Internet Engineering Task Force IJ. Wijnands, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track E. Rosen, Ed.
Expires: October 20, 2016 Juniper Networks, Inc.
A. Dolganow
Nokia
J. Tantsura
Ericsson
S. Aldrin
Google, Inc.
April 18, 2016
Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication in MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-04
Abstract
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that
provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "multicast domain",
without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any per-flow state
or to engage in an explicit tree-building protocol. When a multicast
data packet enters the domain, the ingress router determines the set
of egress routers to which the packet needs to be sent. The ingress
router then encapsulates the packet in a BIER header. The BIER
header contains a bitstring in which each bit represents exactly one
egress router in the domain; to forward the packet to a given set of
egress routers, the bits corresponding to those routers are set in
the BIER header. The details of the encapsulation depend on the type
of network used to realize the multicast domain. This document
specifies the BIER encapsulation to be used in an MPLS network.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 20, 2016.
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The BIER-MPLS Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. BIER Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Imposing and Processing the BIER Encapsulation . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
[BIER_ARCH] describes a new architecture for the forwarding of
multicast data packets. That architecture provides optimal
forwarding of multicast data packets through a "multicast domain".
However, it does not require any explicit tree-building protocol, and
does not require intermediate nodes to maintain any per-flow state.
That architecture is known as "Bit Index Explicit Replication"
(BIER).
This document will use terminology defined in [BIER_ARCH].
A router that supports BIER is known as a "Bit-Forwarding Router"
(BFR). A "BIER domain" is a connected set of Bit-Forwarding Routers
(BFRs), each of which has been assigned a BFR-prefix. A BFR-prefix
is a routable IP address of a BFR, and is used by BIER to identify a
BFR. A packet enters a BIER domain at an ingress BFR (BFIR), and
leaves the BIER domain at one or more egress BFRs (BFERs). As
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
specified in [BIER_ARCH], each BFR of a given BIER domain is
provisioned to be in one or more "sub-domains". In the context of a
given sub-domain, each BFIR and BFER must have a BFR-id that is
unique within that sub-domain. A BFR-id is just a number in the
range [1,65535] that, relative to a BIER sub-domain, identifies a BFR
uniquely.
As described in [BIER_ARCH], BIER requires that multicast data
packets be encapsulated with a header that provides the information
needed to support the BIER forwarding procedures. This information
includes the sub-domain to which the packet has been assigned, a Set-
Id (SI), a BitString, and a BitStringLength. Together these values
identify the set of BFERs to which the packet must be delivered.
This document is applicable when a given BIER domain is both an IGP
domain and an MPLS network. In this environment, the BIER
encapsulation consists of two components:
o an MPLS label (which we will call the "BIER-MPLS label"); this
label appears at the bottom of a packet's MPLS label stack.
o a BIER header, as specified in Section 3.
Following the BIER header is the "payload". The payload may be an
IPv4 packet, an IPv6 packet, an ethernet frame, an MPLS packet, or an
OAM packet. If it is an MPLS packet, then an MPLS label stack
immediately follows the BIER header. The top label of this MPLS
label stack may be either a downstream-assigned label [RFC3032] or an
upstream-assigned label [RFC5331]. The BIER header contains
information (the Next Protocol field) identifying the type of the
payload.
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].
2. The BIER-MPLS Label
As stated in [BIER_ARCH], when a BIER domain is also an IGP domain,
IGP extensions can be used by each BFR to advertise the BFR-id and
BFR-prefix. The extensions for OSPF are given in
[OSPF_BIER_EXTENSIONS]. The extensions for ISIS are given in
[ISIS_BIER_EXTENSIONS].
When a particular BIER domain is both an IGP domain and an MPLS
network, we assume that each BFR will also use IGP extensions to
advertise a set of one or more "BIER-MPLS" labels. When the domain
contains a single sub-domain, a given BFR needs to advertise one such
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
label for each combination of SI and BitStringLength. If the domain
contains multiple sub-domains, a BFR needs to advertise one such
label per SI per BitStringLength for each sub-domain.
The BIER-MPLS labels are locally significant (i.e., unique only to
the BFR that advertises them) downstream-assigned MPLS labels.
Penultimate hop popping MUST NOT be applied to a BIER-MPLS label.
Suppose for example that there is a single sub-domain (the default
sub-domain), that the network is using a BitStringLength of 256, and
that all BFERs in the sub-domain have BFR-ids in the range [1,512].
Since each BIER BitString is 256 bits long, this requires the use of
two SIs: SI=0 and SI=1. So each BFR will advertise, via IGP
extensions, two MPLS labels for BIER: one corresponding to SI=0 and
one corresponding to SI=1. The advertisements of these labels will
also bind each label to the default sub-domain and to the
BitStringLength 256.
As another example, suppose a particular BIER domain contains 2 sub-
domains (sub-domain 0 and sub-domain 1), supports 2 BitStringLengths
(256 and 512), and contains 1024 BFRs. A BFR that is provisioned for
both sub-domains, and that supports both BitStringLengths, would have
to advertise the following set of BIER-MPLS labels:
L1: corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 256, SI 0.
L2: corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 256, SI 1.
L3: corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 256, SI 2.
L4: corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 256, SI 3.
L5: corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 512, SI 0.
L6: corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 512, SI 1.
L7: corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 256, SI 0.
L8: corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 256, SI 1.
L9: corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 256, SI 2.
L10: corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 256, SI 3.
L11: corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 512, SI 0.
L12: corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 512, SI 1.
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
The above example should not be taken as implying that the BFRs need
to advertise 12 individual labels. For instance, instead of
advertising a label for <sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 512, SI 0> and
a label for <sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 512, SI 1>, a BFR could
advertise a contiguous range of labels (in this case, a range
containing exactly two labels) corresponding to <sub-domain 1,
BitStringLength 512>. The first label in the range could correspond
to SI 0, and the second to SI 1. The precise mechanism for
generating and forming the advertisements is outside the scope of
this document. See [OSPF_BIER_EXTENSIONS] and
[ISIS_BIER_EXTENSIONS].
Note that, in practice, labels only have to be assigned if they are
going to be used. If a particular BIER domain supports
BitStringLengths 256 and 512, but some sub-domain, say sub-domain 1,
only uses BitStringLength 256, then it is not necessary to assign
labels that correspond to the combination of sub-domain 1 and
BitStringLength 512.
When a BFR receives an MPLS packet, and the next label to be
processed is one of its BIER-MPLS labels, it will assume that a BIER
header (see Section 3) immediately follows the stack. It will also
infer the packet's sub-domain, SI, and BitStringLength from the
label. The packet's "incoming TTL" (see below) is taken from the TTL
field of the label stack entry that contains the BIER-MPLS label.
The BFR MUST perform the MPLS TTL processing correctly. If the
packet is forwarded to one or more BFR adjacencies, the BIER-MPLS
label carried by the forwarded packet MUST have a TTL field whose
value is one less than that of the incoming TTL.
Of course, if the incoming TTL is 1, the packet MUST be treated as a
packet whose TTL has been exceeded. The packet MUST NOT be
forwarded, but it MAY be passed to other layers for processing (e.g.,
to cause an ICMP message to be generated, and/or to invoke BIER-
specific traceroute procedures, and/or to invoke other OAM
procedures.)
3. BIER Header
The BIER header is shown in Figure 1. This header appears after the
end of the MPLS label stack, immediately after the MPLS-BIER label.
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1| Ver | Len | Entropy |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BitString (first 32 bits) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ BitString (last 32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|OAM| Reserved | Proto | BFIR-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: BIER Header
First nibble:
The first 4 bits of the header are set to 0101; this ensures that
the BIER header will not be confused with an IP header or with the
header of a pseudowire packet. If a BFR receives a BIER packet
with any other value in the first nibble, it SHOULD discard the
packet and log an error.
Ver:
This 4-bit field identifies the version of the BIER header. This
document specifies version 0 of the BIER header. If a packet is
received by a particular BFR, and that BFR does not support the
specified version of the BIER header, the BFR MUST discard the
packet and log an error.
The value 0xF is reserved for experimental use; that value MUST
NOT be assigned by any future IETF document or by IANA.
Len:
This 4-bit field encodes the length in bits of the BitString.
Note: When parsing the BIER header, a BFR MUST infer the length of
the BitString from the BIER-MPLS label, not from the value of this
field. This field is present only to enable off-line tools (such
as LAN analyzers) to parse the BIER header.
If k is the length of the BitString, the value of this field is
log2(k)-5. However, only certain values are supported:
1: 64 bits
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
2: 128 bits
3: 256 bits
4: 512 bits
5: 1024 bits
6: 2048 bits
7: 4096 bits
The value of this field MUST NOT be set to any value other than
those listed above. A received packet containing another value in
this field SHOULD be discarded, and an error logged. If the value
in this field is other than what is expected based on the BIER-
MPLS label, the packet SHOULD be discarded and an error logged.
Entropy:
This 20-bit field specifies an "entropy" value that can be used
for load balancing purposes. The BIER forwarding process may do
equal cost load balancing, but the load balancing procedure MUST
choose the same path for any two packets have the same entropy
value.
If a BFIR is encapsulating (as the payload) MPLS packets that have
entropy labels, the BFIR MUST ensure that if two such packets have
the same MPLS entropy label, they also have the same value of the
BIER entropy field.
BitString:
The BitString that, together with the packet's SI, identifies the
destination BFERs for this packet. Note that the SI for the
packet is inferred from the BIER-MPLS label that precedes the BIER
header.
OAM:
These two bits are used for the passive performance measurement
marking method described in [PPM].
Reserved:
These 10 bits are currently unused. They SHOULD be set to zero
upon transmission, and MUST be ignored upon reception.
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
Proto:
This 4-bit "Next Protocol" field identifies the type of the
payload. (The "payload" is the packet or frame immediately
following the BIER header.) The protocol field may take any of
the following values:
1: MPLS packet with downstream-assigned label at top of stack.
2: MPLS packet with upstream-assigned label at top of stack (see
[RFC5331]). If this value of the Proto field is used, the
BFR-id of the BFIR must be placed in the BFIR-id field. The
BFIR-id provides the "context" in which the upstream-assigned
label is interpreted.
3: Ethernet frame.
4: IPv4 packet.
5: OAM packet [BIER-OAM].
6: IPv6 packet.
IANA is requested to set up a registry called "BIER Next Protocol
Identifiers", with the above values being assigned initially.
Values 0 and 15 are reserved. Values 7-14 are available for
assignment according to the Standards Action policy ([RFC5226] and
[RFC7120]).
If a BFER receives a BIER packet, but does not recognize (or does
not support) the value of the Next Protocol field, the BFER SHOULD
discard the packet and log an error.
BFIR-id:
By default, this is the BFR-id of the BFIR, in the sub-domain to
which the packet has been assigned. The BFR-id is encoded in the
16-bit field as an unsigned integer in the range [1,65535].
Certain applications may require that the BFIR-id field contain
the BFR-id of a BFR other than the BFIR. However, that usage of
the BFIR-id field is outside the scope of the current document.
4. Imposing and Processing the BIER Encapsulation
When a BFIR receives a multicast packet from outside the BIER domain,
the BFIR carries out the following procedure:
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
1. By consulting the "multicast flow overlay" [BIER_ARCH], it
determines the value of the "Proto" field.
2. By consulting the "multicast flow overlay", it determines the set
of BFERs that must receive the packet.
3. If more than one sub-domain is supported, the BFIR assigns the
packet to a particular sub-domain. Procedures for determining
the sub-domain to which a particular packet should be assigned
are outside the scope of this document.
4. The BFIR looks up the BFR-id, in the given sub-domain, of each of
those BFERs.
5. The BFIR converts each such BFR-id into (SI, BitString) format,
as described in [BIER_ARCH].
6. All such BFR-ids that have the same SI can be encoded into the
same BitString. Details of this encoding can be found in
[BIER_ARCH]. For each distinct SI that occurs in the list of the
packet's destination BFERs:
a. The BFIR makes a copy of the multicast data packet, and
encapsulates the copy in a BIER header (see Section 3). The
BIER header contains the BitString that represents all the
destination BFERs whose BFR-ids (in the given sub-domain)
correspond to the given SI. It also contains the BFIR's
BFIR-id in the sub-domain to which the packet has been
assigned.
N.B.: For certain applications, it may be necessary for the
BFIR-id field to contain the BFR-id of a BFR other than the
BFIR that is creating the header. Such uses are outside the
scope of this document, but may be discussed in future
revisions.
b. The BFIR then applies to that copy the forwarding procedure
of [BIER_ARCH]. This may result in one or more copies of
the packet (possibly with a modified BitString) being
transmitted to a neighboring BFR.
c. Before transmitting a copy of the packet to a neighboring
BFR, the BFIR finds the BIER-MPLS label that was advertised
by the neighbor as corresponding to the given SI, sub-
domain, and BitStringLength. An MPLS label stack is then
preprended to the packet. This label stack [RFC3032] will
contain one label, the aforementioned BIER-MPLS label. The
"S" bit MUST be set, indicating the end of the MPLS label
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
stack. The TTL field of this label stack entry is set
according to policy. The packet may then be transmitted to
the neighboring BFR. (This may result in additional MPLS
labels being pushed on the stack. For example, if an RSVP-
TE tunnel is used to transmit packets to the neighbor, a
label representing that tunnel would be pushed onto the
stack.)
When an intermediate BFR is processing a received MPLS packet, and
one of the BFR's own BIER-MPLS labels rises to the top of the label
stack, the BFR infers the sub-domain, SI, and BitStringLength from
the label. The BFR then follows the forwarding procedures of
[BIER_ARCH]. If it forwards a copy of the packet to a neighboring
BFR, it first swaps the label at the top of the label stack with the
BIER-MPLS label, advertised by that neighbor, that corresponds to the
same SI, sub-domain, and BitStringLength. Note that when this swap
operation is done, the TTL field of the BIER-MPLS label of the
outgoing packet MUST be one less than the "incoming TTL" of the
packet, as defined in Section 2.
Thus a BIER-encapsulated packet in an MPLS network consists of a
packet that has:
o An MPLS label stack with a BIER-MPLS label at the bottom of the
stack.
o A BIER header, as described in Section 3.
o The payload.
The payload may be an IPv4 packet, an IPv6 packet, an ethernet frame,
an MPLS packet, or an OAM packet. If it is an MPLS packet, the BIER
header is followed by a second MPLS label stack; this stack is
separate from the stack that precedes the BIER header. For an
example of an application where it is useful to carry an MPLS packet
as the BIER payload, see [BIER_MVPN].
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to set up a registry called "BIER Next Protocol
Identifiers", with the values indicated in Section 3 being assigned
initially. Values 0 and 15 are reserved. Values 7-14 are available
for assignment according to the Standards Action policy ([RFC5226],
[RFC7120].)
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
6. Security Considerations
As this document makes use of MPLS, it inherits any security
considerations that apply to the use of the MPLS data plane.
As this document makes use of IGP extensions, it inherits any
security considerations that apply to the IGP.
The security considerations of [BIER_ARCH] also apply.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Rajiv Asati, John Bettink, Nagendra Kumar,
Christian Martin, Neale Ranns, Greg Shepherd, Ramji Vaithianathan,
and Jeffrey Zhang for their ideas and contributions to this work.
8. Contributor Addresses
Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order:
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
Mach (Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Arkadiy Gulko
Thomson Reuters
195 Broadway
New York NY 10007
United States
Email: arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com
Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018
Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Martin Horneffer
Deutsche Telekom
Hammer Str. 216-226
Muenster 48153
Germany
Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de
Uwe Joorde
Deutsche Telekom
Hammer Str. 216-226
Muenster D-48153
Germany
Email: Uwe.Joorde@telekom.de
Tony Przygienda
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, California 94089
United States
Email: prz@juniper.net
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[BIER_ARCH]
Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T.,
and S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit
Replication", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-architecture-
03, January 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
RFC 5331, DOI 10.17487/RFC5331, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5331>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
9.2. Informative References
[BIER-OAM]
Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M.,
and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", internet-draft
draft-kumarzheng-bier-ping-02.txt, December 2015.
[BIER_MVPN]
Rosen, E., Ed., Sivakumar, M., Wijnands, IJ., Aldrin, S.,
Dolganow, A., and T. Przygienda, "Multicast VPN Using
Bier", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-02, December
2015.
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
[ISIS_BIER_EXTENSIONS]
Ginsberg, L., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z. Zhang,
"BIER Support via ISIS", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-
isis-extensions-01.txt, October 2015.
[OSPF_BIER_EXTENSIONS]
Psenak, P., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., Zhang, Z., and S. Aldrin, "OSPF Extensions
for Bit Index Explicit Replication", internet-draft draft-
ietf-ospf-bier-extensions-02.txt, March 2016.
[PPM] Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., Fioccola, G., and T.
Mizrahi, "IP Flow Performance Measurement Framework",
draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-06 (work in
progress), March 2016.
Authors' Addresses
IJsbrand Wijnands (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De Kleetlaan 6a
Diegem 1831
Belgium
Email: ice@cisco.com
Eric C. Rosen (editor)
Juniper Networks, Inc.
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, Massachusetts 01886
United States
Email: erosen@juniper.net
Andrew Dolganow
Nokia
600 March Rd.
Ottawa, Ontario K2K 2E6
Canada
Email: andrew.dolganow@nokia.com
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BIER MPLS Encapsulation April 2016
Jeff Tantsura
Ericsson
300 Holger Way
San Jose, California 95134
United States
Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
Sam K Aldrin
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California
United States
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Wijnands, et al. Expires October 20, 2016 [Page 15]