SPRING Working Group Z. Ali
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track R. Gandhi
Expires: August 18, 2018 N. Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Steinberg
Steinberg Consulting
S. Salsano
Universita di Roma "Tor Vergata"
P. Ventre
CNIT
G. Naik
Drexel University
D. Voyer
D. Bernier
Bell Canada
February 14, 2018
Performance Measurement in Segment Routing Networks with
IPv6 Data Plane (SRv6)
draft-ali-spring-srv6-pm-00.txt
Abstract
RFC 6374 specifies protocol mechanisms to enable efficient and
accurate measurement of packet loss, one-way and two-way delay, as
well as related metrics such as delay variation and channel
throughput in MPLS networks. This document describes how these
mechanisms can be used for performance measurement in Segment Routing
with IPv6 data plane (SRv6) networks.
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 http://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."
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Key Word Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Terminology and Reference Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Performance Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. One-Way Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Two-Way Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Delay Measurement Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Timestamping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. One-Way Delay Measurement using Synthetic Probes . . . . . 9
3.4.1. Example Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. In-band One-Way Segment-by-Segment Delay Measurement . . . 9
3.5.1. Example Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5.2. Node Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Performance Loss Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Probe Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. One-way Measurement Probe Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.1. Probe Reply Message to Controller . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Two-way Measurement Probe Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
1. Introduction
Service provider's ability to satisfy Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
depend on the ability to measure and monitor performance metrics for
packet loss and one-way and two-way delay, as well as related metrics
such as delay variation and channel throughput. The ability to
monitor these performance metrics also provides operators with
greater visibility into the performance characteristics of their
networks, thereby facilitating planning, troubleshooting, and network
performance evaluation.
[RFC6374] specifies protocol mechanisms to enable the efficient and
accurate measurement of these performance metrics in MPLS networks.
The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) defined in [RFC4656]
and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) defined in [RFC5357]
provide capabilities for the measurement of various performance
metrics in IP networks. However, mechanisms in [RFC6374] are more
suitable for Segment Routing when using MPLS data plane
[I-D.spring-sr-mpls-pm]. This document describes how these
mechanisms can be used for Performance Measurement (PM) in Segment
Routing with the IPv6 data plane (SRv6) networks.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Key Word Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
DM: Delay Measurement.
ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-Path.
LM: Loss Measurement.
PM: Performance Measurement.
SID: Segment ID.
SL: Segment Left.
SRH: Segment Routing Header.
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
TC: Traffic Class.
UCMP: Unequal Cost Multi-Path.
2.3. Terminology and Reference Topology
In this document, the following simple topology is used for
illustration.
--------
+--------------------------| N100 |------------------------+
| -------- |
| |
====== link1====== link3------ link5====== link9------
||N1||======||N2||======| N3 |======||N4||======| N5 |
|| ||------|| ||------| |------|| ||------| |
====== link2====== link4------ link6======link10------
| |
| ------ |
+--------| N6 |--------+
link7 | | link8
------
Figure 1: Reference Topology
In the reference topology in Figure 1:
Nodes N1, N2, and N4 are SRv6 capable nodes.
Nodes N3, N5 and N6 are classic IPv6 nodes.
Node 100 is a controller.
Node Nk has a classic IPv6 loopback address Bk::/128
Node Nk has Ak::/48 for its local SID space from which Local SIDs are
explicitly allocated.
The IPv6 address of the nth Link between node X and Y at the X side
is represented as 99:X:Y::Xn. e.g., the IPv6 address of link6 (the
2nd link) between N3 and N4 at N3 in Figure 1 is 99:3:4:32.
Similarly, the IPv6 address of link5 (the 1st link between N3 and N4)
at node 3 is 99:3:4::31.
Ak::0 is explicitly allocated as the END function at Node k.
Ak::Cij is explicitly allocated as the END.X function at node k
towards neighbor node i via jth Link between node i and node j. e.g.,
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
A2::C31 represents END.X at N2 towards N3 via link3 (the 1st link
between N2 and N3). Similarly, A4::C52 represents the END.X at N4
towards N5 via link10.
<S1, S2, S3> represents a SID list where S1 is the first SID and S3
is the last SID. (S3, S2, S1; SL) represents the same SID list but
encoded in the SRH format where the rightmost SID (S1) in the SRH is
the first SID and the leftmost SID (S3) in the SRH is the last SID.
(SA, DA) (S3, S2, S1; SL) represents an IPv6 packet, SA is the IPv6
source address, DA the IPv6 destination address, (S3, S2, S1; SL) is
the SRH header that includes the SID list <S1, S2, S3>.
SR policy is defined in Section 3 of
[I-D.spring-segment-routing-policy].
3. Performance Delay Measurement
3.1. One-Way Delay Measurement
The one-way delay measurement for Packet IP network is defined in
[RFC7679]. It is further exemplified using the following Figure 2.
------
|N100|
| |
------
^
| Response Option-2
T1 T2 |
+-------+/ Query \+-------+
| | - - - - - - - - - ->| |
| N1 |=====================| N4 |
| |<- - - - - - - - - - | |
+-------+\ Response Option-1 /+-------+
T4 T3
Figure 2: Delay Measurement Reference Model
Nodes N1 and N4 may not be directly connected, as shown in the
reference topology in Figure 1. When N1 and N4 are not directly
connected, the one-way delay measurement reflects the delay observed
by the packet over an arbitrary SRv6 segment-list (policy)
[I-D.spring-segment-routing-policy]. In other words, the one-way
delay is associated with the forward (N1 to N4) direction of the SRv6
segment-list.
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
The delay measurement can be performed using Active (using synthetic
probe) mode and Passive (using data stream aka in-band) mode. In
both modes, T1 refers to the time the packet is transmitted from N1.
Timestamp is added as late as possible at the egress pipeline (in
hardware) at node N1. T2 refers to the time the packet is received
at N2. Timestamp at the receiver (N2) is added as soon as possible
at the ingress pipeline (in hardware).
The one-way delay metric can be computed as follow [RFC7679],
[RFC6374],
One-way delay = T2 - T1
Clock synchronization on the querier and responder nodes using the
methods detailed in [RFC6374] is required.
Note that for one-way delay measurement, the receiver (node N4 in
Figure 2) may send a response to the sender or to a controller (N100
in Figure 2). The controller may also request the querier (node N1
in Figure 2) to initiate delay measurement (this messaging is not
shown in Figure 2 and is beyond the scope of this document).
3.2. Two-Way Delay Measurement
[RFC6374], Section 3.4 defines timestamp format that can be used for
delay measurement. The IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol (PTP)
timestamp format [IEEE1588] is used by default as described in
Appendix A of [RFC6374], but it may require hardware support.
Note that for one-way delay measurement, Clock synchronization
between the querier and responder nodes using methods detailed in
[RFC6374] is required. Two-way delay measurement does not require
clock to be synchronized between the querier and responder nodes.
3.3. Delay Measurement Message Format
[] defines Segment Routing Header
(SRH) for SRv6. SRH can contain TLVs, as specified in
[I-D.6man-segment-routing-header]. This document specifies Delay
Measurement (DM) TLV that is carried in SRH for both one-way and two-
way delay measurement. The DM TLV uses a modified DM message format
specified in [RFC6374] and is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
|Version| Flags | Control Code | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| QTF | RTF | RPTF | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session Identifier | TC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp 1 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp 4 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ SUB-TLV Block ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Delay Measurement TLV Format
The meanings of the fields are summarized in the following table.
Field Meaning
------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Type SRH DM TLV type (Value TBA)
Length Total length of the TLV in bytes
Version Protocol version
Flags Message control flags
Control Code Code identifying the query or response type
QTF Querier timestamp format
RTF Responder timestamp format
RPTF Responder's preferred timestamp format
Reserved Reserved for future specification
Session Identifier Set arbitrarily by the querier
Traffic Traffic Class being measured
Class (TC) Field
Timestamp 1-4 64-bit timestamp values
(see Section 3.4 in [RFC6374])
SUB-TLV Block Optional block of Type-Length-Value fields
Reserved fields MUST be set to 0 and ignored upon receipt. The
possible values for the remaining fields are as follows.
Version: Currently set to 1 (to identify definition of TC field in
[RFC6374])
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
Flags: As specified in [RFC6374]. The T flag in a DM message is set
to 1.
Control Code: As specified in [RFC6374].
Message Length: Set to the total length of this message in bytes,
including the Version, Flags, Control Code, and Message Length fields
as well as the TLV Block, if any.
Querier Timestamp Format: The format of the timestamp values written
by the querier, as specified in Section 3.4 of [RFC6374].
Responder Timestamp Format: The format of the timestamp values
written by the responder, as specified in Section 3.4 of [RFC6374].
Responder's Preferred Timestamp Format: The timestamp format
preferred by the responder, as specified in Section 3.4 of [RFC6374].
Session Identifier: Set arbitrarily in a query and copied in the
response, if any. This field uniquely identifies a measurement
operation (also called a session) that consists of a sequence of
messages. All messages in the sequence have the same Session
Identifier [RFC6374].
TC: Traffic Class being measured.
Timestamp 1-4 (T1-T4): The mapping of timestamps to the Timestamp 1-4
fields is designed to ensure that transmit timestamps are always
written at the same fixed offset in the packet, and likewise for
receive timestamps. This property is important for hardware
processing.
SUB-TLV Block: Zero or more TLV fields. This document assumes the
use of the DM message TLVs defined in [RFC6374].
3.3.1. Timestamping
[RFC6374], Section 3.4 defines timestamp format that can be used for
delay measurement. The IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol (PTP)
timestamp format [IEEE1588] is used by default as described in
Appendix A of [RFC6374], but it may require hardware support. As an
alternative, Network Time Protocol (NTP) timestamp format is also
supported in [RFC6374].
Note that for one-way delay measurement, Clock synchronization
between the querier and responder nodes using methods detailed in
[RFC6374] is required. Two-way delay measurement does not require
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
clock to be synchronized between the querier and responder nodes.
3.4. One-Way Delay Measurement using Synthetic Probes
For delay measurement using synthetic probes, a DM TLV is inserted in
the SRH to record the timestamps and END.OTP SID as described in the
pseudo code in [I-D.spring-srv6-network-programming] are used to punt
the probe packets.
3.4.1. Example Procedure
To measure one-way delay from node N1 over an SRv6 Policy
[I-D.spring-segment-routing-policy] that goes through a segment-list
<A2::C31, A4::C52> to node N4, the following procedure is followed:
o Node N1 constructs a DM probe packet with (B1::0,
A2::C31)(A4::C52, A2::C31, SL=1; NH=NONE, DM TLV). To punt the DM
probe packet at node N4, node N1 inserts the END.OTP SID
[I-D.spring-srv6-network-programming] just before the target SID
A4::C52 in the SRH. Thus, the packet as it leaves node N1 looks
like (B1::0, A2::C31)(A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=2; NH=NONE, DM
TLV (with T1 from N1)). The PM synthetic probe query message does
not contain any payload data.
o When node N4 receives the packet (B1::0, A4::OTP)(A4::C52,
A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=1; NH=NONE, DM TLV), it processes the END.OTP
SID, as described in the pseudo code in
[I-D.spring-srv6-network-programming]. In doing so, it punts the
timestamped packet (with T2 from N4) to the Performance
Measurement (PM) process in control plane for processing.
3.5. In-band One-Way Segment-by-Segment Delay Measurement
For delay measurement for in-band with data traffic, a DM TLV in the
SRH to record timestamps and O-bit as described in
[I-D.spring-srv6-network-programming] to punt a copy of the packet on
every SRv6 nodes are used.
3.5.1. Example Procedure
Consider the case where the user wants to measure one-way delay from
node N1 over an SRv6 Policy [I-D.spring-segment-routing-policy] that
goes through a segment-list <A2::C31, A4::C52>. However, the user
desired to measure delay in-band with data traffic on a
segment-by-segment basis.
o To force a punt of the timestamped copy of the data packet at node
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
N2 and node N4, node N1 sets the O-bit in SRH at locally
configured periodic measurement interval. The packet, as it
leaves node 1, looks like (B1::0, A2::C31)(A4::C52, A2::C31; SL=1,
Flags.O=1, DM TLV (with T1 from N1), NH=data payload type)(data
payload). Here, the data payload refers to the actual data
traffic going over the policy whose performance is being measured.
Node N1 may optionally punt a timestamped copy of the packet with
T1 to the local PM process in control plane.
o When node N2 receives the packet (B1::0, A2::C31)(A4::C52,
A2::C31; SL=1, Flags.O=1, DM TLV, NH=data payload type)(data
payload) packet, it processes the O-bit in SRH, as described in
the pseudo code in [I-D.spring-srv6-network-programming]. A
timestamped copy of the packet gets punted to the PM process in
control plane for processing. Node N2 continues to apply the
A2::C31 SID function on the original packet and forwards it,
accordingly. As SRH.Flags.O=1, Node N2 also disables the PSP
behavior, i.e., does not remove the SRH.
o The PM process in control plane at node N2 sends the copy of the
timestamped packet (with DM TLV containing T1 from N1 and T2 from
N2) to a locally configured controller or to the querier. Please
note that, as mentioned in [I-D.spring-srv6-network-programming],
if node N2 does not support the O-bit, it simply ignores it and
processes the local SID, A2::C31. In this case, the controller
will not get the performance data from the segments with the nodes
that do not support the O-bit.
o When node N4 receives the packet (B1::0, A4::C52)(A4::C52,
A2::C31; SL=0, Flags.O=1, DM TLV (containing T1 from N1); NH=data
payload type)(data payload), it processes the O-bit in SRH, as
described in the pseudo code in
[I-D.spring-srv6-network-programming]. A timestamped copy of the
packet gets punted to the PM process in control plane for
processing.
o The PM process in control plane at node N2 sends the copy of the
timestamped packet (with DM TLV containing T1 from N1 and T2 from
N4) to a locally configured controller.
The controller processes the timestamped packet from each segment and
computes the segment-by-segment one-way delay.
3.5.2. Node Capability
Support for O-bit is part of node capability advertisement. This
enables node N1 and the controller N100 to know which segment nodes
are capable of sending timestamped copy of packets.
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
4. Performance Loss Measurement
To be added.
5. Probe Reply Message
5.1. One-way Measurement Probe Reply
For one-way performance measurement [RFC7679], the PM querier node
can receive "out-of-bands" probe replies by properly setting the UDP
Return Object (URO) TLV in the probe message. The URO TLV (Type=131)
is defined in [RFC7876] and includes the UDP-Destination-Port and IP
Address. In particular, if the querier sets its own IP address in
the URO TLV the probe response is sent back by the responder node to
the querier node.
The PM process in the control plane on the responder node copies the
content of the DM TLV into the payload of the PM reply message.
5.1.1. Probe Reply Message to Controller
As shown in Figure 1, if the querier node N1 requires the probe reply
to be sent to the controller N100, it sets the IP address of N100 in
the Address field of the URO TLV of the PM probe query message.
5.2. Two-way Measurement Probe Reply
To be added.
6. Security Considerations
TBA.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate a value for the new SRH TLV Type for
Delay Measurement.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[IEEE1588] IEEE, "1588-2008 IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems", March 2008.
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS networks', RFC 6374, September 2011.
[RFC7876] Bryant, S., Sivabalan, S., and Soni, S., "UDP Return Path
for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks",
RFC 7876, July 2016.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", RFC 8174, May 2017.
[I-D.spring-srv6-network-programming] Filsfils, C. et al. "SRv6
Network Programming",
draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming, work in
progress.
[] Previdi, S., Filsfils, et al,
"IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)",
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, work in progress.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protoco (OWAMP)",
RFC 4656, September 2006.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, October 2008.
[RFC7679] Almes, G., et al, "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM)', RFC 7679, January 2016.
[I-D.spring-segment-routing-policy] Filsfils, C., et al. "Segment
Routing Policy for Traffic Engineering",
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy, work in
progress.
[I-D.spring-sr-mpls-pm] Filsfils, C., et al. "Segment Routing Policy
for Traffic Engineering", draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm,
work in progress.
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
Acknowledgments
To be added.
Contributors
Faisal Iqbal
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: faiqbal@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Dirk Steinberg
Steinberg Consulting
Germany
Email: dws@dirksteinberg.de
Stefano Salsano
Universita di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Italy
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SRv6 Performance Measurement February 14, 2018
Email: stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it
Pier Luigi Ventre
CNIT
Italy
Email: pierluigi.ventre@cnit.it
Gaurav Naik
Drexel University
USA
Email: gn@drexel.edu
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Daniel Bernier
Bell Canada
Email: daniel.bernier@bell.ca
Ali, et al. Expires August 18, 2018 [Page 14]