Network Working Group W. Cheng
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Informational G. Mishra
Expires: April 28, 2022 Verizon Inc.
Z. Li
Huawei Technologies
A. Wang
China Telecom
Z. Qin
China Unicom
C. Fan
New H3C Technologies
October 25, 2021
Design Consideration of IPv6 Multicast Source Routing (MSR6)
draft-cheng-spring-ipv6-msr-design-consideration-01
Abstract
This document discusses the design consideration of IPv6 source
routing multicast solution.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 April 28, 2022.
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Reference Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Deployment Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Conventional Multicast Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Host-Initiated Multicast Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Multicast Overlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Design Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Path Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Resource Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Deterministic Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4. Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.5. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.6. Forwarding Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. MVPN or GTM service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. File Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. WebRTC Relaying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Multicast could provide efficient P2MP service without bandwidth
waste. The increasing amount of live video traffic in the network
bring new requirements for multicast solutions. Traditional
multicast solutions request multicast tree-building on control plane
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
and maintaining end-to-end tree state per flow, which impacts router
state capacity and network convergence time.
There has been a lot of work in IETF to simplify service deployment,
in which Source Routing is a very important technology. Source
routing is able to reduce the state of intermediate nodes and
indicate unicast forwarding in the ingress nodes, which could
simplify unicast deployment. Source routing requires sufficient
flexibility on the forwarding plane and IPv6 has the advantage with
good scalability. Particularly, based on the IPv6 data plane, SRv6
could be deployed not only in a controlled domain where routers and
hosts are running SRv6 cooperatively.
With the same stateless design, there is another work called Bit
Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] introduced in IETF. The
BIER solution is different than the traditional multicast and the
benefits have been understood by the community. However, the BIER
architecture is designed to be Layer-2.6 independent layer, and aims
to be used in a domain comprised of routers only, where the Ingress
router encapsulate a received multicast packet with BIER header and
traverse through the domain, wherein the Egress router decapsluate
the multicast packet from the BIER encapsulation and forward the
multicast packet further as traditional multicast does.
With the deployment of SRv6, there is arising requirements to build
solutions where hosts and routers are cooperatively deployed in a
controlled domain, and stateless multicast solution start from hosts.
Therefore, it is important to also have a layer-3 stateless multicast
solution based on IPv6 data plane, which we called multicast source
routing (MSR6).
This document discusses the design consideration of IPv6 multicast
source routing (MSR6) solution. It combines the SRv6 Network
programming concept and BIER concept to build a new Layer-3 stateless
multicast solution.
2. Terminology
3. Reference Mode
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
+---+
| A | -----------------
+---+ |
/ \ |
+---+ +---+ |
| B | | C | MSR6 domain
+---+ +---+ |
/ | | \ |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ |
| D | | E | | F | | G |--------
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
In the reference topology illustrated in Figure 1, it is assumed:
o The MSR6 domain is comprised by node A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
o Node A is root node. Node B and C are transit nodes. Node D, E,
F and G are leaf nodes.
o The root and leaf nodes can be hosts or routers.
o The transit nodes are routers functioning the MSR6 routing and
forwarding procedures.
4. Deployment Modes
4.1. Conventional Multicast Deployment
The first deployment mode is dipicted in below figure.
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
+--------------+
|Client Network|
+--------------+
|
+---+
| A |------------------
+---+ |
/ \ |
+---+ +---+ |
| B | | C | MSR6 domain
+---+ +---+ |
/ | | \ |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ |
| D | | E | | F | | G |--------
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| | | |
+------------------------+
| Client Network |
+------------------------+
In this case, MSR6 domain is comprised of routers only. The Ingress
router A encapsulates a multicast packet received from client Network
with a tunnel header and the encapsulated packet will traverse
through the domain, wherein the Egress router decapsluate the
multicast packet from the BIER encapsulation and forward the
multicast packet further to the client network. This is similar to
the BIER architecture with a difference that the the MSR6 uses IPv6
based dataplane.
4.2. Host-Initiated Multicast Deployment
The second deployment mode is dipicted in below figure.
+---------+
|Server A | --------------
+---------+ |
/ \ |
+---+ +---+ |
| B | | C | |
+---+ +---+ MSR6 domain
/ | | \ |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ |
|Ser| |Ser| |Ser| |Ser| |
| D | | E | | F | | G |--------
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
In this case, MSR6 domain is comprised of hosts and routers, where
node A/D/E/F/G are hosts which is usually a server instead of the
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
user-equipment(UE). MSR6 packet is originated at Server A, and
destined to Server D, E, F and G.
4.3. Multicast Overlay Network
In the Multicast Overlay Network, there is a multicast proxy node in
each site, and the contents allocation from one site to serveral
sites could be implemented by the multicast proxy nodes.
-------
/ +---+ \
+-----|---+ A +---|-----+
| \ +---+ / |
| -Site a- |
| |
------- ---|---
/ +-+-+ \ / +-+-+ \
| | B | | +-|---+ C +---|-+
\ +---+ / | \ +---+ / |
-Site b- | -Site c- |
---|--- ---|---
/ +-+-+ \ / +-+-+ \
| | D | | | + E + |
\ +---+ / \ +---+ /
-Site d- -Site e-
An example of the Multicast Overlay Network could be as follows:
o Each client of the sites collect the information of the multicast
proxy nodes and their connection relationship;
o Several clients, from site b,d,e, request the same contents in one
client X of site a at the same time;
o Client X generates a P2MP path from Site a to site b,d,e and the
path is encoded into an MRH A;
o Client X sends out the requested contents by an IPv6 packet with
MRH A, indicating the P2MP path explicitely;
o The packet is transported to the clients in site b,d,e through
proxy A in site a and Proxy C in site c;
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
5. Design Consideration
Firstly, MSR6 needs to support the basic multicast functionalities,
including:
o P2MP Forwarding: replicate and forward multicast packet to the
next replication nodes;
o Multicast Flow Overlay: multicast service, such as MVPN
o P2MP OAM functions: Ping/Traceroute/BFD
In addition to this, it is necessary for MSR6 to meet the need of
high quality service with high reliability, including:
o Traffic Engineering: explicit path specification to satisfy
different kinds of requirements
o FRR
o E2E Protection
o Advanced network measurement functions, including: performance
measurement and In-situ Flow Information Telemetry, which is the
basis for traffic engineering and high quality transport service.
The IPv6 multicast source routing should take use of the advantages
of source routing to reduce the state of the network as much as
possible. That is, it should satisfy the above requirements with
high scalability.
However, MSR6 is not about starting from scratch. The existing IETF
work should be reused as much as possible:
o BIER [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) defined in [RFC8279] is an
architecture providing optimal multicast forwarding without requiring
intermediate routers to maintain any per-flow state by using a
multicast-specific BIER header. BIER use bitstring in the BIER
header to indicate leaf nodes which gives an efficient solution for
stateless multicast solution. flow without the requirement of Traffic
Engineering.
o SRv6([RFC8986])
SRv6 has advantages in indicating explicit paths, which brings
convenience for unicast TE and FRR. MSR6 TE should refer to the
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
experience of SRv6. In addition, SRv6 provides flexible path
programming capability with the definition of different type of
segments. MSR6 could make use the of existing segments in the design
of TE/FRR . For example, path segment
([I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment]) could help to enhance the
performance measurement capability. In the meantime, SRv6
compression ([I-D.srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement]) is under
discussion to reduce encapsulation overhead, which could also be
reused by MSR6.
o The existing and ongoing IPv6 extensions
1) Existing functionalities including fragmentation and security
Multicast packets need to be fragmented and secured as they pass
through the IPv6 network. This can be done using IPv6 Fragmentation
and ESP(Encapsulating Security Payload) defined in [RFC8200]. Work
about Path MTU [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu] which supports
fragmentation, is also under discussion. All these existing work
should be reused in the MSR6.
2) New network functionalities based on the ongoing IPv6 Extensions,
including Network Slicing, Deterministic Networking(DetNet),
IOAM.etc.
Network slicing ([I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]) and DetNet
([RFC8655]) are being introduced to satisfy the quality service
requirements of critical services. IOAM ([I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data])
is also introduced to implement in-situ network measurement. IPv6
data plane is being used to support network slicing
([I-D.li-6man-e2e-ietf-network-slicing] and
[I-D.dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id]), Detnet
([I-D.geng-spring-srv6-for-detnet] and
[I-D.geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection]), IOAM
([I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]), etc. Multicast service can also benefit
from these new network functionalities to improve quality of service.
MSR6 could reuse the ongoing work based on IPv6 extensions to
implement the functionalities for multicast services.
3) Future possible work based on IPv6 extensions, including
Application Aware Network (APN)
APN ([I-D.li-apn-framework]) is used to provide more granular
services, which can use IPv6 extension header to carry APN
information for the purpose of steering traffic, etc. MSR6 can
combine with APN to map the traffic to different Network-based
multicast services/functionalities according to the APN information
in the IPv6 data plane.
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
4) MSR6 is also supposed to be started at the Host based on IPv6
In [RFC8754], it is supposed that a host can originate the IPv6
source routing packet. MSR6 should take use of the native IPv6
design and support originating the IPv6 packet by the host.
6. Requirements
This section describes the overall requirements which need to be
fulfilled by MSR6.
6.1. Path Programming
When the multicast root and leafs are determined, the multicast
service may be forwarded along different multicast paths/trees. Each
multicast tree has different performance attribute, such as
bandwidth, delay, etc. For instance, tree A is the shortest path
from root 1 to leaf 1-100, which has the lowest delay, while the
other tree B from the same root to same leafs can provide more
bandwidth than tree A. Therefore, the delay-sensitive traffic like
cloud AR/VR traffic SHOULD be forwarded along with tree A, and the
traffic that is delay-insensitive but requiring large bandwidth like
8k HD Video be forwarded along with tree B.
In order to meet the different SLA requirements, IPv6-based MSR6 MUST
support path programming.
6.2. Resource Assurance
Network slicing is another method to provide SLA differentiated
services, because it is able to provide separate and independent
logical network over the physical network infrastructure. Each
Network Slicing has its own allocated resource, which can also meet
the specific SLA requirements for different multicast service. Or an
independent network slice could be allocated to all the multicast
service, which could provide multicast service with better transport
performance than normal unicast service.
So in order to provide SLA guaranteed services, MSR6 SHOULD support
network slicing.
6.3. Deterministic Delay
Some delay-sensitive multicast traffic may have the strict
requirements for network delay, especailly in some scenario of IoT or
enterprise. Deterministic Networking (DetNet) defined in [RFC8655]
could provide service with E2E latency upper bound for both unicast
and multicast. Therefore, MSR6 shoud support DetNet.
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
6.4. Performance Measurement
Many OAM mechanisms are used to support network operation.
Performance Measurement (PM) is one of the most important part of
OAM. With PM, the real-time QoS of the forwarding path, like delay,
packet loss ratio and throughput, can be measured.
PM can be implemented in one of three ways: active, passive, or
hybrid defined in [RFC7799], differing in whether OAM packets need to
be proactively sent.
On-path telemetry, defined in [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework] , is
an hybrid mode OAM/PM mechanism, which provides better accuracy than
active PM.
Some multicast scenarios have strong requirement for PM, therefore
on-path Performance Measurement SHOULD be supported in MSR6.
6.5. Reliability
In scenarios where multicast is used to carry video streams, packet
loss can lead to impaired video quality. So high reliability is
required in these scenarios. E2E protection and local protection of
node and links MUST be supported in MSR6. Furthermore, root and leaf
node protection SHOULD be supported.
6.6. Forwarding Efficiency
Multicast is used for saving bandwidth cost with the capability of
replication and forwarding.
Path Maximum Transmission Unit indicates the maximum size of a packet
that it can be forwarded along a path. Setting an appropriate PMTU
for packets can avoid fragmentation or dropping, so that the
forwarding efficiency can be raised.
Also, the overhead of packets MUST be added very carefully since it
affects the forwarding efficiency directly. For example, when many
SIDs are inserted in an SRv6 packet, the overhead of the SID list is
too large.
Therefore, the MSR6 MUST support PMTU probing and configuration. In
addition, it SHOULD support compression when it is necessary.
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
7. Use Cases
7.1. MVPN or GTM service
MVPN(multicast virtual private network, RFC6513) and GTM(Global
Table Multicast, RFC7716) are usual cases for conventional deployment
mode, where MSR6 acts as P-tunnel of c-multicast packets.
7.2. File Delivery
File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport (FLUTE, RFC6726) is a
common use case for multicast. The traditional multicast or MSR6
conventional deployment mode are both valid candidates for FLUTE,
where the application in host could Join a multicast Group address,
and receive multicast packet carrying file content.
In some other cases, File delivery to multiple hosts efficiently (for
example, video editing) may need within a data center network, but
the data center may not support underlay multicast routing of any
form in the Fabric infrastructure. In such cases, Host-initialized
MSR6 could be used as figure dipcted below. Server A originates a
MSR6 packet carrying file content bytes and sends to B or C. Router
B or C receives the MSR6 packet and replicate to Server D/E/F/G.
Server D/E/F/G receives the MSR6 packet and gets the file content
bytes within it. Router B or C acts as overlay Multicast Service
Node [RFC8293] in this case.
+---------+
|Server A | ------------------
+---------+ |
/ \ |
/ \ |
+-----------+ +---+ |
| +-----| B | |
| | +---+ |
| IP Fabric | MSR6 domain
| | +---+ |
| +-----| C | |
+-----------+ +---+ |
/ | | \ |
/ | | \ |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ |
|Ser| |Ser| |Ser| |Ser| |
| D | | E | | F | | G |------------
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
7.3. WebRTC Relaying
Web Real-Time Communications (WebRTC) is now an official World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C) and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
standard. In supporting of multiparty conference, WebRTC Gateway is
usually deployed to switch audio and video packets between multiple
clients. The figure dipects the case, where C1 to C7 are WebRTC
client (e.g., browser), and Server A, D, E, F and G are WebRTC
gateways. Within the MSR6 doamin, MSR6 is used in both hosts and
routers.
C1 C2 C3
\ | /
+---------+
|Server A | --------------
+---------+ |
/ \ |
+---+ +---+ |
| B | | C | |
+---+ +---+ MSR6 domain
/ | | \ |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ |
|Ser| |Ser| |Ser| |Ser| |
| D | | E | | F | | G |--------
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| | | |
C4 C5 C6 C7
8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
9. Security Considerations
10. Acknowledgements
11. Normative References
[I-D.dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id]
Dong, J., Li, Z., Xie, C., Ma, C., and G. Mishra,
"Carrying Virtual Transport Network (VTN) Identifier in
IPv6 Extension Header", draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-
id-06 (work in progress), October 2021.
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
[I-D.geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection]
Geng, X., Chen, M., Yang, F., Garvia, P. C., and G.
Mishra, "SRv6 for Redundancy Protection", draft-geng-
spring-sr-redundancy-protection-05 (work in progress),
August 2021.
[I-D.geng-spring-srv6-for-detnet]
Geng, X., Li, Z., and M. Chen, "SRv6 for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet)", draft-geng-spring-srv6-for-detnet-01
(work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu]
Li, C., Zhu, Y., Sawaf, A. E., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing
Path MTU in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-04
(work in progress), October 2021.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-15 (work in
progress), October 2021.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment]
Li, C., Cheng, W., Chen, M., Dhody, D., Gandhi, R., and Y.
Zhu, "Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6)",
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-02 (work in progress),
May 2021.
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]
Farrel, A., Gray, E., Drake, J., Rokui, R., Homma, S.,
Makhijani, K., Contreras, L. M., and J. Tantsura,
"Framework for IETF Network Slices", draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
network-slices-04 (work in progress), August 2021.
[I-D.li-6man-e2e-ietf-network-slicing]
Li, Z. and J. Dong, "Encapsulation of End-to-End IETF
Network Slice Information in IPv6", draft-li-6man-e2e-
ietf-network-slicing-00 (work in progress), April 2021.
[I-D.li-apn-framework]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Voyer, D., Li, C., Liu, P., Cao, C.,
Mishra, G., Ebisawa, K., Previdi, S., and J. N. Guichard,
"Application-aware Networking (APN) Framework", draft-li-
apn-framework-03 (work in progress), May 2021.
[I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework]
Song, H., Qin, F., Chen, H., Jin, J., and J. Shin, "In-
situ Flow Information Telemetry", draft-song-opsawg-ifit-
framework-16 (work in progress), October 2021.
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
[I-D.srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement]
Cheng, W., Xie, C., Bonica, R., Dukes, D., Li, C., Shaofu,
P., and W. Henderickx, "Compressed SRv6 SID List
Requirements", draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-
requirement-07 (work in progress), July 2021.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[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>.
[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RFC8663] Xu, X., Bryant, S., Farrel, A., Hassan, S., Henderickx,
W., and Z. Li, "MPLS Segment Routing over IP", RFC 8663,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8663, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8663>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Design Consideration of MSR6 October 2021
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc.
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Zhuangzhuang Qin
China Unicom
Email: qinzhuangzhuang@chinaunicom.cn
Chi Fan
New H3C Technologies
Email: fanchi@h3c.com
Cheng, et al. Expires April 28, 2022 [Page 15]