Internet-Draft NHC October 2023
Decraene, et al. Expires 11 April 2024 [Page]
Internet Engineering Task Force
6790, 7447 (if approved)
Intended Status:
Standards Track
B. Decraene, Ed.
J. G. Scudder, Ed.
Juniper Networks
W. Henderickx
K. Kompella
Juniper Networks
S. Mohanty
Cisco Systems
J. Uttaro
Independent Contributor
B. Wen

BGP Next Hop Dependent Capabilities Attribute


RFC 5492 allows a BGP speaker to advertise its capabilities to its peer. When a route is propagated beyond the immediate peer, it is useful to allow certain capabilities to be conveyed further. In particular, it is useful to advertise forwarding plane features.

This specification defines a BGP transitive attribute to carry such capability information, the "Next Hop Dependent Capabilities Attribute," or NHC. Unlike the capabilities defined by RFC 5492, those conveyed in the NHC apply solely to the routes advertised by the BGP UPDATE that contains the particular NHC.

This specification also defines an NHC capability that can be used to advertise the ability to process the MPLS Entropy Label as an egress LSR for all NLRI advertised in the BGP UPDATE. It updates RFC 6790 and RFC 7447 concerning this BGP signaling.

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

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 11 April 2024.

1. Introduction

[RFC5492] allows a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) speaker to advertise its capabilities to its peer. When a route is propagated beyond the immediate peer, it is useful to allow certain capabilities to be conveyed further. In particular, it may be useful to advertise forwarding plane features.

This specification defines a BGP optional transitive attribute to carry such capability information, the "Next Hop Dependent Capabilities Attribute", or NHC. (Note that this specification should not be confused with RFC 5492 BGP Capabilities.)

Since the NHC is intended chiefly for conveying information about forwarding plane features, it needs to be regenerated whenever the BGP route's next hop is changed. Since owing to the properties of BGP transitive attributes this can't be guaranteed (an intermediate router that doesn't implement this specification would be expected to propagate the NHC as opaque data), the NHC encodes the next hop of its originator, or the router that most recently updated the attribute. If the NHC passes through a router that changes the next hop without regenerating the NHC, they will fail to match when later examined, and the recipient can act accordingly. This scheme allows NHC support to be introduced into a network incrementally. Informally, the intent is that,

  • If a router is not changing the next hop, it can obliviously propagate the NHC just like any other optional transitive attribute.

  • If a router is changing the next hop, then it has to be able to vouch for every capability it includes in the NHC.

Complete details are provided in Section 2.

An NHC carried in a given BGP UPDATE message conveys information that relates to all Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) advertised in that particular UPDATE, and only to those NLRI. A different UPDATE message originated by the same source might not include an NHC, and if so, NLRI carried in that UPDATE would not be affected by the NHC. By implication, if a router wishes to use NHC to describe all NLRI it originates, it needs to include an NHC with each UPDATE it sends. In this respect, despite its similar naming, the NHC is unlike RFC 5492 BGP Capabilities.

Informally, a capability included in a given NHC should not be thought of as a capability of the next hop, but rather a capability of the path, that depends on the ability of the next hop to support it. Hence it is said to be "dependent on" the next hop.

This specification also defines an NHC capability, called "ELCv3", to advertise the ability to process the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Entropy Label as an egress Label Switching Router (LSR) for all NLRI advertised in the BGP UPDATE. It updates [RFC6790] and [RFC7447] with regard to this BGP signaling, this is further discussed in Section 3. Although ELCv3 is only relevant to NLRI of labeled address families, a future NHC capability might be applicable to non-labeled NLRI, or to both, irrespective of labels. (The term "labeled address family" is defined in the first paragraph of Section 3.5 of [RFC9012]. In this document, we use the term "labeled NLRI" as a short form of "NLRI of a labeled address family.")

1.1. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

2. BGP Next Hop Dependent Capabilities Attribute

2.1. Encoding

The BGP Next Hop Dependent Capabilities attribute (NHC attribute, or just NHC) is an optional, transitive BGP path attribute with type code 39. The NHC always includes a network layer address identifying the next hop of the route the NHC accompanies. The NHC signals potentially useful information related to the forwarding plane features, so it is desirable to make it transitive to ensure propagation across BGP speakers (e.g., route reflectors) that do not change the next hop and are therefore not in the forwarding path. The next hop data is to ensure correctness if it traverses BGP speakers that do not understand the NHC. This is further explained below.

The Attribute Data field of the NHC attribute is encoded as a header portion that identifies the router that created or most recently updated the attribute, followed by one or more capability Type-Length-Value (TLV) triples:

     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
   |   Address Family Identifier   |     SAFI      | Next Hop Len  |
   ~             Network Address of Next Hop (variable)            ~
   ~                   Capability TLVs (variable)                  ~
Figure 1: NHC Format

The meanings of the header fields (Address Family Identifier, SAFI or Subsequent Address Family Identifier, Length of Next Hop, and Network Address of Next Hop) are as given in Section 3 of [RFC4760].

In turn, each Capability is a TLV:

     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
   |        Capability Code        |        Capability Length      |
   ~                  Capability Value (variable)                  ~
Figure 2: Capability TLV Format

Capability Code: a two-octet unsigned integer that indicates the type of capability advertised and unambiguously identifies an individual capability.

Capability Length: a two-octet unsigned integer that indicates the length, in octets, of the Capability Value field. A length of 0 indicates that the Capability Value field is zero-length, i.e. it has a null value.

Capability Value: a variable-length field. It is interpreted according to the value of the Capability Code.

A BGP speaker MUST NOT include more than one instance of a capability with the same Capability Code, Capability Length, and Capability Value. Note, however, that processing multiple instances of such a capability does not require special handling, as additional instances do not change the meaning of the announced capability; thus, a BGP speaker MUST be prepared to accept such multiple instances.

BGP speakers MAY include more than one instance of a capability (as identified by the Capability Code) with different Capability Value. Processing of these capability instances is specific to the Capability Code and MUST be described in the document introducing the new capability.

Capability TLVs MUST be placed in the NHC in increasing order of Capability Code. (In the event of multiple instances of a capability with the same Capability Code as discussed above, no further sorting order is defined here.) Although the major sorting order is mandated, an implementation MUST elect to be prepared to consume capabilities in any order, for robustness reasons.

2.2. Sending the NHC

Suppose a BGP speaker S has a route R it wishes to advertise with next hop N to its peer.

If S is originating R into BGP, it MAY include an NHC attribute with it, that carries capability TLVs that describe aspects of R. S MUST set the next hop depicted in the header portion of the NHC to be equal to N, using the encoding given above.

If S has received R from some other BGP speaker, two possibilities exist. First, S could be propagating R without changing N. In that case, S need take no special action, it SHOULD simply propagate the NHC unchanged unless specifically configured otherwise. Indeed, we observe that this is no different from the default action a BGP speaker takes with an unrecognized optional transitive attribute -- it is treated as opaque data and propagated.

Second, S could be changing R in some way, and in particular, it could be changing N. If S has changed N it MUST NOT propagate the NHC unchanged. It SHOULD include a newly-constructed NHC attribute with R, constructed as described above in the "originating R into BGP" case. Any given capability TLV carried by the newly-constructed NHC attribute might use information from the received NHC attribute as input to its construction, possibly as straightforwardly as simply copying the TLV. The details of how the capabilities in the new NHC are constructed are specific to the definition of each capability. Any capability TLVs received by S that are for capabilities not supported by S will not be included in the newly-constructed NHC attribute S includes with R.

An implementation SHOULD propagate the NHC and its contained capabilities by default. An implementation SHOULD provide configuration control of whether any given capability is propagated. An implementation MAY provide finer-grained control on propagation based on attributes of the peering session, as discussed in Section 6.1.

Due to the nature of BGP optional transitive path attributes, any BGP speaker that does not implement this specification will propagate the NHC, the requirements of this section notwithstanding. Such a speaker will not update the NHC, however.

Certain NLRI formats do not include a next hop at all, one example being the Flow Specification NLRI [RFC8955]. The NHC MUST NOT be sent with such NLRI.

2.2.1. Aggregation

When aggregating routes, the above rules for constructing a new NHC MUST be followed. The decision of whether to include the NHC with the aggregate route and what its form will be, depends in turn on whether any capabilities are eligible to be included with the aggregate route. If there are no eligible capabilities, the NHC MUST NOT be included.

The specification for an individual capability must define how that capability is to be aggregated. If no rules are defined for a given capability, that capability MUST NOT be aggregated. Rules for aggregating the ELCv3 are found in Section 3.2.1.

(Route aggregation is described in [RFC4271]. Although prefix aggregation -- combining two or more more-specific prefixes to form one less-specific prefix -- is one application of aggregation, we note that another is when two or more routes for the same prefix are selected to be used for multipath forwarding.)

2.3. Receiving the NHC

An implementation receiving routes with a NHC SHOULD NOT discard the attribute or its contained capabilities by default. An implementation SHOULD provide configuration control of whether any given capability is processed. An implementation MAY provide finer-grained control on propagation based on attributes of the peering session, as discussed in Section 6.1.

When a BGP speaker receives a BGP route that includes the NHC, it MUST compare the address given in the header portion of the NHC and illustrated in Figure 1 to the next hop of the BGP route. If the two match, the NHC may be further processed. If the two do not match, it means some intermediate BGP speaker that handled the route in transit both does not support NHC, and changed the next hop of the route. In this case, the contents of the NHC cannot be used, and the NHC MUST be discarded without further processing, except that the contents MAY be logged.

In considering whether the next hop "matches", a semantic match is sought. While bit-for-bit equality is a trivial test of matching, there may be certain cases where the two are not bit-for-bit equal, but still "match". An example is when an MP_REACH Next Hop encodes both a global and a link-local IPv6 address. In that case, the link-local address might be removed during Internal BGP (IBGP) propagation, the two would still be considered to match if they were equal on the global part. See Section 3 of [RFC2545].

A BGP speaker receiving a Capability Code that it supports behaves as defined in the document defining the Capability Code. A BGP speaker receiving a Capability Code that it does not support MUST ignore that Capability Code. In particular, the receipt of an unrecognized Capability Code MUST NOT be handled as an error.

The presence of a capability SHOULD NOT influence route selection or route preference, unless tunneling is used to reach the BGP next hop, the selected route has been learned from External BGP (that is, the next hop is in a different Autonomous System), or by configuration (see following). Indeed, it is in general impossible for a node to know that all BGP routers of the Autonomous System (AS) will understand a given capability, and if different routers within an AS were to use a different preference for a route, forwarding loops could result unless tunneling is used to reach the BGP next hop. Following this reasoning, if the administrator of the network is confident that all routers within the AS will interpret the presence of the capability in the same way, they could relax this restriction by configuration.

2.4. Attribute Error Handling

An NHC is considered malformed if the length of the attribute, encoded in the Attribute Length field of the BGP Path Attribute header (Section 4.3 of [RFC4271]), is inconsistent with the lengths of the contained capability TLVs. In other words, the sum of the sizes (Capability Length plus 4) of the contained capability TLVs, plus the length of the NHC header (Figure 1), must be equal to the overall Attribute Length.

A BGP UPDATE message with a malformed NHC SHALL be handled using the approach of "attribute discard" defined in [RFC7606].

Unknown Capability Codes MUST NOT be considered to be an error.

An NHC that contains no capability TLVs MAY be considered malformed, although it is observed that the prescribed behavior of "attribute discard" is semantically no different from that of having no TLVs to process. There is no reason to propagate an NHC that contains no capability TLVs.

A document that specifies a new NHC Capability should provide specifics regarding what constitutes an error for that NHC Capability.

If a capability TLV is malformed, that capability TLV SHOULD be ignored and removed. Other capability TLVs SHOULD be processed as usual. If a given capability TLV requires different error-handling treatment than described in the previous sentences, its specification should provide specifics.

2.5. Network Operation Considerations

In the corner case where multiple nodes use the same IP address as their BGP next hop, such as with anycast nodes as described in [RFC4786], a BGP speaker MUST NOT advertise a given capability unless all nodes sharing this same IP address support this capability. The network operator operating those anycast nodes is responsible for ensuring that an anycast node does not advertise a capability not supported by all nodes sharing this anycast address. The means for accomplishing this are beyond the scope of this document.

3. Entropy Label Capability (ELCv3)

The foregoing sections define the NHC as a container for capability TLVs. The Entropy Label Capability is one such capability.

When BGP [RFC4271] is used for distributing labeled NLRI as described in, for example, [RFC8277], the route may include the ELCv3 as part of the NHC. The inclusion of this capability with a route indicates that the egress of the associated Label Switched Path (LSP) can process entropy labels as an egress LSR for that route -- see Section 4.1 of [RFC6790]. Below, we refer to this for brevity as being "EL-capable."

For historical reasons, this capability is referred to as "ELCv3", to distinguish it from the prior Entropy Label Capability (ELC) defined in [RFC6790] and deprecated in [RFC7447], and the ELCv2 described in [I-D.scudder-bgp-entropy-label].

This section (and its subsections) replaces Section 5.2 of [RFC6790], which was previously deprecated by [RFC7447].

3.1. Encoding

The ELCv3 has capability code 1, capability length 0, and carries no value:

     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
   |      Capability Code = 1      |       Capability Length = 0   |
Figure 3: ELCv3 TLV Format

3.2. Sending the ELCv3

When a BGP speaker S has a route R it wishes to advertise with next hop N to its peer, it SHOULD include the ELCv3 capability if it knows that the egress of the associated LSP L is EL-capable, otherwise it MUST NOT include the ELCv3 capability. Specific conditions where S would know that the egress is EL-capable are if S:

  • Is itself the egress, and knows itself to be EL-capable, or

  • Is re-advertising a BGP route it received with a valid ELCv3 capability, and is preserving the value of N as received, or

  • Is re-advertising a BGP route it received with a valid ELCv3 capability, and is changing the next hop that it has received to N, and knows that this new next hop (normally itself) is EL-capable, or

  • Is re-advertising a BGP route it received with a valid ELCv3 capability, and is changing the next hop that it has received to N, and knows (for example, through configuration) that the new next hop (normally itself) even if not EL-capable will simply swap labels without popping the BGP-advertised label stack and processing the label below, as with a transit LSR, or

  • Knows by implementation-specific means that the egress is EL-capable, or

  • Is redistributing a route learned from another protocol, and that other protocol conveyed the knowledge that the egress of L was EL-capable. (For example, this might be known through the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) ELC TLV, Section 5.1 of [RFC6790].)

The ELCv3 MAY be advertised with routes that are labeled, such as those using SAFI 4 [RFC8277]. It MUST NOT be advertised with unlabeled routes.

3.2.1. Aggregation

When forming an aggregate (see Section 2.2.1), the aggregate route thus formed MUST NOT include the ELCv3 unless each constituent route would be eligible to include the ELCv3 according to the criteria given above.

3.3. Receiving the ELCv3

(Below, we assume that "includes the ELCv3" implies that the containing NHC has passed the checks specified in Section 2.3. If it had not passed, then the NHC would have been discarded and the ELCv3 would be deemed not to have been included.)

When a BGP speaker receives an unlabeled route that includes the ELCv3, it MUST discard the ELCv3.

When a BGP speaker receives a labeled route that includes the ELCv3, it indicates the associated LSP supports entropy labels. This implies that the receiving BGP speaker if acting as ingress, MAY insert an entropy label as per Section 4.2 of [RFC6790].

3.4. ELCv3 Error Handling

The ELCv3 is considered malformed and must be disregarded if its length is other than zero.

If more than one instance of the ELCv3 is included in an NHC, instances beyond the first MUST be disregarded.

4. Legacy ELC

The ELCv3 functionality introduced in this document replaces the "BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute" (ELC attribute) that was introduced by [RFC6790], and deprecated by [RFC7447]. The latter RFC specifies that the ELC attribute, BGP path attribute 28, "MUST be treated as any other unrecognized optional, transitive attribute". This specification revises that requirement.

As the current specification was developed, it became clear that due to incompatibilities between how the ELC attribute is processed by different fielded implementations, the most prudent handling of attribute 28 is not to propagate it as an unrecognized optional, transitive attribute, but to discard it. Therefore, this specification updates [RFC7447], by instead requiring that an implementation that receives the ELC attribute MUST discard any received ELC attribute.

5. IANA Considerations

IANA has made a temporary allocation in the BGP Path Attributes registry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters group. IANA is requested to make this allocation permanent.

Table 1
Value Code Reference
39 BGP Next Hop Dependent Capabilities (NHC) (this doc)

IANA is requested to create a new registry called "BGP Next Hop Dependent Capability Codes" within the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters group. The registry's allocation policy is First Come, First Served, except where designated otherwise in Table 2. It is seeded with the following values:

Table 2
Value Description Reference Change Controller
0 reserved (this doc) IETF
1 ELCv3 (this doc) IETF
65400 - 65499 private use (this doc) IETF
65500 - 65534 reserved for experimental use (this doc) IETF
65535 reserved (this doc) IETF

6. Security Considerations

6.1. Considerations for the NHC

The header portion of the NHC contains the next hop the attribute's originator included when sending it, or that an intermediate router included when updating the attribute (in the latter case, the "contract" with the intermediate router is that it performed the checks in Section 2.3 before propagating the attribute). This will typically be an IP address of the router in question. This may be an infrastructure address the network operator does not intend to announce beyond the border of its Autonomous System, and it may even be considered in some weak sense, confidential information.

A motivating application for this attribute is to convey information between Autonomous Systems that are under the control of the same administrator. In such a case, it would not need to be sent to other Autonomous Systems. At time of writing, work [I-D.uttaro-idr-bgp-oad] is underway to standardize a method of distinguishing between the two categories of external Autonomous Systems, and if such a distinction is available, an implementation can take advantage of it by constraining the NHC and its contained capabilities to only propagate by default to and from the former category of Autonomous Systems. If such a distinction is not available, a network operator may prefer to configure routers peering with Autonomous Systems not under their administrative control to not send or accept the NHC or its contained capabilities, unless there is an identified need to do so.

The foregoing notwithstanding, control of NHC propagation can't be guaranteed in all cases -- if a border router doesn't implement this specification, the attribute, like all BGP optional transitive attributes, will propagate to neighboring Autonomous Systems. (This can be seen as a specific case of the general "attribute escape" phenomenon discussed in [I-D.haas-idr-bgp-attribute-escape].) Similarly, if a border router receiving the attribute from an external Autonomous System doesn't implement this specification, it will store and propagate the attribute, the requirements of Section 2.3 notwithstanding. So, sometimes this information could leak beyond its intended scope. (Note that it will only propagate as far as the first router that does support this specification, at which point it will typically be discarded due to a non-matching next hop, per Section 2.3.)

If the attribute leaks beyond its intended scope, capabilities within it would potentially be exposed. Specifications for individual capabilities should consider the consequences of such unintended exposure, and should identify any necessary constraints on propagation.

6.2. Considerations for the ELCv3 Capability

Insertion of an ELCv3 by an attacker could cause forwarding to fail. Deletion of an ELCv3 by an attacker could cause one path in the network to be overutilized and another to be underutilized. However, we note that an attacker able to accomplish either of these (below, an "on-path attacker") could equally insert or remove any other BGP path attribute or message. The former attack described above denies service for a given route, which can be accomplished by an on-path attacker in any number of ways even absent ELCv3. The latter attack defeats an optimization but nothing more; it seems dubious that an attacker would go to the trouble of doing so rather than launching some more damaging attack.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <>.
Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545, DOI 10.17487/RFC2545, , <>.
Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, , <>.
Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, , <>.
Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, , <>.
Scudder, J. and K. Kompella, "Deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute", RFC 7447, DOI 10.17487/RFC7447, , <>.
Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K. Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, , <>.
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <>.
Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder, "The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012, DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, , <>.

7.2. Informative References

Haas, J., "BGP Attribute Escape", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-haas-idr-bgp-attribute-escape-00, , <>.
Decraene, B., Kompella, K., and W. Henderickx, "BGP Next-Hop dependent capabilities", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-next-hop-capability-08, , <>.
Scudder, J. and K. Kompella, "BGP Entropy Label Capability, Version 2", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-scudder-bgp-entropy-label-00, , <>.
Uttaro, J., Retana, A., Mohapatra, P., Patel, K., and B. Wen, "One Administrative Domain using BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-oad-02, , <>.
Abley, J. and K. Lindqvist, "Operation of Anycast Services", BCP 126, RFC 4786, DOI 10.17487/RFC4786, , <>.
Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, , <>.
Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, , <>.
Loibl, C., Hares, S., Raszuk, R., McPherson, D., and M. Bacher, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", RFC 8955, DOI 10.17487/RFC8955, , <>.


The authors of this specification thank Randy Bush, Wes Hardaker, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares, Ketan Talaulikar, and Gyan Mishra for their review and comments.

This specification derives from two earlier documents, [I-D.ietf-idr-next-hop-capability] and [I-D.scudder-bgp-entropy-label].

[I-D.ietf-idr-next-hop-capability] included the following acknowledgements:

    The Entropy Label Next-Hop Capability defined in this document is
    based on the ELC BGP attribute defined in section 5.2 of [RFC6790].

    The authors wish to thank John Scudder for the discussions on this
    topic and Eric Rosen for his in-depth review of this document.

    The authors wish to thank Jie Dong and Robert Raszuk for their
    review and comments.

[I-D.scudder-bgp-entropy-label] included the following acknowledgements:

    Thanks to Swadesh Agrawal, Alia Atlas, Bruno Decraene, Martin
    Djernaes, John Drake, Adrian Farrell, Keyur Patel, Toby Rees, and
    Ravi Singh, for their discussion of this issue.


Serge Krier
Cisco Systems
Kevin Wang
Juniper Networks

Authors' Addresses

Bruno Decraene (editor)
John G. Scudder (editor)
Juniper Networks
Wim Henderickx
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
Satya Mohanty
Cisco Systems
James Uttaro
Independent Contributor
Bin Wen