RFC 9816
Usage and Applicability of BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing in Data Centers
RFC 9816: Usage and Applicability of BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing in Data Centers 🎀
okay bestie, this one is RFC 9816 from the IETF, published in July 2025 🌸. It's marked Informational, which means it's here to share info and isn't a Standards Track spec. The ISSN is 2070-1721. The authors are K. Patel, A. Lindem, and S. Zandi from Arrcus, Inc., G. Dawra from Google, and J. Dong from Huawei Technologies 💅. The header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates.
Abstract ✨
this doc is all about how BGP-LS Shortest Path First (SPF) extensions get used and where they make sense in data center networks that run on Clos or Fat Tree topologies 🦋. the goal is to give simplified guidance for deploying those BGP-LS SPF extensions. it's giving practical, no cap 💖
Status of This Memo 📜
ok so, this isn't an Internet Standards Track spec. it's published for informational purposes 🌷
it's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and represents the consensus of the IETF community. it got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). not every IESG-approved doc is a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, so check Section 2 of RFC 7841 if you want the details 🤓
for the current status, any errata, and how to send feedback, head to https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9816 🔗
Copyright Notice 🌈
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved ✨
this doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stand on the publication date. please read them carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this doc 📝
if you pull Code Components out of this doc, they must include the Revised BSD License text described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions. they come without warranty, as the Revised BSD License describes 💜
Table of Contents 🗂️
1. Introduction
2. Recommended Reading
3. Common Deployment Scenario
4. Justification for the BGP-SPF Extension
5. BGP-SPF Applicability to Clos Networks
5.1. Usage of BGP-LS-SPF SAFI
5.1.1. Relationship to Other BGP AFI/SAFI Tuples
5.2. Peering Models
5.2.1. Sparse Peering Model
5.2.2. Biconnected Graph Heuristic
5.3. BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy
5.4. BGP Peer Discovery Considerations
5.5. BGP Peer Discovery
5.5.1. BGP IPv6 Simplified Peering
5.5.2. BGP-LS-SPF Topology Visibility for Management
5.5.3. Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability
6. Non-Clos / Fat Tree Topology Applicability
7. Non-Transit Node Capability
8. BGP Policy Applicability
9. IANA Considerations
10. Security Considerations
11. References
11.1. Normative References
11.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses1. Introduction 🦋
this doc is the sequel to [RFC9815] 💅. it looks at how BGP Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) works in a simple, pretty common deployment scenario, which Section 3 walks through 🌸
Section 4 explains why BGP needs changes for those deployments ✨
Section 5 covers the BGP SPF protocol enhancements that meet those needs, and how they apply to data center [Clos] networks 🎀
2. Recommended Reading 📚
this doc assumes you already know about existing data center networks and their topologies [Clos]. it also assumes you know the data center routing protocols, like BGP [RFC4271], BGP-LS SPF [RFC9815], and OSPF [RFC2328] [RFC5340], plus the data center Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols, like the Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) [RFC4957] and Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] 🧚
3. Common Deployment Scenario 🌈
so picture this: inside a data center, servers are usually hooked together in a Clos topology [Clos]. Clos is fully non-blocking, and it gets built out with Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP). in a multi-stage Clos, the minimum number of parallel paths in each tier depends on the width of the stage, like in Figure 1 ✨
Tier 1
+-----+
|NODE |
+->| 1 |--+
| +-----+ |
Tier 2 | | Tier 2
+-----+ | +-----+ | +-----+
+------------->|NODE |--+->|NODE |--+--|NODE |--------------+
| +-----| 5 |--+ | 2 | +--| 7 |-----+ |
| | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | |
| | | |
| | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | |
| +------+---->|NODE |--+ |NODE | +--|NODE |-----+------+ |
| | | +---| 6 |--+->| 3 |--+--| 8 |---+ | | |
| | | | +-----+ | +-----+ | +-----+ | | | |
| |Tier 3| | | | | |Tier 3| |
+-----+ +-----+ | +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+
|NODE | |NODE | +->|NODE |--+ |NODE | |NODE |
| 9 | | 10 | | 4 | | 11 | | 12 |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
<- Servers -> <- Servers ->
Figure 1: Illustration of the Basic Closhere's the breakdown 👑
- Tier 1 is Nodes 1, 2, 3, and 4
- Tier 2 is Nodes 5, 6, 7, and 8
- Tier 3 is Nodes 9, 10, 11, and 12
4. Justification for the BGP-SPF Extension 💜
okay so, to keep Layer 3 (L3) routing and ops simple, lots of data centers use BGP as their routing protocol. they use it to build both the underlay and the overlay for their Clos topologies [RFC7938] 🫶
but here's the tea: BGP is a path-vector routing protocol 🙈. it doesn't build a fabric topology, so it uses hop-by-hop External BGP (EBGP) peering to get hop-by-hop routing for the underlay and to resolve any overlay next hops. that peering style puts a few limits on a Clos. it rules out route reflectors and route controllers, since the EBGP sessions line up with the data path. also, the BGP best-path algorithm works per prefix, and it stops announcing prefixes to other BGP speakers until the best-path decision has run for that prefix at every intermediate hop. all of this seriously slows down how fast the underlay converges in a Clos network 😭
the BGP SPF changes let BGP get past those limits 🦋. on top of that, the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) format lets BGP SPF data get advertised for nodes, links, and prefixes in the BGP routing domain [RFC9552] and used for SPF computations [RFC9815] ✨
there's more motivation for deploying BGP-SPF in [RFC9815], so go check it out 🌸
5. BGP-SPF Applicability to Clos Networks 🌷
with the BGP-SPF extensions [RFC9815], the BGP best-path and route computations get swapped out for link-state algorithms, like the ones OSPF uses [RFC2328]. those algorithms decide whether a BGP-LS-SPF NLRI changed and needs to be readvertised, and they compute the BGP routes too. the result is much faster underlay convergence plus the operational perks of running a single routing protocol [RFC7938] 🚀
data center controllers usually need to see the BGP topology so they can compute traffic-engineered paths 🎀. they learn the topology and other useful info through the BGP-LS address family [RFC9552], which runs totally separately from the underlay address families (usually IPv4/IPv6 unicast). normally, every BGP router in a usual BGP underlay has to advertise its BGP-LS info on its own. with BGP-SPF, controllers can learn the topology from the same BGP advertisements that compute the underlay routes 🧚. the controllers get the convergence wins of BGP-SPF too, and they can sit outside the forwarding path or inside it 💅
or, if you want, every router in the BGP-SPF domain already has a full view of the topology. so the operator can set up BGP sessions in the hop-by-hop peering model from [RFC7938], along with BFD [RFC5880]. yes, hop-by-hop peering doesn't get the built-in perks of the controller-based model 💀. but in either model, BGP updates don't have to wait in line for the BGP best-path algorithm, and that helps the whole network converge faster 🫶
5.1. Usage of BGP-LS-SPF SAFI 🧩
Section 5.1 of [RFC9815] defines a new BGP-LS-SPF SAFI for announcing the BGP-SPF link-state ✨. its NLRI format and attributes follow the BGP-LS format for node, link, and prefix announcements. whether the peering model in a Clos is hop-by-hop peering from [RFC7938] or any controller-based or route-reflector setup, the operator can swap BGP-LS-SPF SAFI routes over the BGP peering just by turning on BGP-LS-SPF SAFI between the right BGP speakers 🌸
the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI can also live alongside the BGP IP Unicast SAFI [RFC4760], even though the two can carry overlapping IP routes. one use case is when BGP-LS-SPF routes handle the underlay and BGP IP Unicast routes carry VPNs in the overlay, as described in [RFC4364] 🦋. the routes learned through these SAFIs are evaluated, stored, and announced independently, following the rules of [RFC4760]. how routes get tiebroken for installation is up to the network operator's local policies and preferences 👑
last but not least, BGP-SPF peering follows the procedures in [RFC4271], so all the existing transport security mechanisms, including the ones in [RFC5925], work for the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI 🔐
5.1.1. Relationship to Other BGP AFI/SAFI Tuples 🎀
normally, the BGP-LS-SPF AFI/SAFI is only used to compute the underlay, and it gets priority over other AFI/SAFIs during route processing 👑. other BGP SAFIs, like IPv6/IPv6 unicast VPN, use the BGP-SPF computed routes for next-hop resolution 🧚
5.2. Peering Models 🌈
like we said before, BGP-SPF can run on the existing peering model, where every link in the data center fabric has a single-hop BGP session [RFC7938] 💖. that covers both advertising routes and figuring out whether links and neighboring routers are available. with BGP-SPF, the underlay converges faster, because the decision process changes let NLRI changes get advertised faster after a change is detected 🚀
you're literally doing amazing, bestie 🌈
5.2.1. Sparse Peering Model 🦋
Okay so, alternatively BFD [RFC5880] can be used to quickly figure out whether links are up 💅, and the BGP peering model can be way sparser than the data center fabric itself. BGP-SPF sessions only need to be set up with enough peers to make a biconnected graph ✨. If Internal BGP (IBGP) is used, the BGP routers at tier N-1 will act as route-reflectors for the routers at tier N 🫶.
The obvious reason to do sparse peering is to skip parallel BGP sessions on links between the same two routers in the fabric. ngl, this use case isn't super useful, because parallel L3 links between the same two BGP routers are rare in Clos or Fat Tree topologies 💀. Also, when there are multiple links, they're usually bundled with Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs) at the link layer [IEEE.802.1AX] instead of at the IP layer. Two more interesting scenarios are below 👑.
In current data center topologies, there is often a very dense mesh of links between levels, e.g., leaf and spine, providing 32-way paths, 64-way paths, or more ECMPs 🌸. In these topologies, it is desirable not to have a BGP session on every link, and techniques such as the one described in Section 5.2.2 can be used to establish sessions on some subset of northbound links. For example, in a Spine/Leaf topology, each leaf router would only peer with a subset of the spines, depending on the flooding redundancy required to be reasonably certain that every node within the BGP-SPF routing domain has the complete topology 🎀.
Alternatively, controller-based data center topologies are envisioned, where BGP speakers within the data center only establish BGP sessions with two or more controllers 🧚. In these topologies, fabric nodes below the first tier, as shown in Figure 1 of [RFC7938], will establish BGP multi-hop sessions with the controllers. For the multi-hop sessions, determining the route to the controllers without depending on BGP would need to be through some other means, which is beyond the scope of this document. However, the BGP discovery mechanisms described in Section 5.5 would be one possibility 💜.
5.2.2. Biconnected Graph Heuristic 🌈
With a biconnected graph heuristic, discovery of BGP SPF peers is assumed, e.g., as described in Section 5.5. In this context, "biconnected" refers to the fact that there must be an advertised Link NLRI for both BGP SPF peers associated with the link before the link can be used in the BGP SPF route calculation. Additionally, it is assumed that the direction of the peering can be ascertained. In the context of a data center fabric, the direction is either northbound (toward the spine), southbound (toward the Top-of-Rack (ToR) routers), or east-west (same level in the hierarchy). The determination of the direction is beyond the scope of this document. However, it would be reasonable to assume a technique where the ToR routers can be identified and the number of hops to the ToR is used to determine the direction 🙈.
In this heuristic, BGP speakers allow passive session establishment for southbound BGP sessions. For northbound sessions, BGP speakers will attempt to maintain two northbound BGP sessions with different routers. For east-west sessions, passive BGP session establishment is allowed. However, a BGP speaker will never actively establish an east-west BGP session unless it cannot establish two northbound BGP sessions 🔥.
BGP SPF sparse peering deployments not using this heuristic are possible but are not described herein and are considered out of scope 🍓.
5.3. BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy 🌸
One of the advantages of using BGP-SPF as the underlay protocol is that BGP policy can be applied at any level. ✨ For example, depending on the topology, it may be possible to aggregate or filter prefix advertisements using the existing BGP policy. In Spine/Leaf topologies, it is not necessary to advertise a BGP-LS Prefix NLRI received by leaf nodes from the spine back to other spine nodes. If a common Autonomous System (AS) is used for the spine nodes, this can easily be accomplished with EBGP and a simple policy to filter advertisements from the leaves to the spine if the first AS in the AS path is the spine AS 🫶.
In the figure below, the leaves would not advertise any NLRIs with AS 64512 as the first AS in the AS path.
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
AS 64512 | | | | | |
for Spine | Spine 1+----+ Spine 2+- ......... -+ Spine N|
Nodes at | | | | | |
this Level +-+-+-+-++ ++-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-++
+------+ | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-----|-|-|------+ | | | | | | |
| | +--|-|-|--------+-|-|-----------------+ | | |
| | | | | | +---+ | | | | |
| | | | | | | +--|-|-------------------+ | |
| | | | | | | | | | +------+ +----+
| | | | | | | | | +--------------|----------+ |
| | | | | | | | +-------------+ | | |
| | | | | +----|--|----------------|--|--------+ | |
| | | | +------|--|--------------+ | | | | |
| | | +------+ | | | | | | | |
++--+--++ +-+-+--++ ++-+--+-+ ++-+--+-+
| Leaf 1| | Leaf 2| ........ | Leaf X| | Leaf Y|
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+Figure 2: Spine/Leaf Topology Policy 🦋
5.4. BGP Peer Discovery Considerations 🔍
The basic functionality of peer discovery is to discover the address of a single-hop peer in the case where the peer address is not preconfigured. This is being accomplished today by using IPv6 Router Advertisements (RAs) [RFC4861] and assuming that a BGP session is desired with any discovered peer. Beyond the basic functionality, it may be useful to have the following information relating to the BGP session:
- The AS and BGP Identifier of a potential peer. 🪪
- Supported security capabilities, and for cryptographic authentication, the security capabilities and possibly a key chain [RFC8177] for use. 🔐
- A Session Policy Identifier, which is a group number or name used to associate common session parameters with the peer. For example, in a data center, BGP sessions with a ToR router could have different parameters than BGP sessions between leaf and spine nodes. 🎀
In a data center fabric, it is often useful to know whether a peer is southbound (towards the servers) or northbound (towards the spine or super-spine), e.g., see Section 5.2.2. One mechanism, without specifying all the details, might be for the ToR routers to be identified when installed and for the other routers in the fabric to determine their level based on the distance from the closest ToR router 🧚.
If there are multiple links between BGP speakers or the links between BGP speakers are unnumbered, it is also useful to be able to establish multi-hop sessions using the loopback addresses. This will often require the discovery protocol to install one or more routes toward the potential peer loopback addresses prior to BGP session establishment 💖.
Finally, a simple BGP discovery protocol may be used to establish a multi-hop session with one or more controllers by advertising connectivity to one or more controllers 👑.
5.5. BGP Peer Discovery ✨
5.5.1. BGP IPv6 Simplified Peering 🌈
To conserve IPv4 address space and simplify operations, BGP-SPF routers in Clos / Fat Tree deployments can use IPv6 addresses as the peer address. For IPv4 address families, IPv6 peering as specified in [RFC8950] can be deployed to avoid configuring IPv4 addresses on router interfaces. When this is done, dynamic discovery mechanisms, as described in Section 5.5, can be used to learn the global or link-local IPv6 peer addresses, and IPv4 addresses need not be configured on these interfaces. If IPv6 link-local peering is used, then configuration of IPv6 global addresses is also not required [RFC7404]. The Link Local/Remote Identifiers of the peering interfaces must be used in the Link NLRI as described in Section 5.2.2 of [RFC9815] 🦋.
5.5.2. BGP-LS-SPF Topology Visibility for Management 🔭
Irrespective of whether or not BGP-SPF is used for route calculation, the BGP-LS-SPF route advertisements can be used to periodically construct the Clos / Fat Tree topology. This is especially useful in deployments where an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) is not used and the base BGP-LS routes [RFC9552] are not available. The resultant topology visibility can then be used for troubleshooting and consistency checking. This would normally be done on a central controller or other management tool that could also be used for fabric data path verification. The precise algorithms and heuristics, as well as the complete set of management applications, is beyond the scope of this document 💅.
5.5.3. Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability 🌐
Since BGP-SPF is to be used for the routing underlay and Data Center Interconnect (DCI) gateway boxes typically have direct or very simple connectivity, BGP external sessions would typically not include the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI 🫶.
6. Non-Clos / Fat Tree Topology Applicability 🌍
The BGP-SPF extensions [RFC9815] can be used in other topologies and avail the inherent convergence improvements. Additionally, sparse peering techniques may be utilized as described in Section 5.2. However, determining whether to establish a BGP session is more complex, and the heuristic described in Section 5.2.2 cannot be used. In such topologies, other techniques such as those described in [RFC9667] may be employed. One potential deployment would be the underlay for a Service Provider (SP) backbone where usage of a single protocol, i.e., BGP, is desired 👑.
7. Non-Transit Node Capability 🚦
In certain scenarios, a BGP node wishes to participate in the BGP-SPF topology but never be used for transit traffic. These include situations where a server wants to make application services available to clients homed at subnets throughout the BGP-SPF domain but does not ever want to be used as a router (i.e., carry transit traffic). Another specific instance is where a controller is resident on a server and direct connectivity to the controller is required throughout the entire domain. This can readily be accomplished using the BGP-LS-SPF Node NLRI Attribute SPF Status TLV as described in [RFC9815] 🧚.
8. BGP Policy Applicability 🎀
Existing BGP policy such as prefix filtering may be used in conjunction with the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI. When BGP policy is used with the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI, BGP speakers in the BGP-LS-SPF routing domain will not all have the same set of NLRIs and will compute a different BGP local routing table. Consequently, care must be taken to assure that routing is consistent and that routes to unreachable destinations or routing loops do not ensue. However, this is no different than if classical BGP routing using the IPv4 and IPv6 address families were used 🙈.
9. IANA Considerations 📋
This document has no IANA actions.
10. Security Considerations 🚨
This is the part where we pay attention, bestie. ⚠️
This document introduces no new security considerations above and beyond those already specified in [RFC4271] and [RFC9815]. Those earlier documents are where the full security picture lives, so if you're deploying this, go read what they say about it 💀🔥.
11. References 📚
The reference entries weren't in the text you pasted, so this heading is holding the spot until they come through 🫶.
11.1. Normative References
okay bestie, these are the must-reads 📚✨ the spec leans on these, so you need them to make sense of the rest 🫶
[RFC9815] Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and W. Henderickx, "BGP
Link State (BGP-LS) Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing",
RFC 9815, DOI 10.17487/RFC9815, July 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9815>.11.2. Informative References
and these are the extra background reads 💜 not required to follow along, but they make everything click way faster 🧚
[Clos] Clos, C., "A Study of Non-Blocking Switching Networks",
The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, pp.
406-424, DOI 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x, March
1953,
<https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x>.
[IEEE.802.1AX]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks--Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2020,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034, May 2020,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4957] Krishnan, S., Ed., Montavont, N., Njedjou, E., Veerepalli,
S., and A. Yegin, Ed., "Link-Layer Event Notifications for
Detecting Network Attachments", RFC 4957,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4957, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4957>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[RFC7404] Behringer, M. and E. Vyncke, "Using Only Link-Local
Addressing inside an IPv6 Network", RFC 7404,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7404, November 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7404>.
[RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.
[RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.
Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8177>.
[RFC8950] Litkowski, S., Agrawal, S., Ananthamurthy, K., and K.
Patel, "Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability
Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop", RFC 8950,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8950, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8950>.
[RFC9552] Talaulikar, K., Ed., "Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP", RFC 9552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9552, December 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9552>.
[RFC9667] Li, T., Ed., Psenak, P., Ed., Chen, H., Jalil, L., and S.
Dontula, "Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs", RFC 9667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9667, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9667>.Acknowledgements ✨
the authors wanted to give a massive shoutout 📣 to everyone who reviewed and commented: Alvaro Retana, Yan Filyurin, Boris Hassanov, Stig Venaas, Ron Bonica, Mallory Knodel, Dhruv Dhody, Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke, and John Scudder. the reviewers are literally the main characters here 👑💖
Authors' Addresses 🦋
meet the squad who wrote it 🫶
Keyur Patel
Arrcus, Inc.
2077 Gateway Pl
San Jose, CA 95110
United States of America
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Acee Lindem
Arrcus, Inc.
301 Midenhall Way
Cary, NC 27513
United States of America
Email: acee.ietf@gmail.com
Shawn Zandi
Email: shafagh@shafagh.com
Gaurav Dawra
Google
Sunnyvale, CA
United States of America
Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
No. 156 Beiqing Road
Beijing
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc9816 2025-07
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms