Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-redist-01.txt

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sat, 03 July 2021 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 769AB3A168E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 07:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 PaSsbcV6MFoI for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 07:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102f.google.com (mail-pj1-x102f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B26FA3A168C for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 07:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102f.google.com with SMTP id pf4-20020a17090b1d84b029016f6699c3f2so11177302pjb.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Jul 2021 07:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Leh5vNPpDawGy//6zDeUjzwioUMCvLf23z6x0LTGTuQ=; b=LAbsXHoBb2sAxCJfSUFnyoVmlqh5uICG1CvUbuaM/9ZLZPfGJYQFDNnd1QfE5rrpFf fTJpLrGKsq/zIWoG2POqUTRrYodo5zN8j3fnfnr6yggQ1ooWII3wH4bVN+KK29EHhFVv ygfz4kpk65yOZRANHrKkJCHLj2LtWXA7h9wxuI38MJed0PYoWQhXbh2o7dv7p4nmdaWl AgdwLL/b6Yw5j/LUhKhk1ZghXdAo7TMFubyzg7vuDqzsry31N8j2tO4B8QwfEfu6iAnh WWpYf0W+6tw2bhiuXLWt6uid6UhcH72ChEmqiIdsuf3WC6jP5Ls2SzPdq69zRZRRYcyE ulEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Leh5vNPpDawGy//6zDeUjzwioUMCvLf23z6x0LTGTuQ=; b=AApmrGJnrGGs06m8FNXkBkwThVT81Kt3GriLtLR9Pbed4hUmkGg0dysC6Qs+03mDki XTQlm7NuU2wt88ZXff6H6ncQ8q7zROks9l7kt9AsA/xXb5hots7GW6oTfhtFE+09B3Vv a00hzLhhtZs038+3Q9Ry2vQfjOBEs98quyj0XALgYYIlqd1yazqS/vf7KblHFpxflf+U ElzomPBSMyDINSAmN6le9NxR2NuTs7uuPHzPlMiICzUM0w1x2JJrRx2KkpLwtqbVlIBI TBNDFxsvTXK5J6epJ28uZTS65qKCOU1CGPFRrrNLqqZtFIObuKTj6XX0ZhOORnMj1wmc +p3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530LBFmTTu7oC5y33U7ZbHCK6VVi8Dic29hFNlxTc+DcJDnzYwjS kdCcaBFh3FDOHEMwMWgGRnh6gq3TCz7Lls3rLd8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwpwfl+miCVEfWVnwxoFmHXCUdbaPc3kuutyhxwsMu0cgUp+W9ExcUzQ7XVt0DawYR15/T7PGaPJ1A9oFo+8Jc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bd42:b029:123:1986:d0c3 with SMTP id b2-20020a170902bd42b02901231986d0c3mr4296967plx.74.1625321974644; Sat, 03 Jul 2021 07:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANJ8pZ_2yk666tSca818-e0YdziKjK3dMqhopOtYAP3vKXTEmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MME5zZeZDnhpfivbdKj00JwBzi9rjMmzBXxE_fFqkxEVpA@mail.gmail.com> <CANJ8pZ9Und3fF324tzTAkhrMFV0MZfhHYfZussiYSCNUx-n_Hw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3BXk=+fuxVSg_9j+u+5Ffr+NQGE9P75NCPpTaUr5LqYQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMFxM_yvrPDEyQ+dpO7ZxoiQKa0DE4ZQf763Cuidj76QXg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1q-H1pSypWCvA9VKXBZZTfM3nQNPktjbmbN0D=VSXpBw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV29-t-N6EMmJQzOairgTB5jsPX1h6Q0e+akEgiA2cUpQg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1QAR8qHdP+rSTOk3eRU5A5tMAfWFFyqXYPQteHtoNyBg@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB3207B8AE524F71ED25590B94C01F9@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <e6a5ac64-c948-a08e-079f-47f63dd1b787@gmail.com> <fc5890f4-3328-a22d-4ff5-f7672911f0b4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fc5890f4-3328-a22d-4ff5-f7672911f0b4@gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2021 08:18:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV3iXuukeXA=evaRYm5fx--+FpgoEGfkS3mF7fqrMfTAMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>
Cc: IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000f1ea2d05c638c201"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Iy4ohxtjD8xdZAPOJgbyTxEITsk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-redist-01.txt
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: Sat, 03 Jul 2021 14:19:43 -0000

Hi Alejandro

Thanks for validating.  Yes so your test validates RFC 5004 at work with
first received oldest is best over the newest or last received.

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 9:22 AM Alejandro Acosta <
alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>   As I said before I created a small lab with three routers, just for
> testing purposes.
>   Even when the draft is not 100% aimed for BGP I have to say one finding
> (well, maybe you are already aware but at I did not catched it when reading
> the draft) that I believe is important.
>
> In this scenario:
>
> R1 -- R2 -- R3
>
> R1 (AS65001) is announcing 10.0.0.1 (eBGP, AD 20)
>
> R2 (AS65002) has a static floating (AD 150) route pointing to 10.0.0.1
> toward R1.
>
> R3 Learns 10.0.0.1 via R2 and the AS_Origin is set to 65001 (in case there
> is a ROA, RPKI would be fine)
>
Gyan> So the oldest or first received is BGP learned route from R1 is
preferred

> Suppose eBGP session resets between R1 & R2, static floating route takes
> places.
>
> Now R3 learns 10.0.0.1 but AS_Origin is AS 65002 (RPKI fails !!.., routing
> valid, prefix dropped, etc. )
>
Gyan> So now the oldest or first installed is the static as the bgp learned
from R1 is gone

> Two more comments:
>
> Even when the eBGP session goes up RIB & BGP in R2 remains static for
> 10.0.0.1
>
> Even when the eBGP session goes up RIB & BGP in R3 AS_Path still
> indicating 65001 as AS_ORIGIN
>
> Gyan> Does it seem to be consistent that every time the BGP session comes
> up that R3 sees 65001 as origin which means BGP learned is the oldest first
> received over the static.  Strange.  I would have though that if the static
> on R2 was installed first and then the BGP session came up between R1 & R2
> that the static locally originated would always be the oldest first
> received and R3 would show AS 65002 and that would happen consistently.  I
> would think the only time the BGP learned would be oldest first received
> showing 65001 AS path on R3 is if the static was configured after the BGP
> session was up.
>
>
>
>
> Well, hope it helps and I made myself understood.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alejandro,
>
>
> On 2/7/21 8:50 PM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
>
>
> On 2/7/21 2:33 AM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
>
> Admin-distance is not defined in any RFCs. It is a vendor only concept.
>
> I can speak about it from the Cisco IOS-XR and Redback perspective.
>
> In both of these implementations, RIB and BGP are separate processes
>
> with separate memory spaces and their own routing tables.
>
> Routes are passed between them using inter-process communication messages.
>
> They cannot access each other's routing tables. Other routing protoclos,
>
> such as OSPF, ISIS and static are also separate processes. Each of the
> routing
>
> protocols downloads their valid routes to RIB. If the same IP prefix is
>
> sent to RIB by multiple routing protocols, RIB will select one to be used
>
> for forwarding and resolving nexthops. RIB uses admin-distance to decide.
>
> Routing protocols get their local routes from RIB.
>
>
>
> A static route has admin-distance of 1 by default.
>
> However, a static route can be configured with a different admin-distance.
>
> It is possible to configure a backup static route by configuring a high
>
> admin-distance for it.
>
> In that case, if another route is found for the given prefix by another
>
> routing protocol, say an ISIS route, then the ISIS route will be used
>
> for forwarding. Only if the ISIS route disappears will the backup static
>
> route be used.
>
>
>
> Now, suppose we want to advertise that prefix in BGP. We can do that
>
> with a "redistribute" statement or with a "network" statement.
>
> They work a little bit differently, but either command will import
>
> the route from the RIB into BGP.
>
> Once the route is in BGP, it loses its admin-distance.
>
> BGP has no knowledge of the admin-distance that this route had in RIB.
>
> There is no admin-distance in section 9.1 of RFC 4271.
>
> This is the root of the problem that Enke and Jenny are trying to solve.
>
>
>
> The problem occurs if the same prefix can be learnt by BGP from
>
> a BGP peer. BGP may download it into RIB. The draft addresses the
>
> different outcome if BGP learns the route first from it peer or learns
>
> it first from the local RIB.
>
>
> To be honest after reading the draft I still had my doubts.
>
> I just tested it (using old Cisco gear) and the behavior was exactly the
> described in draft. Having said that I have to admit that at the beginning
> I was skeptical about this, but now I believe this draft deserve further
> discussions.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Alejandro,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jakob.
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> <idr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *
> Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 1, 2021 6:18 PM
> *To:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Cc:* idr@ietf. org <idr@ietf.org> <idr@ietf.org>rg>; Jenny Yuan
> <jyuan@paloaltonetworks.com> <jyuan@paloaltonetworks.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-chen-bgp-redist-01.txt
>
>
>
>
>
> From a network design POV, in general within a an IP transit AS their is
> no need to redistribute BGP into IGP unless their are non BGP speaking
> routers within the network.
>
>
>
> As for sourcing routes into BGP advertisement from a customer edge best
> practice is to originate the advertisement as close to the source routers
> as possible, and if it’s a summary then use a network statement and if LPM
> routes are required then redistribution of IGP into BGP via policy is the
> best way but also as close to the source of the prefixes.
>
>
>
> From a core perspective IP or MPLS it is common to redistribute connected
> or IGP into BGP global table still separate from customer traffic in SP
> operator core where MPLS any-any VPN VRF is used to carry Internet traffic
> and in that case the NOC may sit in the Internet VRF and NMS systems need
> telemetry access back to the global table.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:56 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Enke
>
>
>
> I am still trying to understand the need for this draft.
>
>
>
>
>
> Their are two main methods to locally originate routes into BGP done at
> the customer edge which is via redistribution or network statement.  When
> you redistribute routes into BGP the origin flag is set to incomplete.
> When you use a network statement with exact match of prefix installed in
> the RIB, the route origin changes to IGP origin.   The pecking order for
> Orgin is EGP, IGP, Incomplete so if the routes is also advertised via
> network statement and redistribution by two different ASBR the best path
> selection will converge on the best path IGP origin via network statement
> over redistribution.  Maybe that is the intention of the draft to prefer
> incomplete over IGP origin and that can be set via policy as well so that
> both are equal so load balancing can occur.
>
>
>
> At the bottom of page 2 below is stated as the premise for this draft.
>
>
>
> Currently the admin-distance does not play any role in BGP route
>
> selection.
>
>
>
> I disagree.  Indeed AD plays an important role in redistribution or locally sourcing of prefixes into BGP advertisement.  All vendor implementations do this the same way and that is that only the lowest AD source
>
> Of a particular prefix is what is installed onto the RIB and FIB.  So when doing either a redistribution or using network statement exact match to source local routes into a BGP advertisement only the prefixes installed in the RIB that match exactly via network statement or if you have a redistribution policy matches the prefix and source protocol for the route being redistributed.
>
>
>
> Let’s say you have a redistributing OSPF into BGP however their is a static route exact match for the prefix you want to redistribute that matches your redistribution prefix list
>
> however as OSPF has AD 110 and static had AD 1 default and if you are trying to redistribute ospf into BGP the redistribution will not work since the RIB has the static route as the source for the prefix installed in the RIB.
>
>
>
> Example of how AD plays an important role in how redistribution can or may not occur properly due to AD of the protocol sourcing the prefix
>
> And the protocol being redistributed must match or the redistribution will fail.
>
>
>
> I have noticed one issue with both redistribution and network statement which is problematic is that the IGP metric is passed into BGP as MED which is higher in the BGP best path selection which can result in sub optimal routing.  The workaround is to reset MED to 0 with a policy.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:23 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The main protocols are BGP, OSPF, ISIS, Static
>
>
>
> Juniper
>
>
>
>
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junose15.1/topics/task/configuration/ip-route-administrative-distance-configuration.html
>
>
>
> Route Source
>
> Default Distance
>
> Connected interface
>
> 0
>
> Static route
>
> 1
>
> Internal access route
>
> 2
>
> Access route
>
> 3
>
> External BGP
>
> 20
>
> OSPF
>
> 110
>
> IS-IS
>
> 115
>
> RIP
>
> 120
>
> Internal BGP
>
> 200
>
> Unknown
>
> 255
>
>
>
>
>
> Cisco
>
>
>
>
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/border-gateway-protocol-bgp/15986-admin-distance.html
>
>
>
>
>
> *Route Source*
>
> *Default Distance Values*
>
> Connected interface
>
> 0
>
> Static route
>
> 1
>
> Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) summary route
>
> 5
>
> External Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
>
> 20
>
> Internal EIGRP
>
> 90
>
> IGRP
>
> 100
>
> OSPF
>
> 110
>
> Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS)
>
> 115
>
> Routing Information Protocol (RIP)
>
> 120
>
> Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP)
>
> 140
>
> On Demand Routing (ODR)
>
> 160
>
> External EIGRP
>
> 170
>
> Internal BGP
>
> 200
>
> Unknown*
>
> 255
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:54 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
> Gyan,
>
>
>
> > My understanding is by default most all implementations that I know of
> for example Cisco & Juniper which have use identical default AD
>
>
>
> Can you provide source(s) of your above information ?
>
>
>
> To the best of my knowledge they are quite different ...
>
>
>
> Cisco:
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper:
>
>
>
>
>
> Except connected I do not see much of "identical default AD"
>
>
>
> And that is as the draft says especially important when your intention is
> to control active - backup paths for a given net.
>
>
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:02 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Enke
>
>
>
> My understanding is by default most all implementations that I know of for
> example Cisco & Juniper which have use identical default AD, redistribution
> of the route only occurs from the source protocol that is being
> redistributed for example static versus OSPF or ISIS based on AD.
>
>
>
> So if you have multiple protocols redistribution into BGP, the source
> protocol with the lowest AD is what is inserted into the default RIB/FIB
> and its that specific route from the source protocol that is redistributed
> into BGP.   All implementations that I know of work that way.
>
>
>
> I don’t see any issue with deterministic redistribution as exists today
> with implementations.
>
>
>
> Normally you are only running one IGP but let’s say you are running OSPF
> and ISIS and you have a Juniper and Cisco ASBR redistribution into BGP, as
> OSPF has default AD 110, the OSPF prefix would be inserted into the Default
> RIB and redistributed into BGP.  Let’s say you set AD for ISIS down to 90
> and now the ISIS route is inserted into the RIB and now both Juniper and
> Cisco ASBR Will redistribute the ISIS route into BGP.
>
>
>
> I am not seeing the issue that you are trying to solve.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:19 AM Enke Chen <enchen@paloaltonetworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi, Robert:
>
>
>
> 1) Usually the default admin-distance is configurable. Having the same
> admin-distance across implementations would certainly make things simpler,
> but that is not required. What matters is the local_pref value for the
> redistribute backup route:
>
>
>
>             local_pref = default_local_pref - delta;
>
>
>
> It needs to be in the right order (relatively) for the "role" the route is
> supposed to play.
>
>
>
> It's a good question. We will try to clarify it in the next revision.
>
>
>
> 2) Certainly it would work if we define the "delta" (or "local_pref") for
> the redistributed route based on its role (e.g., primary, secondary,
> tertiary). But extra config would be needed for specifying the "role".  The
> algorithm described in the draft does not require additional config other
> than the existing "admin-distance".  When more than two paths are involved
> in a multi-vendor environment, the admin-distance needs to be carefully
> assigned in order to get the desired local_pref value.
>
>
>
> Thanks.   -- Enke
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 1:05 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Enke,
>
>
>
> How do you assure that admin distance is the same or delta would be the
> same across implementations ?
>
>
>
> Looking at say junos I see quite different values then when comparing with
> other implementations ...
>
>
>
>
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/general/routing-protocols-default-route-preference-values.html
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.juniper.net_documentation_en-5FUS_junos_topics_reference_general_routing-2Dprotocols-2Ddefault-2Droute-2Dpreference-2Dvalues.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=iUboWFiSpP9QvSDj9hoG8_DO7R_8EOQvfEHnwyX-mc0&s=GOhXjwEf1z0GAfIQVgVAc4sHvcAog6czTO30VhKwzQk&e=>
>
>
>
> Would it be simpler to define here verbatim what the local pref should be
> for redistributed routes ? Then at least those could be used as default
> local pref values unless overwritten by operator's policy during
> redistribution.
>
>
>
> Thx,
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:14 PM Enke Chen <enchen@paloaltonetworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi, Folks:
>
>
>
> Apologies for the very long delay in updating the draft:
>
>
>
>        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-bgp-redist/01/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dchen-2Dbgp-2Dredist_01_&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=iUboWFiSpP9QvSDj9hoG8_DO7R_8EOQvfEHnwyX-mc0&s=IBn3kTJmGrWISvSq8L3M9GLLamXIqw7t2PvEdtvhmos&e=>
>
>
>
> The issue still exists, and shows up from time to time. The revised
> version provides a complete solution that covers the use cases involving a
> single router as well as multiple routers in a network.
>
>
>
> Your review and comments are welcome.
>
>
>
> Thanks.   -- Enke
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_idr&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=iUboWFiSpP9QvSDj9hoG8_DO7R_8EOQvfEHnwyX-mc0&s=O1wpTf7XmDmE4-mQGDJ9YNEx2UVZW-k1meY3fd-tQrE&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing listIdr@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>


-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*



*M 301 502-1347*