Network Working Group Y. Liu
Internet Draft W. Cheng
Intended status: Standards Track China Mobile
Expires: April 21, 2023 C. Lin
M. Chen
New H3C Technologies
X. Min
ZTE
October 21, 2022
Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy
draft-liu-spring-bfd-srv6-policy-encap-00
Abstract
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) mechanisms can be used for
fast detection of failures in the forwarding path of SR Policy. This
document describes the encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy, which
can be applied for both S-BFD and U-BFD. The BFD packets may be
encapsulated in transport mode or tunnel mode.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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
Liu, et al. Expire April, 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
(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
1.1. Requirements Language.....................................3
2. Encapsulation of BFD Packet for SRv6 Policy....................3
2.1. Control Packet in Transport Mode..........................4
2.2. Echo Packet in Transport Mode.............................6
2.3. Control Packet in Tunnel Mode.............................7
2.4. Echo Packet in Tunnel Mode................................8
3. Choice of Headend and Tail-end IPv6 Addresses.................10
3.1. Control Packet...........................................10
3.2. Echo Packet..............................................10
4. Checksum in UDP Header........................................11
5. Control of Inserting Additional IPv6 Address in SRH...........11
6. Example.......................................................11
7. Security Considerations.......................................13
8. IANA Considerations...........................................13
9. References....................................................14
9.1. Normative References.....................................14
9.2. Informative References...................................15
Authors' Addresses...............................................16
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] allows a headend node to steer a
packet flow along any path. Per-path states of Intermediate nodes
are eliminated thanks to source routing. A Segment Routing Policy
(SR Policy) [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] is an ordered
list of segments (i.e., instructions) that represent a source-routed
policy. The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list
of segments associated with that SR Policy. The SRv6 Policy is the
instantiation of SR Policy for SR over IPv6 (SRv6) data-plane.
In order to provide end-to-end protection, the headend node need to
rapidly detect any failures in the forwarding path of SR Policy, so
that it could switch from the active candidate path to another
backup candidate path within the same SR Policy or switch from the
active SR Policy to another backup SR Policy. Bidirectional
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
Forwarding Detection (BFD) mechanisms [RFC5880] [RFC7880] can be
used for fast detection of such failures.
As described in [I-D.ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy], the BFD mechanism to
be used for monitoring SRv6 Policies is expected to be simple and
lightweight, which can be setup and deleted dynamically and on-
demand. Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)
[RFC7880] simplifies the mechanism for using BFD with a large
proportion of negotiation aspects eliminated. [I-D.ali-spring-bfd-
sr-policy] describes the use of S-BFD for monitoring of SR Policy
paths, and specifies the S-BFD Discriminator selection, the S-BFD
session initiation and the return path control related to S-BFD use
for SR Policy.
Unaffiliated BFD Echo Function (U-BFD) [I-D.ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-
echo] simplifies the BFD Echo Function procedure, by which the
remote system does not need to support BFD or maintain any BFD
session states. U-BFD may also be used to monitor SR Policies.
This document describes the encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy,
which can be applied for both S-BFD and U-BFD. The BFD packets may
be encapsulated in transport mode or tunnel mode.
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. Encapsulation of BFD Packet for SRv6 Policy
On SRv6 data-plane, a BFD packet for SRv6 Policy carries a Segment
Routing Header (SRH) [RFC8754] containing a list of SRv6 SIDs
associated with that SRv6 Policy.
The BFD packets may be encapsulated in transport mode or tunnel
mode. In transport mode, the SRH is inserted after the IPv6 header.
In tunnel mode, an outer IPv6 header with an SRH is encapsulated,
which looks like an BFD packet for plain IPv6 is steered into an
SRv6 Policy.
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
+-------------+---------+-------------+------------+
| IPv6 header | SRH | UDP Header | Payload |
+-------------+---------+-------------+------------+
Figure 1: Transport Mode Encapsulation
+-------------+---------+-------------+------------+------------+
| IPv6 header | SRH | IPv6 header | UDP Header | Payload |
+-------------+---------+-------------+------------+------------+
Figure 2: Tunnel Mode Encapsulation
An SRv6 Policy may consist of multiple candidate paths, and each
candidate path may consist of multiple Segment-Lists. To monitor a
candidate path, an implementation may setup multiple sessions for
each Segment-List associated with that path. If some of the Segment-
Lists fail, the forwarding will be weighted load-balancing among the
other Segment-Lists. If all of the Segment-Lists fail, the candidate
path is deemed to be failed. An implementation may monitor each
candidate path belonging to the SRv6 Policy respectively. If the
active candidate path fails, the switchover to another backup
candidate path will be triggered. If all the candidate paths fails,
the SRv6 Policy is deemed to be failed. How to setup sessions for
the candidate paths and Segment-Lists associated with an SRv6 Policy
is out of the scope of this document.
2.1. Control Packet in Transport Mode
In transport mode, the encapsulation format of BFD control packet is
as follows:
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
. Source IP Address = Headend IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Segment List[SL] .
. Next-Header = SRH .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| SRH |
. Segment List[0] = Tail-end IPv6 Address, or .
. Last Segment of SRv6 Policy Segment-List .
. Segment List[1] .
. Segment List[2] .
. ... .
. Next-Header = UDP .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Format of Control Packet in Transport Mode
In the SRH, the first element of the Segment List (Segment List[0])
contains the SRv6 SID or IPv6 address of the tail-end node.
If the last segment of the SRv6 Policy Segment-List does not belong
to the tail-end node, an IPv6 address of tail-end should be added as
Segment List[0], while Segment List[1] contains the last segment of
the SRv6 Policy Segment-List. The typical scenarios are as follows:
o The last segment of the SRv6 Policy Segment-List may be an End.X
SID of the penultimate hop. If it is used as Segment List[0], the
final destination for the BFD packet is missing.
o The last segment of the SRv6 Policy Segment-List may be a Binding
SID, for example, the application of SRv6 Policy for L3VPN
service across multiple domains. If it is used as Segment
List[0], according to [RFC8986], the node which instantiates the
BSID will not perform the encapsulation behavior of the
associated SRv6 Policy, but stop processing the SRH and proceed
to process the next header in the packet.
Else, the additional tail-end IPv6 address is not necessary, and it
can be omitted in order to reduce the SRH size.
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
After tail-end receives the control packet, it will send response
packet back to the headend. The response packet is IP routed based
on the IPv6 SA of the control packet from headend. Additional
measures may be taken to control the forwarding path of response
packet, which is out of the scope of this document.
2.2. Echo Packet in Transport Mode
In transport mode, the encapsulation format of BFD echo packet is as
follows:
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
. Source IP Address = Headend IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Segment List[SL] .
. Next-Header = SRH .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| SRH |
. Segment List[0] = Headend IPv6 Address .
. Segment List[1] .
. Segment List[2] .
. ... .
. Next-Header = UDP .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Format of Echo Packet in Transport Mode
The BFD echo packet u-turns on the tail-end node and returns to the
headend node. The difference from the control packet is that the
final destination of the echo packet is the headend itself. So,
Segment List[0] in the SRH should contain the IPv6 address of the
headend, in order to indicate the tail-end to forward the echo
packet back to headend. The return path is IP routed.
In both S-BFD and U-BFD for SRv6 Policy, the echo packet may be used
to control the return path. After the echo packet reaches the tail-
end along the forwarding path of SRv6 Policy Segment-List,
additional segments will indicate the packet to be forwarded along
specific path back to the headend.
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
If segments of the return path is included in the SRH of echo packet
and the last segment of the return path belongs to the headend, the
additional headend IPv6 address is not necessary to be added as
Segment List[0]. How to identify corresponding segment stack for the
return paths is outside the scope of this document.
2.3. Control Packet in Tunnel Mode
In tunnel mode, the encapsulation format of BFD control packet is as
follows:
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
. Source IP Address = Headend IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Segment List[SL] .
. Next-Header = SRH .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| SRH |
. Segment List[0] = Tail-end IPv6 Address, or .
. Last Segment of SRv6 Policy Segment-List .
. Segment List[1] .
. Segment List[2] .
. ... .
. Next-Header = IPv6 .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
. Source IP Address = Headend IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Tail-end IPv6 Address .
. Next-Header = UDP .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Format of Control Packet in Tunnel Mode
In the SRH, the first element of the Segment List (Segment List[0])
contains the SRv6 SID or IPv6 address of the tail-end node.
If the last segment of the SRv6 Policy Segment-List does not belong
to the tail-end node and its function does not include decapsulation
of the outer IPv6 header, an IPv6 address of tail-end should be
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
added as Segment List[0], while Segment List[1] contains the last
segment of the SRv6 Policy Segment-List. The typical scenarios are
as follows:
o The last segment of the SRv6 Policy may be an End.X SID of the
penultimate hop. If it is used as Segment List[0], the
penultimate hop needs to remove the outer IPv6 header with all
SRH, and forwards the inner IPv6 packet to reflector. If the last
segment is with Ultimate Segment Decapsulation (USD) flavor, the
penultimate SR endpoint node will perform such decapsulation as
defined in [RFC8986]. Otherwise, how to process the packet when
the upper-layer header type is IPv6, is not clearly defined in
[RFC8986]. It depends on implementation, and may not work well
for BFD.
o The last segment of the SRv6 Policy may be a Binding SID, which
is the same with the Binding SID case in section 2.1.
Else, the additional tail-end IPv6 address is not necessary, and it
can be omitted in order to reduce the SRH size.
After tail-end receives the control packet, it will send response
packet back to the headend. The response packet is IP routed based
on the inner IPv6 SA of the control packet from headend. Additional
measures may be taken to control the forwarding path of response
packet, which is out of the scope of this document.
2.4. Echo Packet in Tunnel Mode
In tunnel mode, the encapsulation format of BFD echo packet is as
follows:
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
. Source IP Address = Headend IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Segment List[SL] .
. Next-Header = SRH .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| SRH |
. Segment List[0] = Tail-end IPv6 Address, or .
. Last Segment of SRv6 Policy Segment-List .
. Segment List[1] .
. Segment List[2] .
. ... .
. Next-Header = IPv6 .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
. Source IP Address = Headend IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Headend IPv6 Address .
. Next-Header = UDP .
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload |
. .
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Format of Echo Packet in Tunnel Mode
If the last segment of the SRv6 Policy Segment-List does not belong
to the tail-end node, an IPv6 address of tail-end should be added as
Segment List[0], in order to guarantee that the packet can reach the
tail-end.
After the tail-end receives the echo packet, it decapsulates the
outer IPv6 header with SRH, and then forwards the inner IPv6 packet
back to the headend based on the IPv6 DA.
If additional segments of the return path are included in the SRH of
echo packet, the tail-end IPv6 address should not be included in the
SRH. The segment stack should guarantee that the packet can reach
the tail-end and then goes back to the headend. How to identify
corresponding segment stack for the return paths are outside the
scope of this document.
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
3. Choice of Headend and Tail-end IPv6 Addresses
3.1. Control Packet
When traffics are steered into an SRv6 Policy, the headend
encapsulates the received packets in an outer IPv6 header along with
an SRH. The Source Address of the outer IPv6 header is an IPv6
Address of the headend itself which can be routed. It may be a local
interface address of the headend used for all SRv6 Policies. Or,
different source addresses may be allocated per SRv6 Policy by local
configuration.
For the BFD control packet, the headend IPv6 address in the Source
Address of IPv6 header may use the source address associated with
the SRv6 Policy.
An SRv6 Policy is identified through the tuple <headend, color,
endpoint>. The endpoint indicates the destination of the policy, and
is usually specified as an IPv6 address of the tail-end node.
For the BFD control packet, the headend may choose endpoint of the
SRv6 Policy to be the tail-end IPv6 address which appears in the
first segment of SRH or DA of inner IPv6 header, without additional
knowledge of the tail-end. However, in some scenarios, the endpoint
of SRv6 Policy can be the unspecified address (:: for IPv6), and the
tail-end IPv6 Address may be specified by local configuration or
network controller.
3.2. Echo Packet
For the BFD echo packet, the headend IPv6 address in the Source
Address of IPv6 header may use the source address associated with
the SRv6 Policy, which is similar with the control packet.
Because the echo packet u-turns on the tail-end, the tail-end does
not need to parse the packet or use the source address as the
destination address to send back, which is different from the
control packet. So, the SA of echo packet is not necessary to be
routable. An implementation may use unreachable address as the
headend IPv6 address in the SA, which would prevent icmpv6 messages
from flooding into the headend in failure cases.
For the headend IPv6 address which appears in the first segment of
SRH or DA of inner IPv6 header of the echo packet, it should be an
IPv6 address belonging to the headend and can be routed. An
implementation may use the source address associated with the SRv6
Policy. Or, particular addresses may be allocated per SRv6 Policy by
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
local configuration, in order to distinguish the BFD echo packets
for different SRv6 Policies.
4. Checksum in UDP Header
The computation of Checksum in UDP header includes the Destination
Address of IPv6 header.
In the encapsulation of transport mode, the IPv6 DA may change along
the SRv6 forwarding path. When computing the UDP Checksum, the
headend should use the first segment in the SRH as the IPv6 DA. It
is consistent with the packet received by the final destination, the
tail-end node for control packet or the headend node for echo
packet. So, when the final destination processes the UDP header, the
verification of Checksum will be passed.
In the encapsulation of tunnel mode, the computation of UDP Checksum
only involves the inner IPv6 header, which does not change en route.
No additional action needs to be taken.
5. Control of Inserting Additional IPv6 Address in SRH
An implementation may have local configurations to control whether
to insert a headend or tail-end IPv6 address as the first segment in
the SRH. Or, an implementation may always insert additional IPv6
address.
6. Example
In the following network, the headend A installs an SRv6 Policy to
tail-end D with the segment list <SID-A1, SID-B1, SID-C1>. SID-A1,
SID-B1 and SID-C1 are all SRv6 End.X SIDs.
A--------------B-------------C-----------D
Figure 7: example network
Assume that A uses SBFD to monitor that SRv6 Policy. A may send S-
BFD control packet in transport mode, as shown in Figure 8.
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
+=================+ +=================+
| IPv6 Header | | IPv6 Header |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| SA=A's Addr | | SA=A's Addr |
| DA=SID-B1 | | DA=D's Addr |
+=================+ +=================+
| SRH | | SRH |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| SL=2 | | SL=0 |
| Seg[0]=D's Addr | | Seg[0]=D's Addr |
| Seg[1]=SID-C1 | | Seg[1]=SID-C1 |
| Seg[2]=SID-B1 | | Seg[2]=SID-B1 |
| Seg[3]=SID-A1 | | Seg[3]=SID-A1 |
+=================+ +=================+
| UDP-header | | UDP-header |
+=================+ +=================+
| Payload | | Payload |
+=================+ +=================+
A------------->B------------>C---------->D
Figure 8: Example of S-BFD Control Packet in Transport Mode
Assume that A uses U-BFD to monitor that SRv6 Policy. A may send U-
BFD echo packet in tunnel mode, as shown in Figure 9.
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
+=================+ +=================+
| IPv6 Header | | IPv6 Header |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| SA=A's Addr | | SA=A's Addr |
| DA=SID-B1 | | DA=D's Addr |
+=================+ +=================+
| SRH | | SRH |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| SL=2 | | SL=0 |
| Seg[0]=D's Addr | | Seg[0]=D's Addr |
| Seg[1]=SID-C1 | | Seg[1]=SID-C1 |
| Seg[2]=SID-B1 | | Seg[2]=SID-B1 |
| Seg[3]=SID-A1 | | Seg[3]=SID-A1 |
+=================+ +=================+
| IPv6 Header | | IPv6 Header |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| SA=A's Addr | | SA=A's Addr |
| DA=A's Addr | | DA=A's Addr |
+=================+ +=================+
| UDP-header | | UDP-header |
+=================+ +=================+
| Payload | | Payload |
+=================+ +=================+
-------------> ------------> ---------->
A B C D
<------------- <------------ <----------
+=================+ +=================+
| IPv6 Header | | IPv6 Header |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| SA=A's Addr | | SA=A's Addr |
| DA=A's Addr | | DA=A's Addr |
+=================+ +=================+
| UDP-header | | UDP-header |
+=================+ +=================+
| Payload | | Payload |
+=================+ +=================+
Figure 9: Example of U-BFD Echo Packet in Tunnel Mode
7. Security Considerations
TBD.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
9. References
9.1. 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, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", RFC9256,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/info/rfc9256>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC7880] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and S.
Pallagatti, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(S-BFD)", RFC 7880, DOI 10.17487/RFC7880, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986, DOI
0.17487/RFC8986, February 2021, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy] Ali, Z., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils,
C., Nainar, N., and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Segment Routing Policies
for Traffic Engineering", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy-09, 8 May 2022,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-spring-bfd-
sr-policy-09.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo] Cheng, W., Wang, R., Min, X.,
Rahman, R., and R. C. Boddireddy, "Unaffiliated BFD Echo",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bfd-
unaffiliated-echo-05, 1 August 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bfd-
unaffiliated-echo-05.txt>.
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Encapsulation of BFD for SRv6 Policy October 2022
Authors' Addresses
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
China
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
China
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Mengxiao Chen
New H3C Technologies
China
Email: chen.mengxiao@h3c.com
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
China
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Liu, et al. Expires April, 2023 [Page 16]