Network Working Group C. Schmutzer, Ed. Internet-Draft C. Filsfils Intended status: Informational Z. Ali, Ed. Expires: 8 September 2022 F. Clad Cisco Systems, Inc. P. Maheshwari Airtel India 7 March 2022 Circuit Style Segment Routing Policies draft-schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy-01 Abstract This document describes how Segment Routing (SR) policies can be used to satisfy the requirements for strict bandwidth guarantees, end-to- end recovery and persistent paths within a segment routing network. SR policies satisfying these requirements are called "circuit-style" SR policies (CS-SR policies). Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 September 2022. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 1] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. CS-SR Policy Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. CS-SR Policy Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) . . . . . . 6 6.1. Liveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Recovery Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Unprotected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. 1+R Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.3. 1:1 Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.4. 1:1+R Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.5. External Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Introduction Segment routing does allow for a single network to carry both typical IP (connection-less) services and connection-oriented transport services. IP services required ECMP and TI-LFA, while transport services that normally are delivered via dedicated circuit-switched SONET/SDH or OTN networks do require: * Persistent end2end traffic engineered paths that provide predictable and identical latency in both directions * Strict bandwidth commitment per path to ensure no impact on the Service Level Agreement (SLA) due to changing network load from other services * End2end protection (<50msec protection switching) and restoration mechanisms * Monitoring and maintenance of path integrity Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 2] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 * Data plane remaining up while control plane is down Such a "transport centric" behaviour is referred to as "circuit- style" in this document. This document describes how SR policies [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] and adjacency-SIDs defined in the SR architecture [RFC8402] together with a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC8231] can be used to satisfy those requirements. It includes how end-to-end recovery and path integrity monitoring can be implemented. SR policies that satisfy those requirements are called "circuit- style" SR policies (CS-SR policies). 2. Terminology * CS-SR : Circuit-Style Segment Routing * ID : Identifier * LSP : Label Switched Path * LSPA : LSP attributes * OAM : Operations, Administration and Maintenance * OF : Objective Function * PCE : Path Computation Element * PCEP : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol * PT : Protection Type * SID : Segment Identifier * SLA : Service Level Agreement * SR : Segment Routing * STAMP : Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol * TI-LFA : Topology Independent Loop Free Alternate * TLV : Type Length Value Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 3] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 3. Reference Model The reference model for CS-SR policies is following the segment routing architecture [RFC8402] and SR policy architecture [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] and is depicted in Figure 1. +--------------+ +-------------->| PCE |<--------------+ | +--------------+ | | | | | v <<<<<<<<<<<<<< CS-SR Policy >>>>>>>>>>>>> v +-------+ +-------+ | |=========================================>| | | A | SR-policy from A to Z | Z | | |<=========================================| | +-------+ SR-policy from Z to A +-------+ Figure 1: Circuit-style SR Policy Architecture By nature of CS-SR policies, paths will be computed and maintained by a stateful PCE defined in [RFC8231]. When using a MPLS data plane [RFC8660], PCEP extensions defined in [RFC8664] will be used. When using a SRv6 data plane [RFC8754], PCEP extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] will be used. In order to satisfy the requirements of CS-SR policies, each link in the topology MUST have: * An adjacency-SID which is: - Manually allocated or persistent : to ensure that its value does not change after a node reload - Non-protected : to avoid any local TI-LFA protection to happen upon interface/link failures * The bandwidth available for CS-SR policies When using a MPLS data plane [RFC8660] existing IGP extensions defined in [RFC8667] and [RFC8665] and BGP-LS defined in [RFC9085] can be used to distribute the topology information including those persistent and unprotected Adj-SIDs. When using a SRv6 data plane [RFC8754] the IGP extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] and BGP-LS extensions in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] apply. Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 4] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 4. CS-SR Policy Characteristics A CS-SR policy has the following characteristics: * Requested bandwidth : bandwidth to be reserved for the CS-SR policy * Bidirectional co-routed : a CS-SR policy between A and Z is an association of an SR-Policy from A to Z and an SR-Policy from Z to A following the same path(s) * Deterministic and persistent paths : segment lists with strict hops using unprotected adjacency-SIDs * Not automatically recomputed or reoptimized : the SID list of a candidate path must not change automatically (for example upon topology change) * Multiple candidate paths in case of protection/restoration: - Following the SR policy architecture, the highest preference valid path is carrying traffic - Depending on the protection/restoration scheme (Section 7), lower priority candidate paths o may be pre-computed o may be pre-programmed o may have to be disjoint * Liveness and performance measurement is activated on each candidate path (Section 6) 5. CS-SR Policy Creation A CS-SR policy between A and Z is configured both on A (with Z as endpoint) and Z (with A as endpoint) as shown in Figure 1. Both nodes A and Z act as PCC and delegate path computation to the PCE using the extensions defined in [RFC8664]. The PCRpt message sent from the headends to the PCE contains the following parameters: * BANDWIDTH object (Section 7.7 of [RFC5440]) : to indicate the requested bandwidth Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 5] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 * LSPA object (section 7.11 of [RFC5440]) : to indicate that no local protection requirements - L flag set to 0 : no local protection - E flag set to 1 : protection enforcement (section 5 of [I-D.ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement]) * ASSOCIATION object ([RFC8697]) : - Type : Double-sided Bidirectional with Reverse LSP Association ([I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path]) - Bidirectional Association Group TLV ([RFC9059]) : o R flag is always set to 0 (forward path) o C flag is always set to 1 (co-routed) If the SR-policies are configured with more than one candidate path, a PCEP request is sent per candidate path. Each PCEP request does include the "SR Policy Association" object (type 6) as defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] to make the PCE aware of the candidate path belonging to the same policy. The signaling extensions described in [I-D.sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions] are used to ensure that * Path determinism is achieved by the PCE only using segment lists representing a strict hop by hop path using unprotected adjacency- SIDs. * Path persistency across node reloads in the network is achieved by the PCE only including manually configured adj-SIDs in its path computation response. * Persistency across network changes is achieved by the PCE not performing periodic nor network event triggered re-optimization. Bandwidth adjustment can be requested after initial creation by signaling both requested and operational bandwidth in the BANDWIDTH object but the PCE is not allowed to respond with a changed path. 6. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 6] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 6.1. Liveness The proper operation of each segment list is validated by both headends using STAMP in loopback measurement mode as described in section 4.2.3 of [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm]. As the STAMP test packets are including both the segment list of the forward and reverse path, standard segment routing data plane operations will make those packets get switched along the forward path to the tailend and along the reverse path back to the headend. The headend forms the bidirectional SR Policy association using the procedure described in [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path] and receives the information about the reverse segment list from the PCE as described in section 4.5 of [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] 6.2. Performance Measurement The same STAMP session used for liveliness monitoring can be used to measure delay. As loopback mode is used only round-trip delay is measured and one-way has to be derived by dividing the round-trip delay by two. The same STAMP session can also be used to estimate round-trip loss as described in section 5 of [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm]. 7. Recovery Schemes Various protection and restoration schemes can be implemented. The terms "protection" and "restoration" are used with same subtle distinctions outlined in section 1 of [RFC4872], [RFC4427] and [RFC3386] respectively. * Protection : another candidate path is computed and fully established in the data plane and ready to carry traffic * Restoration : a candidate path may be computed and may be partially established but is not ready to carry traffic 7.1. Unprotected In the most basic scenario no protection nor restoration is required. The CS-SR policy has only one candidate path configured. This candidate path is established, activated (O field in LSP object is set to 2) and is carrying traffic. In case of a failure the CS-SR policy will go down and traffic will not be recovered. Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 7] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 Typically two CS-SR policies are deployed either within the same network with disjoint paths or in two completely separate networks and the overlay service is responsible for traffic recovery. 7.2. 1+R Restoration To avoid pre-allocating protection bandwidth in steady state (Section 7.3) but still be able to react to network failures and recover traffic flow in a deterministic way (maintain required bandwidth commitment) the CS-SR policy is configured with two candidate paths. The candidate path with higher preference is established, activated (O field in LSP object is set to 2) and is carrying traffic. The second candidate path with lower preference is only established and activated (O field in LSP object is set to 2) upon a failure impacting the first candidate path in order to send traffic over an alternate path through the network around the failure with potentially relaxed constraints but still satisfying the bandwidth commitment. The second candidate path is generally only requested from the PCE and activated after a failure, but may also be requested and pre- established during CS-SR policy creation with the downside of bandwidth being set aside ahead of time. As soon as the failure that brought the first candidate path down is cleared, the second candidate path is getting deactivated (O field in LSP object is set to 1) or torn down. The first candidate path is activated (O field in LSP object is set to 2) and traffic sent across it. Restoration and reversion behavior is bidirectional. As described in Section 6.1, both headends use liveness in loopback mode and therefore even in case of unidirectional failures both headends will detect the failure or clearance of the failure and switch traffic away from the failed or to the recovered candidate path. 7.3. 1:1 Protection For fast recovery against failures the CS-SR policy is configured with two candidate paths. Both paths are established but only the candidate with higher preference is activated (O field in LSP object is set to 2) and is carrying traffic. The candidate path with lower preference has its O field in LSP object set to 1. Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 8] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 Appropriate routing of the protect path diverse from the working path can be requested from the PCE by using the "Disjointness Association" object (type 2) defined in [RFC8800] in the PCRpt messages. The disjoint requirements are communicated in the "DISJOINTNESS- CONFIGURATION TLV" * L bit set to 1 for link diversity * N bit set to 1 for node diversity * S bit set to 1 for SRLG diversity * T bit set to enforce strict diversity The P bit may be set for first candidate path to allow for finding the best working path that does satisfy all constraints without considering diversity to the protect path. The "Objective Function (OF) TLV" as defined in section 5.3 of [RFC8800] may also be added to minimize the common shared resources. Upon a failure impacting the candidate path with higher preference carrying traffic, the candidate path with lower preference is activated immediately and traffic is now sent across it. Protection switching is bidirectional. As described in Section 6.1, both headends will generate and receive their own loopback mode test packets, hence even a unidirectional failure will always be detected by both headends without protection switch coordination required. Two cases are to be considered when the failure impacting the candidate path with higher preference is cleared: * Revertive switching : re-activate the candidate path, change O field from 0 to 2 and start sending traffic over it * Non-revertive switching : do not activate the candidate path, change O field from 0 to 1, keep the second candidate path active with O field set to 2 and continue sending traffic over it 7.4. 1:1+R Protection For further resiliency in case of multiple concurrent failures that could affect both candidate paths in a Section 7.3 scenario the CS-SR policy is configured with three candidate paths with decreasing preference. Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 9] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 The third candidate path enables restoration and will generally only be established, activated (O field in LSP object is set to 2) and carry traffic after failure(s) have impacted both the candidate path with highest and second highest preference. The third candidate path may also be requested and pre-computed already whenever either the first or second candidate path went down due to a failure with the downside of bandwidth being set aside ahead of time. As soon as failure(s) that brought either the first or second candidate path down is cleared the third candidate path is getting deactivated (O field in LSP object is set to 1), the candidate path that recovered is activated (O field in LSP object is set to 2) and traffic sent across it. Protection switching, restoration and reversion behavior is bidirectional. As described in Section 6.1, both headends use liveness in loopback mode and therefore even in case of unidirectional failures both headends will detect the failure or clearance of the failure and switch traffic away from the failed or to the recovered candidate path. 7.5. External Commands It is very common to allow operators to trigger a switch between candidate paths even no failure is present. I.e. to proactively drain a resource for maintenance purposes. Operator triggered switching between candidate paths is unidirectional and has to be requested on both headends. 8. Security Considerations TO BE ADDED 9. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions. 10. Acknowledgements The author's want to thank Samuel Sidor, Mike Koldychev, Rakesh Gandhi for providing their review comments. 11. Contributors Contributors' Addresses Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 10] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 Brent Foster Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: brfoster@cisco.com Bertrand Duvivier Cisco System, Inc. Email: bduvivie@cisco.com Stephane Litkowski Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: slitkows@cisco.com 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . 12.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M., Bernier, D., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-09, 10 November 2021, . [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-18, 20 October 2021, . [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak, "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet- Draft, draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-03, 19 November 2021, . Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 11] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 [I-D.ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement] Stone, A., Aissaoui, M., Sidor, S., and S. Sivabalan, "Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-local-protection- enforcement-04, 30 January 2022, . [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Saad, T., Beeram, V. P., Bidgoli, H., Yadav, B., Peng, S., and G. Mishra, "PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-multipath-04, 25 February 2022, . [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M., Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-12, 6 March 2022, . [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H. Bidgoli, "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06, 22 October 2021, . [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path] Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Segment Routing (SR) Paths", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- pce-sr-bidir-path-09, 6 March 2022, . [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment- routing-policy-20, 6 March 2022, . Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 12] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 [I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm] Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Chen, M., Janssens, B., and R. Foote, "Performance Measurement Using Simple TWAMP (STAMP) for Segment Routing Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-03, 1 February 2022, . [I-D.sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions] Sidor, S., Ali, Z., and P. Maheshwari, "PCEP extensions for Circuit Style Policies", Work in Progress, Internet- Draft, draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-00, 7 March 2022, . [RFC1925] Callon, R., "The Twelve Networking Truths", RFC 1925, DOI 10.17487/RFC1925, April 1996, . [RFC3386] Lai, W., Ed. and D. McDysan, Ed., "Network Hierarchy and Multilayer Survivability", RFC 3386, DOI 10.17487/RFC3386, November 2002, . [RFC4427] Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006, . [RFC4872] Lang, J.P., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007, . [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, . [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, . Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 13] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018, . [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, . [RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, . [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, . [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, . [RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020, . [RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020, . [RFC8800] Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., and M. Negi, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Label Switched Path (LSP) Diversity Constraint Signaling", RFC 8800, DOI 10.17487/RFC8800, July 2020, . Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 14] Internet-Draft cs-srte March 2022 [RFC9059] Gandhi, R., Ed., Barth, C., and B. Wen, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 9059, DOI 10.17487/RFC9059, June 2021, . [RFC9085] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085, DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021, . Authors' Addresses Christian Schmutzer (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: cschmutz@cisco.com Clarence Filsfils Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Zafar Ali (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: zali@cisco.com Francois Clad Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: fclad@cisco.com Praveen Maheshwari Airtel India Email: Praveen.Maheshwari@airtel.com Schmutzer, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 15]