1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Sivabalan
Request for Comments: 7769 S. Boutros
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721 H. Shah
Ciena Corp.
S. Aldrin
Google Inc.
M. Venkatesan
Comcast
February 2016
<span class="h1">Media Access Control (MAC) Address Withdrawal over Static Pseudowire</span>
Abstract
This document specifies a mechanism to signal Media Access Control
(MAC) address withdrawal notification using a pseudowire (PW)
Associated Channel (ACH). Such notification is useful when
statically provisioned PWs are deployed in a Virtual Private LAN
Service (VPLS) or Hierarchical Virtual Private LAN Service (H-VPLS)
environment.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7769">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7769</a>.
<span class="grey">Sivabalan, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7769">RFC 7769</a> MAC Address Withdrawal over Static PW February 2016</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. MAC Withdraw OAM Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Operation of Sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Operation of Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. MPLS G-Ach Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Sequence Number TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<span class="grey">Sivabalan, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7769">RFC 7769</a> MAC Address Withdrawal over Static PW February 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
An LDP-based MAC address withdrawal mechanism is specified in
[<a href="./rfc4762" title=""Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling"">RFC4762</a>] to remove dynamically learned MAC addresses when the source
of those addresses can no longer forward traffic. This is
accomplished by sending an LDP Address Withdraw Message with a MAC
List TLV containing the MAC addresses to be removed from all other
Provider Edge nodes over the LDP sessions. [<a href="./rfc7361" title=""LDP Extensions for Optimized MAC Address Withdrawal in a Hierarchical Virtual Private LAN Service (H-VPLS)"">RFC7361</a>] describes an
optimized MAC withdrawal mechanism that can be used to remove only
the set of MAC addresses that need to be relearned in H-VPLS
networks. [<a href="./rfc7361" title=""LDP Extensions for Optimized MAC Address Withdrawal in a Hierarchical Virtual Private LAN Service (H-VPLS)"">RFC7361</a>] also describes optimized MAC withdrawal
operations in PBB-VPLS networks.
A PW can be signaled via the LDP or can be statically provisioned.
In the case of a static PW, an LDP-based MAC withdrawal mechanism
cannot be used. This is analogous to the problem and solution
described in [<a href="./rfc6478" title=""Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires"">RFC6478</a>] where a PW OAM (Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance) message has been introduced to carry the PW status
TLV using the in-band PW Associated Channel. In this document, we
use a PW OAM message to withdraw MAC address(es) learned via a static
PW.
Thus, MAC withdraw signaling for static PW reuses the following
concepts:
- in-band signaling mechanisms used by static PW status signaling
and
- MAC withdrawal mechanisms described by [<a href="./rfc4762" title=""Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling"">RFC4762</a>] and [<a href="./rfc7361" title=""LDP Extensions for Optimized MAC Address Withdrawal in a Hierarchical Virtual Private LAN Service (H-VPLS)"">RFC7361</a>].
MAC withdraw signaling is a best effort scheme. It is an attempt to
optimize network convergence by reducing blackholes caused by PW
failover for protected PWs. The protocol defined in this document
addresses possible loss of the MAC withdraw signal due to network
congestion, but does not guarantee delivery, as is the case for the
LDP-based MAC withdraw signaling. In the event that MAC withdraw
signaling does not reach the intended target, the fallback to MAC
re-learning due to bi-directional traffic or as a last resort aging
out of MAC addresses in the absence of frames from the sources, will
resume the traffic via new PW path. Such fallbacks would cause
temporary blackouts but does not render a network permanently
unusable.
<span class="grey">Sivabalan, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7769">RFC 7769</a> MAC Address Withdrawal over Static PW February 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology</span>
The following terminology is used in this document:
ACK: Acknowledgement for MAC withdraw message
LDP: Label Distribution Protocol
MAC: Media Access Control
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
PW: Pseudowire
PW OAM: PW Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
TLV: Type, Length, and Value
VPLS: Virtual Private LAN Services
In addition, 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
[<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. MAC Withdraw OAM Message</span>
LDP provides reliable packet transport for control plackets for
dynamic PWs. This can be contrasted with static PWs that rely on
retransmission and acknowledgments (ACKs) for reliable OAM packet
delivery as described in [<a href="./rfc6478" title=""Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires"">RFC6478</a>]. The proposed solution for MAC
withdrawal over a static PW also relies on retransmissions and ACKs.
However, an ACK is mandatory. A given MAC withdrawal notification is
sent as a PW OAM message, and the sender retransmits the message a
configured number of times in the absence of an ACK response for the
sequence-numbered message. The receiver removes the MAC address(es)
for a given sequence-number MAC withdraw signaling message and sends
the ACK response. The receipt of the same or lower sequence-number
message is responded to with an ACK but does not cause removal of MAC
addresses. A new TLV to carry the sequence number has been defined.
The format of the MAC address withdraw OAM message is shown in Figure
1. The MAC withdraw PW OAM message follows the same guidelines used
in [<a href="./rfc6478" title=""Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires"">RFC6478</a>], whereby the first 4 bytes of the OAM message header are
followed by a message-specific field and a set of TLVs relevant for
the message. Since the MAC withdrawal PW OAM message is not
refreshed forever, a MAC address withdraw OAM message MUST contain a
"Sequence Number TLV"; otherwise, the entire message is dropped. It
<span class="grey">Sivabalan, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7769">RFC 7769</a> MAC Address Withdrawal over Static PW February 2016</span>
MAY contain the MAC Flush Parameter TLV defined in [<a href="./rfc7361" title=""LDP Extensions for Optimized MAC Address Withdrawal in a Hierarchical Virtual Private LAN Service (H-VPLS)"">RFC7361</a>] when
static PWs are deployed in H-VPLS and PBB-VPLS scenarios. The first
2 bits of the sequence-number TLV are reserved and MUST be set to 0
on transmit and ignored on receipt.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | MAC Withdraw OAM Msg (0x28) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | TLV Length |A|R| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Res| Sequence No. TLV (0x1) | Sequence Number TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| MAC List TLV |
~ MAC Flush Parameter TLV (optional) ~
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: MAC Address Withdraw PW OAM Packet Format
In this section, the MAC List TLV and MAC Flush Parameter TLV are
collectively referred to as "MAC TLV(s)". The definition and
processing rules of the MAC List TLV are described by [<a href="./rfc4762" title=""Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling"">RFC4762</a>], and
the corresponding rules of the MAC Flush Parameter TLV are governed
by [<a href="./rfc7361" title=""LDP Extensions for Optimized MAC Address Withdrawal in a Hierarchical Virtual Private LAN Service (H-VPLS)"">RFC7361</a>].
"TLV Length" is the total length of all TLVs in the message, and
"Sequence Number TLV Length" is the length of the Sequence Number
field.
A single bit (called "A-bit") is set by a receiver to acknowledge
receipt and processing of a MAC Address Withdraw OAM Message. In the
acknowledge message, with the A-bit set, the MAC TLVs are excluded.
A single bit (called "R-bit") is set to indicate if the sender is
requesting reset of the sequence numbers. The sender sets this bit
when the pseudowire is restarted and has no local record of previous
send and expected receive sequence numbers.
The Sequence Number TLV MUST be the first TLV in the message.
<span class="grey">Sivabalan, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7769">RFC 7769</a> MAC Address Withdrawal over Static PW February 2016</span>
The lack of a reliable transport protocol for the in-band OAM
necessitates a presence of sequencing and acknowledgement scheme so
that the receiver can recognize newer message from retransmitted
older messages. [<a href="./rfc4385" title=""Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN"">RFC4385</a>] describes the details of sequence-number
handling, which includes overflow detection for a Sequence Number
field size of 16 bits. This document leverages the same scheme with
the two exemptions:
- the Sequence Number field is of size 32 bits.
- overflow detection is simplified such that a sequence number
that exceeds 2,147,483,647 (0x7FFFFFFF) is considered an
overflow and reset to 1.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Operation</span>
This section describes how the initial MAC Withdraw OAM Messages are
sent and retransmitted, as well as how the messages are processed and
retransmitted messages are identified.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Operation of Sender</span>
Each PW is associated with a counter to keep track of the sequence
number of the transmitted MAC withdrawal messages. Whenever a node
sends a new set of MAC TLVs, it increments the transmitted sequence-
number counter and includes the new sequence number in the message.
The transmit sequence number is initialized to 1 at the onset, after
the wrap and after the sequence number reset request receipt. Hence
the transmit sequence number is set to 2 in the first MAC withdraw
message sent after the sequence number is initialized to 1.
The sender expects an ACK from the receiver within a time interval we
call "Retransmit Time", which can be either a default (1 second) or a
configured value. If the ACK does not arrive within the Retransmit
Time, the sender retransmits the message with the same sequence
number as the original message. The retransmission MUST cease when
an ACK is received. In order to avoid continuous retransmissions in
the absence of acknowledgements, a method of suppressing
retransmissions MUST be implemented. A simple and well-used approach
is to cease retransmission after a small number of transmissions. In
the absence of an ACK response, a one second retransmission with two
retries is RECOMMENDED. However, both the interval and the number of
retries are a local matter that present no interworking issues; thus,
the operator MAY configure different values. Alternatively, an
increasing backoff delay with a larger number of retries MAY be
implemented to improve scaling issues. Whilst there are no
interworking issues with any of these methods, the implementer must
be mindful to not introduce network congestion and must take into
<span class="grey">Sivabalan, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7769">RFC 7769</a> MAC Address Withdrawal over Static PW February 2016</span>
account the decaying value of the delayed MAC withdraw signaling
against possible relearning due to bidirectional traffic or MAC
timeout.
During the period of retransmission, if a need to send a new MAC
withdraw message with updated sequence number arises, then
retransmission of the older unacknowledged withdraw message MUST be
suspended and retransmit time for the new sequence number MUST be
initiated. In essence, a sender engages in retransmission logic only
for the most recently sent withdraw message for a given PW.
In the event that a pseudowire is deleted and re-added or the router
is restarted with configuration, the local node may lose information
about the previously sent sequence number. This becomes problematic
for the remote peer as it will continue to ignore the received MAC
withdraw messages with lower sequence numbers. In such cases, it is
desirable to reset the sequence numbers at both ends of the
pseudowire. The reset R-bit is set in the first MAC withdraw to
notify the remote peer to reset the send and receive sequence
numbers. The R-bit must be cleared in subsequent MAC withdraw
messages after the acknowledgement is received.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Operation of Receiver</span>
Each PW is associated with a register to keep track of the expected
sequence number of the MAC withdrawal message and is initialized to
1. Whenever a MAC withdrawal message is received, and if the
sequence number on the message is greater than the value in the
register, the MAC addresses contained in the MAC TLVs are removed,
and the register is updated with the received sequence number. The
receiver sends an ACK whose sequence number is the same as that in
the received message.
If the sequence number in the received message is smaller than or
equal to the value in the register, the MAC TLVs are not processed.
However, an ACK with the received sequence number MUST be sent as a
response. The receiver processes the ACK message as an
acknowledgement for all the MAC withdraw messages sent up to the
sequence number present in the ACK message and terminates
retransmission.
The handling of the sequence number is described in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>.
A MAC withdraw message with the R-bit set MUST be processed by
resetting the send and receive sequence number first. The rest of
MAC withdraw message processing is performed as described above. The
acknowledgement is sent with the R-bit cleared.
<span class="grey">Sivabalan, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7769">RFC 7769</a> MAC Address Withdrawal over Static PW February 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Security Consideration</span>
The security measures described in [<a href="./rfc4447" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">RFC4447</a>], [<a href="./rfc5085" title=""Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires"">RFC5085</a>], and
[<a href="./rfc6073" title=""Segmented Pseudowire"">RFC6073</a>] are adequate for the proposed mechanism.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. MPLS G-Ach Type</span>
IANA has assigned a new channel type (0x0028) from the "MPLS
Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types (including Pseudowire
Associated Channel Types)" registry. The description of the new
channel type is "MAC Withdraw OAM Message".
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Sequence Number TLV</span>
IANA has assigned a new TLV Type (0x0001) from the existing LDP "TLV
Type Name Space" registry. The description for the new TLV Type is
"Sequence Number TLV".
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4385">RFC4385</a>] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", <a href="./rfc4385">RFC 4385</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4447">RFC4447</a>] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", <a href="./rfc4447">RFC 4447</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4447, April 2006,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4447">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4447</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4762">RFC4762</a>] Lasserre, M., Ed., and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Signaling", <a href="./rfc4762">RFC 4762</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5085">RFC5085</a>] Nadeau, T., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire
Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A
Control Channel for Pseudowires", <a href="./rfc5085">RFC 5085</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5085, December 2007,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085</a>>.
<span class="grey">Sivabalan, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7769">RFC 7769</a> MAC Address Withdrawal over Static PW February 2016</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC5226">RFC5226</a>] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>, <a href="./rfc5226">RFC 5226</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6073">RFC6073</a>] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M.
Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", <a href="./rfc6073">RFC 6073</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6073, January 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6073">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6073</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6478">RFC6478</a>] Martini, L., Swallow, G., Heron, G., and M. Bocci,
"Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires", <a href="./rfc6478">RFC 6478</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6478, May 2012,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6478">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6478</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7361">RFC7361</a>] Dutta, P., Balus, F., Stokes, O., Calvignac, G., and D.
Fedyk, "LDP Extensions for Optimized MAC Address
Withdrawal in a Hierarchical Virtual Private LAN Service
(H-VPLS)", <a href="./rfc7361">RFC 7361</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7361, September 2014,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7361">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7361</a>>.
<span class="grey">Sivabalan, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7769">RFC 7769</a> MAC Address Withdrawal over Static PW February 2016</span>
Authors' Addresses
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
Email: msiva@cisco.com
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
United States
Email: sboutros@cisco.com
Himanshu Shah
Ciena Corp.
3939 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134
United States
Email: hshah@ciena.com
Sam Aldrin
Google Inc.
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Mannan Venkatesan
Comcast
1800 Bishops Gate Blvd
Mount Laurel, NJ 08075
United States
Email: mannan_venkatesan@cable.comcast.com
Sivabalan, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
</pre>
|
