aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/src/vnet/lisp-gpe/rfc.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'src/vnet/lisp-gpe/rfc.txt')
-rw-r--r--src/vnet/lisp-gpe/rfc.txt826
1 files changed, 826 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/src/vnet/lisp-gpe/rfc.txt b/src/vnet/lisp-gpe/rfc.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5e3da150
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/vnet/lisp-gpe/rfc.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,826 @@
+Network Working Group D. Lewis
+Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
+Intended status: Informational P. Agarwal
+Expires: January 5, 2015 Broadcom
+ L. Kreeger
+ F. Maino
+ P. Quinn
+ M. Smith
+ N. Yadav
+ Cisco Systems, Inc.
+ July 4, 2014
+
+
+ LISP Generic Protocol Extension
+ draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-02.txt
+
+Abstract
+
+ This draft describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
+ (LISP) [RFC6830], via changes to the LISP header, with three new
+ capabilities: support for multi-protocol encapsulation, operations,
+ administration and management (OAM) signaling, and explicit
+ versioning.
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
+ provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
+ Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
+ working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
+ Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
+
+ Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
+ and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
+ time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
+ material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
+
+ This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2015.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (c) 2014 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
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 1]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+ (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
+ 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-gpe) . . . . . . . . 5
+ 3.1. Multi Protocol Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+ 3.2. OAM Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 3.3. Version Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 4.1. LISP-gpe Routers to (legacy) LISP Routers . . . . . . . . 8
+ 4.2. (legacy) LISP Routers to LISP-gpe Routers . . . . . . . . 8
+ 4.3. Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 4.4. VLAN Identifier (VID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 5. LISP-gpe Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+ 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+ 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
+ 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
+ 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+ 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+ 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+ Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 2]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ LISP [RFC6830] defines an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or
+ IPv6 (henceforth referred to as IP) packets in a LISP header and
+ outer UDP/IP transport.
+
+ The LISP header does not specify the protocol being encapsulated and
+ therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only IP packet
+ payloads. Other protocols, most notably VXLAN [VXLAN] (which defines
+ a similar header format to LISP), are used to encapsulate L2
+ protocols such as Ethernet. LISP [RFC6830] can be extended to
+ indicate the inner protocol, enabling the encapsulation of Ethernet,
+ IP or any other desired protocol all the while ensuring compatibility
+ with existing LISP [RFC6830] deployments.
+
+ As LISP is deployed, there's also the need to provide increased
+ visibility and diagnostic capabilities within the overlay.
+
+ This document describes extending LISP ([RFC6830]) via the following
+ changes:
+
+ Next Protocol Bit (P bit): A reserved flag bit is allocated, and set
+ in the LISP-gpe header to indicate that a next protocol field is
+ present.
+
+ OAM Flag Bit (O bit): A reserved flag bit is allocated, and set in
+ the LISP-gpe header, to indicate that the packet is an OAM packet.
+
+ Version: Two reserved bits are allocated, and set in the LISP-gpe
+ header, to indicate LISP-gpe protocol version.
+
+ Next protocol: An 8 bit next protocol field is present in the LISP-
+ gpe header.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 3]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions
+
+ As described in the introduction, the LISP header has no protocol
+ identifier that indicates the type of payload being carried by LISP.
+ Because of this, LISP is limited to an IP payload. Furthermore, the
+ LISP header has no mechanism to signal OAM packets.
+
+ The LISP header contains flags (some defined, some reserved), a
+ Nonce/Map-version field and an instance ID/Locator-status-bit field.
+ The flags provide flexibility to define how the reserved bits can be
+ used to change the definition of the LISP header.
+
+
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ |N|L|E|V|I|flags| Nonce/Map-Version |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+
+ Figure 1: LISP Header
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 4]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-gpe)
+
+3.1. Multi Protocol Support
+
+ This draft defines the following changes to the LISP header in order
+ to support multi-protocol encapsulation.
+
+ P Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. The P bit
+ MUST be set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit next
+ protocol field.
+
+ P = 0 indicates that the payload MUST conform to LISP as defined
+ in [RFC6830].
+
+ Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bit because this flag bit is
+ currently unallocated in LISP [RFC6830].
+
+ Next Protocol Field: The lower 8 bits of the first word are used to
+ carry a next protocol. This next protocol field contains the
+ protocol of the encapsulated payload packet.
+
+ LISP [RFC6830] uses the lower 16 bits of the first word for either
+ a nonce, an echo-nonce ([RFC6830]) or to support map-versioning
+ ([RFC6834]). These are all optional capabilities that are
+ indicated by setting the N, E, and the V bit respectively.
+
+ To maintain the desired data plane compatibility, when the P bit
+ is set, the N, E, and V bits MUST be set to zero.
+
+ A new protocol registry will be requested from IANA for the Next
+ Protocol field. This draft defines the following Next Protocol
+ values:
+
+ 0x1 : IPv4
+
+ 0x2 : IPv6
+
+ 0x3 : Ethernet
+
+ 0x4: Network Service Header
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 5]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+ 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
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ |N|L|E|V|I|P|R|R| Reserved | Next Protocol |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+
+
+ Figure 2: LISP-gpe Next Protocol (P=1)
+
+3.2. OAM Support
+
+ Flag bit 7 is defined as the O bit. When the O bit is set to 1, the
+ packet is an OAM packet and OAM processing MUST occur. The OAM
+ protocol details are out of scope for this document. As with the
+ P-bit, bit 7 is currently a reserved flag in [RFC6830].
+
+
+
+
+ 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
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ |N|L|E|V|I|P|R|O| Reserved | Next Protocol |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+
+
+ Figure 3: LISP-gpe OAM bit (P=1)
+
+3.3. Version Bits
+
+ LISP-gpe bits8 and 9 are defined as version bits. The version field
+ is used to ensure backward compatibility going forward with future
+ LISP-gpe updates.
+
+ The initial version for LISP-gpe is 0.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 6]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+ 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
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ |N|L|E|V|I|P|R|O|Ver| Reserved | Next Protocol |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+
+
+ Figure 4: LISP-gpe Version bits (P=1)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 7]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+4. Backward Compatibility
+
+ Undefined (in RFC6830) flag bits 5 and 7, LISP-gpe P and O bits, were
+ selected to ensure compatibility with existing LISP [RFC6830]
+ deployments.
+
+ Similarly, using P = 0 to indicate that the format of the header and
+ payload conforms to [RFC6830] ensures compatibility with existing
+ LISP hardware forwarding platforms.
+
+4.1. LISP-gpe Routers to (legacy) LISP Routers
+
+ A LISP-gpe router MUST not encapsulate non-IP packet nor OAM packets
+ to a LISP router. A method for determining the capabilities of a
+ LISP router (gpe or "legacy") is out of the scope of this draft.
+
+ When encapsulating IP packets to a LISP router the P bit SHOULD be
+ set to 1 and the UDP port MUST be set to 4341. OAM bit MUST be set
+ to 0. The Next Protocol field SHOULD be 0x1 (IPv4) or 0x2 (IPv6).
+ The (legacy) LISP router will ignore the P bit and the protocol type
+ field. The (legacy) LISP router will treat the packet as a LISP
+ packet and inspect the first nibble of the payload to determine the
+ IP version.
+
+ When the P bit is set, the N, E, and V bits MUST be set to zero. The
+ receiving (legacy) LISP router will ignore N, E and V bits, when the
+ P bit is set.
+
+4.2. (legacy) LISP Routers to LISP-gpe Routers
+
+ When a LISP-gpe router receives a packet from a (legacy) LISP router,
+ the P bit MUST not be set and the UDP port MUST be 4341. The payload
+ MUST be IP, and the LISP-gpe router will inspect the first nibble of
+ the payload to determine IP version.
+
+4.3. Type of Service
+
+ When a LISP-gpe router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
+ 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be mapped from
+ the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in the outer IPv4
+ header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class' field.
+
+4.4. VLAN Identifier (VID)
+
+ When a LISP-gpe router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
+ header 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped to, or
+ used to determine the LISP Instance ID field.
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 8]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+5. LISP-gpe Examples
+
+ This section provides two examples of IP protocols, and one example
+ of Ethernet encapsulated LISP-gpe using the generic extension
+ described in this document.
+
+
+
+ 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
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ |N|L|E|V|I|1|0|0|0| Reserved | NP = IPv4 |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Original IPv4 Packet |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+
+
+ Figure 5: IPv4 and LISP-gpe
+
+
+
+
+ 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
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ |N|L|E|V|I|1|0|0|0| Reserved | NP = IPv6 |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Original IPv6 Packet |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+
+
+ Figure 6: IPv6 and LISP-gpe
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 9]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+ 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
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ |N|L|E|V|I|1|0|0|0| Reserved | NP = Ethernet |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Original Ethernet Frame |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+
+
+ Figure 7: Ethernet and LISP-gpe
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 10]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+6. Security Considerations
+
+ LISP-gpe security considerations are similar to the LISP security
+ considerations documented at length in LISP [RFC6830]. With LISP-
+ gpe, issues such as dataplane spoofing, flooding, and traffic
+ redirection are dependent on the particular protocol payload
+ encapsulated.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 11]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+7. Acknowledgments
+
+ A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
+ detailed review.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 12]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+8. IANA Considerations
+
+ IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Next Protocol". These are
+ 8-bit values. Next Protocol values 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are defined in
+ this draft. New values are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226].
+
+ +---------------+-------------+---------------+
+ | Next Protocol | Description | Reference |
+ +---------------+-------------+---------------+
+ | 0 | Reserved | This document |
+ | | | |
+ | 1 | IPv4 | This document |
+ | | | |
+ | 2 | IPv6 | This document |
+ | | | |
+ | 3 | Ethernet | This document |
+ | | | |
+ | 4 | NSH | This document |
+ | | | |
+ | 5..253 | Unassigned | |
+ +---------------+-------------+---------------+
+
+ Table 1
+
+ There are ten bits at the beginning of the LISP-gpe header. New
+ bits are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226].
+
+ Bits 0-3 - Assigned by LISP [RFC6830]
+ Bit 4 - Instance ID (I bit)
+ Bit 5 - Next Protocol (P bit)
+ Bit 6 - Reserved
+ Bit 7 - OAM (O bit)
+ Bits 8-9 - Version
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 13]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+9. References
+
+9.1. Normative References
+
+ [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+ August 1980.
+
+ [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+ September 1981.
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
+ IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
+ May 2008.
+
+9.2. Informative References
+
+ [ETYPES] The IEEE Registration Authority, "IEEE 802 Numbers", 2012,
+ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/
+ ieee-802-numbers.xml>.
+
+ [IEEE8021Q]
+ The IEEE Computer Society, "Media Access Control (MAC)
+ Bridges and Virtual Bridge Local Area Networks", August
+ 2012, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/
+ 802.1Q-2011.pdf>.
+
+ [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700,
+ October 1994.
+
+ [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
+ Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
+ January 2013.
+
+ [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
+ Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
+ January 2013.
+
+ [VXLAN] Dutt, D., Mahalingam, M., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
+ L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "VXLAN: A
+ Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over
+ Layer 3 Networks", 2013.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 14]
+
+Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Darrel Lewis
+ Cisco Systems, Inc.
+
+ Email: darlewis@cisco.com
+
+
+ Puneet Agarwal
+ Broadcom
+
+ Email: pagarwal@broadcom.com
+
+
+ Larry Kreeger
+ Cisco Systems, Inc.
+
+ Email: kreeger@cisco.com
+
+
+ Fabio Maino
+ Cisco Systems, Inc.
+
+ Email: fmaino@cisco.com
+
+
+ Paul Quinn
+ Cisco Systems, Inc.
+
+ Email: paulq@cisco.com
+
+
+ Michael Smith
+ Cisco Systems, Inc.
+
+ Email: michsmit@cisco.com
+
+
+ Navindra Yadav
+ Cisco Systems, Inc.
+
+ Email: nyadav@cisco.com