[Search] [txt|xml|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
MPLS                                                           S. Bryant
Internet-Draft                                                  A. Clemm
Intended status: Standards Track                               T. Eckert
Expires: November 19, 2021                  Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
                                                            May 18, 2021


            Use of an MPLS LSE as an Ancillary Data Pointer
                 draft-bryant-mpls-aux-data-pointer-00

Abstract

   The purpose of this memo is to describe how Label Stack Entries
   (LSEs) can be used to point to ancillary or meta-data carried below
   the MPLS label stack.

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 November 19, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Background Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Use of SPLs as Pointers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Label Operations: Popping and Swapping  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Use of Multiple Pointers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Disposition of the Ancillary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Structure of Ancillary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Structure of Pointer Label  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   12. Appendix 1: CONTROVERSY ALERT - Use Of Ordinary Labels  . . .  11
   13. Appendix 2: Other Issues for Discussion . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   14. Appendix 3: Ancillary vs Auxiliary vs Metadata  . . . . . . .  12
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   There has been significant recent interest in developing the MPLS
   data plane to address new needs, and in particular to carry ancillary
   or meta-data below the stack.  In this document we consider that this
   ancillary data is further subdivided into a sequence of blocks.  This
   draft does not prescribe the information or its structure of the
   ancillary data.  For the sake of examples, it could range from a
   single ancillary data unit to a structured set of ancillary data
   blocks similar to an IPv6 extension header.  There has also been
   recent interest in carrying additional flags or other indicators to
   qualify the forwarding operations.

   This memo proposes the use of "spare" bits in a Special Purpose Label
   (SPL) [I-D.kompella-mpls-mspl4fa] be used as a pointer to items of
   ancillary data carried below the bottom of stack (BoS).  Finally we
   speculate that in certain network scopes we may usefully be able to
   create pseudo-SPLs from the ordinary label pool.

2.  Background Documents

   [I-D.kompella-mpls-mspl4fa] notes that the forwarder does not need to
   use the TC, or TTL fields in an LSE [RFC3032] that does not become
   top of stack (ToS).  It proposes to exploit these fields as
   indicators of forwarding actions, by modifying the semantics of these
   fields.




Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


   There are a number of key proposals in that draft:

   o  Using the "spare bits" as forwarding indicator flags to specify
      actions or in some cases inactions

   o  Using the method to multi-purpose SPLs and thus expand the number
      of single label SPLs available to the IETF.

   o  Reuse the Entropy Label (EL) fields to carry additional data
      needed by the forwarder.  This latter point could be adopted by
      any eSPL.  One use for this additional data that was proposed
      (certainly in discussion but I cannot see it in the draft) was the
      use of this facility to carry a network slice identifier.

   This draft proposes that these "spare" bits in an SPL or pseudo-SPL
   be used as a pointer to ancillary data below the stack.

   This proposal can be used in conjunction with the other indicator
   proposals, for example by using different SPLs for different options,
   such as one SPL indicating the presence of a pointer vs one or more
   other SPLs for the other proposals.

3.  Use of SPLs as Pointers

   Previously it had been proposed to use the "spare" bits in an SPL
   that is not ToS as a bit field or as an enumerator of a slice.
   However, it would appear to be an advantage to take things a bit
   further and use them as a pointer to ancillary data below the BoS.
   This ancillary data can then be accessed and processed as needed
   whenever the SPL is being processed.

   The advantages of doing this are:

   o  The ability to find the ancillary data without scanning the whole
      stack.  Speculatively scanning the label stack can be expensive in
      Network Processor Unit (NPU) processing time, particularly if the
      stack is deep.

   o  Ability to specify which ancillary data is applicable at the hop
      being processed.

   o  The use of a pointer or set of pointers allows for a simple packet
      parser.

   o  The approach is inherently general and extensible.

   This concept is illustrated in Figure 1.




Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


        +-------------------------+
     L1 |      Top of Stack       |
        +-------------------------+
     L2 |      Pointer SPL        |-----+
        +-------------------------+     |
        |                         |     |
        .                         .     |
        .                         .     |
        |                         |     |
        +-------------------------+     |
        |      Bottom of Stack    |     |
      ===============================   |
        |      Ancillary Data     |     |
        .                         .     |
        .                         .<----+
        |                         |
        +-------------------------+

                  Figure 1: Use of In-stack MPLS pointer

   The ToS label (L1) and Pointer SPL (L2) form a tuple with the
   semantic "process the action that the Forwarding Equivalence Class
   (FEC) of the ToS label specifies with the assistance of the
   information pointed to by the following SPL".  Ideally L2 is SPL
   requiring a single LSE rather than an Extended SPL (ESPL) requiring
   two LSEs.  Whilst the additional LSE required for an ESPL may not
   initially seem significant, the authors imagine that there may be
   cases where multiple pointer labels will be required.

   Let us consider the case when the ToS is not an SPL of any kind.  In
   this case, the forwarder looks at the following LSE (i.e., the LSE
   that immediately succeeds the ToS).  If that LSE is not a pointer
   SPL, forwarding is performed as normal.  If, on the other hand, the
   following label is a pointer SPL, the forwarder uses the information
   pointed to by the pointer as assistance in the forwarding operation.

   Note that whilst the pointer can be simply point to the end of the
   stack, which aligns with the other MPLS proposals being made, the
   ideas discussed here can actually point to a specific item within the
   MPLS payload i.e. to a specific item of ancillary data.  This in turn
   also means that different LSEs can point to different ancillary data
   components.  This allows the MPLS application or packet designer to
   express sophisticated behavior in which it is possibly to apply
   different ancillary data to different LSEs, i.e.  different network
   segments.






Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


4.  Label Operations: Popping and Swapping

   When the ToS is popped, consideration needs to be given to any
   Pointer SPL immediately following it.
   In the basic case, a Pointer SPL will simply be popped along with the
   ToS.

   There will be cases in in which the same Pointer SPL applies to
   multiple labels.  In those cases, requiring the forwarder to pop the
   Pointer SPL along with the ToS results in the need to carry multiple
   instances of the same Pointer SPL, one for each label to which it
   applies.  As an optimization, it will make sense to offer a second
   behavioral option in which, upon popping the ToS, any subsequent
   Pointer SPL will be swapped with the next FEC label.  This case is
   depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

        +-------------------------+
     L1 |      Top of Stack       |
        +-------------------------+
     L2 |      Pointer SPL        |-----+
        +-------------------------+     |
     L3 |         Next LSE        |     |
        +-------------------------+     |
     L4 |         Whatever        |     |
        +-------------------------+     |
        .                         .     |
        |                         |     |
        +-------------------------+     |
        |      Bottom of Stack    |     |
      ===============================   |
        |      Ancillary Data     |     |
        .                         .     |
        .                         .<----+
        |                         |
        +-------------------------+

                  Figure 2: Before Pop - Swap operation:














Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


        +-------------------------+
     L3 |  Next LSE (New ToS)     |
        +-------------------------+
     L2 |        Pointer SPL      |-----+
        +-------------------------+     |
     L4 |         Whatever        |     |
        +-------------------------+     |
        .                         .     |
        .                         .     |
        |                         |     |
        +-------------------------+     |
        |      Bottom of Stack    |     |
      ===============================   |
        |      Ancillary Data     |     |
        .                         .     |
        .                         .<----+
        |                         |
        +-------------------------+

                   Figure 3: After Pop - Swap operation:

   When this optimization is applied, there needs to be a distinction
   that allows a forwarder to determine whether a Pointer SPL should be
   popped along with its ToS, or whether it should be swapped with the
   next FEC label below.
   One possibility is to indicate this in the FEC of the LSE that
   precedes the Pointer SPL, or perhaps it can be indicated by using one
   of its bits as a corresponding flag.  Alternatively a perhaps some
   method can be found whereby a "TTL" can be associated with the
   pointer label.  How to best indicate this end-of-use distinction is
   for further study.

5.  Use of Multiple Pointers

   One problem to be solved is how to support multiple independent (sets
   of) ancillary data in the MPLS header in support of different
   (forwarding, OAM etc) operations associated with the ancillary data.
   In IP/IPv6, ancillary data is encoded in the packet header through a
   sequence of Extension Headers (EH).  For IPv6, [RFC8200] defines
   several EH types, each of which implies a specific set of nodes that
   have to process the EH and their order.  This approach results in a
   complex parsing requirement for IPv6 packets when multiple extension
   headers are used and very rigid encoding and EH semantic difficult to
   extend.

   Instead of limiting processing to a single pointer, it is possible to
   generalize the above concepts to allow for multiple pointers.  This
   increases flexibility by allowing the packet designer to include



Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


   pointers to multiple sets of ancillary data, each of which can be
   potentially used for a different purpose.
   Therefore, the use of multiple adjacent Pointer SPLs is allowed.
   This means that ToS processing takes into considerations all Pointer
   SPLs that immediately follow.

   A pointer mechanism in the MPLS label stack provides a method of
   using multiple pointers to express two (or more) sets of ancillary
   data, for example a latency object and an iOAM object.  An example is
   shown in Figure 4.

        +-------------------------+
     L1 |      Top of Stack       |
        +-------------------------+
     L2 |      Pointer SPL        |-----+
        +-------------------------+     |
     L3 |      Pointer SPL        |-----|---+
        +-------------------------+     |   |
        |                         |     |   |
        .                         .     |   |
        .                         .     |   |
        |                         |     |   |
        +-------------------------+     |   |
        |      Bottom of Stack    |     |   |
      ===============================   |   |
        |      Ancillary Data     |     |   |
        .                         .     |   |
        .                         .<----+   |
        .                         .         |
        .                         .<--------+
        |                         |
        +-------------------------+

             Figure 4: Use of Multiple In-stack MPLS Pointers

   As in Figure 1 the top three labels are a tuple that in this case
   have the semantics "process the action that the FEC of the ToS label
   specifies with the assistance of the information pointed to by the
   following SPLs", in this case the label set L1, L2, L3.  The tuple
   terminates when either an "ordinary" label, an SPL that is not a
   pointer SPL, or a label with the S bit set is encountered.

   The Figure 5 further illustrates this capability.  Here in this
   example two LSEs, Li and Lj, are each associated with two pointers.
   The FEC of Li therefore indicates that execution of Li includes the
   use of Ancillary Data 1 and 2, and execution of Lj includes the use
   of ancillary data 2 and 3.




Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


         +-------------------------+
    L1   |      Top of Stack       |
         +-------------------------+
         .                         .
         +-------------------------+
    Li   | FEC     LSE             |
         | Pointer                 |---------+
         | Pointer                 |-----+   |
         +-------------------------+     |   |
         |                         |     |   |
         .                         .     |   |
         +-------------------------+     |   |
    Lj   | FEC     LSE             |     |   |
         | Pointer                 |-----|---+
         | Pointer                 |---+ |   |
         +-------------------------+   | |   |
         .                         .   | |   |
         |                         |   | |   |
         +-------------------------+   | |   |
         |      Bottom of Stack    |   | |   |
         ===========================   | |   |
         |   Ancillary Data 1      |<--|-+   |
         .                         .   |     |
         +-------------------------+   |     |
         |  Ancillary Data 2       |<--|-----+
         .                         .   |
         +-------------------------+   |
         |  Ancillary Data 3       |<--+
         .                         .
         ...........................
         .         ...             .
         +-------------------------+

       Figure 5: Further Example of Multiple In-stack MPLS Pointers

   To support multiple Pointer SPLs, the following additional
   considerations apply:

   The pop operation for the ToS needs to be extended to apply to the
   entire tuple of Pointer SPLs that are in its scope, i.e. that
   immediately succeed it.  The default pop behavior will be to pop the
   entire tuple of Pointer SPLs along with the ToS.

   As described earlier, as an optimization to reduce the size of the
   label stack, Pointer SPLs can be designated to not be popped but
   instead swapped with other LSEs in the stack.  This will allow the
   same Pointer SPL set to be applied to multiple LSEs.




Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


   For an in stack swap operation where multiple pointers form a pointer
   set, the entire tuple, or group, would be swapped with the next FEC
   label below.

   In addition, mixed cases are conceivable in which some Pointer SPLs
   are popped whereas others are swapped.  Whether to pop or swap a
   Pointer SPL needs to be specified as part of the associated LSE's
   disposition behavior.

6.  Disposition of the Ancillary Data

   The ancillary data must be removed before the payload is passed out
   of the MPLS domain.  There are three methods whereby the egress PE
   can know of the presence of the ancillary data:

   o  The FEC of the BoS LSE can indicate the need to do this in a
      manner similar to pseudowires or MPLS VPN.

   o  The BoS LSE can be a special purpose label indicating the presence
      of the ancillary data.

   o  The BOS LSE can point to an item of ancillary data that describes
      the disposition of the ancillary data.

   The removal of the ancillary data may be relatively complex depending
   on its purpose, i.e. it may be more complex than removing some number
   of bytes, for example, if it is carrying latency or iOAM information.

   The structure and quantity of ancillary data including any methods
   whereby the ancillary data points to other ancillary, or whether
   there are pointer to the payload itself is out of scope for this
   document.  Such information will need to be included in the ancillary
   data design so that it can be safely processed and/or removed.

7.  Structure of Ancillary Data

   The structure of the ancillary data is outside the scope of this
   memo.

8.  Structure of Pointer Label

   A possible structure for a pointer LSE is shown in Figure 6.









Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Label                  | Flg |S|   Pointer     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Label      : contains the label that triggers the pointer behavior

   Flg (Flags): Contains a number of flags that clarify the pointer
        Bit 20: Size of pointer units, Bit 20 = 0 units are octets,
                Bit = 1 units are 16 bit quantities
   S          : BoS as per {{RFC3032}}
   Pointer    : Pointer to the start of the specific ancillary data
                block.

                        Figure 6: MPLS Pointer LSE

   The label is recognized by the forwarder as being the trigger for the
   pointer behavior.  The pointer is the offset from the pointer LSE to
   the start of the auxiliary data that is to be used at this hop to
   process the ToS label.  The pointer may be in units of octets of 16
   bit words (or 32 bit words TBD) as specified by the flag.  The S bit
   had its normal meaning in an MPLS LSE.

9.  Backward Compatibility

   If the LSP includes a legacy node that does not understand the
   pointer SPL it will forward based on the FEC of the ToS alone
   omitting the feature.  If that feature absence results in a service
   shortfall for traffic on the LSP or MPLS-SR path then obviously the
   LSP or path has to be constructed to avoid any node that is unable to
   execute the feature.  The various methods of constructing LSPs via
   LSRs with certain capabilities is well known routing technology and
   will not be further discussed in this memo.

10.  Security Considerations

   This proposal does not change the security of the MPLS data plane.
   Normal operational practice is to prohibit the ingress of an MPLS
   packet from other than a trusted source.  An attacker that breaches
   the physical security of an MPLS domain has many methods of attack by
   manipulating the label stack, and this mechanism does not
   significantly increase that risk.







Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


11.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA requests.

12.  Appendix 1: CONTROVERSY ALERT - Use Of Ordinary Labels

   Given the restricted number of Base SPLs [RFC9017] it is interesting
   to consider whether we might use an ordinary label for this purpose.
   At the time of writing there are eight out of 16 base SPLS still
   available.  This is a dilemma since there is a protocol need for
   single label SPLs to support MPLS stack efficiency, but those that we
   have available must last the development lifetime of MPLS.  On the
   other hand using a non-SPL has potential run-time/hardware issues if
   we need lots of them.  However there probably exists a compromise
   number where we can safe allocating Base SPLs but not significantly
   impact the forwarder performance with this approach.

   The label becomes a run-time constant that the forwarder needs to
   check during the parsing of the label stack.  This is a 20 bit
   compare of a run-time constant.  This is simple for a software or
   microcoded forwarder but needs a programmable register in a fully
   hardware based forwarder.  Clearly from a protocol design perspective
   it is necessary to check the restrictions on the deployed hardware,
   but this certainly seems feasible.  In deployment it will of course
   be necessary to verify that the routers along the LSP can support
   this feature before the LSP can be constructed.

   If an ordinary label were assigned to this purpose from the
   16-104857516 label set, there are two cases to consider: LSRs that
   have the capability of associating a FEC with a label of this value
   and LSRs that do not.

   If an LSR has the capability to allocate a FEC with the chosen value
   it is necessary to preallocate this label before any MPLS application
   takes that value.  This may impact a number of MPLS applications, but
   it seems feasible.

   An LSR that does not have the capability to allocate a FEC with this
   value simply has the issue of adapting the forwarding behavior.

   The matter of choosing a suitable value and distributing it is
   outside the scope of this memo, but is something that is routinely
   done in the routing system so is not a factor in assessing
   feasibility.

   Clearly the LSP needs to be constructed so as to avoid any LSR that
   is unable to process a packet with one of these sequestered ordinary
   labels, but that is no different to the case where an SPL is used.



Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


   The final consideration is what happens if the label every becomes
   ToS.  For this to happen the packet must have been incorrectly
   processed, and that is no different from any other case of a
   incorrectly processed MPLS packet.

13.  Appendix 2: Other Issues for Discussion

   This appendix briefly describes a number of issue that require
   further consideration.

   1) Pointer labels as described earlier in this document are defined
   using an offset that is calculated from the pointer label.
   An alternative approach, given that we may not get rid of scanning
   for the BoS in MPLS header parsing, is to consider a design in which
   offsets were relative to the BoS instead.  We could use this as a
   standard method, or we could specify this via a flag in the LSE
   carrying the offset.

   The relative to BoS relative approach can be more efficient in some
   circumstances, e.g.: When the ancillary data is applicable to
   multiple hops of a label stack that is indicating a steering path,
   such as in SR-MPLS, the FEC of every steering hop label could
   indicate to "reuse" the ancillary data for every hop.  The MPLS
   operation would then consist of a pop of the ToS label followed by a
   swap of the two top labels with each other, so that the following
   steering label effectively gets pulled up as ToS.

   2) To support pointers being valid across multiple hops, the pointer
   either needs to be indicated either as an offset relative to BoS, or
   the value of the pointer in the pointer-SPL needs to be adjusted by a
   swap operation.

   3) The LSE pointer could include a lifetime indicating the number of
   times it is to be propagated.  This raises the following issue.

   4) The pointer mechanism has to be able to deal with multiple
   instances of ancillary data applicable to specific elements within
   the LSP.  So it is important to know when to stop propagating any
   pointer if that approach is adopted (instead of, for example adopting
   an approach of one pointer LSE per ToS label.

   5) We need to decide of correct name for pointer SPL.

14.  Appendix 3: Ancillary vs Auxiliary vs Metadata

   From the Oxford English Dictionary:





Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


   o  Ancillary: Designating activities and services that provide
      essential support to the functioning of a central service or
      industry;

   o  Auxiliary: Helpful, assistant, affording aid, rendering
      assistance, giving support or succour(sic).

   o  Metadata(sic): data whose purpose is to describe and give
      information about other data.

   The two terms ancillary and auxiliary are similar but the additional
   qualifier that ancillary is _essential_ support make it, in the
   author's view, the preferred term.

   Metadata, the term often used in the technical discussions does
   appear to be sufficiently descriptive of the purpose of this
   information that is included in the packet.

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.

   [RFC9017]  Andersson, L., Kompella, K., and A. Farrel, "Special-
              Purpose Label Terminology", RFC 9017,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9017, April 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9017>.

15.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.kompella-mpls-mspl4fa]
              Kompella, K., Beeram, V. P., Saad, T., and I. Meilik,
              "Multi-purpose Special Purpose Label for Forwarding
              Actions", draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa-00 (work in
              progress), February 2021.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.







Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                MPLS-Aux-Ptr                      May 2021


Authors' Addresses

   Stewart Bryant
   Futurewei Technologies, Inc.

   Email: sb@stewartbryant.com


   Alexander Clemm
   Futurewei Technologies, Inc.

   Email: ludwig@clemm.org


   Toerless Eckert
   Futurewei Technologies, Inc.

   Email: tte@cs.fau.de

































Bryant, et al.          Expires November 19, 2021              [Page 14]