draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-00.txt   draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-01.txt 
IDR Working Group E. Jasinska IDR Working Group E. Jasinska
Internet-Draft Limelight Networks Internet-Draft Limelight Networks
Intended status: Standards Track N. Hilliard Intended status: Standards Track N. Hilliard
Expires: September 27, 2012 INEX Expires: January 17, 2013 INEX
R. Raszuk R. Raszuk
NTT MCL Inc. NTT MCL Inc.
N. Bakker N. Bakker
AMS-IX B.V. AMS-IX B.V.
March 26, 2012 July 16, 2012
Internet Exchange Route Server Internet Exchange Route Server
draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-00 draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-01
Abstract Abstract
This document outlines a specification for multilateral This document outlines a specification for multilateral
interconnections at Internet exchange points (IXPs). Multilateral interconnections at Internet exchange points (IXPs). Multilateral
interconnection is a method of exchanging routing information between interconnection is a method of exchanging routing information between
three or more exterior BGP speakers using a single intermediate three or more exterior BGP speakers using a single intermediate
broker system, referred to as a route server. Route servers are broker system, referred to as a route server. Route servers are
typically used on shared access media networks, such as Internet typically used on shared access media networks, such as Internet
exchange points (IXPs), to facilitate simplified interconnection exchange points (IXPs), to facilitate simplified interconnection
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 27, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Technical Considerations for Route Server Implementations . . 4 2. Technical Considerations for Route Server Implementations . . 4
2.1. Client UPDATE Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Client UPDATE Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Attribute Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Attribute Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. NEXT_HOP Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.1. NEXT_HOP Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2. AS_PATH Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.2. AS_PATH Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.3. MULTI_EXIT_DISC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.3. MULTI_EXIT_DISC Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.4. Communities Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.4. Communities Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Per-Client Policy Control in Multilateral 2.3. Per-Client Policy Control in Multilateral
Interconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Interconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2. Implementing Per-Client Policy Control . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2. Mitigation of Path Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2.1. Multiple Route Server RIBs . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2.1. Multiple Route Server RIBs . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2.2. Advertising Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2.2. Advertising Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.3. Implementation Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection 1. Introduction to Multilateral Interconnection
Internet exchange points (IXPs) provide IP data interconnection Internet exchange points (IXPs) provide IP data interconnection
facilities for their participants, typically using shared Layer-2 facilities for their participants, typically using shared Layer-2
skipping to change at page 3, line 35 skipping to change at page 3, line 35
reachability information to the route server using exterior BGP, and reachability information to the route server using exterior BGP, and
the route server in turn forwards this information to each other the route server in turn forwards this information to each other
route server client connected to it, according to its configuration. route server client connected to it, according to its configuration.
Although a route server uses BGP to exchange reachability information Although a route server uses BGP to exchange reachability information
with each of its clients, it does not forward traffic itself and is with each of its clients, it does not forward traffic itself and is
therefore not a router. therefore not a router.
A route server can be viewed as similar in function to an [RFC4456] A route server can be viewed as similar in function to an [RFC4456]
route reflector, except that it operates using EBGP instead of iBGP. route reflector, except that it operates using EBGP instead of iBGP.
Certain adaptions to [RFC4271] are required to enable an EBGP router Certain adaptions to [RFC4271] are required to enable an EBGP router
to operate as a route server, which are outlined in Section 2 of this to operate as a route server; these are outlined in Section 2 of this
document. document.
The term "route server" is often in a different context used to The term "route server" is often in a different context used to
describe a BGP node whose purpose is to accept BGP feeds from describe a BGP node whose purpose is to accept BGP feeds from
multiple clients for the purpose of operational analysis and multiple clients for the purpose of operational analysis and
troubleshooting. A system of this form may alternatively be known as troubleshooting. A system of this form may alternatively be known as
a "route collector" or a "route-views server". This document uses a "route collector" or a "route-views server". This document uses
the term "route server" exclusively to describe multilateral peering the term "route server" exclusively to describe multilateral peering
brokerage systems. brokerage systems.
1.1. Specification of Requirements 1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
2. Technical Considerations for Route Server Implementations 2. Technical Considerations for Route Server Implementations
2.1. Client UPDATE Messages 2.1. Client UPDATE Messages
A route server MUST accept all UPDATE messages received from each of A route server MUST accept all UPDATE messages received from each of
its clients for inclusion in its Adj-RIB-In. These UPDATE messages its clients for inclusion in its Adj-RIB-In. These UPDATE messages
MAY by omitted from the route server's Loc-RIB or Loc-RIBs, due to MAY be omitted from the route server's Loc-RIB or Loc-RIBs, due to
filters configured for the purposes of implementing routing policy. filters configured for the purposes of implementing routing policy.
The route server SHOULD perform one or more BGP Decision Processes to The route server SHOULD perform one or more BGP Decision Processes to
select routes for subsequent advertisement to its clients, taking select routes for subsequent advertisement to its clients, taking
into account possible configuration to provide multiple NLRI paths to into account possible configuration to provide multiple NLRI paths to
a particular client as described in Section 2.3.2.2 or multiple Loc- a particular client as described in Section 2.3.2.2 or multiple Loc-
RIBs as described in Section 2.3.2.1. The route server SHOULD RIBs as described in Section 2.3.2.1. The route server SHOULD
forward UPDATE messages where appropriate from its Loc-RIB or Loc- forward UPDATE messages where appropriate from its Loc-RIB or Loc-
RIBs to its clients. RIBs to its clients.
2.2. Attribute Transparency 2.2. Attribute Transparency
skipping to change at page 4, line 39 skipping to change at page 4, line 39
default (unless explicitly configured) update well-known BGP default (unless explicitly configured) update well-known BGP
attributes received from route server clients before redistributing attributes received from route server clients before redistributing
them to their other route server clients. Optional recognized and them to their other route server clients. Optional recognized and
unrecognized BGP attributes, whether transitive or non-transitive, unrecognized BGP attributes, whether transitive or non-transitive,
SHOULD NOT be updated by the route server (unless enforced by local SHOULD NOT be updated by the route server (unless enforced by local
IX operator configuration) and SHOULD be passed on to other route IX operator configuration) and SHOULD be passed on to other route
server clients. server clients.
2.2.1. NEXT_HOP Attribute 2.2.1. NEXT_HOP Attribute
The NEXT_HOP, a well-known mandatory BGP attribute, defines the IP The NEXT_HOP is a well-known mandatory BGP attribute which defines
address of the router used as the next hop to the destinations listed the IP address of the router used as the next hop to the destinations
in the Network Layer Reachability Information field of the UPDATE listed in the Network Layer Reachability Information field of the
message. As the route server does not participate in the actual UPDATE message. As the route server does not participate in the
routing of traffic, the NEXT_HOP attribute MUST be passed unmodified actual routing of traffic, the NEXT_HOP attribute MUST be passed
to the route server clients, similar to the "third party" next hop unmodified to the route server clients, similar to the "third party"
feature described in section 5.1.3. of [RFC4271]. next hop feature described in section 5.1.3. of [RFC4271].
2.2.2. AS_PATH Attribute 2.2.2. AS_PATH Attribute
AS_PATH is a well-known mandatory attribute which identifies the AS_PATH is a well-known mandatory attribute which identifies the
autonomous systems through which routing information carried in the autonomous systems through which routing information carried in the
UPDATE message has passed. UPDATE message has passed.
As a route server does not participate in the process of forwarding As a route server does not participate in the process of forwarding
data between client routers, and because modification of the AS_PATH data between client routers, and because modification of the AS_PATH
attribute could affect route server client best path calculations, attribute could affect route server client best path calculations,
the route server SHOULD NOT prepend its own AS number to the AS_PATH the route server SHOULD NOT prepend its own AS number to the AS_PATH
segment nor modify the AS_PATH segment in any other way. segment nor modify the AS_PATH segment in any other way.
2.2.3. MULTI_EXIT_DISC Attribute 2.2.3. MULTI_EXIT_DISC Attribute
MULTI_EXIT_DISC is an optional non-transitive attribute intended to MULTI_EXIT_DISC is an optional non-transitive attribute intended to
be used on external (inter-AS) links to discriminate among multiple be used on external (inter-AS) links to discriminate among multiple
exit or entry points to the same neighboring AS. If applied to an exit or entry points to the same neighboring AS. Contrary to section
NLRI UPDATE sent to a route server, the attribute (contrary to 5.1.4 of [RFC4271], if applied to an NLRI UPDATE sent to a route
section 5.1.4 of [RFC4271]) SHOULD be propagated to other route server, this attribute SHOULD be propagated to other route server
server clients and the route server SHOULD NOT modify the value of clients and the route server SHOULD NOT modify its value.
this attribute.
2.2.4. Communities Attributes 2.2.4. Communities Attributes
The BGP COMMUNITIES ([RFC1997]) and Extended Communities ([RFC4360]) The BGP COMMUNITIES ([RFC1997]) and Extended Communities ([RFC4360])
attributes are attributes intended for labeling information carried attributes are attributes intended for labeling information carried
in BGP UPDATE messages. Transitive as well as non-transitive in BGP UPDATE messages. Transitive as well as non-transitive
Communities attributes applied to an NLRI UPDATE sent to a route Communities attributes applied to an NLRI UPDATE sent to a route
server SHOULD NOT be modified, processed or removed. However, if server SHOULD NOT be modified, processed or removed. However, if
such an attribute is intended for processing by the route server such an attribute is intended for processing by the route server
itself, it MAY be modified or removed. itself, it MAY be modified or removed.
2.3. Per-Client Policy Control in Multilateral Interconnection 2.3. Per-Client Policy Control in Multilateral Interconnection
While IXP participants often use route servers with the intention of While IXP participants often use route servers with the intention of
interconnecting with as many other route server participants as interconnecting with as many other route server participants as
possible, there are circumstances where control of path distribution possible, there are circumstances where control of path distribution
on a per-client basis is important for ensuring that desired on a per-client basis is important to ensure that desired
interconnection policies are met. interconnection policies are met.
The control of path distribution on a per-client basis can lead to a The control of path distribution on a per-client basis can lead to a
path being hidden from the route server client. We refer to this as path being hidden from the route server client. We refer to this as
"path hiding", which is described in Section 2.3.1. "path hiding".
Route server implementations SHOULD implement one of the methods
described in Section 2.3.2, for the operator to be able to allow the
control of path distribution on a per-client basis without the
occurrence of "path hiding".
2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server 2.3.1. Path Hiding on a Route Server
___ ___ ___ ___
/ \ / \ / \ / \
..| AS1 |..| AS2 |.. ..| AS1 |..| AS2 |..
: \___/ \___/ : : \___/ \___/ :
: \ / | : : \ / | :
: \ / | : : \ / | :
: IXP \/ | : : IXP \/ | :
skipping to change at page 7, line 7 skipping to change at page 7, line 7
For example, in Figure 1, if the same prefix were sent to the route For example, in Figure 1, if the same prefix were sent to the route
server via AS2 and AS4, and the route via AS2 was preferred according server via AS2 and AS4, and the route via AS2 was preferred according
to BGP's traditional best path selection, but AS1's policy prevents to BGP's traditional best path selection, but AS1's policy prevents
AS2's path from being accepted, then AS1 would never receive a path AS2's path from being accepted, then AS1 would never receive a path
to this prefix, even though the route server had previously received to this prefix, even though the route server had previously received
a valid alternative path via AS4. This happens because the best path a valid alternative path via AS4. This happens because the best path
selection is performed only once on the route server for all clients. selection is performed only once on the route server for all clients.
Path hiding will only occur on route servers which employ per-client Path hiding will only occur on route servers which employ per-client
policy control; if an IXP operator deploys a route server without the policy control; if an IXP operator deploys a route server without
possibility for policy control, then path hiding does not occur, as implementing a per-client routing policy control system, then path
all paths are considered equally valid from the point of view of the hiding does not occur as all paths are considered equally valid from
route server. the point of view of the route server.
2.3.2. Implementing Per-Client Policy Control 2.3.2. Mitigation of Path Hiding
In this section, we describe the alternatives to provide per-client There are several approaches which can be taken to mitigate against
policy control while preventing the occurrence of path hiding. path hiding.
2.3.2.1. Multiple Route Server RIBs 2.3.2.1. Multiple Route Server RIBs
The most portable means to allow for per-client policy control The most portable method to allow for per-client policy control
without the occurrence of path hiding, is by using a route server BGP without the occurrence of path hiding, is by using a route server BGP
implementation which performs the per-client best path calculation implementation which performs the per-client best path calculation
for each set of paths to a prefix, which results after the route for each set of paths to a prefix, which results after the route
server's client policies have been taken into consideration. This server's client policies have been taken into consideration. This
can be implemented by using per-client Loc-RIBs, with path filtering can be implemented by using per-client Loc-RIBs, with path filtering
implemented between the Adj-RIB-In and the per-client Loc-RIB. implemented between the Adj-RIB-In and the per-client Loc-RIB.
Implementations MAY optimize this by maintaining paths not subject to Implementations MAY optimize this by maintaining paths not subject to
filtering policies in a global Loc-RIB, with per-client Loc-RIBs filtering policies in a global Loc-RIB, with per-client Loc-RIBs
stored as deltas. stored as deltas.
skipping to change at page 8, line 39 skipping to change at page 8, line 39
If the ADD-PATH capability is negotiated bidirectionally between the If the ADD-PATH capability is negotiated bidirectionally between the
route server and a route server client, and the route server client route server and a route server client, and the route server client
propagates multiple paths for the same prefix to the route server, propagates multiple paths for the same prefix to the route server,
then this could potentially cause the propagation of inactive, then this could potentially cause the propagation of inactive,
invalid or suboptimal paths to the route server, thereby causing loss invalid or suboptimal paths to the route server, thereby causing loss
of reachability to other route server clients. For this reason, ADD- of reachability to other route server clients. For this reason, ADD-
PATH implementations on a route server SHOULD enforce send-only mode PATH implementations on a route server SHOULD enforce send-only mode
with the route server clients, which would result in negotiating with the route server clients, which would result in negotiating
receive-only mode from the client to the route server. receive-only mode from the client to the route server.
2.3.3. Implementation Recommendations
A route server SHOULD implement one of the methods described in
Section 2.3.2 to allow per-client routing policy control without
"path hiding".
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
The path hiding problem outlined in section Section 2.3.1 can be used The path hiding problem outlined in section Section 2.3.1 can be used
in certain circumstances to proactively block third party path in certain circumstances to proactively block third party path
announcements from other route server clients. announcements from other route server clients. Route server
operators should be aware that security issues may arise unless steps
are taken to mitigate against path hiding.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
The new set of mechanism for route servers does not require any new The new set of mechanisms for route servers does not require any new
allocations from IANA. allocations from IANA.
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ryan Bickhart, Steven Bakker, Chris The authors would like to thank Ryan Bickhart, Steven Bakker, Martin
Hall, Bruno Decraene and Pierre Francois for their valuable input. Pels, Chris Hall, Aleksi Suhonen, Bruno Decraene, Pierre Francois and
Eduardo Ascenco Reis for their valuable input.
In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the developers of In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the developers of
BIRD, OpenBGPD and Quagga, whose open source BGP implementations BIRD, OpenBGPD and Quagga, whose open source BGP implementations
include route server capabilities which are compliant with this include route server capabilities which are compliant with this
document. document.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist]
Raszuk, R., Fernando, R., Patel, K., McPherson, D., and K.
Kumaki, "Distribution of diverse BGP paths.",
draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-06 (work in
progress), November 2011.
[I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths]
Walton, D., Chen, E., Retana, A., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP",
draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-06 (work in progress),
September 2011.
[RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP [RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP
Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996. Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006. Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, February 2006.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist]
Raszuk, R., Fernando, R., Patel, K., McPherson, D., and K.
Kumaki, "Distribution of diverse BGP paths.",
draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-07 (work in
progress), May 2012.
[I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths]
Walton, D., Chen, E., Retana, A., and J. Scudder,
"Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP",
draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-07 (work in progress), June 2012.
[RFC1863] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full [RFC1863] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full
mesh routing", RFC 1863, October 1995. mesh routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.
[RFC4223] Savola, P., "Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic", [RFC4223] Savola, P., "Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic",
RFC 4223, October 2005. RFC 4223, October 2005.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
January 2007. (IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006.
[RFC5065] Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous
System Confederations for BGP", RFC 5065, August 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Elisa Jasinska Elisa Jasinska
Limelight Networks Limelight Networks
2220 W 14th St 222 South Mill Avenue
Tempe, AZ 85281 Tempe, AZ 85281
US US
Email: elisa@llnw.com Email: elisa@llnw.com
Nick Hilliard Nick Hilliard
INEX INEX
4027 Kingswood Road 4027 Kingswood Road
Dublin 24 Dublin 24
IE IE
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
64 lines changed or deleted 60 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/