Marking-based Direct Export for On-path Telemetry
draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-13
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 | Haoyu Song , Greg Mirsky , Clarence Filsfils , Ahmed Abdelsalam , Tianran Zhou , Zhenbin Li , Thomas Graf , Gyan Mishra , Jongyoon Shin , Kyungtae Lee | ||
| Last updated | 2022-08-16 | ||
| 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-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-13
IPPM H. Song
Internet-Draft Futurewei Technologies
Intended status: Informational G. Mirsky
Expires: 17 February 2023 Ericsson
C. Filsfils
A. Abdelsalam
Cisco Systems, Inc.
T. Zhou
Z. Li
Huawei
T. Graf
Swisscom
G. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
J. Shin
SK Telecom
K. Lee
LG U+
16 August 2022
Marking-based Direct Export for On-path Telemetry
draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-13
Abstract
The document describes a packet-marking variation of the IOAM DEX
option, referred to as PBT-M (i.e., Postcard-Based Telemetry by
Marking). Similar to IOAM DEX, PBT-M does not carry the telemetry
data in user packets but send the telemetry data through a dedicated
packet. Unlike IOAM DEX, PBT-M does not require an extra instruction
header. However, PBT-M raises some unique issues that need to be
considered. This document formally describes the high level scheme
and cover the common requirements and issues when applying PBT-M in
different networks. PBT-M is complementary to the other on-path
telemetry schemes such as IOAM trace and E2E options.
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/.
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
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 17 February 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. PBT-M: Marking-based Direct Export for On-path Telemetry . . 3
3. New Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Packet Marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Flow Path Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Packet Identity for Export Data Correlation . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Control the Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Implementation Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Data Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
1. Motivation
To gain detailed data plane visibility to support effective network
OAM, it is essential to be able to examine the trace of user packets
along their forwarding paths. Such on-path flow data reflect the
state and status of each user packet's real-time experience and
provide valuable information for network monitoring, measurement, and
diagnosis.
The telemetry data include but not limited to the detailed forwarding
path, the timestamp/latency at each network node, and, in case of
packet drop, the drop location, and the reason. The emerging
programmable data plane devices allow user-defined data collection or
conditional data collection based on trigger events. Such on-path
flow data are from and about the live user traffic, which complements
the data acquired through other passive and active OAM mechanisms
such as IPFIX [RFC7011] and ICMP [RFC2925].
On-path telemetry was developed to cater to the need of collecting
on-path flow data. There are two basic modes for on-path telemetry:
the passport mode and the postcard mode. In the passport mode which
is represented by IOAM trace option [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], each
node on the path adds the telemetry data to the user packets (i.e.,
stamp the passport). The accumulated data-trace carried by user
packets are exported at a configured end node. In the postcard mode
which is represented by IOAM direct export option (DEX)
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export], each node directly exports the
telemetry data using an independent packet (i.e., send a postcard) to
avoid carrying the data with user packets. The postcard mode is
complementary to the passport mode.
IOAM DEX uses an instruction header to explicitly instruct the
telemetry data to be collected. This document describes another
variation of the postcard mode on-path telemetry, PBT-M. Unlike IOAM
DEX, PBT-M does not require a telemetry instruction header. However,
PBT-M has unique issues that need to be considered. This document
discusses the challenges and their solutions which are common to the
high-level scheme of PBT-M.
2. PBT-M: Marking-based Direct Export for On-path Telemetry
As the name suggests, PBT-M only needs a marking-bit in the existing
headers of user packets to trigger the telemetry data collection and
export. The sketch of PBT-M is as follows. If on-path data need to
be collected, the user packet is marked at the path head node. At
each PBT-M-aware node, if the mark is detected, a postcard (i.e., the
dedicated OAM packet triggered by a marked user packet) is generated
and sent to a collector. The postcard contains the data requested by
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
the management plane. The requested data are configured by the
management plane. Once the collector receives all the postcards for
a single user packet, it can infer the packet's forwarding path and
analyze the data set. The path end node is configured to un-mark the
packets to its original format if necessary.
The overall architecture of PBT-M is depicted in Figure 1.
+------------+ +-----------+
| Network | | Telemetry |
| Management |(-------| Data |
| | | Collector |
+-----:------+ +-----------+
: ^
:configurations |postcards
: |(OAM pkts)
...............:.....................|........
: : : | :
: +---------:---+-----------:---+--+-------:---+
: | : | : | : |
V | V | V | V |
+------+-+ +-----+--+ +------+-+ +------+-+
usr pkts | Head | | Path | | Path | | End |
====>| Node |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>| Node |===>
| | | A | | B | | |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
mark usr pkts gen postcards gen postcards gen postcards
gen postcards unmark usr pkts
Figure 1: Architecture of PBT-M
The advantages of PBT-M are summarized as follows.
* 1: PBT-M avoids augmenting user packets with new headers and the
signaling for telemetry data collection remains in the data plane.
* 2: PBT-M is extensible for collecting arbitrary new data to
support possible future use cases. The data set to be collected
can be configured through the management plane or control plane.
* 3: PBT-M can avoid interfering with the normal forwarding. The
collected data are free to be transported independently through
in-band or out-of-band channels. The data collecting, processing,
assembly, encapsulation, and transport are, therefore, decoupled
from the forwarding of the corresponding user packets and can be
performed in data-plane slow-path if necessary.
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
* 4: For PBT-M, the types of data collected from each node can vary
depending on application requirements and node capability.
* 5: PBT-M makes it easy to secure the collected data without
exposing it to unnecessary entities. For example, both the
configuration and the telemetry data can be encrypted and/or
authenticated before being transported, so passive eavesdropping
and a man-in-the-middle attack can both be deterred.
* 6: Even if a user packet under inspection is dropped at some node
in the network, the postcards collected from the preceding nodes
are still valid and can be used to diagnose the packet drop
location and reason.
* 7: Raw data can be processed or aggregated in data plane to reduce
the exporting traffic load.
3. New Challenges
Although PBT-M has some unique features compared to the passport mode
telemetry and the instruction-based IOAM DEX, it introduces a few new
challenges.
* Challenge 1 (Packet Marking): A user packet needs to be marked to
trigger the path-associated data collection. Since PBT-M does not
augment user packets with any new header fields, it needs to
reserve or reuse bits from the existing header fields. This
raises a similar issue as in the Alternate Marking Scheme
[RFC8321]
* Challenge 2 (Configuration): Since the packet header will not
carry telemetry instructions anymore, the data plane devices need
to be configured to know what data to collect. However, in
general, the forwarding path of a flow packet (due to ECMP or
dynamic routing) is unknown beforehand (note that there are some
notable exceptions, such as segment routing). If the per-flow
customized data collection is required, configuring the data set
for each flow at all data plane devices might be expensive in
terms of configuration load and data plane resources.
* Challenge 3 (Data Correlation): Due to the variable transport
latency, the dedicated postcard packets for a single packet may
arrive at the collector out of order or be dropped in networks for
some reason. In order to infer the packet forwarding path, the
collector needs some information from the postcard packets to
identify the user packet affiliation and the order of path node
traversal.
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
* Challenge 4 (Load Overhead): Since each postcard packet has its
header, the overall network bandwidth overhead of PBT-M can be
high. A large number of postcards could add processing pressure
on data collecting servers. That can be used as an attack vector
for DoS.
4. Design Considerations
To address the above challenges, we propose several design details of
PBT-M.
4.1. Packet Marking
To trigger the path-associated data collection, usually, a single bit
from some header field is sufficient. While no such bit is
available, other packet-marking techniques are needed. We discuss
several possible application scenarios.
* IPv4. Alternate Marking (AM) [RFC8321] is an IP flow performance
measurement framework that also requires a single bit for packet
coloring. The difference is that AM does in-network measurement
while PBT-M only collects and exports data at network nodes (i.e.,
the data analysis is done at the collector rather than in the
network nodes). AM suggests to use some reserved bit of the Flag
field or some unused bit of the TOS field. Actually, AM can be
considered a sub-case of PBT-M, so that the same bit can be used
for IOAM Marking. The management plane is responsible for
configuring the actual operation mode.
* SFC NSH. The OAM bit in the NSH header can be used to trigger the
on-path data collection [RFC8300]. PBT-M does not add any other
metadata to NSH.
* MPLS. Instead of choosing a header bit, we take advantage of the
synonymous flow label [I-D.bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels]
approach to mark the packets. A synonymous flow label indicates
the on-path data should be collected and forwarded through a
postcard.
* SRv6: A flag bit in SRH can be reserved to trigger the on-path
data collection [I-D.song-6man-srv6-pbt]. SRv6 OAM
[I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam] has adopted the O-bit in SRH flags
as the marking bit to trigger the telemetry.
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
4.2. Flow Path Discovery
In case the path that a flow traverses is unknown in advance, all
PBT-M-aware nodes should be configured to react to the marked packets
by exporting some basic data, such as node ID and TTL before a data
set template for that flow is configured. This way, the management
plane can learn the flow path dynamically.
If the management plane wants to collect the on-path data for some
flow, it configures the head node(s) with a probability or time
interval for the flow packet marking. When the first marked packet
is forwarded in the network, the PBT-M-aware nodes will export the
basic data set to the collector. Hence, the flow path is identified.
If other data types need to be collected, the management plane can
further configure the data set's template to the target nodes on the
flow's path. The PBT-M-aware nodes collect and export data
accordingly if the packet is marked and a data set template is
present.
If the flow path is changed for any reason, the new path can be
quickly learned by the collector. Consequently, the management plane
controller can be directed to configure the nodes on the new path.
The outdated configuration can be automatically timed out or
explicitly revoked by the management plane controller.
4.3. Packet Identity for Export Data Correlation
The collector needs to correlate all the postcard packets for a
single user packet. Once this is done, the TTL (or the timestamp, if
the network time is synchronized) can be used to infer the flow
forwarding path. The key issue here is to correlate all the
postcards for the same user packet.
The first possible approach includes the flow ID plus the user packet
ID in the OAM packets. For example, the flow ID can be the 5-tuple
IP header of the user traffic, and the user packet ID can be some
unique information pertaining to a user packet (e.g., the sequence
number of a TCP packet).
If the packet marking interval is large enough, the flow ID is enough
to identify a user packet. As a result, it can be assumed that all
the exported postcard packets for the same flow during a short time
interval belong to the same user packet.
Alternatively, if the network is synchronized, then the flow ID plus
the timestamp at each node can also infer the postcard affiliation.
However, some errors may occur under some circumstances. For
example, two consecutive user packets from the same flows are marked,
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
but one exported postcard from a node is lost. It is difficult for
the collector to decide to which user packet the remaining postcard
is related. In many cases, such a rare error has no catastrophic
consequence. Therefore it is tolerable.
4.4. Control the Load
PBT-M should not be applied to all the packets all the time. It is
better to be used in an interactive environment where the network
telemetry applications dynamically decide which subset of traffic is
under scrutiny. The network devices can limit the packet marking
rate through sampling and metering. The postcard packets can be
distributed to different servers to balance the processing load.
It is important to understand that the total amount of data exported
by PBT-M is identical to that of IOAM trace option. The only extra
overhead is the packet header of the postcards. In the case of IOAM
trace option, it carries the data from each node throughout the path
to the end node before exporting the aggregated data. On the other
hand, PBT-M directly exports local data. The overall network
bandwidth impact depends on the network topology and scale, and in
some cases PBT-M could be more bandwidth efficient.
5. Implementation Recommendation
5.1. Configuration
Access lists with an optional sampler, [RFC5476], should be
configured and attached at the ingress of the IOAM encapsulation
node's to select the intended flows for IOAM.
Based on the PBT-M, the flow data should be exported at each transit
node and at the end edge node with IPFIX [RFC7011].
5.2. Data Export
The data decomposition can be achieved on the PBT-M-aware node
exporting the data or on the IPFIX data collection.
[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport] describes how data is being
exported when decomposed at IPFIX data collection. When being
decomposed on the PBT-M-aware node the data can be aggregated
according to section 5 of [RFC7015]. The following IPFIX entities
are of interest to describe the relationship to the forwarding
topology and the control-plane.
* node id and egressInterface(IE14) describes on which node which
logical egress interfaces have been used to forward the packet.
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
* Node id and egressPhysicalInterface(253) describes on which node
which physical egress interfaces have been used to forward the
packet.
* Node id and ipNextHopIPv4Address(IE15) or
ipNextHopIPv6Address(IE62), describes the forwarding path to which
next-hop IP address.
* Node id and mplsTopLabelIPv4Address(IE47) or srhActiveSegmentIPv6
from [I-D.tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh] describes the forwarding
path to which MPLS top label IPv4 address or SRv6 active segment.
* BGP communities are often used for setting a path priority or
service selection. bgpDestinationExtendedCommunityList(488) or
bgpDestinationCommunityList(485) or
bgpDestinationLargeCommunityList(491) describes which group of
prefixes have been used to forward the packet.
* Node id and destinationIPv4Address(13),
destinationTransportPort(11), protocolIdentifier (4) and
sourceIPv4Address(IE8) describes the forwarding path on each node
from each IPv4 source address to a specific application in the
network.
* In order to distinguish wherever the packet has been export due to
the packet marking or not, in case of SRv6, srhFlagsIPv6 as
described in section 4.1 of [I-D.tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh] can
be added to the data export.
6. Use Cases
The MPLS Design Team has been investigating extensibility options for
the MPLS data plane.
The challenge has been to continue to support existing MPLS
architecture, backwards compatibility as well as not excessively
increase the depth of the MPLS label stack with a variety of
functional SPL labels and NAI indicators similar in concept to the
MPLS Entropy label ELI, EL added to the label stack, as well as the
MPLS extension headers being in Stack or post stack.
Reference Augmented Forwarding (RAF) [I-D.raszuk-mpls-raf-fwk]
utilizes In Stack Data (ISD) with parity to Entropy Label stack
{TL,RFI,RFV,AL} and control plane extension to distribute special
network actions and forwarding behaviors.
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
Reference Augmented Forwarding (RAF) keeps the ISD and PSD stack
depth in check by using an alternative means of carrying the IOAM
data using IGP control plane extension TLV to carry the data to
provide In-Situ IOAM on path telemetry using the postcard based
telemetry.
The MPLS Design Team may come up with other alternatives to carry
IOAM data such as the IGP extension mentioned and maybe other
solutions, which will heavily rely on the the postcard based
solution.
With Segment Routing SR-MPLS and SRv6 as Maximum SID Depth(MSD) as
well as PMTU in SR Policy are critical issues for SR path
instantiation by a controller, postcard based telemetry will become a
critical solution to ensure that IOAM telemetry can be viable for
operators by eliminating IOAM data from being carried in-situ in the
SR-TE policy path.
This draft provides a critical optimization that fills the gaps with
IOAM DEX related to packet marking triggers using existing mechanisms
as well as flow path discovery mechanisms to avoid configuration of
on path data plane node complexity and helps mitigate SR MSD and PMTU
issues.
7. Security Considerations
Several security issues need to be considered.
* Eavesdrop and tamper: the postcards can be encrypted and
authenticated to avoid such security threats.
* DoS attack: PBT-M can be limited to a single administrative
domain. The mark must be removed at the egress domain edge. The
node can rate-limit the extra traffic incurred by postcards.
8. IANA Considerations
No requirement for IANA is identified.
9. Contributors
TBD.
10. Acknowledgments
We thank Robert Raszuk, Alfred Morton who provided valuable
suggestions and comments helping improve this draft.
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
11. Informative References
[I-D.bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels]
Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., Mirsky, G., Chen,
M., and Z. Li, "RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bryant-mpls-synonymous-
flow-labels-01, 4 July 2015,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bryant-mpls-
synonymous-flow-labels-01.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam]
Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Matsushima, S., Voyer, D., and M.
Chen, "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-spring-
srv6-oam-13, 23 January 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-spring-
srv6-oam-13.txt>.
[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-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T.
Mizrahi, "In-situ OAM Direct Exporting", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-09, 15
June 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
ippm-ioam-direct-export-09.txt>.
[I-D.raszuk-mpls-raf-fwk]
Raszuk, R., "Framework of MPLS Reference Augmented
Forwarding", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
raszuk-mpls-raf-fwk-00, 25 April 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-raszuk-mpls-raf-
fwk-00.txt>.
[I-D.song-6man-srv6-pbt]
Song, H., "Support Postcard-Based Telemetry for SRv6 OAM",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-6man-srv6-
pbt-01, 14 October 2019, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
draft-song-6man-srv6-pbt-01.txt>.
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport]
Spiegel, M., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and R.
Sivakolundu, "In-situ OAM raw data export with IPFIX",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-
rawexport-06, 21 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-
rawexport-06.txt>.
[I-D.tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh]
Graf, T., Claise, B., and P. Francois, "Export of Segment
Routing IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-tgraf-
opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05, 24 July 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-
srv6-srh-05.txt>.
[RFC2925] White, K., "Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote
Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations", RFC 2925,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2925, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2925>.
[RFC5476] Claise, B., Ed., Johnson, A., and J. Quittek, "Packet
Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications", RFC 5476,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5476, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5476>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[RFC7015] Trammell, B., Wagner, A., and B. Claise, "Flow Aggregation
for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol",
RFC 7015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7015, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7015>.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
Authors' Addresses
Haoyu Song
Futurewei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, 95050,
United States of America
Email: hsong@futurewei.com
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Ahmed Abdelsalam
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Italy
Email: ahabdels@cisco.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Road
Beijing, 100095
P.R. China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei
156 Beiqing Road
Beijing, 100095
P.R. China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Switzerland
Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Marking-based Direct Export August 2022
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc.
Email: hayabusagsm@gmail.com
Jongyoon Shin
SK Telecom
South Korea
Email: jongyoon.shin@sk.com
Kyungtae Lee
LG U+
South Korea
Email: coolee@lguplus.co.kr
Song, et al. Expires 17 February 2023 [Page 14]