Internet DRAFT - draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm
draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm
IPPM Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: April 23, 2021 D. Voyer
Bell Canada
M. Chen
Huawei
B. Janssens
Colt
October 20, 2020
TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing Networks
draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm-00
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. SR is
applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6
(SRv6) data planes. This document describes RFC 5357 (Two-Way Active
Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Light) extensions for Delay and Loss
Measurement in Segment Routing networks, for both SR-MPLS and SRv6
data planes.
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 April 23, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
(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 extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Reference Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Probe Query Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Control Code Field Extension for TWAMP Light Messages . . 4
3.2. Loss Measurement Query Message Extensions . . . . . . . . 5
4. Probe Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Loss Measurement Response Message Extensions . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm and
greatly simplifies network operations for Software Defined Networks
(SDNs). SR is applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-
MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) data planes. Built-in SR Performance
Measurement (PM) is one of the essential requirements to provide
Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) defined in [RFC4656]
and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) defined in [RFC5357]
provide capabilities for the measurement of various performance
metrics in IP networks using probe messages. These protocols rely on
control-channel signaling to establish a test-channel over an UDP
path. The TWAMP Light [Appendix I in RFC5357] [BBF.TR-390] provides
simplified mechanisms for active performance measurement in Customer
IP networks by provisioning UDP paths and eliminates the need for
control-channel signaling. As described in Appendix A of [RFC8545],
TWAMP Light mechanism is informative only. These protocols lack
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
support for direct-mode Loss Measurement (LM) to detect actual
Customer data traffic loss which is required in SR networks.
This document describes RFC 5357 (Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP) Light) extensions for Delay and Loss Measurement in Segment
Routing networks, for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
BSID: Binding Segment ID.
DM: Delay Measurement.
HMAC: Hashed Message Authentication Code.
LM: Loss Measurement.
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
NTP: Network Time Protocol.
OWAMP: One-Way Active Measurement Protocol.
PM: Performance Measurement.
PTP: Precision Time Protocol.
SID: Segment ID.
SL: Segment List.
SR: Segment Routing.
SRH: Segment Routing Header.
SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane.
SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane.
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
TWAMP: Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol.
2.3. Reference Topology
In the reference topology shown below, the sender node R1 initiates a
performance measurement probe query message and the reflector node R5
sends a probe response message for the query message received. The
probe response message is typically sent to the sender node R1.
t1 t2
/ \
+-------+ Query +-------+
| | - - - - - - - - - ->| |
| R1 |=====================| R5 |
| |<- - - - - - - - - - | |
+-------+ Response +-------+
\ /
t4 t3
Sender Reflector
Reference Topology
3. Probe Query Message
3.1. Control Code Field Extension for TWAMP Light Messages
In this document, the Control Code field is defined for delay and
loss measurement probe query messages for TWAMP Light in
unauthenticated and authenticated modes. The modified delay
measurement probe query message format is shown in Figure 1. This
message format is backwards compatible with the message format
defined in [RFC5357] as its reflector ignores the received field
(previously identified as MBZ). With this field, the reflector node
does not require any additional state for PM (recall that in SR
networks, the state is in the probe packet and signaling of the
parameters is undesired). The usage of the Control Code is not
limited to the SR and can be used for non-SR network.
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Error Estimate | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |Se Control Code|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
Figure 1: Sender Control Code in TWAMP Light DM Message
Sender Control Code: Set as follows in TWAMP Light probe query
message.
In a Query:
0x0: Out-of-band Response Requested. Indicates that the probe
response is not required over the same path in the reverse
direction. This is also the default behavior.
0x1: In-band Response Requested. Indicates that this query has
been sent over a bidirectional path and the probe response is
required over the same path in the reverse direction.
0x2: No Response Requested.
3.2. Loss Measurement Query Message Extensions
In this document, TWAMP Light probe query messages for loss
measurement are defined as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The
message formats are hardware efficient due to well-known locations of
the counters and payload small in size. They are stand-alone and
similar to the delay measurement message formats (e.g. location of
the Counter and Timestamp). They also do not require backwards
compatibility and support for the existing DM message formats from
[RFC5357] as different user-configured destination UDP port is used
for loss measurement.
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved | Block Number | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |Se Control Code|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Packet Padding .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: TWAMP Light LM Probe Query Message - Unauthenticated Mode
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved | Block Number | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |Se Control Code|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HMAC (16 octets) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Packet Padding .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: TWAMP Light LM Probe Query Message - Authenticated Mode
Sequence Number (32-bit): As defined in [RFC5357].
Transmit Counter (64-bit): The number of packets or octets sent by
the sender node in the query message and by the reflector node in the
response message. The counter is always written at the well-known
location in the probe query and response messages.
Receive Counter (64-bit): The number of packets or octets received at
the reflector node. It is written by the reflector node in the probe
response message.
Sender Counter (64-bit): This is the exact copy of the transmit
counter from the received query message. It is written by the
reflector node in the probe response message.
Sender Sequence Number (32-bit): As defined in [RFC5357].
Sender TTL: As defined in [RFC5357].
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
LM Flags: The meanings of the Flag bits are:
X: Extended counter format indicator. Indicates the use of
extended (64-bit) counter values. Initialized to 1 upon creation
(and prior to transmission) of an LM query and copied from an LM
query to an LM response message. Set to 0 when the LM message is
transmitted or received over an interface that writes 32-bit
counter values.
B: Octet (byte) count. When set to 1, indicates that the Counter
1-4 fields represent octet counts. The octet count applies to all
packets within the LM scope, and the octet count of a packet sent
or received includes the total length of that packet (but excludes
headers, labels, or framing of the channel itself). When set to
0, indicates that the Counter fields represent packet counts.
Block Number (8-bit): The Loss Measurement using Alternate-Marking
method defined in [RFC8321] requires to color the data traffic. To
be able to correlate the transmit and receive traffic counters of the
matching color, the Block Number (or color) of the traffic counters
is carried by the probe query and response messages for loss
measurement. The Block Number can also be used to aggregate
performance metrics collected.
HMAC: The probe message in authenticated mode includes a key Hashed
Message Authentication Code (HMAC) [RFC2104] hash. Each probe query
and response messages are authenticated by adding Sequence Number
with Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) TLV. It can use HMAC-
SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits (similarly to the use of it in IPSec
defined in [RFC4868]); hence the length of the HMAC field is 16
octets.
HMAC uses its own key and the mechanism to distribute the HMAC key is
outside the scope of this document.
In authenticated mode, only the sequence number is encrypted, and the
other payload fields are sent in clear text. The probe message may
include Comp.MBZ (Must Be Zero) variable length field to align the
packet on 16 octets boundary.
4. Probe Response Message
4.1. Loss Measurement Response Message Extensions
In this document, TWAMP Light probe response message formats are
defined for loss measurement as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved | Block Number | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receive Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved |Sender Block Nu| MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender TTL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
. .
. Packet Padding .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: TWAMP Light LM Probe Response Message - Unauthenticated
Mode
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved | Block Number | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
| Receive Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (8 octets) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved |Sender Block Nu| MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender TTL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| MBZ (15 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HMAC (16 octets) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Packet Padding .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: TWAMP Light LM Probe Response Message - Authenticated Mode
5. Security Considerations
The performance measurement is intended for deployment in well-
managed private and service provider networks. As such, it assumes
that a node involved in a measurement operation has previously
verified the integrity of the path and the identity of the far-end
reflector node.
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
If desired, attacks can be mitigated by performing basic validation
and sanity checks, at the sender, of the counter or timestamp fields
in received measurement response messages. The minimal state
associated with these protocols also limits the extent of measurement
disruption that can be caused by a corrupt or invalid message to a
single query/response cycle.
Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data
integrity of the probe messages. Cryptographic measures may be
enhanced by the correct configuration of access-control lists and
firewalls.
6. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA action.
7. References
7.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[RFC8545] Morton, A., Ed. and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Well-Known Port
Assignments for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 8545, DOI 10.17487/RFC8545, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8545>.
[BBF.TR-390]
"Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer
Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Thierry Couture for the discussions
on the use-cases for Performance Measurement in Segment Routing. The
authors would also like to thank Greg Mirsky for reviewing this
document and providing useful comments and suggestions. The authors
would like to acknowledge the earlier work on the loss measurement
using TWAMP described in draft-xiao-ippm-twamp-ext-direct-loss.
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TWAMP Light Extensions for Segment Routing October 2020
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Bart Janssens
Colt
Email: Bart.Janssens@colt.net
Gandhi, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 13]
