IS-IS Autoconfiguration
RFC 8196
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (July 2017; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Bing Liu , Les Ginsberg , Bruno Decraene , Ian Farrer , Mikael Abrahamsson | ||
| Last updated | 2017-07-13 | ||
| Replaces | draft-liu-isis-auto-conf | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Hannes Gredler | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2017-03-15) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8196 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Alia Atlas | ||
| Send notices to | "Hannes Gredler" <hannes@gredler.at> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Liu, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8196 Huawei Technologies
Category: Standards Track L. Ginsberg
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems
B. Decraene
Orange
I. Farrer
Deutsche Telekom AG
M. Abrahamsson
T-Systems
July 2017
IS-IS Autoconfiguration
Abstract
This document specifies IS-IS autoconfiguration mechanisms. The key
components are IS-IS System ID self-generation, duplication
detection, and duplication resolution. These mechanisms provide
limited IS-IS functions and are therefore suitable for networks where
plug-and-play configuration is expected.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8196.
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 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
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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IS-IS Default Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. IS-IS NET Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Router-Fingerprint TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.1. Startup Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.2. Adjacency Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.3. IS-IS System ID Duplication Detection . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.4. Duplicate System ID Resolution Procedures . . . . . . 8
3.4.5. System ID and Router-Fingerprint Generation
Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.6. Duplication of Both System ID and Router-Fingerprint 10
3.5. Additional IS-IS TLVs Usage Guidelines . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.1. Authentication TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.2. Metric Used in Reachability TLVs . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.3. Dynamic Name TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
1. Introduction
This document specifies mechanisms for IS-IS [RFC1195] [ISO_IEC10589]
[RFC5308] to be autoconfiguring. Such mechanisms could reduce the
management burden for configuring a network, especially where plug-
and-play device configuration is required.
IS-IS autoconfiguration is comprised of the following functions:
1. IS-IS default configuration
2. IS-IS System ID self-generation
3. System ID duplication detection and resolution
4. IS-IS TLV utilization (authentication TLV, metrics in
reachability advertisements, and Dynamic Name TLV)
This document also defines mechanisms to prevent the unintentional
interoperation of autoconfigured routers with non-autoconfigured
routers. See Section 3.3.
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. When these words are not in ALL CAPS (such
as "should" or "Should"), they have their usual English meanings and
are not to be interpreted as [RFC2119] key words.
2. Scope
The autoconfiguration mechanisms support both IPv4 and IPv6
deployments.
These autoconfiguration mechanisms aim to cover simple deployment
cases. The following important features are not supported:
o multiple IS-IS instances
o multi-area and level-2 routing
o interworking with other routing protocols
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
IS-IS autoconfiguration is primarily intended for use in small (i.e.,
10s of devices) and unmanaged deployments. It allows IS-IS to be
used without the need for any configuration by the user. It is not
recommended for larger deployments.
3. Protocol Specification
3.1. IS-IS Default Configuration
This section defines the default configuration for an autoconfigured
router.
o IS-IS interfaces MUST be autoconfigured to an interface type
corresponding to their Layer 2 capability. For example, Ethernet
interfaces will be autoconfigured as broadcast networks and Point-
to-Point Protocol (PPP) interfaces will be autoconfigured as
Point-to-Point interfaces.
o IS-IS autoconfiguration instances MUST be configured as level-1 so
that the interfaces operate as level-1 only.
o originatingLSPBufferSize is set to 512.
o MaxAreaAddresses is set to 3.
o Extended IS reachability (TLV 22) and IP reachability (TLV 135)
TLVs [RFC5305] MUST be used, i.e., a router operating in
autoconfiguration mode MUST NOT use any of the following TLVs:
* IIS Neighbors (TLV 2)
* IP Int. Reach (TLV 128)
* IP Ext. Address (TLV 130)
The TLVs listed above MUST be ignored on receipt.
3.2. IS-IS NET Generation
In IS-IS, a router (known as an Intermediate System) is identified by
a Network Entity Title (NET), which is a type of Network Service
Access Point (NSAP). The NET is the address of an instance of the
IS-IS protocol running on an IS.
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
The autoconfiguration mechanism generates the IS-IS NET as the
following:
o Area address
In IS-IS autoconfiguration, this field MUST be 13 octets long
and set to all 0s.
o System ID
This field follows the area address field and is 6 octets in
length. There are two basic requirements for the System ID
generation:
- As specified by the IS-IS protocol, this field must be
unique among all routers in the same area.
- After its initial generation, the System ID SHOULD remain
stable. Changes such as interface enable/disable, interface
connect/disconnect, device reboot, firmware update, or
configuration changes SHOULD NOT cause the System ID to
change. System ID change as part of the System ID collision
resolution process MUST be supported. Implementations
SHOULD allow the System ID to be cleared by a user-initiated
system reset.
More specific considerations for System ID generation are
described in Section 3.4.5.
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
3.3. Router-Fingerprint TLV
The Router-Fingerprint TLV is similar to the Router-Hardware-
Fingerprint TLV defined in [RFC7503]. However, the TLV defined here
includes a Flags field to support indicating that the router is in
startup mode and is operating in autoconfiguration mode.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Router-Fingerprint (Variable) .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 15.
Length: The length, in octets, of the "Flags" and "Router-
Fingerprint" fields.
Flags: 1 octet.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|A| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S flag: When set, indicates the router is in "startup" mode.
A flag: When set, indicates that the router is operating in
autoconfiguration mode. The purpose of the flag is so that two
routers can identify if they are both using autoconfiguration.
If the A flag setting does not match in hellos, then no
adjacency should be formed.
Reserved: These flags MUST be set to zero and MUST be ignored by the
receiver.
Router-Fingerprint: 32 or more octets.
More specific considerations for Router-Fingerprint are described in
Section 3.4.5.
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
The Router-Fingerprint TLV with the A flag set MUST be included in
IS-IS Hellos (IIHs) originated by a router operating in
autoconfiguration mode. An autoconfiguration mode router MUST ignore
IIHs that don't contain the Router-Fingerprint TLV with the A flag
set.
The Router-Fingerprint TLV with the A flag set MUST be included in
Link State PDU (LSP) #0 originated by a router operating in
autoconfiguration mode. If an LSP #0 is received by a router
operating in autoconfiguration mode and the LSP either does NOT
contain a Router-Fingerprint TLV or it does contain a Router-
Fingerprint TLV but the A flag is NOT set, then the LSP is flooded as
normal, but the entire LSP set originated by the sending router MUST
be ignored when running the Decision Process.
The Router-Fingerprint TLV MUST NOT be included in an LSP with a non-
zero number and when received MUST be ignored.
3.4. Protocol Operation
This section describes the operation of a router supporting
autoconfiguration mode.
3.4.1. Startup Mode
When a router starts operation in autoconfiguration mode, both the S
and A flags MUST be set in the Router-Fingerprint TLV included in
both hellos and LSP #0. During this mode, only LSP #0 is generated
and IS or IP/IPv6 reachability TLVs MUST NOT be included in LSP #0.
A router remains in startup mode for a minimum period of time
(recommended to be 1 minute). This time should be sufficient to
bring up adjacencies to all expected neighbors. A router leaves
startup mode once the minimum time has elapsed and full LSP database
synchronization is achieved with all neighbors in the UP state.
When a router exits startup mode, it clears the S flag in Router-
Fingerprint TLVs that it sends in hellos and LSP #0. The router MAY
now advertise the IS neighbor and IP/IPv6 prefix reachability in its
LSPs and MAY generate LSPs with a non-zero number.
The purpose of startup mode is to minimize the occurrence of System
ID changes for a router once it has become fully operational. Any
System ID change during startup mode will have minimal impact on a
running network because, while in startup mode, the router is not yet
being used for forwarding traffic.
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
3.4.2. Adjacency Formation
Routers operating in autoconfiguration mode MUST NOT form adjacencies
with routers that are NOT operating in autoconfiguration mode. The
presence of the Router-Fingerprint TLV with the A flag set indicates
the router is operating in autoconfiguration mode.
NOTE: The use of the special area address of all 0s makes it unlikely
that a router that is not operating in autoconfiguration mode will be
in the same area as a router operating in autoconfiguration mode.
However, the check for the Router-Fingerprint TLV with the A flag set
provides additional protection.
3.4.3. IS-IS System ID Duplication Detection
The System ID of each node MUST be unique. As described in
Section 3.4.5, the System ID is generated based on entropies (e.g.,
Media Access Control (MAC) address) that are generally expected to be
unique. However, since there may be limitations to the available
entropies, there is still the possibility of System ID duplication.
This section defines how IS-IS detects and resolves System ID
duplication. A duplicate system ID may occur between neighbors or
between routers in the same area that are not neighbors.
A duplicate system ID with a neighbor is detected when the System ID
received in an IIH is identical to the local System ID and the
Router-Fingerprint in the received Router-Fingerprint TLV does NOT
match the locally generated Router-Fingerprint.
A duplicate system ID with a non-neighbor is detected when an LSP #0
is received, the System ID of the originator is identical to the
local System ID, and the Router-Fingerprint in the Router-Fingerprint
TLV does NOT match the locally generated Router-Fingerprint.
3.4.4. Duplicate System ID Resolution Procedures
When a duplicate system ID is detected, one of the systems MUST
assign itself a different System ID and perform a protocol restart.
The resolution procedure attempts to minimize disruption to a running
network by choosing, whenever possible, to restart a router that is
in startup mode.
The contents of the Router-Fingerprint TLVs for the two routers with
duplicate system IDs are compared.
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
If one TLV has the S flag set (the router is in startup mode) and one
TLV has the S flag clear (the router is NOT in startup mode), the
router in startup mode MUST generate a new System ID and restart the
protocol.
If both TLVs have the S flag set (both routers are in startup mode)
or both TLVs have the S flag clear (neither router is in startup
mode), then the router with the numerically smaller Router-
Fingerprint MUST generate a new System ID and restart the protocol.
Fingerprint comparison is performed octet by octet starting from the
first received octet until a difference is detected. If the
fingerprints have different lengths and all octets up to the shortest
length are identical, then the fingerprint with smaller length is
considered smaller on the whole.
If the fingerprints are identical in both content and length (and the
state of the S flag is identical), and the duplication is detected in
hellos, then both routers MUST generate a new System ID and restart
the protocol.
If fingerprints are identical in both content and length, and the
duplication is detected in LSP #0, then the procedures defined in
Section 3.4.6 MUST be followed.
3.4.5. System ID and Router-Fingerprint Generation Considerations
As specified in this document, there are two distinguishing items
that need to be self-generated: the System ID and Router-Fingerprint.
In a network device, normally there are some resources that can
provide an extremely high probability of uniqueness (some examples
listed below). These resources can be used as seeds to derive
identifiers:
o MAC address(es)
o Configured IP address(es)
o Hardware IDs (e.g., CPU ID)
o Device serial number(s)
o System clock at a certain, specific time
o Arbitrary received packet(s) on an interface(s)
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
This document recommends the use of an IEEE 802 48-bit MAC address
associated with the router as the initial System ID. This document
does not specify a specific method to regenerate the System ID when
duplication happens.
This document also does not specify a method to generate the Router-
Fingerprint.
There is an important concern that the seeds listed above (except MAC
address) might not be available in some small devices such as home
routers. This is because of hardware/software limitations and the
lack of sufficient communication packets at the initial stage in home
routers when doing IS-IS autoconfiguration. In this case, this
document suggests using the MAC address as the System ID and
generating a pseudorandom number based on another seed (such as the
memory address of a certain variable in the program) as the Router-
Fingerprint. The pseudorandom number might not have a very high
probability of uniqueness in this solution but should be sufficient
in home network scenarios.
The considerations surrounding System ID stability described in
Section 3.2 also need to be applied.
3.4.6. Duplication of Both System ID and Router-Fingerprint
As described above, the resources for generating a System ID /
Router-Fingerprint might be very constrained during the initial
stages. Hence, the duplication of both System ID and Router-
Fingerprint need to be considered. In such a case, it is possible
that a router will receive an LSP with a System ID and Router-
Fingerprint identical to the local values, but the LSP is NOT
identical to the locally generated copy, i.e., the sequence number is
newer or the sequence number is the same, but the LSP has a valid
checksum that does not match. The term DD-LSP (Duplication Detection
LSP) is used to describe such an LSP.
In a benign case, this will occur if a router restarts and it
receives copies of its own LSPs from its previous incarnation. This
benign case needs to be distinguished from the pathological case
where there are two different routers with the same System ID and the
same Router-Fingerprint.
In the benign case, the restarting router will generate a new version
of its own LSP with a higher sequence number and flood the new LSP
version. This will cause other routers in the network to update
their LSP Database (LSPDB) and synchronization will be achieved.
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
In the pathological case, the generation of a new version of an LSP
by one of the "twins" will cause the other twin to generate the same
LSP with a higher sequence number -- and oscillation will continue
without achieving LSPDB synchronization.
Note that a comparison of the S flag in the Router-Fingerprint TLV
cannot be performed, as in the benign case it is expected that the S
flag will be clear. Also note that the conditions for detecting a
duplicate system ID will NOT be satisfied because both the System ID
and the Router-Fingerprint will be identical.
The following procedure is defined:
DD-state is a boolean that indicates if a
DD-LSP #0 has been received.
DD-count is the count of the number of occurrences
of reception of a DD-LSP.
DD-timer is a timer associated with reception of
DD-LSPs; the recommended value is 60 seconds.
DD-max is the maximum number of DD-LSPs allowed
to be received in DD-timer interval;
the recommended value is 3.
When a DD-LSP is received:
If DD-state is FALSE:
DD-state is set to TRUE.
DD-timer is started.
DD-count is initialized to 1.
If DD-state is TRUE:
DD-count is incremented.
If DD-count is >= DD-max:
The local system MUST generate a new System ID
and Router-Fingerprint and restart the protocol.
DD-state is (re)initialized to FALSE and
DD-timer is canceled.
If DD-timer expires:
DD-state is set to FALSE.
Note that to minimize the likelihood of duplication of both System ID
and Router-Fingerprint reoccurring, routers SHOULD have more
entropies available. One simple way to achieve this is to add the
LSP sequence number of the next LSP it will send to the Router-
Fingerprint.
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
3.5. Additional IS-IS TLVs Usage Guidelines
This section describes the behavior of selected TLVs when used by a
router supporting IS-IS autoconfiguration.
3.5.1. Authentication TLV
It is RECOMMENDED that IS-IS routers supporting this specification
offer an option to explicitly configure a single password for HMAC-
MD5 authentication as specified in [RFC5304].
3.5.2. Metric Used in Reachability TLVs
It is RECOMMENDED that IS-IS autoconfiguration routers use a high
metric value (e.g., 100000) as default in order to allow manually
configured adjacencies to be preferred over autoconfigured.
3.5.3. Dynamic Name TLV
IS-IS autoconfiguration routers MAY advertise their Dynamic Name TLV
(TLV 137 [RFC5301]). The hostname could be provisioned by an IT
system or just use the name of vendor, device type, or serial number,
etc.
To guarantee the uniqueness of the hostname, the System ID SHOULD be
appended as a suffix in the names.
4. Security Considerations
In the absence of cryptographic authentication, it is possible for an
attacker to inject a PDU falsely indicating there is a duplicate
system ID. This may trigger automatic restart of the protocol using
the duplicate-id resolution procedures defined in this document.
Note that the use of authentication is incompatible with
autoconfiguration as it requires some manual configuration.
For wired deployment, the wired connection itself could be considered
as an implicit authentication in that unwanted routers are usually
not able to connect (i.e., there is some kind of physical security in
place preventing the connection of rogue devices); for wireless
deployment, the authentication could be achieved at the lower
wireless link layer.
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
5. IANA Considerations
This document details a new IS-IS TLV reflected in the "IS-IS TLV
Codepoints" registry:
Value Name IIH LSP SNP Purge
---- ------------ --- --- --- -----
15 Router-Fingerprint Y Y N Y
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[ISO_IEC10589]
International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology -- Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems -- Intermediate
System to Intermediate System intra-domain routeing
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
the protocol for providing the connectionless-mode network
service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition,
November 2002.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[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>.
[RFC5301] McPherson, D. and N. Shen, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange
Mechanism for IS-IS", RFC 5301, DOI 10.17487/RFC5301,
October 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5301>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC7503] Lindem, A. and J. Arkko, "OSPFv3 Autoconfiguration",
RFC 7503, DOI 10.17487/RFC7503, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7503>.
Acknowledgements
This document was heavily inspired by [RFC7503].
Martin Winter, Christian Franke, and David Lamparter gave essential
feedback to improve the technical design based on their
implementation experience.
Many useful comments were made by Acee Lindem, Karsten Thomann,
Hannes Gredler, Peter Lothberg, Uma Chundury, Qin Wu, Sheng Jiang,
and Nan Wu, etc.
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8196 IS-IS Autoconfiguration July 2017
Authors' Addresses
Bing Liu (editor)
Huawei Technologies
Q10, Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Road
Hai-Dian District, Beijing, 100095
P.R. China
Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
821 Alder Drive
Milpitas CA 95035
United States of America
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Ian Farrer
Deutsche Telekom AG
Bonn
Germany
Email: ian.farrer@telekom.de
Mikael Abrahamsson
T-Systems
Stockholm
Sweden
Email: mikael.abrahamsson@t-systems.se
Liu, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]