Internet DRAFT - draft-wang-idr-rd-orf

draft-wang-idr-rd-orf







IDR Working Group                                                W. Wang
Internet-Draft                                                   A. Wang
Intended status: Standards Track                           China Telecom
Expires: April 3, 2022                                           H. Wang
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                               G. Mishra
                                                            Verizon Inc.
                                                               S. Zhuang
                                                                 J. Dong
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                      September 30, 2021


      Route Distinguisher Outbound Route Filter (RD-ORF) for BGP-4
                        draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-08

Abstract

   This draft defines a new Outbound Route Filter (ORF) type, called the
   Route Distinguisher ORF (RD-ORF).  The described RD-ORF mechanism is
   applicable when the VPN routes from different VRFs are exchanged via
   one shared BGP session(e.g. routers in a single-domain connect via
   Route Reflector).

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 3, 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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



Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


   (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
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Operation process of RD-ORF mechanism on sender . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Intra-domain Scenarios and Solutions  . . . . . . . . . .   4
       4.1.1.  Scenario-1 and Solution (Unique RD, One RT) . . . . .   5
       4.1.2.  Scenario-2 and Solution (Unique RD, Multiple RTs) . .   6
       4.1.3.  Scenario-2 and Solution (Universal RD)  . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Operation process of RD-ORF mechanism on receiver . . . . . .   8
   6.  Withdraw of RD-ORF entries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  RD-ORF Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Source PE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   [I-D.wang-idr-vpn-routes-control-analysis] analysis the scenarios and
   necessaries for VPN routes control in the shared BGP session.  This
   draft analizes the existing solutions and their limitations for these
   scenarios, proposes the new RD-ORF solution to meet the requirements
   that described in section 8 of
   [I-D.wang-idr-vpn-routes-control-analysis].

   Now, there are several solutions can be used to alleviate these
   problem:

   o  Route Target Constraint (RTC) as defined in [RFC4684]

   o  Address Prefix ORF as defined in [RFC5292]

   o  PE-CE edge peer Maximum Prefix

   o  Configure the Maximum Prefix for each VRF on edge nodes




Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


   However, there are limitations to existing solutions:

   1) Route Target Constraint

   RTC can only filter the VPN routes from the uninterested VRFs, if the
   "trashing routes" come from the interested VRF, filter on RTs will
   erase all prefixes from this VRF.

   2) Address Prefix ORF

   Using Address Prefix ORF to filter VPN routes need to pre-
   configuration, but it is impossible to know which prefix may cause
   overflow in advance.

   3) PE-CE edge peer Maximum Prefix

   This mechanism can only protect the edge between PE-CE, it can't be
   deployed within PE that peered via RR.  Depending solely on the edge
   protection is dangerous, because if only one of the edge points being
   comprised/error-configured/attacked, then all of PEs within domain
   are under risk.

   4) Configure the Maximum Prefix for each VRF on edge nodes

   When a VRF overflows, it stops the import of routes and log the extra
   VPN routes into its RIB.  However, PEs still need to parse the BGP
   updates.  These processes will cost CPU cycles and further burden the
   overflowing PE.

   This draft defines a new ORF-type, called the Route Distinguisher ORF
   (RD-ORF).  Using RD-ORF mechanism, VPN routes can be controlled based
   on RD.  This mechanism is event-driven and does not need to be pre-
   configured.  When a VRF of a router overflows, the router will find
   out the RD of excessive VPN routes in this VRF, and send a RD-ORF to
   its BGP peer that carrys the RD.  If a BGP speaker receives a RD-ORF
   entry from its BGP peer, it will filter the VPN routes it tends to
   send according to the entry.

   RD-ORF is applicable when the VPN routes from different VRFs are
   exchanged via one shared BGP session.

2.  Conventions used in this document

   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] .





Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


3.  Terminology

   The following terms are defined in this draft:

   o  RD: Route Distinguisher, defined in [RFC4364]

   o  ORF: Outbound Route Filter, defined in [RFC5291]

   o  AFI: Address Family Identifier, defined in [RFC4760]

   o  SAFI: Subsequent Address Family Identifier, defined in [RFC4760]

   o  EVPN: BGP/MPLS Ethernet VPN, defined in [RFC7432]

   o  RR: Router Reflector, provides a simple solution to the problem of
      IBGP full mesh connection in large-scale IBGP implementation.

   o  VRF: Virtual Routing Forwarding, a virtual routing table based on
      VPN instance.

4.  Operation process of RD-ORF mechanism on sender

   The operation of RD-ORF mechanism on each device is independent, each
   of them makes a local judgement to determine whether it needs to send
   RD-ORF to its peers.

   When the RD-ORF mechanism is triggered, the device must send an alarm
   information to network operators.

4.1.  Intra-domain Scenarios and Solutions

   For intra-AS VPN deployment, there are three scenarios:

   o  RD is allocated per VPN/per PE, each VRF only import one RT(see
      Section 4.1).

   o  RD is allocated per VPN/per PE.  Multiple RTs are associated with
      such VPN routes, and be imported into different VRFs in other
      devices(see Section 4.2).

   o  RD is allocated per VPN, each VRF imports one/multiple RTs(see
      Section 4.3).

   The following sections will describe solutions to the above scenarios
   in detail.






Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


4.1.1.  Scenario-1 and Solution (Unique RD, One RT)

   In this scenario, RD is allocated per VPN or per PE, each VRF only
   import one RT.  We assume the network topology is shown in Figure 1.

 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                                        |
 |                                                                        |
 |        +-------+                                       +-------+       |
 |        |  PE1  +----------------+    +-----------------+  PE4  |       |
 |        +-------+                |    |                 +-------+       |
 |     VPN1(RD11,RT1)              |    |              VPN2(RD12,RT2)     |
 |     VPN2(RD12,RT2)              |    |                                 |
 |                               +-+----+-+                               |
 |                               |   RR   |                               |
 |                               +-+----+-+                               |
 |                                 |    |                                 |
 |                                 |    |                                 |
 |        +-------+                |    |                 +-------+       |
 |        |  PE2  +----------------+    +-----------------+  PE3  |       |
 |        +-------+                                       +-------+       |
 |     VPN1(RD21,RT1)                                  VPN1(RD31,RT1)     |
 |     VPN2(RD22,RT2,RT1)                              VPN2(RD32,RT2)     |
 |                                                                        |
 |                                 AS 100                                 |
 |                                                                        |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                 Figure 1 Network Topology of Scenario-1

   When PE3 sends excessive VPN routes with RT1, while both PE1 and PE2
   import VPN routes with RT1, the process of excessive VPN routes will
   influence performance of VRFs on PEs.  PEs and RR should have some
   mechanisms to identify and control the advertisement of excessive VPN
   routes.

   On PE1, each VRF has a set threshold, we assume it is 80% of Maximum
   Prefix of VRF.  When the number of VPN1 VRF routing entries reaches
   the threshold, PE1 will start monitoring the RD carried by the
   received VPN routing entries.  Once the number of VPN routing entries
   exceed the prefix limit, PE1 will calculate the RD and its source PE
   received the most times during this period, the result is RD31 from
   PE3, which is associated with RT1.  Then, PE1 will locally discards
   the VPN routes carry RD31 which come from PE3 in VRF1.

   Due to there is no other VRFs on it to import the VPN routes with
   RT1. after local processing, PE1 will generate a BGP ROUTE-REFRESH
   message contains a RD-ORF entry, and send to RR.  RR will withdraw
   and stop to advertise such excessive VPN routes to PE1.



Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


   On PE2, the local processing is the same as PE1.  Due to there has
   other VRF on it to import the VPN routes with RT1, PE2 triggers the
   RD-ORF message to RR(RD field is set to RD31) only when all the VRFs
   that import RT1 are overflowed.

4.1.2.  Scenario-2 and Solution (Unique RD, Multiple RTs)

   In this scenario, RD is allocated per VPN or per PE.  Multiple RTs
   are associated with such VPN routes, and be imported into different
   VRFs in other devices.  We assume the network topology is shown in
   Figure 2.

 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                                        |
 |                                                                        |
 |        +-------+                                       +-------+       |
 |        |  PE1  +----------------+    +-----------------+  PE4  |       |
 |        +-------+                |    |                 +-------+       |
 |     VPN1(RD11,RT1)              |    |              VPN2(RD12,RT2)     |
 |     VPN2(RD12,RT2)              |    |                                 |
 |                               +-+----+-+                               |
 |                               |   RR   |                               |
 |                               +-+----+-+                               |
 |                                 |    |                                 |
 |                                 |    |                                 |
 |        +-------+                |    |                 +-------+       |
 |        |  PE2  +----------------+    +-----------------+  PE3  |       |
 |        +-------+                                       +-------+       |
 |     VPN1(RD21,RT1)                                  VPN1(RD31,RT1,RT2) |
 |                                                     VPN2(RD32,RT2)     |
 |                                                                        |
 |                                 AS 100                                 |
 |                                                                        |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                Figure 2 Network Topology of Scenario-2

   When PE3 sends excessive VPN routes with RT1 and RT2, while both PE1
   and PE2 import VPN routes with RT1, and PE1 also imports VPN routes
   with RT2, the process of excessive VPN routes will influence
   performance of VRF on PEs.  PEs and RR should have some mechanisms to
   identify and control the advertisement of excessive VPN routes.

   In this senario, both VRF1 and VRF2 import VPN route carries RT2,
   which contains RD31.

   On PE1, if it overflows, it will know that the RD of excessive VPN
   routes is RD31 during the local processing, which come from PE3 and
   associated with RT1 and RT2.  There are different VRFs on PE1 import



Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


   the VPN routes respectively with RT1 and RT2.  If PE1 trigger the RD-
   ORF message when VRF1 overflows, it cannot receive the VPN routes
   with RT2 from PE3.  The local determination of the PE can be used to
   inhibit the PE from sending RD-ORF entries.  PE1 will not trigger the
   RD-ORF message until all VPNs that import VPN routes with RD31 are
   overflowed.  When RD-ORF mechanisms is triggered, PE1 will discard
   the overflowed VPN routes locally and send RD-ORF entry to RR, and RR
   withdraws and stops to advertise such excessive VPN routes to PE1.

   On PE2, due to there is only one VRF imports VPN routes with RT1.  If
   it overflows, it will trigger RD-ORF(RD31) mechanisms.  RR will
   withdraw and stop to advertise such excessive VPN routes to PE2.

4.1.3.  Scenario-2 and Solution (Universal RD)

   In this scenario, RD is allocated per VPN.  One/Multiple RTs are
   associated with such VPN routes, and be imported into different VRFs
   in other devices.  We assume the network topology is shown in
   Figure 3.

 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                                        |
 |                                                                        |
 |        +-------+                                       +-------+       |
 |        |  PE1  +----------------+    +-----------------+  PE4  |       |
 |        +-------+                |    |                 +-------+       |
 |     VPN1(RD1,RT1)               |    |              VPN2(RD12,RT2)     |
 |     VPN2(RD12,RT2)              |    |                                 |
 |                               +-+----+-+                               |
 |                               |   RR   |                               |
 |                               +-+----+-+                               |
 |                                 |    |                                 |
 |                                 |    |                                 |
 |        +-------+                |    |                 +-------+       |
 |        |  PE2  +----------------+    +-----------------+  PE3  |       |
 |        +-------+                                       +-------+       |
 |     VPN1(RD1,RT1)                                   VPN1(RD1,RT1,RT2)  |
 |                                                     VPN2(RD32,RT2)     |
 |                                                                        |
 |                                 AS 100                                 |
 |                                                                        |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                  Figure 3 Network Topology of Scenario-3

   When PE3 sends excessive VPN routes with RD1 and attached RT1 and
   RT2, while both PE1 and PE2 import VPN routes with RT1, the process
   of excessive VPN routes will influence performance of VRF on PEs.




Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


   PEs and RR should have some mechanisms to identify and control the
   advertisement of excessive VPN routes.

   Based on previous principle, when PE2 overflows and PE1 not.  PE2
   triggers the RD-ORF message(RD1, comes from PE3).  RR will withdraw
   and stop to advertise such excessive VPN routes to PE2.  The
   communication between PE2 and PE1 for VPN1 will not be influenced.

5.  Operation process of RD-ORF mechanism on receiver

   The receiver of RD-ORF entries may be a RR or PE.  As it receives the
   RD-ORF entries, it will checks <AFI/SAFI, ORF-Type, Sequence, Route
   Distinguisher> to find if it already existed in its ORF-Policy table.
   If not, the receiver will add the RD-ORF entries into its ORF-Policy
   table; otherwise, the receiver will discard it.  Before the receiver
   send a VPN route, it will check its ORF-Policy table whether there is
   a related RD-ORF entry or not.  If not, the receiver will send this
   VPN route; otherwise, the receiver will stop sending that VPN route
   to its peer.

6.  Withdraw of RD-ORF entries

   When the RD-ORF mechanism is triggered, the alarm information will be
   generated and sent to the network operators.  Operators should
   manually configure the network to resume normal operation.  Due to
   devices can record the RD-ORF entries sent by each VRF, operators can
   find the entries needs to be withdrawn, and trigger the withdraw
   process as described in [RFC5291] manually.  After returning to
   normal, the device sends withdraw ORF entries to its peers who have
   previously received ORF entries.

7.  RD-ORF Encoding

   In this section, we defined a new ORF type called Route Distinguisher
   Outbound Route Filter (RD-ORF).  The ORF entries are carried in the
   BGP ROUTE-REFRESH message as defined in [RFC5291].  A BGP ROUTE-
   REFRESH message can carry one or more ORF entries.  The ROUTE-REFRESH
   message which carries ORF entries contains the following fields:

   o  AFI (2 octets)

   o  SAFI (1 octet)

   o  When-to-refresh (1 octet): the value is IMMEDIATE or DEFER

   o  ORF Type (1 octet)

   o  Length of ORF entries (2 octets)



Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


   A RD-ORF entry contains a common part and type-specific part.  The
   common part is encoded as follows:

   o  Action (2 bits): the value is ADD, REMOVE or REMOVE-ALL

   o  Match (1 bit): the value is PERMIT or DENY

   o  Reserved (5 bits)

   RD-ORF also contains type-specific part.  The encoding of the type-
   specific part is shown in Figure 4.

                +-----------------------------------------+
                |                                         |
                |          Sequence (4 octets)            |
                |                                         |
                +-----------------------------------------+
                |                                         |
                |      Route Distinguisher (8 octets)     |
                |                                         |
                +-----------------------------------------+
                |                                         |
                |        Optional TLVs (variable)         |
                |                                         |
                +-----------------------------------------+

                  Figure 4: RD-ORF type-specific encoding

   o  Sequence: identifying the order in which RD-ORF is generated

   o  Route Distinguisher: distinguish the different user routes.  The
      RD-ORF filters the VPN routes it tends to send based on Route
      Distinguisher.

   o  Optional TLVs: carry the potential additional information to give
      the extensibility of the RD-ORF mechanism.

   Note that if the Action component of an ORF entry specifies REMOVE-
   ALL, the ORF entry does not include the type-specific part.  The
   Sequence can uniquely identifies an RD-ORF entry.  All VRFs share the
   sequence field, and the corresponding sequence of RD-ORF sent by each
   VRF will be recorded on the device.

   When the BGP ROUTE-REFRESH message carries RD-ORF entries, it must be
   set as follows:

   o  The ORF-Type MUST be set to RD-ORF.




Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


   o  The AFI MUST be set to IPv4, IPv6, or Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN).

   o  If the AFI is set to IPv4 or IPv6, the SAFI MUST be set to MPLS-
      labeled VPN address.

   o  If the AFI is set to L2VPN, the SAFI MUST be set to BGP EVPN.

   o  The Match field MUST be equal to DENY.

7.1.  Source PE TLV

   Source PE TLV is defined to identify the source of the VPN routes.
   Using source PE and RD to filter VPN routes together can achieve more
   refined route control.  The source PE TLV contains the following
   types:

   o  In single-domain or Option C cross-domain scenario, NEXT_HOP
      attribute is fixed during routing transmission, so it can be used
      as source address.

         Type = 1, Length = 4 octets, value = NEXT_HOP.

         Type = 2, Length = 16 octets, value = NEXT_HOP.

   o  In Option B or Option AB cross-domain scenario, NEXT_HOP attribute
      may be changed by ASBRs and cannot be used as the source address.
      The originator can be traced by the Route Origin Community in BGP
      (as defined in Section 5 of [RFC4360]).

         Type = 3, Length = 6 octets, value = the value field of Route
         Origin Community.

8.  Security Considerations

   A BGP speaker will maintain the RD-ORF entries in an ORF-Policy
   table, this behavior consumes its memory and compute resources.  To
   avoid the excessive consumption of resources, [RFC5291] specifies
   that a BGP speaker can only accept ORF entries transmitted by its
   interested peers.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new Outbound Route Filter type - Route
   Distinguisher Outbound Route Filter (RD-ORF).  The code point is from
   the "BGP Outbound Route Filtering (ORF) Types".  It is recommended to
   set the code point of RD-ORF to 66.





Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


   This document also define a RD-ORF TLV type under "Border Gateway
   Protocol (BGP) Parameters", three TLV types are defined:

   +===========================+======+===========================+
   | Registry                  | Type |       Meaning             |
   +===========================+======+===========================+
   |IPv4 Source PE TLV         | 1    |IPv4 address for source PE.|
   +---------------------------+------+---------------------------+
   |IPv6 Source PE TLV         | 2    |IPv6 address for source PE.|
   +---------------------------+------+---------------------------+
   |ROC Source PE TLV          |      |Route Origin Community for |
   |                           | 3    |Source PE.                 |
   +---------------------------+------+---------------------------+
        Figure 5: IANA Allocation for newly defined TLVs

10.  Acknowledgement

   Thanks Robert Raszuk, Jim Uttaro, Jakob Heitz, Jeff Tantsura, Rajiv
   Asati, John E Drake, Gert Doering, Shuanglong Chen, Enke Chen and
   Srihari Sangli for their valuable comments on this draft.

11.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding]
              Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Thoria, S., Drake, J. E., and J.
              Rabadan, "Integrated Routing and Bridging in EVPN", draft-
              ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-15 (work in
              progress), July 2021.

   [I-D.wang-idr-vpn-routes-control-analysis]
              Wang, A., Wang, W., Mishra, G. S., Wang, H., Zhuang, S.,
              and J. Dong, "Analysis of VPN Routes Control in Shared BGP
              Session", draft-wang-idr-vpn-routes-control-analysis-04
              (work in progress), September 2021.

   [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>.

   [RFC4360]  Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
              Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360,
              February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.




Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


   [RFC4684]  Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
              R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
              Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
              Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
              Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684,
              November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4684>.

   [RFC4760]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.

   [RFC5291]  Chen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "Outbound Route Filtering
              Capability for BGP-4", RFC 5291, DOI 10.17487/RFC5291,
              August 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5291>.

   [RFC5292]  Chen, E. and S. Sangli, "Address-Prefix-Based Outbound
              Route Filter for BGP-4", RFC 5292, DOI 10.17487/RFC5292,
              August 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5292>.

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

Authors' Addresses

   Wei Wang
   China Telecom
   Beiqijia Town, Changping District
   Beijing, Beijing  102209
   China

   Email: weiwang94@foxmail.com


   Aijun Wang
   China Telecom
   Beiqijia Town, Changping District
   Beijing, Beijing  102209
   China

   Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn








Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                   RD-ORF                   September 2021


   Haibo Wang
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing, Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: rainsword.wang@huawei.com


   Gyan S. Mishra
   Verizon Inc.
   13101 Columbia Pike
   Silver Spring  MD 20904
   United States of America

   Phone: 301 502-1347
   Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com


   Shunwan Zhuang
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing, Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com


   Jie Dong
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing, Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
















Wang, et al.              Expires April 3, 2022                [Page 13]