draft-ietf-idr-large-community-12.txt		rfc8092.txt
	IDR J. Heitz, Ed.		Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Heitz, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Cisco		Request for Comments: 8092 Cisco
	Intended status: Standards Track J. Snijders, Ed.		Category: Standards Track J. Snijders, Ed.
	Expires: July 9, 2017 NTT		ISSN: 2070-1721 NTT
	K. Patel		K. Patel
	Arrcus		Arrcus
	I. Bagdonas		I. Bagdonas
	Equinix		Equinix
	N. Hilliard		N. Hilliard
	INEX		INEX
	January 5, 2017		February 2017
	BGP Large Communities		BGP Large Communities Attribute
	draft-ietf-idr-large-community-12
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes the BGP Large Communities attribute, an		This document describes the BGP Large Communities attribute, an
	extension to BGP-4. This attribute provides a mechanism to signal		extension to BGP-4. This attribute provides a mechanism to signal
	opaque information within separate namespaces to aid in routing		opaque information within separate namespaces to aid in routing
	management. The attribute is suitable for use with all Autonomous		management. The attribute is suitable for use with all Autonomous
	System Numbers including four-octet Autonomous System Numbers.		System Numbers (ASNs) including four-octet ASNs.
	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].
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This is an Internet Standards Track document.
	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		This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		received public review and has been approved for publication by the
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
			Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2017.		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/rfc8092.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2017 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction ....................................................2
	2. BGP Large Communities Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Requirements Language ...........................................3
	3. Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. BGP Large Communities Attribute .................................3
	4. Canonical Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Aggregation .....................................................4
	5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Canonical Representation ........................................4
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. Error Handling ..................................................5
	7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION 5		7. Security Considerations .........................................5
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8. IANA Considerations .............................................6
	9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		9. References ......................................................6
	10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		9.1. Normative References .......................................6
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		9.2. Informative References .....................................6
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		Acknowledgments ....................................................7
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		Contributors .......................................................7
	11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses .................................................8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	BGP [RFC4271] implementations typically support a routing policy		BGP [RFC4271] implementations typically support a routing policy
	language to control the distribution of routing information. Network		language to control the distribution of routing information. Network
	operators attach BGP communities to routes to associate particular		operators attach BGP communities to routes to associate particular
	properties with these routes. These properties may include		properties with these routes. These properties may include
	information such as the route origin location, or specification of a		information such as the route origin location, or specification of a
	routing policy action to be taken, or one that has been taken, and is		routing policy action to be taken, or one that has been taken, and is
	applied to all routes contained in a BGP Update Message where the		applied to all routes contained in a BGP Update Message where the
	Communities Attribute is included. Because BGP communities are		Communities Attribute is included. Because BGP communities are
	optional transitive BGP attributes, BGP communities may be acted upon		optional transitive BGP attributes, BGP communities may be acted upon
	or otherwise used by routing policies in other Autonomous Systems		or otherwise used by routing policies in other Autonomous Systems
	(ASes) on the Internet.		(ASes) on the Internet.
	BGP Communities attributes are a variable length attribute consisting		A BGP Communities attribute is a variable-length attribute consisting
	of a set of one or more four-octet values, each of which specify a		of a set of one or more four-octet values, each of which specify a
	community [RFC1997]. Common use of the individual values of this		community [RFC1997]. Common use of the individual values of this
	attribute type split this single 32-bit value into two 16-bit values.		attribute type split this single 32-bit value into two 16-bit values.
	The most significant word is interpreted as an Autonomous System		The most significant word is interpreted as an Autonomous System
	Number (ASN) and the least significant word is a locally defined		Number (ASN), and the least significant word is a locally defined
	value whose meaning is assigned by the operator of the Autonomous		value whose meaning is assigned by the operator of the AS in the most
	System in the most significant word.		significant word.
	Since the adoption of four-octet ASNs [RFC6793], the BGP Communities		Since the adoption of four-octet ASNs [RFC6793], the BGP Communities
	attribute can no longer accommodate the above encoding, as a two-		attribute can no longer accommodate the above encoding, as a two-
	octet word cannot fit a four-octet ASN. The BGP Extended Communities		octet word cannot fit a four-octet ASN. The BGP Extended Communities
	attribute [RFC4360] is also unsuitable. The six-octet length of the		attribute [RFC4360] is also unsuitable. The six-octet length of the
	Extended Community value precludes the common operational practise of		Extended Community value precludes the common operational practice of
	encoding four-octet ASNs in both the Global Administrator and the		encoding four-octet ASNs in both the Global Administrator and the
	Local Administrator sub-fields.		Local Administrator sub-fields.
	To address these shortcomings, this document defines a BGP Large		To address these shortcomings, this document defines a BGP Large
	Communities attribute encoded as an unordered set of one or more		Communities attribute encoded as an unordered set of one or more
	twelve-octet values, each consisting of a four-octet Global		twelve-octet values, each consisting of a four-octet Global
	Administrator field and two four-octet operator-defined fields, each		Administrator field and two four-octet operator-defined fields, each
	of which can be used to denote properties or actions significant to		of which can be used to denote properties or actions significant to
	the operator of the Autonomous System assigning the values.		the operator of the AS assigning the values.
	2. BGP Large Communities Attribute		2. 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].
			3. BGP Large Communities Attribute
	This document defines the BGP Large Communities attribute as an		This document defines the BGP Large Communities attribute as an
	optional transitive path attribute of variable length. All routes		optional transitive path attribute of variable length. All routes
	with the BGP Large Communities attribute belong to the communities		with the BGP Large Communities attribute belong to the communities
	specified in the attribute.		specified in the attribute.
	Each BGP Large Community value is encoded as a 12-octet quantity, as		Each BGP Large Community value is encoded as a 12-octet quantity, as
	follows:		follows:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	skipping to change at page 4, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 24 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Local Data Part 2 |		| Local Data Part 2 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Global Administrator: A four-octet namespace identifier.		Global Administrator: A four-octet namespace identifier.
	Local Data Part 1: A four-octet operator-defined value.		Local Data Part 1: A four-octet operator-defined value.
	Local Data Part 2: A four-octet operator-defined value.		Local Data Part 2: A four-octet operator-defined value.
	The Global Administrator field is intended to allow different		The Global Administrator field is intended to allow different ASes to
	Autonomous Systems to define BGP Large Communities without collision.		define BGP Large Communities without collision. This field SHOULD be
	This field SHOULD be an Autonomous System Number (ASN), in which case		an ASN, in which case the Local Data Parts are to be interpreted as
	the Local Data Parts are to be interpreted as defined by the owner of		defined by the owner of the ASN. The use of Reserved ASNs (0
	the ASN. The use of Reserved ASNs (0 [RFC7607], 65535 and 4294967295		[RFC7607], 65535 and 4294967295 [RFC7300]) is NOT RECOMMENDED.
	[RFC7300]) is NOT RECOMMENDED.
	There is no significance to the order in which twelve-octet Large		There is no significance to the order in which twelve-octet Large
	Community Attribute values are encoded in a Large Communities		Community Attribute values are encoded in a Large Communities
	attribute, A BGP speaker can transmit them in any order.		attribute, A BGP speaker can transmit them in any order.
	Duplicate BGP Large Community values MUST NOT be transmitted. A		Duplicate BGP Large Community values MUST NOT be transmitted. A
	receiving speaker MUST silently remove redundant BGP Large Community		receiving speaker MUST silently remove redundant BGP Large Community
	values from a BGP Large Community attribute.		values from a BGP Large Community attribute.
	3. Aggregation		4. Aggregation
	If a range of routes is aggregated, then the resulting aggregate		If a range of routes is aggregated, then the resulting aggregate
	should have a BGP Large Communities attribute which contains all of		should have a BGP Large Communities attribute that contains all of
	the BGP Large Communities attributes from all of the aggregated		the BGP Large Communities attributes from all of the aggregated
	routes.		routes.
	4. Canonical Representation		5. Canonical Representation
	The canonical representation of BGP Large Communities is three		The canonical representation of BGP Large Communities is three
	separate unsigned integers in decimal notation in the following		separate unsigned integers in decimal notation in the following
	order: Global Administrator, Local Data 1, Local Data 2. Numbers		order: Global Administrator, Local Data 1, Local Data 2. Numbers
	MUST NOT contain leading zeros; a zero value MUST be represented with		MUST NOT contain leading zeros; a zero value MUST be represented with
	a single zero. Each number is separated from the next by a single		a single zero. Each number is separated from the next by a single
	colon. For example: 64496:4294967295:2, 64496:0:0.		colon. For example: 64496:4294967295:2, 64496:0:0.
	BGP Large Communities SHOULD be represented in the canonical		BGP Large Communities SHOULD be represented in the canonical
	representation.		representation.
	5. Error Handling		6. Error Handling
	The error handling of BGP Large Communities is as follows:		The error handling of BGP Large Communities is as follows:
	o A BGP Large Communities attribute SHALL be considered malformed if		o A BGP Large Communities attribute SHALL be considered malformed if
	the length of the BGP Large Communities Attribute value, expressed		the length of the BGP Large Communities Attribute value, expressed
	in octets, is not a non-zero multiple of 12.		in octets, is not a non-zero multiple of 12.
	o A BGP Large Communities attribute SHALL NOT be considered		o A BGP Large Communities attribute SHALL NOT be considered
	malformed due solely to presence of duplicate community values.		malformed due to presence of duplicate Large Community values.
	o A BGP UPDATE message with a malformed BGP Large Communities		o A BGP UPDATE message with a malformed BGP Large Communities
	attribute SHALL be handled using the approach of "treat-as-		attribute SHALL be handled using the approach of "treat-as-
	withdraw" as described in section 2 [RFC7606].		withdraw" as described in Section 2 of [RFC7606].
	The BGP Large Communities Global Administrator field may contain any		The BGP Large Communities Global Administrator field may contain any
	value, and a BGP Large Communities attribute MUST NOT be considered		value, and a BGP Large Communities attribute MUST NOT be considered
	malformed if the Global Administrator field contains an unallocated,		malformed if the Global Administrator field contains an unallocated,
	unassigned or reserved ASN.		unassigned, or reserved ASN.
	6. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	This document does not change any underlying security issues		This document does not change any underlying security issues
	associated with any other BGP Communities mechanism. Specifically,		associated with any other BGP Communities mechanism. Specifically,
	an AS relying on the BGP Large Communities attribute carried in BGP		an AS relying on the BGP Large Communities attribute carried in BGP
	must have trust in every other AS in the path, as any intermediate		must have trust in every other AS in the path, as any intermediate AS
	Autonomous System in the path may have added, deleted, or altered the		in the path may have added, deleted, or altered the BGP Large
	BGP Large Communities attribute. Specifying the mechanism to provide		Communities attribute. Specifying the mechanism to provide such
	such trust is beyond the scope of this document.		trust is beyond the scope of this document.
	BGP Large Communities do not protect the integrity of each community		BGP Large Communities do not protect the integrity of each community
	value. Operators should be aware that it is possible for a BGP		value. Operators should be aware that it is possible for a BGP
	speaker to alter BGP Large Community Attribute values in a BGP Update		speaker to alter BGP Large Community Attribute values in a BGP Update
	Message. Protecting the integrity of the transitive handling of BGP		Message. Protecting the integrity of the transitive handling of BGP
	Large Community attributes in a manner consistent with the intent of		Large Community attributes in a manner consistent with the intent of
	expressed BGP routing policies falls within the broader scope of		expressed BGP routing policies falls within the broader scope of
	securing BGP, and is not specifically addressed here.		securing BGP, and is not specifically addressed here.
	Network administrators should note the recommendations in Section 11		Network administrators should note the recommendations in Section 11
	of BGP Operations and Security [RFC7454].		of "BGP Operations and Security" [RFC7454].
	7. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION
	This section records the status of known implementations of the
	protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
	Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC7942. The
	description of implementations in this section is intended to assist
	the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs.
	Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here
	does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has
	been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied
	by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be
	construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
	features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
	exist.
	As of today these vendors have produced an implementation of BGP
	Large Communities:
	o Cisco IOS XR
	o ExaBGP
	o GoBGP
	o BIRD
	o OpenBGPD
	o pmacct
	o Quagga
	The latest implementation news is tracked at
	http://largebgpcommunities.net/ [1].
	8. IANA Considerations		8. IANA Considerations
	IANA has made an Early Allocation of the value 32 (LARGE_COMMUNITY)		IANA has assigned the value 32 (LARGE_COMMUNITY) in the "BGP Path
	in the "BGP Path Attributes" registry under the "Border Gateway		Attributes" subregistry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
	Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group and is now asked to make that		Parameters" registry.
	Permanent.
	9. Contributors
	The following people contributed significantly to the content of the
	document:
	John Heasley
	NTT Communications
	Email: heas@shrubbery.net
	Adam Simpson
	Nokia
	Email: adam.1.simpson@nokia.com
	10. Acknowledgments
	The authors would like to thank Ruediger Volk, Russ White, Acee
	Lindem, Shyam Sethuram, Jared Mauch, Joel M. Halpern, Jeffrey Haas,
	Gunter van de Velde, Marco Marzetti, Eduardo Ascenco Reis, Mark
	Schouten, Paul Hoogsteder, Martijn Schmidt, Greg Hankins, Bertrand
	Duvivier, Barry O'Donovan, Grzegorz Janoszka, Linda Dunbar, Marco
	Davids, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Jeff Tantsura, Teun Vink, Adam
	Davenport, Theodore Baschak, Pier Carlo Chiodi, Nabeel Cocker, Ian
	Dickinson, Jan Baggen, Duncan Lockwood, David Farmer, Randy Bush, Wim
	Henderickx, Stefan Plug, Kay Rechthien, Rob Shakir, Warren Kumari,
	Gert Doering, Thomas King, Mikael Abrahamsson, Wesley Steehouwer,
	Sander Steffann, Brad Dreisbach, Martin Millnert, Christopher Morrow,
	Jay Borkenhagen, Arnold Nipper, Joe Provo, Niels Bakker, Bill Fenner,
	Tom Daly, Ben Maddison, Alexander Azimov, Brian Dickson, Peter van
	Dijk, Julian Seifert, Tom Petch, Tom Scholl, Arjen Zonneveld, Remco
	van Mook, Adam Chappell, Jussi Peltola, Kristian Larsson, Markus
	Hauschild, Richard Steenbergen, David Freedman, Richard Hartmann,
	Geoff Huston, Mach Chen, and Alvaro Retana for their support,
	insightful review and comments.
	11. References		9. References
	11.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[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,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A		[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
	Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,		Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
	[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.		[RFC7606] Chen, E., Ed., Scudder, J., Ed., Mohapatra, P., and K.
	Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",		Patel, "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages",
	RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,		RFC 7606, DOI 10.17487/RFC7606, August 2015,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7606>.
	11.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities		[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
	Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,		Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
	[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended		[RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
	Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,		Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
	February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.		February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.
	[RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet		[RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
	skipping to change at page 8, line 14 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 10 ¶
	[RFC7454] Durand, J., Pepelnjak, I., and G. Doering, "BGP Operations		[RFC7454] Durand, J., Pepelnjak, I., and G. Doering, "BGP Operations
	and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454,		and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454,
	February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>.		February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>.
	[RFC7607] Kumari, W., Bush, R., Schiller, H., and K. Patel,		[RFC7607] Kumari, W., Bush, R., Schiller, H., and K. Patel,
	"Codification of AS 0 Processing", RFC 7607,		"Codification of AS 0 Processing", RFC 7607,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7607, August 2015,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7607, August 2015,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7607>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7607>.
	11.3. URIs		Acknowledgments
	[1] http://largebgpcommunities.net		The authors would like to thank Ruediger Volk, Russ White, Acee
			Lindem, Shyam Sethuram, Jared Mauch, Joel M. Halpern, Jeffrey Haas,
			Gunter van de Velde, Marco Marzetti, Eduardo Ascenco Reis, Mark
			Schouten, Paul Hoogsteder, Martijn Schmidt, Greg Hankins, Bertrand
			Duvivier, Barry O'Donovan, Grzegorz Janoszka, Linda Dunbar, Marco
			Davids, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Jeff Tantsura, Teun Vink, Adam
			Davenport, Theodore Baschak, Pier Carlo Chiodi, Nabeel Cocker, Ian
			Dickinson, Jan Baggen, Duncan Lockwood, David Farmer, Randy Bush, Wim
			Henderickx, Stefan Plug, Kay Rechthien, Rob Shakir, Warren Kumari,
			Gert Doering, Thomas King, Mikael Abrahamsson, Wesley Steehouwer,
			Sander Steffann, Brad Dreisbach, Martin Millnert, Christopher Morrow,
			Jay Borkenhagen, Arnold Nipper, Joe Provo, Niels Bakker, Bill Fenner,
			Tom Daly, Ben Maddison, Alexander Azimov, Brian Dickson, Peter van
			Dijk, Julian Seifert, Tom Petch, Tom Scholl, Arjen Zonneveld, Remco
			van Mook, Adam Chappell, Jussi Peltola, Kristian Larsson, Markus
			Hauschild, Richard Steenbergen, David Freedman, Richard Hartmann,
			Geoff Huston, Mach Chen, and Alvaro Retana for their support,
			insightful review, and comments.
			Contributors
			The following people contributed significantly to the content of the
			document:
			John Heasley
			NTT Communications
			Email: heas@shrubbery.net
			Adam Simpson
			Nokia
			Email: adam.1.simpson@nokia.com
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Jakob Heitz (editor)		Jakob Heitz (editor)
	Cisco		Cisco
	170 West Tasman Drive		170 West Tasman Drive
	San Jose, CA 95054		San Jose, CA 95054
	USA		United States of America
	Email: jheitz@cisco.com		Email: jheitz@cisco.com
	Job Snijders (editor)		Job Snijders (editor)
	NTT Communications		NTT Communications
	Theodorus Majofskistraat 100		Theodorus Majofskistraat 100
	Amsterdam 1065 SZ		Amsterdam 1065 SZ
	The Netherlands		The Netherlands
	Email: job@ntt.net		Email: job@ntt.net
	Keyur Patel		Keyur Patel
	Arrcus, Inc		Arrcus, Inc.
	Email: keyur@arrcus.com		Email: keyur@arrcus.com
	Ignas Bagdonas		Ignas Bagdonas
	Equinix		Equinix
	80 Cheapside		80 Cheapside
	London EC2V 6EE		London EC2V 6EE
	United Kingdom		United Kingdom
	Email: ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com		Email: ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com
	skipping to change at page 9, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 35 ¶
	Email: keyur@arrcus.com		Email: keyur@arrcus.com
	Ignas Bagdonas		Ignas Bagdonas
	Equinix		Equinix
	80 Cheapside		80 Cheapside
	London EC2V 6EE		London EC2V 6EE
	United Kingdom		United Kingdom
	Email: ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com		Email: ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com
	Nick Hilliard		Nick Hilliard
	INEX		INEX
	4027 Kingswood Road		4027 Kingswood Road
	Dublin 24		Dublin 24
	IE		Ireland
	Email: nick@inex.ie		Email: nick@inex.ie
End of changes. 34 change blocks.
	148 lines changed or deleted		103 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/