draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-04.txt		draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-05.txt
	Routing Area Working Group P. Sarkar, Ed.		Routing Area Working Group P. Sarkar, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc.		Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc.
	Updates: 5286 (if approved) S. Hegde		Updates: 5286 (if approved) S. Hegde
	Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks, Inc.		Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks, Inc.
	Expires: June 4, 2018 U. Chunduri, Ed.		Expires: August 10, 2018 U. Chunduri, Ed.
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei USA
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Individual		Individual
	H. Gredler		H. Gredler
	RtBrick, Inc.		RtBrick, Inc.
	December 1, 2017		February 6, 2018
	LFA selection for Multi-Homed Prefixes		LFA selection for Multi-Homed Prefixes
	draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-04		draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document shares experience gained from implementing algorithms		This document shares experience gained from implementing algorithms
	to determine Loop-Free Alternates for multi-homed prefixes. In		to determine Loop-Free Alternates for multi-homed prefixes. In
	particular, this document provides explicit inequalities that can be		particular, this document provides explicit inequalities that can be
	used to evaluate neighbors as a potential alternates for multi-homed		used to evaluate neighbors as a potential alternates for multi-homed
	prefixes. It also provides detailed criteria for evaluating		prefixes. It also provides detailed criteria for evaluating
	potential alternates for external prefixes advertised by OSPF ASBRs.		potential alternates for external prefixes advertised by OSPF ASBRs.
	This documents updates and expands some of the "Routing Aspects" as		This documents updates and expands some of the "Routing Aspects" as
	specified in Section 6 of [RFC5286].		specified in Section 6 of [RFC 5286].
	Requirements Language		Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 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
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 44 ¶
	4.2.3. Type 1 and Type 2 costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.2.3. Type 1 and Type 2 costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.2.4. RFC1583compatibility is set to enabled . . . . . . . 11		4.2.4. RFC1583compatibility is set to enabled . . . . . . . 11
	4.2.5. Type 7 routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.2.5. Type 7 routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.2.6. Inequalities to be applied for alternate ASBR		4.2.6. Inequalities to be applied for alternate ASBR
	selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.2.6.1. Forwarding address set to non-zero value . . . . 11		4.2.6.1. Forwarding address set to non-zero value . . . . 11
	4.2.6.2. ASBRs advertising type1 and type2 cost . . . . . 12		4.2.6.2. ASBRs advertising type1 and type2 cost . . . . . 12
	5. LFA Extended Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5. LFA Extended Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5.1. Links with IGP MAX_METRIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.1. Links with IGP MAX_METRIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5.2. Multi Topology Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		5.2. Multi Topology Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
			10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The use of Loop-Free Alternates (LFA) for IP Fast Reroute is		The use of Loop-Free Alternates (LFA) for IP Fast Reroute is
	specified in [RFC5286]. Section 6.1 of [RFC5286] describes a method		specified in [RFC5286]. Section 6.1 of [RFC5286] describes a method
	to determine loop-free alternates for a multi-homed prefixes (MHPs).		to determine loop-free alternates for a multi-homed prefixes (MHPs).
	This document describes a procedure using explicit inequalities that		This document describes a procedure using explicit inequalities that
	can be used by a computing router to evaluate a neighbor as a		can be used by a computing router to evaluate a neighbor as a
	potential alternate for a multi-homed prefix. The results obtained		potential alternate for a multi-homed prefix. The results obtained
	skipping to change at page 11, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 12 ¶
	should be applied and ensured that the alternate neighbor does not		should be applied and ensured that the alternate neighbor does not
	loop the traffic back.		loop the traffic back.
	When there are multiple ASBRs belonging to different area advertising		When there are multiple ASBRs belonging to different area advertising
	the same prefix, pruning rules as defined in [RFC2328] section 16.4.1		the same prefix, pruning rules as defined in [RFC2328] section 16.4.1
	are applied. The alternate ASBRs pruned using above rules are not		are applied. The alternate ASBRs pruned using above rules are not
	considered for LFA evaluation.		considered for LFA evaluation.
	4.2.3. Type 1 and Type 2 costs		4.2.3. Type 1 and Type 2 costs
	If there are multiple ASBRs not pruned via rules defined in 3.2.2,		If there are multiple ASBRs not pruned via rules defined in
	the cost type advertised by the ASBRs is compared. ASBRs advertising		Section 4.2.2, the cost type advertised by the ASBRs is compared.
	Type1 costs are preferred and the type2 costs are pruned. If two		ASBRs advertising Type1 costs are preferred and the type2 costs are
	ASBRs advertise same type2 cost, the alternate ASBRs are considered		pruned. If two ASBRs advertise same type2 cost, the alternate ASBRs
	along with their type1 cost for evaluation. If the two ASBRs with		are considered along with their type1 cost for evaluation. If the
	same type2 as well as type1 cost, ECMP FRR is programmed. If there		two ASBRs with same type2 as well as type1 cost, ECMP FRR is
	are two ASBRs with different type2 cost, the higher cost ASBR is		programmed. If there are two ASBRs with different type2 cost, the
	pruned. The inequalities for evaluating alternate ASBR for type 1		higher cost ASBR is pruned. The inequalities for evaluating
	and type 2 costs are same, as the alternate ASBRs with different		alternate ASBR for type 1 and type 2 costs are same, as the alternate
	type2 costs are pruned and the evaluation is based on equal type 2		ASBRs with different type2 costs are pruned and the evaluation is
	cost ASBRS.		based on equal type 2 cost ASBRS.
	4.2.4. RFC1583compatibility is set to enabled		4.2.4. RFC1583compatibility is set to enabled
	When RFC1583Compatibility is set to enabled, multiple ASBRs belonging		When RFC1583Compatibility is set to enabled, multiple ASBRs belonging
	to different area advertising same prefix are chosen based on cost		to different area advertising same prefix are chosen based on cost
	and hence are valid alternate ASBRs for the LFA evaluation.		and hence are valid alternate ASBRs for the LFA evaluation.
	4.2.5. Type 7 routes		4.2.5. Type 7 routes
	Type 5 routes always get preference over Type 7 and the alternate		Type 5 routes always get preference over Type 7 and the alternate
	ASBRs chosen for LFA calculation should belong to same type. Among		ASBRs chosen for LFA calculation should belong to same type. Among
	Type 7 routes, routes with p-bit and forwarding address set have		Type 7 routes, routes with p-bit and forwarding address set have
	higher preference than routes without these attributes. Alternate		higher preference than routes without these attributes. Alternate
	ASBRs selected for LFA comparison should have same p-bit and		ASBRs selected for LFA comparison should have same p-bit and
	forwarding address attributes.		forwarding address attributes.
	4.2.6. Inequalities to be applied for alternate ASBR selection		4.2.6. Inequalities to be applied for alternate ASBR selection
	The alternate ASBRs selected using above mechanism described in		The alternate ASBRs selected using above mechanism described in
	3.2.1, are evaluated for Loop free criteria using below inequalities.		Section 4.2.1, are evaluated for Loop free criteria using below
			inequalities.
	4.2.6.1. Forwarding address set to non-zero value		4.2.6.1. Forwarding address set to non-zero value
	Link-Protection:		Link-Protection:
	F_opt(N,PO_i)+ cost(PO_i,P) < D_opt(N,S) +		F_opt(N,PO_i)+ cost(PO_i,P) < D_opt(N,S) +
	F_opt(S,PO_best) + cost(PO_best,P)		F_opt(S,PO_best) + cost(PO_best,P)
	Link-Protection + Downstream-paths-only:		Link-Protection + Downstream-paths-only:
	F_opt(N,PO_i)+ cost(PO_i,P) < F_opt(S,PO_best) + cost(PO_best,P)		F_opt(N,PO_i)+ cost(PO_i,P) < F_opt(S,PO_best) + cost(PO_best,P)
	Node-Protection:		Node-Protection:
	skipping to change at page 12, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 29 ¶
	prefix P.		prefix P.
	PO_i - The specific prefix-originating router being		PO_i - The specific prefix-originating router being
	evaluated.		evaluated.
	PO_best - The prefix-originating router on the shortest path		PO_best - The prefix-originating router on the shortest path
	from the computing router S to prefix P.		from the computing router S to prefix P.
	cost(X,Y) - External cost for Y as advertised by X		cost(X,Y) - External cost for Y as advertised by X
	F_opt(X,Y) - Distance on the shortest path from node X to Forwarding		F_opt(X,Y) - Distance on the shortest path from node X to Forwarding
	address specified by ASBR Y.		address specified by ASBR Y.
	D_opt(X,Y) - Distance on the shortest path from node X to node Y.		D_opt(X,Y) - Distance on the shortest path from node X to node Y.
	Figure 6: LFA inequality definition when forwarding address in non-		Figure 6: LFA inequality definition when forwarding address is non-
	zero		zero
	4.2.6.2. ASBRs advertising type1 and type2 cost		4.2.6.2. ASBRs advertising type1 and type2 cost
	Link-Protection:		Link-Protection:
	D_opt(N,PO_i)+ cost(PO_i,P) < D_opt(N,S) +		D_opt(N,PO_i)+ cost(PO_i,P) < D_opt(N,S) +
	D_opt(S,PO_best) + cost(PO_best,P)		D_opt(S,PO_best) + cost(PO_best,P)
	Link-Protection + Downstream-paths-only:		Link-Protection + Downstream-paths-only:
	D_opt(N,PO_i)+ cost(PO_i,P) < D_opt(S,PO_best) + cost(PO_best,P)		D_opt(N,PO_i)+ cost(PO_i,P) < D_opt(S,PO_best) + cost(PO_best,P)
	skipping to change at page 13, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 39 ¶
	5. LFA Extended Procedures		5. LFA Extended Procedures
	This section explains the additional considerations in various		This section explains the additional considerations in various
	aspects as listed below to the base LFA specification [RFC5286].		aspects as listed below to the base LFA specification [RFC5286].
	5.1. Links with IGP MAX_METRIC		5.1. Links with IGP MAX_METRIC
	Section 3.5 and 3.6 of [RFC5286] describes procedures for excluding		Section 3.5 and 3.6 of [RFC5286] describes procedures for excluding
	nodes and links from use in alternate paths based on the maximum link		nodes and links from use in alternate paths based on the maximum link
	metric (as defined in for IS-IS in [RFC5305] or as defined in		metric (as defined in for IS-IS in [RFC5305] or as defined in
	[RFC3137] for OSPF). If these procedures are strictly followed,		[RFC6987] for OSPF). If these procedures are strictly followed,
	there are situations, as described below, where the only potential		there are situations, as described below, where the only potential
	alternate available which satisfies the basic loop-free condition		alternate available which satisfies the basic loop-free condition
	will not be considered as alternative.		will not be considered as alternative.
	+---+ 10 +---+ 10 +---+		+---+ 10 +---+ 10 +---+
	| S |------|N1 |-----|D1 |		| S |------|N1 |-----|D1 |
	+---+ +---+ +---+		+---+ +---+ +---+
	| |		| |
	10 | 10 |		10 | 10 |
	|MAX_MET(N2 to S) |		|MAX_MET(N2 to S) |
	skipping to change at page 15, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 22 ¶
	However for MT IS-IS, if a "standard topology" is used with MT-ID #0		However for MT IS-IS, if a "standard topology" is used with MT-ID #0
	[RFC5286] and both IPv4 [RFC5305] and IPv6 routes/AFs [RFC5308] are		[RFC5286] and both IPv4 [RFC5305] and IPv6 routes/AFs [RFC5308] are
	present, then the condition of network congruency is applicable for		present, then the condition of network congruency is applicable for
	LFA computation as well. Network congruency here refers to, having		LFA computation as well. Network congruency here refers to, having
	same address families provisioned on all the links and all the nodes		same address families provisioned on all the links and all the nodes
	of the network with MT-ID #0. Here with single decision process both		of the network with MT-ID #0. Here with single decision process both
	IPv4 and IPv6 next-hops are computed for all the prefixes in the		IPv4 and IPv6 next-hops are computed for all the prefixes in the
	network and similarly with one LFA computation from all eligible		network and similarly with one LFA computation from all eligible
	neighbors per [RFC5286], all potential alternatives can be computed.		neighbors per [RFC5286], all potential alternatives can be computed.
	6. Acknowledgements		6. IANA Considerations
			This document has no actions for IANA.
			7. Acknowledgements
	Thanks to Alia Atlas and Salih K A for their useful feedback and		Thanks to Alia Atlas and Salih K A for their useful feedback and
	inputs. Thanks to Stewart Bryant for being document shepherd and		inputs. Thanks to Stewart Bryant for being document shepherd and
	providing detailed review comments.		providing detailed review comments.
	7. Contributing Authors		8. Contributing Authors
	The following people contributed substantially to the content of this		The following people contributed substantially to the content of this
	document and should be considered co-authors.		document and should be considered co-authors.
	Chris Bowers		Chris Bowers
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	1194 N. Mathilda Ave,		1194 N. Mathilda Ave,
	Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA		Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA
	Email: cbowers@juniper.ne		Email: cbowers@juniper.ne
	Bruno Decraene		Bruno Decraene
	Orange,		Orange,
	France		France
	Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com		Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
	8. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	This document does not introduce any change in any of the protocol		This document does not introduce any change in any of the protocol
	[RFC1195] [RFC5120] [RFC2328] [RFC5838] specifications discussed here		[RFC1195] [RFC5120] [RFC2328] [RFC5838] specifications discussed here
	and also this does not introduce any new security issues other than		and also this does not introduce any new security issues other than
	as noted in the LFA base specification [RFC5286].		as noted in the LFA base specification [RFC5286].
	9. References		10. References
	9.1. Normative References		10.1. 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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for		[RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
	IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,		IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.
	9.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and		[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
	dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,		dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
	December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.		December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
	[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,		[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
	[RFC3137] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A., and D.
	McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3137, June 2001,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3137>.
	[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.		[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
	Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",		Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
	RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,		RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
	[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi		[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
	Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to		Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
	Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,		Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
	skipping to change at page 17, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 17, line 14 ¶
	[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,		[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.
	[RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and		[RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and
	R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3",		R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3",
	RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010,		RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.
			[RFC6987] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D.
			McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC6987, September 2013,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Pushpasis Sarkar (editor)		Pushpasis Sarkar (editor)
	Arrcus, Inc.		Arrcus, Inc.
	Email: pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com		Email: pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com
	Shraddha Hegde		Shraddha Hegde
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	Electra, Exora Business Park		Electra, Exora Business Park
	Bangalore, KA 560103		Bangalore, KA 560103
	India		India
	Email: shraddha@juniper.net		Email: shraddha@juniper.net
	Uma Chunduri (editor)		Uma Chunduri (editor)
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei USA
	2330 Central Expressway		2330 Central Expressway
	Santa Clara, CA 95050		Santa Clara, CA 95050
	USA		USA
	Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com		Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com
	Jeff Tantsura		Jeff Tantsura
	Individual		Individual
	Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com		Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
End of changes. 20 change blocks.
	39 lines changed or deleted		45 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/