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Saad, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 13]