Internet Engineering Task Force D. Joachimpillai
Internet-Draft Verizon
Intended status: Informational October 11, 2012
Expires: April 14, 2013
ForCES Inter-FE LFB
draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb-00
Abstract
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an
architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize
information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding
plane in a ForCES Network Element (ForCES NE). RFC5812 has defined
the ForCES Model provides a formal way to represent the capabilities,
state, and configuration of forwarding elements within the context of
the ForCES protocol, so that control elements (CEs) can control the
FEs accordingly. More specifically, the model describes the logical
functions that are present in an FE, what capabilities these
functions support, and how these functions are or can be
interconnected.
At the moment the ForCES charter restricts the LFB topology to be
within an FE. This documents describes a non-intrusive way to extend
the LFB topology across FEs.
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 April 14, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
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. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Problem Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Distributing The LFB Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Proposal Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Inserting The Inter-FE LFB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Inter-FE connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Inter-FE Ethernet connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1.1. Inter-FE Ethernet Connectivity Issues . . . . . . 12
5. Detailed Description of the inter-FE LFB . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Data Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. Inter-FE LFB XML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
1. Terminology and Conventions
1.1. 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 [RFC2119].
1.2. Definitions
This document follows the terminology defined by the ForCES Model in
[RFC5812]. The required definitions are repeated below for clarity.
FE Model - The FE model is designed to model the logical
processing functions of an FE. The FE model proposed in this
document includes three components; the LFB modeling of individual
Logical Functional Block (LFB model), the logical interconnection
between LFBs (LFB topology), and the FE-level attributes,
including FE capabilities. The FE model provides the basis to
define the information elements exchanged between the CE and the
FE in the ForCES protocol [RFC5810].
LFB (Logical Functional Block) Class (or type) - A template that
represents a fine-grained, logically separable aspect of FE
processing. Most LFBs relate to packet processing in the data
path. LFB classes are the basic building blocks of the FE model.
LFB Instance - As a packet flows through an FE along a data path,
it flows through one or multiple LFB instances, where each LFB is
an instance of a specific LFB class. Multiple instances of the
same LFB class can be present in an FE's data path. Note that we
often refer to LFBs without distinguishing between an LFB class
and LFB instance when we believe the implied reference is obvious
for the given context.
LFB Model - The LFB model describes the content and structures in
an LFB, plus the associated data definition. XML is used to
provide a formal definition of the necessary structures for the
modeling. Four types of information are defined in the LFB model.
The core part of the LFB model is the LFB class definitions; the
other three types of information define constructs associated with
and used by the class definition. These are reusable data types,
supported frame (packet) formats, and metadata.
LFB Metadata - Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state
from one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network. The
FE model defines how such metadata is identified, produced, and
consumed by the LFBs, but not how the per-packet state is
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
implemented within actual hardware. Metadata is sent between the
FE and the CE on redirect packets.
ForCES Component - A ForCES Component is a well-defined, uniquely
identifiable and addressable ForCES model building block. A
component has a 32-bit ID, name, type, and an optional synopsis
description. These are often referred to simply as components.
LFB Component - An LFB component is a ForCES component that
defines the Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
visible to the CEs.
LFB Topology - LFB topology is a representation of the logical
interconnection and the placement of LFB instances along the data
path within one FE. Sometimes this representation is called
intra-FE topology, to be distinguished from inter-FE topology.
LFB topology is outside of the LFB model, but is part of the FE
model.
FE Topology - FE topology is a representation of how multiple FEs
within a single network element (NE) are interconnected.
Sometimes this is called inter-FE topology, to be distinguished
from intra-FE topology (i.e., LFB topology). An individual FE
might not have the global knowledge of the full FE topology, but
the local view of its connectivity with other FEs is considered to
be part of the FE model.
Service Graph - A directed graph of LFB instances whose
composition delivers a packet service.
2. Introduction
In the ForCES architecture, a packet service can be modelled by
composing a graph of one or more LFB instances. The reader is
refered to the details in the ForCES Model [RFC5812].
The FEObject LFB capabilities as defined in the ForCES Model
[RFC5812] include an array (SupportedLFBs) that contains the
information about each supported LFB class. Each entry in the
SupportedLFBs array describes an LFB class that the FE supports. In
addition to indicating that the FE supports the class, FEs with
modifiable LFB topologies include information about how LFBs of the
specified class may be connected to other LFBs. This information
describes which LFB classes the specified LFB class may succeed or
precede in an LFB topology. The capability of an FE is advertised to
the CE upon association.
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
The CE may create a packet service when describing LFB instance graph
connections by updating the FEOBject LFBTopology component. The
created topology contains information about each inter-LFB link
inside the FE, where each link is described in an LFBLinkType
dataTypeDef. The LFBLinkType component contains sufficient
information to identify precisely the end points of a link of a
service graph.
Often there are requirements for the packet service graph to cross FE
boundaries. This could be from a desire to scale the service or need
to interact with LFBs which reside in a separate FE (eg lookaside
interface to a shared TCAM, an interconnected chip, or as coarse
grained functionality as an external NAT FE box being part of the
service graph etc).
Given that the ForCES inter-LFB architecture calls out for ability to
pass metadata between LFBs, it is imperative to define mechanisms to
allow passing the metadata between inter-FE LFBs (given that packet
data passing is already taken care of).
The ForCES charter restricts the LFB links in a topology to be within
a single FE (intra-FE connectivity) and as such both the relevant
capabilities and component definitions in the FEObject LFB are
restricted to that scope. This document describes extending the LFB
topology across FEs i.e inter-FE connectivity without needing any
changes to the ForCES definitions.
3. Problem Scope
A sample LFB topology Figure 1 demonstrates a service graph for
delivering basic IPV4 forwarding service within one FE. Note:
although the diagram shows LFB classes connecting in the graph in
reality it is a graph of LFB class instances that are inter-
connected.
The illustration is meant only as an exercise to showcase how data
and metadata is sent down or upstream on a graph of LFBs. For this
reason, it abstracts out any ports in both directions and talks about
a generic ingress and egress LFB. For illustration purposes, the
diagram does not show expection or error paths. Also left out are
details on Reverse Path Filtering, ECMP, multicast handling etc. In
other words, this is not meant to be a complete description of an
IPV4 forwarding application; for a more complete example, please
refer to the LFBlib document[XXX: ref here].
The output of the ingress LFB(s) coming into the IPv4 Validator LFB
will have both the IPV4 packets and, depending on the implementation,
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
a variety of ingress metadata such as offsets into the different
headers, any classification metadata, physical and virtual ports
encountered, tunnelling information etc. These metadata are lumped
together as "ingress metadata".
Once the IPV4 validator vets the packet (example ensures that no
expired TTL etc), it feeds the packet and inherited metadata into the
IPV4 unicast LPM LFB.
+----+
| |
IPV4 pkt | | IPV4 pkt +-----+ +---+
+------------->| |------------->| | | |
| + ingress | | + ingress |IPv4 | IPV4 pkt | |
| metadata | | metadata |Ucast|------------>| |--+
| +----+ |LPM | + ingress | | |
+-+-+ IPv4 +-----+ + NHinfo +---+ |
| | Validator metadata IPv4 |
| | LFB NextHop|
| | LFB |
| | |
| | IPV4 pkt
+---+ + {ingress + NHdetails}
Ingress metadata |
LFB +-------+ |
|Egress | |
<--|LFB |<------------------+
+-------+
Figure 1: Basic IPV4 packet service LFB topology
The IPV4 unicast LPM LFB does a longest prefix match lookup on the
IPV4 FIB using the destination IP address as a search key. The
result is typically a next hop selector which is passed downstream as
metadata.
The Nexthop LFB receives the IPv4 packet with an associated next hop
info metadata. The NextHop LFB consumes the NH info metadata and
derives from it a table index to look up the next hop table in order
to find the appropriate egress information. The lookup result is
used to build the next hop details to be used downstream on the
egress. This information may include any source and destination
information (MAC address to use, if ethernet;) as well egress ports.
[Note: It is also at this LFB where typically the forwarding TTL
decrement and IP checksum recalculation occurs.]
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
The details of the egress LFB are left out intentionally from this
discussion. Suffice it is to say that somewhere within or beyond the
Egress LFB the IPV4 packet will be sent out a port (ethernet, virtual
or physical etc).
3.1. Distributing The LFB Topology
Figure 2 demonstrates one way the LFB topology in Figure 1 may be
split across two FEs (eg two ASICs). Figure 2 shows the LFB topology
split across FEs after the IPV4 unicast LPM LFB.
FE1
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| +----+ |
| +----------+ | | |
| | Ingress | IPV4 pkt | | IPV4 pkt +-----+ |
| | LFB |+------------->| |------------->| | |
| | | + ingress | | + ingress |IPv4 | |
| +----------+ metadata | | metadata |Ucast| |
| ^ +----+ |LPM | |
| | IPv4 +-----+ |
| | Validator | |
| LFB | |
+---------------------------------------------------|---------+
|
IPv4 packet +
{ingress + NHinfo}
metadata
FE2 |
+---------------------------------------------------|---------+
| V |
| +--------+ +--------+ |
| | Egress | IPV4 packet | IPV4 | |
| <-----| LFB |<-------------------- |NextHop | |
| | |{ingress + NHdetails} | LFB | |
| +--------+ metadata +--------+ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Split IPV4 packet service LFB topology
Some proprietary inter-connect (example Broadcom Higig over XAUI
(XXX: ref needed)) maybe used to carry both the IPV4 packet and the
related metadata between the IPV4 Unicast LFB and IPV4 NextHop LFB
across the two FEs.
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
4. Proposal Overview
We address the inter-FE connectivity by proposing an inter-FE LFB.
Using an LFB implies no change to the basic ForCES architecture in
the form of the core LFBs (FE Protocol or Object LFBs). This design
choice was made after considering an alternative approach that would
have required changes to both the FE Object capabilities
(SupportedLFBs) as well LFBTopology component to describe the
inter-FE connectivity capabilities as well as runtime topology of the
LFB instances.
4.1. Inserting The Inter-FE LFB
The distributed LFB topology described in Figure 2 is re-illustrated
in Figure 3 to show the topology location where the inter-FE LFB
would fit in.
As can be observed in Figure 3, the same details passed between IPV4
unicast LPM LFB and the IPV4 NH LFB are passed to the egress side of
the Inter-FE LFB. In addition an index for the inter-FE LFB
(interFEid) is passed as metadata.
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
FE1
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| +----------+ +----+ |
| | Ingress | IPV4 pkt | | IPV4 pkt +-----+ |
| | LFB |+------------->| |------------->| | |
| | | + ingress | | + ingress |IPv4 | |
| +----------+ metadata | | metadata |Ucast| |
| ^ +----+ |LPM | |
| | IPv4 +-----+ |
| | Validator | |
| | LFB | |
| | IPv4 pkt + metadata |
| | {ingress + NHinfo + InterFEid}|
| | | |
| +----V----+ |
| | InterFE | |
| | LFB | |
| +---------+ |
+---------------------------------------------------|---------+
IPv4 packet and metadata
{ingress + NHinfo + InterFEinfo}
FE2 |
+---------------------------------------------------|---------+
| +----V----+ |
| | InterFE | |
| | LFB | |
| +---------+ |
| | |
| IPv4 pkt + metadata |
| {ingress + NHinfo} |
| | |
| +--------+ +----V---+ |
| | Egress | IPV4 packet | IPV4 | |
| <-----| LFB |<-------------------- |NextHop | |
| | |{ingress + NHdetails} | LFB | |
| +--------+ metadata +--------+ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Split IPV4 forwarding service with Inter-FE LFB
The egress of the inter-FE LFB uses the received Inter-FE index
(InterFEid metadata) to select details for encapsulation towards the
neighboring FE. These details, encapsulated as InterFEinfo metadata,
will include what the source and destination FEID, LFB class and LFB
instance are to be used. In addition to the newly constructed
metadata, the original metadata is left untouched and passed along
with the IPV4 packet.
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
On the ingress side of the inter-FE LFB, the InterFEinfo metadata is
used to decide the graph continuation i.e which LFB instance is to be
passed the packet plus the origial metadata. In this case an IPV4
Nexthop LFB instance.
The ingress side of the inter-FE LFB consumes the InterFEinfo
metadata and passes on the IPV4 packet alongside with the ingress +
NHinfo metadata to the IPV4 NextHop LFB as was done earlier in both
Figure 1 and Figure 2.
4.2. Inter-FE connectivity
It is expected there will be several inter-FE transport
possibilities. We describe the suggested encapsulation format
(Figure 4) extended from the ForCES redirect packet format. We
expect that for any transport mechanism used, that a description of
how the different fields will be encapsulated to be explained. We
provide a description of how ethernet encapsulation will be used in
this case in Section 4.2.1.
+-- T = NESelector-TLV (optional)
| +---- NEID
| |
| +---- Destination FEID
| |
| +---- Source FEID
|
+-- T = LFBSelector-TLV (optional)
| +---- Destination LFB class
| |
| +---- Destination LFB Instance
|
+-- T = METADATA-TLV
| |
| +-- +-Meta Data ILV (I = metaid, L= length)
| | | |
| | | +----- V= Metadata value
| . |
| . |
| . +-Meta Data ILV
| .
.
+-- T = REDIRECTDATA-TLV
|
+-- Redirected packet Data
Figure 4: Packet format suggestion
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
The NESelector and LFBSelector are considered to be part of the
InterFEinfo metadata described earlier. In some cases, each or both
of these metadatum may be left out in the encapsulation activity (by
the inter-FE LFB implementation) if they are already implicitly
defined. An example where that may make sense is in the case of
look-aside interfaces or proprietary hard-coded connections (such as
the one shown in Figure 2). For this reason they are tagged as
optional.
o The NESelector carries a 32-bit NEID which defaults to 0. It also
carries the destination and source FEIDs. This TLV is new to
ForCES and sits in the global ForCES TLV namespace.
o The LFBSelector is as defined in RFC 5810 section 7.5.1. It
carries a 32-bit LFB Classid and a 32-bit LFB InstanceID.
The METADATA and REDIRECTDATA TLV encapsulations are taken directly
from [RFC5810] section 7.9.
4.2.1. Inter-FE Ethernet connectivity
Although it is expected that multiple transport encapsulations could
be used they are all expected to carry the format described in
Figure 1 or in the case of legacy formats be able to intepret the
inter-FE config and translate into proprietary or legacy formatting.
Already a variety of metadata passing encapsulations exist which are
proprieatary or semi-standard by virtue of being widely deployed.
These include the NPF LA-1 (XXX: ref here), Broadcom Higig/2 (XXX:
ref here), as well as interlaken(XXX: ref here).
In this section we describe a format that is to be used over
Ethernet. It is expected that an ethernet type (To be defined) will
be used to imply that a wire format is carrying an inter-FE LFB
packet.
XXX: The finer details on what the source and destination MAC address
selection are left out for the next draft release. Also left out are
any load balancing/multi-pathing activities across selections of
destinations FEs.
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
*--+ Ethernet type = XXXX
|
+-- T = NESelector-TLV (optional)
| +---- NEID
| |
| +---- Destination FEID
| |
| +---- Source FEID
|
+-- T = LFBSelector-TLV
| +---- Destination LFB class
| |
| +---- Destination LFB Instance
|
+-- T = METADATA-TLV
| |
| +-- +-Meta Data ILV (I = metaid, L= length)
| | | |
| | | +----- V= Metadata value
| . |
| . |
| . +-Meta Data ILV
| .
| .
.
+-- T = REDIRECTDATA-TLV
|
+-- Redirected packet Data
Figure 5: Packet format suggestion
4.2.1.1. Inter-FE Ethernet Connectivity Issues
There are several issues that may arise due to using direct ethernet
encapsulation.
o The frame may end up being larger than the MTU. There are several
possible solutions:
* One possible solution is to use large MTUs; however, even that
will have limits since the the ethernet frames could grow
arbitrarily large with increasing metadata being encapsulated.
* An alternative approach is to add a fragmentation detail in the
encapsulation. A simple approach is to have the inter-FE LFB
(egress) add another header which submits total count of
fragments and the fragment number of the submitted packet. The
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
ingress of the inter-FE LFB will keep track of the fragments,
assemble them as well as have a timer to discard outstanding
fragments.
* A third option is to limit the amount of metadata that could be
transmitted so that the frame is sub-MTU size in presence of
large MTU values. It will mean to add knobs to filter out or
select which metadata gets encapsulated.
o The frame may be dropped if there is congestion on the receiving
FE side. This may necessitate a retransmission mechanism to be
built in. One approach to mitigate this issue is to make sure
that inter-FE LFB frames receive the highest priority treatment
when scheduled on the wire.
XXX: This issue will be addressed further in the next draft release.
Suggestions welcome.
5. Detailed Description of the inter-FE LFB
The inter-FE LFB has a single LFB input port and two LFB output
ports.
+-----------------+
| |
Packet + | OUT +--> encapsulated Packet+metadata
-------------->| |
Metadata | EXCEPTIONOUT +--> Errorid, packet + metadata
| |
+-----------------+
Figure 6: Inter-FE LFB
5.1. Data Handling
The Inter-FE LFB receives packet and metadata. The InterFEid
metadatum MUST be present. It is expected that the formating of the
received packet buffer and metadata is implementation specific. If
the location of the Inter-FE LFB format is such that it is at the
ingress of the FE, then it is expected that some parsing LFB would
already have formated the packet and metadata into native format.
The Inter-FE LFB uses the InterFEid metadatum to lookup the NextFE
table. The output result constitutes a table row which has the
InterFEinfo details i.e. the tuple {NEID,Destination FEID,Source
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
FEID, Destination LFB class,Destination LFB Instance}.
In the case of successful lookup, for the introduced ethernet
formating, the inter-FE LFB will create an ethernet frame with
ethertype XXXX.
o add the NESelector data from the lookup result
o add the LFBSelector data from the lookup result
o walk all the passed metadatum and encapsulate them within the
METADATA-TLV
o Encapsulate the data in REDIRECTDATA-TLV
The resulting packet is sent to the LFB instance connected to the OUT
LFB port.
In the case of failure, the packet and metadata are sent out the
EXCEPTIONOUT LFB port with proper error id (XXX: More description to
be added).
5.2. Components
There is a single LFB component populated by the CE. The component
is an array component known as the NextFE table. Each row of the
table constitutes the columns with {NEID,Destination FEID,Source
FEID,Destination LFB class, Destination LFB Instance}. The table is
looked up by a 32 bit index passed from an upstream LFB class
instance in the form of InterFEid metadatum.
The CE programs LFB instances in a service graph that require
inter-FE connectivity with InterFEid values to correspond to the
inter-FE LFB NextFE table entries to use.
5.3. Capabilities
XXX: If we support multiple encapsulation methods(other than
ethernet), then we could use capabilities to advertise them as
different possibilities. It is envisioned then that the NextFE table
row will have column indicating to the inter-FE LFB how to
encapsulate the different matches.
5.4. Events
TBA
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
5.5. Inter-FE LFB XML
TBA
6. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jamal Hadi Salim for reviewing this
draft and making suggestions to make it align better with the ForCES
architecture.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations
TBD
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.
[RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model",
RFC 5812, March 2010.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ForCES Inter-FE LFB October 2012
Author's Address
Damascane M. Joachimpillai
Verizon
60 Sylvan Rd
Waltham, Mass. 02451
USA
Email: damascene.joachimpillai@verizon.com
Joachimpillai Expires April 14, 2013 [Page 16]