DMM WG P. Seite
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track A. Yegin
Expires: December 2, 2017 Actility
S. Gundavelli
Cisco
May 31, 2017
MAG Multipath Binding Option
draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-03.txt
Abstract
This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6
protocol for allowing a mobile access gateway to register more than
one proxy care-of-address with the local mobility anchor and to
simultaneously establish multiple IP tunnels with the local mobility
anchor. This capability allows the mobile access gateway to utilize
all the available access networks for routing mobile node's IP
traffic.
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 December 2, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
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 and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Traffic distribution schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
1. Introduction
Using several links, the multihoming technology can improve
connectivity availability and quality of communications; the goals
and benefits of multihoming are as follows:
o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery
o Load balancing
o Load sharing
o Preferences settings
According to [RFC4908], users of Small-Scale Networks can take
benefit of multihoming using mobile IP [RFC6275] and Network Mobility
(NEMO) [RFC3963] architecture in a mobile and fixed networking
environment. This document is introducing the concept of multiple
Care-of Addresses (CoAs) [RFC5648] that have been specified since
then.
In the continuation of c, a Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] based
multihomed achitecture could be defined to enable Multi-WAN support
for Small-Scale Fixed Networks. The motivation to update [RFC4908]
with proxy Mobile IPv6 is to leverage on latest mobility working
group achievments, namely:
o using GRE as mobile tuneling, possibly with its key extension
[RFC5845] (a possible reason to use GRE is given on Section 3.2).
o using UDP encapsulation [RFC5844] in order to support NAT
traversal in IPv4 networking environment.
o Prefix Delegation mechanism [RFC7148].
o Using the vendor specific mobility option [RFC5094], for example
to allow the MAG and LMA to exchange information (e.g. WAN
interface QoS metrics) allowing to make appropriate traffic
steering decision.
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) relies on two mobility entities: the
mobile access gateway (MAG), which acts as the default gateway for
the end-node and the local mobility anchor (LMA), which acts as the
topological anchor point. Point-to-point links are established,
using IP-in-IP tunnels, between MAG and LMA. Then, the MAG and LMA
are distributing traffic over these tunnels. All PMIPv6 operations
are performed on behalf of the end-node and its corespondent node, it
thus makes PMIPv6 well adapted to multihomed architecture as
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
considered in [RFC4908]. Taking the LTE and WLAN networking
environments as an example, the PMIPv6 based multihomed architecture
is depicted on Figure 1. Flow-1,2 and 3 are distributed either on
Tunnel-1 (over LTE) or Tunnel-2 (over WLAN), while Flow-4 is spread
on both Tunnel-1 and 2.
Flow-1
|
|Flow-2 _----_
| | CoA-1 _( )_ Tunnel-1
| | .---=======( LTE )========\ Flow-1
| | | (_ _) \Flow-4
| | | '----' \
| | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_
| '-| | \ | | _( )_
'---| MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )--
.---| | | | (_ _)
| .-| | / | | '----'
| | +=====+ / +=====+
| | | _----_ /
| | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 /
| | .---=======( WLAN )========/ Flow-2
| | (_ _) Flow-3
| | '----' Flow-4
|Flow-3
|
Flow0-4
Figure 1: Multihomed MAG using Proxy Mobile IPv6
The current version of Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not allow a MAG to
register more than one proxy Care-of-Adresse to the LMA. In other
words, only one MAG/LMA link, i.e. IP-in-IP tunnel, can be used at
the same time. This document overcomes this limitation by defining
the multiple proxy Care-of Addresses (pCoAs) extension for Proxy
Mobile IPv6.
2. Conventions and Terminology
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
2.1. Conventions
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].
2.2. Terminology
All mobility related terms used in this document are to be
interpreted as defined in [RFC5213], [RFC5844] and [RFC7148].
Additionally, this document uses the following terms:
IP-in-IP
IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473], [RFC4213]
3. Overview
3.1. Example Call Flow
Figure 2 is the callflow detailing multi-access support with PMIPv6.
The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE
interfaces and is also configured with the multihoming functionality.
The steps of the callflow are as follows:
Steps (1) and (2): the MAG attaches to both WLAN and LTE networks;
the MAG obtains respectively two different proxy care-of-addresses
(pCoA).
Step (3): The MAG sends, over the WLAN access, a Proxy Binding Update
(PBU) message, with the new MAG Multipath Binding (MMB) and MAG
Identifier (MAG-NAI) options to the LMA. A logical-NAI (MAG-NAI)
with ALWAYS-ON configuration is enabled on the MAG. The mobility
session that is created (i.e. create a Binding Cache Entry) on the
LMA is for the logical-NAI. The LMA and allocates a Home Network
Prefix (HNP), that shall be delegated to mobile nodes, to the MAG.
Step (4): the LMA sends back a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA)
including the HNP allocated to the MAG.
Step (5): IP tunnel (IP-in-IP, GRE ...) is created over the WLAN
access.
Steps (6) to (8): The MAG repeats steps (3) to (5) on the LTE access.
The MAG includes the HNP, received on step (4) in the PBU. The LMA
update its binding cache by creating a new mobility session for this
MAG.
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
Steps (9) and (10): The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP
addresses from the mobile network prefix delegated by the MAG.
+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+
| MN_1| | MN_2| | MAG | | WLAN| | LTE | | LMA |
+=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | (1) ATTACH | | |
| | | <--------> | | |
| | | (2) ATTACH | |
| | | <---------------------->| |
| | | (3) PBU (MAG-NAI, MMB) |
| | | ------------------------*-------------->|
| | | |
| | | Accept PBU
| | | (allocate HNP,
| | | create BCE)
| | | (4) PBA (MAG-NAI, HNP) |
| | | <-----------------------*---------------|
| | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over WLAN |
| | |-============== TUNNEL ==*==============-|
| | | |
| | | (6) PBU (MAG-NAI, HNP, MMB) |
| | | -----------*--------------------------->|
| | | |
| | | Accept PBU
| | | (update BCE)
| | | (7) PBA (MAG-NAI, HNP) |
| | | <----------*--------------------------- |
| | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION over LTE |
| | |-===========*== TUNNEL =================-|
| (9) ATTACH | |
| <---------------> | |
| |(10) ATTACH| |
| |<--------> | |
Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane
3.2. Traffic distribution schemes
When receiving packets from the MN, the MAG distributes packets over
tunnels that have been established. Traffic distribution can be
managed either on a per-flow or on a per-packet basis:
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
o Per-flow traffic management: each IP flow (both upstream and
downstream) is mapped to a given tunnel, corresponding to a given
WAN interface. Flow binding extension [RFC6089] is used to
exchange, and synchronize, IP flow management policies (i.e. rules
associating traffic selectors [RFC6088] to a tunnel).
o Per-packet management: the LMA and the MAG distribute packets,
belonging to a same IP flow, over more than one bindings (i.e.
more than one WAN interface). Packet distribution can be done
either at the transport level, e.g. using MPTCP or at When
operating at the IP packet level, different packets distribution
algorithms are possible. For example, the algorithm may give
precedence to one given access: the MAG overflows traffic from the
primary access, e.g. WLAN, to the second one, only when load on
primary access reaches a given threshold. The distribution
algorithm is left to implementer but whatever the algorithm is,
packets distribution likely introduces packet latency and out-of-
order delivery. LMA and MAG shall thus be able to make reordering
before packets delivery. Sequence number can be can be used for
that purpose, for example using GRE with sequence number option
[RFC5845]. However, more detailed considerations on reordering
and IP packet distribution scheme (e.g. definition of packets
distribution algorithm) are out the scope of this document.
Because latency introduced by per-packet can cause injury to some
application, per-flow and per-packet distribution schemes could be
used in conjunction. For example, high throughput services (e.g.
video streaming) may benefit from per-packet distribution scheme,
while latency sensitive applications (e.g. VoIP) are not be spread
over different WAN paths. IP flow mobility extensions, [RFC6089] and
[RFC6088], can be used to provision the MAG with such flow policies.
4. Protocol Extensions
4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option
The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option
defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding
Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor
and the mobile access gateway.
This mobility header option is used for requesting multipath support.
It indicates that the mobile access gateway is requesting the local
mobility anchor to register the current care-of address associated
with the request as one of the many care-addresses through which the
mobile access gateway can be reached. It is also for carrying the
information related to the access network associated with the care-of
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
address.
The MAG Multipath-Binding option has an alignment requirement of
8n+2. Its format is as shown in Figure 3:
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 | If-ATT | If-Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Binding-Id |B|O| RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: MAG Multipath Binding Option
Type
<IANA-1> To be assigned by IANA.
Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
octets, excluding the type and length fields.
Interface Access-Technology Type (If-ATT)
This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the
interface through which the mobile node is connected. The
permitted values for this are from the Access Technology Type
registry defined in [RFC5213].
Interface Label (If-Label)
This 8-bit field represents the interface label represented as an
unsigned integer. The MAG identifies the label for each of the
interfaces through which it registers a pCoA with the LMA. When
using static traffic flow policies on the mobile node and the home
agent, the label can be used for generating forwarding policies.
For example, the operator may have policy which binds traffic for
Application "X" needs to interface with Label "Y". When a
registration through an interface matching Label "Y" gets
activated, the home agent and the mobile node can dynamically
generate a forwarding policy for forwarding traffic for
Application "X" through mobile IP tunnel matching Label "Y". Both
the home agent and the mobile node can route the Application-X
traffic through that interface. The permitted values for If-Label
are 1 through 255.
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
Binding-Identifier (BID)
This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier. It
uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node, to
which this request can be associated. Each binding identifier is
represented as an unsigned integer. The permitted values are 1
through 254. The BID value of 0 and 255 are reserved. The mobile
access gateway assigns a unique value for each of its interfaces
and includes them in the message.
Bulk Re-registration Flag (B)
This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local
mobility anchor to consider this request as a request to update
the binding lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon
accepting this specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a
value of (1), if the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O)
is set to a value of (1).
Binding Overwrite (O)
This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the local mobility
anchor that upon accepting this request, it should replace all of
the mobile node's existing bindings with this binding. This flag
MUST NOT be set to a value of (1), if the value of the Bulk Re-
registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be
set to a value of (0), in de-registration requests.
Reserved
This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set
to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
4.2. MAG Identifier Option
The MAG Identifier option is a new mobility header option defined for
use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor and the mobile
access gateway. This mobility header option is used for conveying
the MAG's identity.
This option does not have any alignment requirements.
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
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 | Subtype | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option
Type
<IANA-2> To be assigned by IANA.
Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
octets, excluding the type and length fields.
Subtype
One byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the
Identifier field. Accepted values for this field are the
registered type values from the Mobile Node Identifier Option
Subtypes registry.
Reserved
This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set
to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Identifier
A variable length identifier of type indicated in the Subtype
field.
4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in
Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message.
CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding):
<IANA-4>
5. IANA Considerations
This document requires the following IANA actions.
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the
MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is
described in Section 4.1. The type value <IANA-1> for this
mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options
registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>.
RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-1> in Section 4.1 with the
assigned value and update this section accordingly.
o Action-2: This specification defines a new mobility option, the
MAG Identifier option. The format of this option is described in
Section 4.2. The type value <IANA-2> for this mobility option
needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options registry at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. RFC
Editor: Please replace <IANA-2> in Section 4.2 with the assigned
value and update this section accordingly.
o Action-3: This document defines a new status value,
CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (<IANA-3>) for use in Proxy
Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3.
This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters>. The
allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please
replace <IANA-4> in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update
this section accordingly.
6. Security Considerations
This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish
multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by
registering a care-of address for each of its connected access
networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be
routed through any of the tunnel paths and either based on a static
or a dynamically negotiated flow policy. This new capability has no
impact on the protocol security. Furthermore, this specification
defines two new mobility header options, MAG Multipath-Binding option
and the MAG Identifier option. These options are carried like any
other mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore,
it inherits security guidelines from [RFC5213]. Thus, this
specification does not weaken the security of Proxy Mobile IPv6
Protocol, and does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions
and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group.
The authors would also like to thank Jouni Korhonen, Jong Hyouk Lee,
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
Dirk Von-Hugo, Seil Jeon and Carlos Bernardos for their review
feedback.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3963>.
[RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6
Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094,
December 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5094>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst,
T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses
Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648,
October 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5648>.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.
[RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,
"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5845>.
[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
"Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6088>.
[RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,
and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6089>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275,
July 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and
CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile
IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7148>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/
RFC4213, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
[RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa,
R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed
network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, DOI 10.17487/
RFC4908, June 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4908>.
Authors' Addresses
Pierrick Seite
Orange
4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226
Cesson-Sevigne 35512
France
Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com
Alper Yegin
Actility
Turkey
Email: alper.yegin@actility.com
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MAG Multipath Binding Option May 2017
Sri Gundavelli
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: sgundave@cisco.com
Seite, et al. Expires December 2, 2017 [Page 14]