RFC 7777
Advertising Node Administrative Tags in OSPF
RFC 7777: Advertising Node Administrative Tags in OSPF 🎀
okay bestie, this is RFC 7777 💖 It's a Standards Track document, so it's an actual official IETF spec and not just vibes. It was published in March 2016 and sits under ISSN 2070-1721 ✨
The authors are S. Hegde (Juniper Networks, Inc.), R. Shakir (Jive Communications, Inc.), A. Smirnov (Cisco Systems, Inc.), Z. Li (Huawei Technologies), and B. Decraene (Orange). It doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so it's a fresh start 🌸
Abstract
okay so the big idea 🦋 This doc extends OSPF with an optional capability that lets you tag and group the nodes in an OSPF domain. That makes things way simpler to manage and gives you control over route and path selection based on policies you set yourself. The node tags can be used to express and apply locally defined network policies, which is a super useful operational capability. OSPF itself can use them, and so can other applications that consume info spread through OSPF 💅
The document covers the protocol extensions that spread node administrative tags across OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, and it also gives example use cases for them 🧚
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, received public review, and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). If you want more info on Internet Standards, check out Section 2 of RFC 5741 📚
Info about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to give feedback on it lives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7777 🔗
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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, which you can find at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info, as they were in effect on the date this document was published. Please actually read these, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document 🙈 Any Code Components pulled out of this document must include the Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions. They come without warranty, as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OSPF Node Admin Tag TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. TLV Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. Interpretation of Node Administrative Tags . . . . . 4
2.2.2. Use of Node Administrative Tags . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3. Processing Node Administrative Tag Changes . . . . . 6
3. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Service Auto-Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Fast-Rerouting Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Controlling Remote LFA Tunnel Termination . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Mobile Backhaul Network Service Deployment . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Explicit Routing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151. Introduction ✨
It's really useful to give a node administrative tag to a router in the OSPF domain and use it as an attribute of that node. The tag can show up in a bunch of applications, for example:
- (a) Traffic Engineering (TE) applications, to get different path-selection criteria 🛣️
- (b) Preferring or pruning certain paths in Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) backup selection, using local policies as defined in [LFA-MANAGE] 🌸
This document gives you the mechanisms to advertise node administrative tags in OSPF for route and path selection. Route and path selection works for both TE and non-TE applications, so there's a new TLV for carrying node administrative tags inside the Router Information (RI) Link State Advertisement (LSA) [RFC7770] 💖
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] 📖
2. OSPF Node Admin Tag TLV 🎀
An administrative tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to identify a group of nodes in the OSPF domain 🧩
The newly defined TLV rides inside an RI LSA for OSPFV2 and OSPFV3. The RI LSA [RFC7770] can have flooding scope at the link, area, or Autonomous System (AS) level, and picking which scope to flood the group tags at is a matter of local policy. Heads up: node administrative tag values are not expected to be portable across administrative domains 👀
The TLV specifies one or more administrative tag values. An OSPF node advertises the set of groups it belongs to in the OSPF domain. For example, all PE nodes could be configured with one tag value, and all P nodes with a different one 🍓 Multiple TLVs MAY be added in the same RI LSA or in a different instance of the RI LSA, as defined in [RFC7770] 💅
2.1. TLV Format 🦋
[RFC7770] defines the RI LSA, which can be used to advertise properties of the originating router. The payload of the RI LSA is made of one or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets 🧚
Node administrative tags get advertised in the Node Admin Tag TLV. Here's the format of the Node Admin Tag TLV 👑
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Administrative Tag #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Administrative Tag #2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Administrative Tag #N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: OSPF Node Admin Tag TLVHere's what each field means:
- Type: 10
- Length: a 16-bit field with the length of the value portion in octets. It's always a multiple of 4 octets, depending on how many tags are advertised 📏
- Value: a set of administrative tags, where each tag is a 32-bit integer value. At least one tag MUST be carried if this TLV is included in the RI LSA 🫶
2.2. Elements of Procedure 💖
2.2.1. Interpretation of Node Administrative Tags 🔍
The meaning of node administrative tags is generally opaque to OSPF. Routers advertising a tag (or tags) can be configured to do that without knowing about, or even supporting, the functionality the tag implies. This section lays out general rules, regulations, and guidelines for using and interpreting an administrative tag, so vendors end up with interoperable implementations 🤝
Tag values are specific to the administrative domain of a particular network operator, so tag values SHOULD NOT be propagated outside the administrative domain they apply to 🚧 The meaning of a node administrative tag is defined by network local policy and controlled through configuration. If a receiving node doesn't understand the tag value, or doesn't have a local policy that matches it, it ignores that tag and floods the RI LSA without any change, as defined in [RFC7770] 🌊
Tag order means nothing. There's no implied meaning in the ordering of tags that would signal some operation, or set of operations, to perform 🙅♀️
Each tag must be treated as an independent identifier that can be used in policy to perform a policy action. Each tag carried by the Node Admin Tag TLV should be used to indicate a characteristic of a node that's independent of the characteristics the other tags indicate. The administrative-tag list within the TLV MUST be considered an unordered list. Policies can be built on the presence of multiple tags (for example, if tag A AND tag B are present), but they MUST NOT rely on tag order. All policies should be commutative, so tag A coming before or after tag B doesn't change the outcome 🔁
2.2.2. Use of Node Administrative Tags 🌸
Node administrative tags are not meant to be extended by future OSPF standards. New OSPF extensions aren't expected to need node administrative tags or to define well-known tag values. Node administrative tags are for generic use and don't need IANA registration. Future OSPF extensions that do need well-known values MAY define their own data signaling tailored to the needs of that feature, or MAY use the capability TLV defined in [RFC7770] 🧁
Since it lives inside the RI LSA, the Node Admin Tag TLV must be reasonably small and stable. Most importantly, implementations that support node administrative tags MUST NOT be used to convey attributes of the routing topology, to tie tags to changes in the network topology (inside or outside the OSPF domain), or to tie them to route reachability 🚫💀
2.2.3. Processing Node Administrative Tag Changes ✨
Okay so bestie, this part is all about what happens when the tags change. 🦋 Multiple Node Admin Tag TLVs MAY appear in an RI LSA, or multiple Node Admin Tag TLVs MAY be contained in different instances of the RI LSA. 💅 The administrative tags that a node uses for any computation or processing at a receiving node SHOULD be a superset of the node administrative tags from all the TLVs in all the received RI LSA instances in the Link-State Database (LSDB) advertised by the corresponding OSPF router. 🫶 When an RI LSA is received that changes the set of tags applicable to any originating node, and that node has features depending on node administrative tags, a receiving node MUST repeat any computation or processing that is based on those administrative tags. 🔥 It's giving "recompute everything, no cap" 😭
When there is a change or removal of an administrative affiliation of a node, the node MUST re-originate the RI LSA with the latest set of node administrative tags. 🌸 On the receiver, when there is a change in the Node Admin Tag TLV or a removal/addition of a TLV in any instance of the RI LSA, implementations MUST take appropriate measures to update their state according to the changed set of tags. 👑 The exact actions needed depend on the features working with administrative tags, and those are outside the scope of this specification. 💜 Not me building a whole feature list in an RFC, lol, that's a different chapter. 🙈
- Applications ✨
This section lists several examples of how implementations might use the node administrative tags. 🌈 These examples are given only to demonstrate the generic usefulness of the router tagging mechanism. Implementations supporting this specification are not required to implement any of these use cases. 🧚 It's also worth noting that in some of the described use cases, routers configured to advertise tags help other routers in their calculations but do not themselves implement the same functionality. 💖 Main character energy for the helper routers, honestly. 🎀
3.1. Service Auto-Discovery
Router tagging may be used to automatically discover a group of routers sharing a particular service. ⭐
For example, a service provider might desire to establish a full mesh of MPLS TE tunnels between all PE routers in the area of the MPLS VPN network. 🦋 Marking all PE routers with a tag, and configuring devices with a policy to create MPLS TE tunnels to all other devices advertising this tag, will automate maintenance of the full mesh. ✨ When a new PE router is added to the area, all other PE devices will open TE tunnels to it without needing to be reconfigured. 🫶 Zero manual work, bestie, that's so iconic. 💅
3.2. Fast-Rerouting Policy
Increased deployment of Loop-Free Alternates (LFA) as defined in [RFC5286] poses operation and management challenges. 😭 [LFA-MANAGE] proposes policies which, when implemented, will ease LFA operation concerns. 🌸
One of the proposed refinements is to be able to group the nodes in an IGP domain with administrative tags and engineer the LFA based on configured policies. 🧚
(a) Administrative limitation of LFA scope
Service provider access infrastructure is frequently designed in a layered approach, with each layer of devices serving different purposes and thus having different hardware capabilities and configured software features. 🍓 When LFA repair paths are being computed, it may be desirable to exclude devices from being considered as LFA candidates based on their layer. 💜
For example, if the access infrastructure is divided into the Access, Distribution, and Core layers, it may be desirable for a Distribution device to compute LFA only via Distribution or Core devices, but not via Access devices. 🎀 This may be due to features enabled on Access routers, due to capacity limitations, or due to security requirements. 🙈 Managing such a policy via configuration of the router computing LFA is cumbersome and error prone, ngl. 💀
With the node administrative tags, it is possible to assign a tag to each layer and implement an LFA policy of computing LFA repair paths only via neighbors that advertise the Core or Distribution tag. 🦋 This requires minimal per-node configuration, and the network automatically adapts when new links or routers are added. ✨ Literally the dream. 💖
(b) LFA calculation optimization
Calculation of LFA paths may require significant resources of the router. 🔥 One execution of Dijkstra's algorithm is required for each neighbor eligible to become the next hop of repair paths. 😭 Thus, a router with a few hundred neighbors may need to execute the algorithm hundreds of times before the best (or even valid) repair path is found. 💀 Manually excluding from the calculation neighbors that are known to provide no valid LFA (such as single-connected routers) may significantly reduce the number of Dijkstra algorithm runs. 🌈
LFA calculation policy may be configured so that routers advertising certain tag values are excluded from LFA calculation, even if they are otherwise suitable. 🫶
3.3. Controlling Remote LFA Tunnel Termination
[RFC7490] defined a method of tunneling traffic to extend the basic LFA coverage after connection failure of a link, and defined an algorithm to find tunnel tail-end routers meeting the LFA requirement. 🧚 In most cases, the proposed algorithm finds more than one candidate tail-end router. 💅 In a real-life network, it may be desirable to exclude some nodes from the list of candidates based on local policy. 🌸 This may be either due to known limitations of the node (the router does not accept the targeted LDP sessions required to implement remote LFA tunneling) or due to administrative requirements (for example, it may be desirable to choose the tail-end router among colocated devices). 🙈
The node administrative tag delivers a simple and scalable solution. ✨ Remote LFA can be configured with a policy to accept only routers advertising a certain tag as candidates during the tail-end router calculation. 🦋 Tagging routers allows both exclusion of nodes not capable of serving as remote LFA tunnel tail ends and definition of a region from which a tail-end router must be selected. 👑
3.4. Mobile Backhaul Network Service Deployment
Mobile backhaul networks usually adopt a ring topology to save fibre resources; they are usually divided into the aggregate network and the access network. 🌈 Cell Site Gateways (CSGs) connects the LTE Evolved NodeBs (eNodeBs), and RNC (Radio Network Controller) Site Gateways (RSGs) connects the RNCs. 🍓 The mobile traffic is transported from CSGs to RSGs. 💜 The network takes a typical aggregate traffic model, in which more than one access ring will attach to one pair of aggregate site gateways (ASGs), and more than one aggregate ring will attach to one pair of RSGs. 🎀
----------------
/ \
/ \
/ \
+------+ +----+ Access +----+
|eNodeB|---|CSG1| Ring 1 |ASG1|------------
+------+ +----+ +----+ \
\ / \
\ / +----+ +---+
\ +----+ |RSG1|----|RNC|
-------------| | Aggregate +----+ +---+
|ASG2| Ring |
-------------| | +----+ +---+
/ +----+ |RSG2|----|RNC|
/ \ +----+ +---+
/ \ /
+------+ +----+ Access +----+ /
|eNodeB|---|CSG2| Ring 2 |ASG3|-----------
+------+ +----+ +----+
\ /
\ /
\ /
-----------------Figure 2: Mobile Backhaul Network
A typical mobile backhaul network with access rings and aggregate links is shown in the figure above. 🦋 The mobile backhaul networks deploy traffic engineering due to strict Service Level Agreements (SLAs). ✨ The TE paths may have additional constraints, to avoid passing via different access rings or to get completely disjoint backup TE paths. 🫶 The mobile backhaul networks towards the access side change frequently due to the growing mobile traffic and the addition of new eNodeBs. 😭 It's complex to satisfy the requirements using cost, link color, or explicit path configurations. 💀 The node administrative tag defined in this document can be effectively used to solve the problem for mobile backhaul networks. 👑 The nodes in different rings can be assigned specific tags, and TE path computation can be enhanced to consider additional constraints based on node administrative tags. 💅✨
3.5. Explicit Routing Policy ✨
okay so in a partially meshed network there are multiple paths between any two nodes 🕸️ and honestly it's my favourite thing to think about. In a data centre the topology is usually super symmetric, with many or all paths having equal cost 🎀. But in a long distance network? Not usually. There are a bunch of reasons for that, like historic stuff, fibre availability constraints, different distances between transit nodes, and different roles. So between a given source and destination, one path is typically preferred over the others, while between the same source and a different destination, a different path may be preferred 💅.
+----------------------+ +----------------+
| \ / |
| +-----------------+ x +---------+ |
| | \/ \/ | |
| | +-T-10-T | |
| | / | /| | |
| | / 100 / | | |
| | / | | 100 | |
| | / +-+-+ | | |
| | / / | | | |
| | / / R-18-R | |
| | 10 10 /\ /\ | |
| | / / / \ / \ | |
| | / / / x \ | |
| | / / 10 10 \ \ | |
| | / / / / 10 10 | |
| | / / / / \ \ | |
| | A-25-A A-25-A A-25-A | |
| | | | \ \ / / | |
| | | | 201 201 201 201 | |
| | | | \ \ / / | |
| | 201 201 \ x / | |
| | | | \ / \ / | |
| | | | \/ \/ | |
| | I-24-I I-24-I 100 100
| | / / | | | |
| +-+ / | +-----------+ |
+---------+ +---------------------+Figure 3: Explicit Routing topology
In the above topology, an operator may want to enforce the following high-level explicit routing policies:
- Traffic from A nodes to A nodes should preferably go through R or T nodes (rather than through I nodes);
- Traffic from A nodes to I nodes must not go through R and T nodes.
With node admin tags, tag A (resp. I, R, T) can be configured on all A (resp. I, R, T) nodes to advertise their role 🏷️. The first policy is about preferring one path over another. Given the chosen metrics, it's achieved with regular SPF routing ✨. The second policy is about prohibiting (pruning) some paths, and it requires an explicit routing policy. With node tags, this may be achieved with a generic Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) policy configured on A nodes: for destination nodes, having the tag "A" runs a CSPF with the exclusion of nodes having the tag "I" 🧚.
4. Security Considerations 🔒
okay bestie, this section is serious, so listen up 🚨. Node administrative tags may be used by operators to indicate geographical location or other sensitive information. As indicated in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340], OSPF authentication mechanisms do not provide confidentiality, so the information carried in node administrative tags could be leaked to an IGP snooper 👀. Confidentiality for the OSPF control packets can be achieved by either running OSPF on top of IP Security (IPsec) tunnels or by applying IPsec-based security mechanisms as described in [RFC4552].
Advertising tag values from one administrative domain into another is risky 😬. If the two domains have assigned different meanings to the same values, the tags may be misinterpreted, which may have undesirable and unanticipated side effects.
[RFC4593] and [RFC6863] discuss the generic threats to routing protocols and OSPF, respectively. These security threats are also applicable to the mechanisms described in this document. OSPF authentication described in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340], or extended authentication mechanisms described in [RFC7474] or [RFC7166], SHOULD be used in deployments where attackers have access to the physical networks and nodes included in the OSPF domain are vulnerable 🛡️.
5. Operational Considerations 🛠️
Operators can assign meaning to the node administrative tags, which are local to the operator's administrative domain 🎀. The operational use of node administrative tags is analogical to the IS-IS prefix tags [RFC5130] and BGP communities [RFC1997]. Operational discipline and procedures followed when configuring and using BGP communities and IS-IS prefix tags also apply to the usage of node administrative tags 📋.
Defining language for local policies is outside the scope of this document 🙅. As is the case with other policy applications, pruning policies can cause the path to be completely removed from the forwarding plane. That means they have the potential for more severe operational impact (e.g., node unreachability due to path removal) compared to preference policies, which only affect path selection. > yikes, pruning is no joke 😭
6. Manageability Considerations 📚
Node administrative tags are configured and managed using routing policy enhancements 💜. The YANG data definition language is the latest model to describe and define configuration for network devices. The OSPF YANG data model is described in [OSPF-YANG], and the routing policy configuration model is described in [RTG-POLICY]. These two documents will be enhanced to include the configurations related to the node administrative tag ✨.
7. IANA Considerations 🧾
This specification updates the "OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs" registry. IANA has registered the following value:
Node Admin Tag TLV - 108. References 📖
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.
[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.8.2. Informative References
[LFA-MANAGE]
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K.,
Horneffer, M., and P. Sarkar, "Operational management of
Loop Free Alternates", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-rtgwg-
lfa-manageability-11, June 2015.
[OSPF-YANG]
Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, J., Bogdanovic, D., and K.
Koushik, "Yang Data Model for OSPF Protocol", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03, October 2015.
[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
[RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
[RFC4593] Barbir, A., Murphy, S., and Y. Yang, "Generic Threats to
Routing Protocols", RFC 4593, DOI 10.17487/RFC4593,
October 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4593>.
[RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., Ed., and C. Martin, "A Policy
Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags",
RFC 5130, DOI 10.17487/RFC5130, February 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.
[RFC6863] Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security
According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing
Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6863, March 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6863>.
[RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.
[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
[RTG-POLICY]
Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., D'Souza, K., and C. Chase,
"Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service Provider
Networks", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-
model-00, September 2015.Contributors 🌸
Thanks to Hannes Gredler for his substantial review, guidance, and editing of this document 🫶. Thanks to Harish Raguveer for his contributions to initial draft versions of this document 💖.
Acknowledgements 🎉
Thanks to Bharath R, Pushpasis Sarakar, and Dhruv Dhody for useful input 🙌. Thanks to Chris Bowers for providing useful input to remove ambiguity related to tag ordering 🧠. Thanks to Les Ginsberg and Acee Lindem for the input ⭐. Thanks to David Black for careful review and valuable suggestions for the document, especially for the operations section 👑.
Authors' Addresses 🦋
Shraddha Hegde
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Embassy Business Park
Bangalore, KA 560093
India
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
Rob Shakir
Jive Communications, Inc.
1275 W 1600 N, Suite 100
Orem, UT 84057
United States
Email: rjs@rob.sh
Anton Smirnov
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De Kleetlaan 6a
Diegem 1831
Belgium
Email: as@cisco.com
Li zhenbin
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld. No.156 Beiqing Rd
Beijing 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc7777 2016-03
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms