Re: [Idr] locator length : draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 15 March 2021 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D082B3A0D08 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LsHVDVQGlb-m for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD1C43A0D07 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DznT6191wz6G9J8; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1615838698; bh=0JwFcgTEMKoIiEs2GgTym3Rje7oBKMMwYxeiwqospVY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=SvZ/nP2BkGIhhXtN2ADC68iFqp+0VfgJXeeGxtUY/oIq/g246I0UcMv7feqM7m8Ma Mj7+RT3Au0paisxr4tSXac3qg/QshVRQ6dmcxVuwnXY9KxtOd4GSGK0Q8k7AUeC6j5 N694W364cO0xCalPtD8BIkrR1pCA/piGbtKdYyxU=
X-Quarantine-ID: <SzxuvdLtDZNz>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DznT533DRz6G9JB; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
References: <MN2PR13MB40876899246382264C393D06F26F9@MN2PR13MB4087.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <89430d8e-58c1-7854-27a5-b01a4cf9c43f@joelhalpern.com> <MN2PR13MB4087266ED6ECE72F5F281E86F26F9@MN2PR13MB4087.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <41feb923-eeba-d7db-a048-1b335bf8f92b@joelhalpern.com> <MN2PR13MB40874FC93A03CCDE2A012ECBF26F9@MN2PR13MB4087.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <ad81e08a-09ab-ef9a-3295-ab3cf58b740d@joelhalpern.com> <CABNhwV3PR_u2jG6Eo2uRwK0XRSemZJ006RdeuGG6_jyJnaZoAg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR13MB408793C3C9D5398C13BA0DDAF26C9@MN2PR13MB4087.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <be57d874-8e7e-1ff6-cb64-4660476f82ce@joelhalpern.com> <CABNhwV1E6LTifyJHqx_j2Pvd5CEppeinqh=-nMw2GLqXFkPaPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <1bc92e8d-42ba-483e-be54-31dd897d8585@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:04:56 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV1E6LTifyJHqx_j2Pvd5CEppeinqh=-nMw2GLqXFkPaPw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5cMTHs_T02e2aUu2yAup4CEQORs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] locator length : draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 20:05:03 -0000

I am pretty sure those quotes say exactly the opposite of what you describe.

The first one says that the FUNC field serves a function analogous to a 
VPN label.  Not that it encodes an MPLS label.

The others say that for advertising purposes, the FUNC field is 
represented in the label portion of the NLRI.  That does not suddenlty 
turn the FUNC into an MPLS label.

Yours,
Joel

PS: Even if it were an MPLS label, the ambiguity as to where it is 
located would still mean that having a separate type field for it would 
not be helpful.

On 3/15/2021 3:57 PM, Gyan Mishra wrote:
> 
> Hi Joel
> 
> Please see section 3 and 5 of SRv6 BGP overlay draft below.
> 
> t is my understanding that the 20 byte VPN service label MPLS  bottom of 
> stack label is encoded into the function portion or the SRv6 service SID.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06>
> 
> Section 2
> 
>     o  SRv6 L3 Service TLV: This TLV encodes Service SID information for
>        SRv6 based L3 services.  It corresponds to the equivalent
>        functionality provided by an MPLS Label when received with a Layer
>        3 service route as defined in [RFC4364  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4364>] [RFC4659  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4659>] [RFC8950  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8950>]
>        [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06#ref-I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement>].  Some behaviors which
>        MAY be encoded, but not limited to, are End.DX4, End.DT4, End.DX6,
>        End.DT6, etc.
> 
> 
> Section 6
> 
> 
>       5.1
>       <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06#section-5.1>.
>       IPv4 VPN Over SRv6 Core
> 
> 
> 
>     The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv4 VPN
>     Over IPv6 Core defined in [RFC8950  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8950>].
> 
>     Label field of IPv4-VPN NLRI is encoded as specified in [RFC8277  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8277>]
>     with the Label Value set to the Function part of the SRv6 SID when
>     the Transposition Scheme of encoding (Section 4  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06#section-4>) is used and
>     otherwise set to Implicit NULL.
> 
>     SRv6 Service SID is encoded as part of the SRv6 L3 Service TLV.  The
>     behavior of the SRv6 SID is entirely up to the originator of the
>     advertisement.  In practice, the behavior is End.DX4 or End.DT4.
> 
> 
> 
>       5.2
>       <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06#section-5.2>.
>       IPv6 VPN Over SRv6 Core
> 
> 
> 
>     The MP_REACH_NLRI over SRv6 core is encoded according to IPv6 VPN
>     over IPv6 Core is defined in [RFC4659  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4659>].
> 
>     Label field of the IPv6-VPN NLRI is encoded as specified in [RFC8277  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8277>]
>     with the Label Value set to the Function part of the SRv6 SID when
>     the Transposition Scheme of encoding (Section 4  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06#section-4>) is used and
>     otherwise set to Implicit NULL.
> 
>     SRv6 Service SID is encoded as part of the SRv6 L3 Service TLV.  The
>     behavior of the SRv6 SID is entirely up to the originator of the
>     advertisement.  In practice, the behavior is End.DX6 or End.DT6.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:54 AM Joel Halpern Direct 
> <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Func / arg is not the label.  LOC+FUNC+ARG is the label.
>     While I doubt the utility, I understand that flowspec allows for
>     applying such comparisons to the whole prefix.  I am not asking to get
>     rid of that.  But there is no need to apply a range to just the
>     FUNC, or
>     worse just the ARG part.
> 
>     Yours,
>     Joel
> 
>     On 3/15/2021 11:00 AM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
>      > Hi Gyan,
>      >
>      >      Thank you very much for your comments.
>      >
>      >      RFC 8956 defines (Type 13) Flow Label component containing a
>     list of
>      > {numeric_op, value} pairs that are used to match the 20-bit Flow
>     Label.
>      > The operations on the label can be lt (less than) and gt (greater
>     than).
>      >
>      >      As you mentioned in your comments, MPLS VPN labels are
>     encoded into
>      > the func/arg of SRv6 SID. In this case, it seems that the operations
>      > lt and gt on func/arg are the operations on label. Applying
>     operations
>      > lt and gt on func/arg (i.e., label) makes sense.
>      >
>      > Best Regards,
>      > Huaimo
>      >
>      >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      > *From:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com
>     <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>>
>      > *Sent:* Saturday, March 13, 2021 1:27 AM
>      > *To:* Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>
>      > *Cc:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
>     <mailto:huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>>; idr@ietf.org
>     <mailto:idr@ietf.org> <idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
>      > *Subject:* Re: [Idr] locator length : draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6
>      > Huaimo
>      >
>      > With SRv6 BGP Service overlay the egress PE signals the SRv6
>     Service SID
>      > in SRv6 service TLV encoded in BGP prefix SID attribute with BGP
>     overlay
>      > service route for SRv6-BE /no SRH or egress PE colors overlay
>     service
>      > route with BGP color community for SRv6-TE w/ SRH.  The SRv6
>     source node
>      > encapsulates the PE-CE customer payload in outer “MPLS topmost
>     transport
>      > label like” IPv6 header where the destination address is the SRv6
>      > Service SID provided by the egress PE.
>      >
>      > The SRv6 L2 L3 VPN Services TLV is encoded in the BGP prefix SID
>      > attribute identical to MPLS VPN service label and thus the VPN
>     label is
>      > now encoded into the func/arg SRv6 SID signaled by the egress PE
>     and is
>      > fixed throughout the closed SR domain.
>      >
>      > SRv6 BGP Service overlay
>      >
>      > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05>
>      >
>     <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf35805d2e8784e5a795108d8e5e9251a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637512136823894640%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=cIFl1GwBr%2FkLm7j%2BI5XR8CuCwPkhcZEzsK8B8S8291Q%3D&reserved=0
>     <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf35805d2e8784e5a795108d8e5e9251a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637512136823894640%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=cIFl1GwBr%2FkLm7j%2BI5XR8CuCwPkhcZEzsK8B8S8291Q%3D&reserved=0>>
>      >
>      > As SRv6 is reusing the IPv6 data plane with same L3 VPN overlay RFC
>      > 4364, I don’t think any of the processes would change to carry
>     BGP flow
>      > spec RFC 8955, as the BGP vpn overlay layer remains unchanged.
>      >
>      > We are just swapping the underlay change from MPLS to IPv6 data
>     plane.
>      >
>      >
>      > Kind Regards
>      >
>      > Gyan
>      >
>      > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 3:29 PM Joel M. Halpern
>     <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>      > <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     I have to disagree with your basic premise.  At least for LOC
>     and FUNC
>      >     bits, less than and greater than are NOT meaningful comparisons.
>      >
>      >     Even for ARG bits, the only defined usage for the bits is
>     such that
>      >     comparisons other than equal to / not equal to are meaningless.
>      >
>      >     Yours,
>      >     Joel
>      >
>      >     On 3/12/2021 3:19 PM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
>      >      > Hi Joel,
>      >      >
>      >      >      Thanks much for your further comment.
>      >      >
>      >      >      It seems that using loc, func and args in SID is simpler
>      >     than using
>      >      > address prefix of SID for SRv6 flow specification. For
>      >     matching/filtering
>      >      > on an IP destination address prefix, it seems that there
>     is just
>      >     bitwise
>      >      > pattern matching. For matching/filtering on a SID (loc,
>     func and
>      >     args in
>      >      > SID),
>      >      > there are a few operators such as eq, lt and gt (and
>     combinations
>      >     of them).
>      >      >
>      >      >      For flow specification(s) to match a range of
>     functions such as
>      >      > from function value F1 to F1+1, to F1+n (where n > 1) in SID,
>      >      > using IP address prefix seems need (n+1) flow
>     specifications, each of
>      >      > which is for one function value and would have two (type 1)
>      >     components:
>      >      > one component for matching the locator and the other for
>     matching the
>      >      > function value. Using loc and func in SID needs just one flow
>      >     specification
>      >      > having one (type TBD) component with three <op, value>
>     pairs. The
>      >     first pair
>      >      > is for matching the locator and the other two for the range.
>      >      >
>      >      > Best Regards,
>      >      > Huaimo
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >   
>       ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >      > *From:* Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
>      >     <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>>>
>      >      > *Sent:* Friday, March 12, 2021 11:49 AM
>      >      > *To:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
>     <mailto:huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
>      >     <mailto:huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
>     <mailto:huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>>>
>      >      > *Cc:* idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>> <idr@ietf.org
>     <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
>      >     <mailto:idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>>>; Lizhenbin
>     <lizhenbin@huawei.com <mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>
>      >     <mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com <mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>>>
>      >      > *Subject:* Re: locator length : draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6
>      >      > Given that you have to check loc before func and check loc
>     and func
>      >      > before arg, it would seem simpler to just use an address
>     prefix.
>      >     Gets
>      >      > around all of the knowledge problems.
>      >      >
>      >      > Note that a UI for creating flowspec filters can allow the
>     user to
>      >      > specify it in all sorts of ways.  that does not mean we
>     need to
>      >     put all
>      >      > of them in the protocol when they are equivalent.
>      >      >
>      >      > Yours,
>      >      > Joel
>      >      >
>      >      > On 3/12/2021 11:44 AM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
>      >      >> Hi Joel,
>      >      >>
>      >      >>      Thanks much for your further comment.
>      >      >>
>      >      >>      Just checking the FUNC bits should be limited. We
>     will add some
>      >      >> text to state that in order to check the FUNC bits, the
>     LOC needs to
>      >      >> be examined and matched first.
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Best Regards,
>      >      >> Huaimo
>      >      >>
>      >      >>
>      >   
>       ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >      >> *From:* Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
>      >     <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>>>
>      >      >> *Sent:* Friday, March 12, 2021 9:58 AM
>      >      >> *To:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
>     <mailto:huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
>      >     <mailto:huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
>     <mailto:huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>>>; Joel M. Halpern
>      >      >> <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>>
>      >      >> *Cc:* idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>> <idr@ietf.org
>     <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
>      >     <mailto:idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>>>; Lizhenbin
>     <lizhenbin@huawei.com <mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>
>      >     <mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com <mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>>>
>      >      >> *Subject:* Re: locator length : draft-li-idr-flowspec-srv6
>      >      >> An operator can assign B::/48 and C::?46  for Locators. 
>     Sure,
>      >     it would
>      >      >> usually be a single prefix with a single length.  But that is
>      >     not required.
>      >      >>
>      >      >> When one is examining the LOC, sure, you can use the
>     value length to
>      >      >> handle it.
>      >      >> But the way the mechanism is described, one could try to
>     check
>      >     just the
>      >      >> FUNC bits, without matching the LOC.
>      >      >> First, that has the problem of needing exogenous information
>      >     about the
>      >      >> LOC length.
>      >      >>
>      >      >> And it is actually worse than that.  Testing the FUNC
>     bits of the
>      >      >> destination field of an IP packet without checking the
>     LOC bits is
>      >      >> actually meaningless.  You don't even know if the DA is
>     an SRv6 SID.
>      >      >>
>      >      >> An yet further, there is no requirement that the encoding
>     of the
>      >     FUNC in
>      >      >> different SIDs uses the same value representation.  The
>     standardized
>      >      >> values are for advertising in routing protocols, not for the
>      >     packets.
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Net: I don't think having the field identification works.
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Yours,
>      >      >> Joel
>      >      >>
>      >      >> On 3/12/2021 9:51 AM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
>      >      >>> Hi Joel,
>      >      >>>
>      >      >>>      Thank you very much for your comment during the
>     IETF 110.
>      >      >>>
>      >      >>>      Regarding to the lengths of locator(LOC)s and
>      >     function(FUNCT)s in
>      >      >>> SIDs,
>      >      >>> RFC8986 says that the locator length, is flexible, and an
>      >     operator is free
>      >      >>> to use the locator length of their choice. This seems
>      >     indicating that the
>      >      >>> operator can select the length for the locator. After their
>      >     selection, the
>      >      >>> the locator length is determined/fixed. This is
>     illustrated by
>      >     examples
>      >      >>> in RFC8986.
>      >      >>>
>      >      >>>      One example in the beginning of section 3.2 is as
>     follows:
>      >      >>>         For example, a network operator may:
>      >      >>>            Assign block B::/48 to the SR domain
>      >      >>>            Assign a unique B:N::/64 block to each
>     SRv6-enabled
>      >     node in
>      >      >>> the domain.
>      >      >>> After this assignment, the length of the locators of the
>     SIDs
>      >     in the domain
>      >      >>> is 64 bits.
>      >      >>>
>      >      >>>      In the end of section 3.2, the text shows the Function
>      >     fields of SIDs.
>      >      >>> The length of function(FUNCT)s is 16 bits.
>      >      >>>
>      >      >>>      When a SID is used in the domain, its locator
>     length and
>      >     function
>      >      >>> length
>      >      >>> should have been determined.
>      >      >>>
>      >      >>>      When an operator configures a SRv6 flow specification,
>      >     involving
>      >      >>> a SID or a group of SIDs, s/he should have known the locator
>      >     length and
>      >      >>> function length in the SID(s).
>      >      >>>
>      >      >>> Best Regards,
>      >      >>> Huaimo
>      >
>      >     _______________________________________________
>      >     Idr mailing list
>      > Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org> <mailto:Idr@ietf.org
>     <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>>
>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>
>      >   
>       <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf35805d2e8784e5a795108d8e5e9251a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637512136823904595%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=308PkYLf8wfcS9h%2BK07PUSuNMZuD%2B%2F877Xxxbo4hSDk%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf35805d2e8784e5a795108d8e5e9251a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637512136823904595%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=308PkYLf8wfcS9h%2BK07PUSuNMZuD%2B%2F877Xxxbo4hSDk%3D&reserved=0>>
>      >
>      > --
>      >
>      >
>     <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.verizon.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf35805d2e8784e5a795108d8e5e9251a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637512136823904595%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Gqfjp5KslpJZe%2FM1vfBPfXeX81XslNzamG5SHfrDogQ%3D&reserved=0
>     <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.verizon.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf35805d2e8784e5a795108d8e5e9251a%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637512136823904595%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Gqfjp5KslpJZe%2FM1vfBPfXeX81XslNzamG5SHfrDogQ%3D&reserved=0>>
>      >
>      > *Gyan Mishra*
>      >
>      > /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
>      >
>      > /M 301 502-1347
>      > 13101 Columbia Pike
>      > /Silver Spring, MD
>      >
>      >
> 
> -- 
> 
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
> 
> *Gyan Mishra*
> 
> /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
> 
> /M 301 502-1347
> 13101 Columbia Pike
> /Silver Spring, MD
> 
>