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
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Malis, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7771 L. Andersson
Updates: <a href="./rfc6870">6870</a> Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Category: Standards Track H. van Helvoort
ISSN: 2070-1721 Hai Gaoming BV
J. Shin
SK Telecom
L. Wang
China Mobile
A. D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia
January 2016
<span class="h1">Switching Provider Edge (S-PE) Protection for MPLS and MPLS Transport</span>
<span class="h1">Profile (MPLS-TP) Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires</span>
Abstract
In MPLS and MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) environments, statically
provisioned Single-Segment Pseudowires (SS-PWs) are protected against
tunnel failure via MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection.
With statically provisioned Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-PWs), each
segment of the MS-PW is likewise protected from tunnel failures via
MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. However, static MS-
PWs are not protected end-to-end against failure of one of the
Switching Provider Edge Routers (S-PEs) along the path of the MS-PW.
This document describes how to achieve this protection via redundant
MS-PWs by updating the existing procedures in <a href="./rfc6870">RFC 6870</a>. It also
contains an optional approach based on MPLS-TP Linear Protection.
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/rfc7771">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7771</a>.
<span class="grey">Malis, 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="./rfc7771">RFC 7771</a> MS-PW Protection January 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-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
2. Extension to <a href="./rfc6870">RFC 6870</a> to Protect Statically Provisioned
SS-PWs and MS-PWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Optional Linear Protection Approach . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>. Encapsulation of the PSC Protocol for Pseudowires . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
In MPLS and MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Packet Switched Networks
(PSNs), pseudowires (PWs) are transported by MPLS(-TP) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs), also known as tunnels.
As described in <a href="./rfc5659">RFC 5659</a> [<a href="./rfc5659" title=""An Architecture for Multi- Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge"">RFC5659</a>], Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-
PWs) consist of Terminating Provider Edge Routers PEs (T-PEs), one or
more Switching Provider Edge Routers (S-PEs), and a sequence of
tunneled PW segments that connects one of the T-PEs with its
"adjacent" S-PE, connects this S-PE with the next S-PE in the
sequence, and so on until the last S-PE is connected by the last PW
segment to the remaining T-PE. In MPLS and MPLS-TP environments,
statically provisioned Single-Segment Pseudowires (SS-PWs) are
protected against tunnel failure via MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level
tunnel protection. With statically provisioned Multi-Segment
<span class="grey">Malis, 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="./rfc7771">RFC 7771</a> MS-PW Protection January 2016</span>
Pseudowires (MS-PWs), each PW segment of the MS-PW is likewise
protected from tunnel failure via MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel
protection. However, tunnel protection does not protect static MS-
PWs from failures of S-PEs along the path of the MS-PW.
<a href="./rfc6718">RFC 6718</a> [<a href="./rfc6718" title=""Pseudowire Redundancy"">RFC6718</a>] provides a general framework for PW protection,
and <a href="./rfc6870">RFC 6870</a> [<a href="./rfc6870" title=""Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit"">RFC6870</a>], which is based upon that framework, describes
protection procedures for MS-PWs that are dynamically signaled using
LDP. This document describes how to achieve protection against S-PE
failure in a static MS-PW by extending <a href="./rfc6870">RFC 6870</a> to be applicable for
statically provisioned MS-PWs pseudowires (PWs) as well.
This document also contains an OPTIONAL alternative approach based on
MPLS-TP Linear Protection. This approach, described in <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>,
MUST be identically provisioned in the PE endpoints for the protected
MS-PW in order to be used. See <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> for further details on
this alternative approach.
This document differs from [<a href="#ref-PW-REDUNDANCY">PW-REDUNDANCY</a>] in that it provides end-
to-end resiliency for static MS-PWs, whereas [<a href="#ref-PW-REDUNDANCY">PW-REDUNDANCY</a>] provides
resiliency at intermediate S-PEs and resiliency for both dynamically
signaled and static MS-PWs.
PWs based on the Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3) are
outside the scope of this document.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language</span>
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">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Extension to <a href="./rfc6870">RFC 6870</a> to Protect Statically Provisioned SS-PWs and</span>
<span class="h2"> MS-PWs</span>
<a href="./rfc6718#section-3.2.3">Section 3.2.3 of RFC 6718</a> and <a href="./rfc6870#appendix-A.5">Appendix A.5 of RFC 6870</a> document how
to use redundant MS-PWs to protect an MS-PW against S-PE failure in
the case of a singly homed Customer Edge (CE), using the following
network model from <a href="./rfc6718">RFC 6718</a>:
<span class="grey">Malis, 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="./rfc7771">RFC 7771</a> MS-PW Protection January 2016</span>
Native |<----------- Pseudowires ----------->| Native
Service | | Service
(AC) | |<-PSN1-->| |<-PSN2-->| | (AC)
| V V V V V V |
| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |
+----+ | |T-PE1|=========|S-PE1|=========|T-PE2| | +----+
| |-------|......PW1-Seg1.......|.PW1-Seg2......|-------| |
| CE1| | |=========| |=========| | | CE2|
| | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | |
+----+ |.||.| |.||.| +----+
|.||.| +-----+ |.||.|
|.||.|=========| |========== .||.|
|.||...PW2-Seg1......|.PW2-Seg2...||.|
|.| ===========|S-PE2|============ |.|
|.| +-----+ |.|
|.|============+-----+============= .|
|.....PW3-Seg1.| | PW3-Seg2......|
==============|S-PE3|===============
| |
+-----+
Figure 1: Single-Homed CE with Redundant MS-PWs
In this figure, Customer Edge Router 1 (CE1) is connected to T-PE1,
and CE2 is connected to T-PE2 via Attachment Circuits (ACs). There
are three MS-PWs. PW1 is switched at S-PE1, PW2 is switched at
S-PE2, and PW3 is switched at S-PE3. This scenario provides N:1
protection against S-PE failure for the subset of the path of the
emulated service from T-PE1 to T-PE2.
The procedures in RFCs 6718 and 6870 rely on LDP-based PW status
signaling to signal the state of the primary MS-PW that is being
protected, and the precedence in which redundant MS-PW(s) should be
used to protect the primary MS-PW should it fail. These procedures
make use of information carried by the PW Status TLV, which, for
dynamically signaled PWs, is carried by the LDP.
However, statically provisioned PWs (SS-PWs or MS-PWs) do not use the
LDP for PW setup and signaling; rather, they are provisioned by
network management systems or other means at each T-PE and S-PE along
their paths. They also do not use the LDP for status signaling.
Rather, they use procedures defined in <a href="./rfc6478">RFC 6478</a> [<a href="./rfc6478" title=""Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires"">RFC6478</a>] for status
signaling via the PW Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) message using the PW Associated Channel Header (ACH). The PW
Status TLV carried via this status signaling is itself identical to
the PW Status TLV carried via LDP-based status signaling, including
the identical PW Status Codes.
<span class="grey">Malis, 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="./rfc7771">RFC 7771</a> MS-PW Protection January 2016</span>
Sections <a href="#section-6">6</a> and <a href="#section-7">7</a> of <a href="./rfc6870">RFC 6870</a> describe the management of a primary PW
and its secondary PW(s) to provide resiliency to the failure of the
primary PW. They use status codes transmitted between endpoint T-PEs
using the PW Status TLV transmitted by LDP. For this management to
apply to statically provisioned PWs, the PW status signaling defined
in <a href="./rfc6478">RFC 6478</a> MUST be used for the primary and secondary PWs. In that
case, the endpoint T-PEs can then use the PW status signaling
provided by <a href="./rfc6478">RFC 6478</a> in place of LDP-based status signaling, so that
the status-signaling-based procedures in <a href="./rfc6870">RFC 6870</a> operate identically
to when used with LDP-based status signaling. Note that the optional
S-PE Bypass Mode defined in <a href="./rfc6478#section-5.5">Section 5.5 of RFC 6478</a> cannot be used,
as it requires LDP signaling.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Operational Considerations</span>
Because LDP is not used between the T-PEs for statically provisioned
MS-PWs, the negotiation procedures described in <a href="./rfc6870">RFC 6870</a> cannot be
used. Thus, operational care must be taken so that the endpoint
T-PEs are identically provisioned regarding the use of this document,
specifically whether or not MS-PW redundancy is being used, and for
each protected MS-PW, the identity of the primary MS-PW and the
precedence of the secondary MS-PWs.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations</span>
The security considerations defined for <a href="./rfc6478">RFC 6478</a> apply to this
document as well. As the security considerations in RFCs 6718 and
6870 are related to their use of LDP, they are not required for this
document.
If the alternative approach in <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> is used, then the security
considerations defined for RFCs 6378, 7271, and 7324 also apply.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</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-RFC6378">RFC6378</a>] Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher,
N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
TP) Linear Protection", <a href="./rfc6378">RFC 6378</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6378,
October 2011, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378</a>>.
<span class="grey">Malis, 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="./rfc7771">RFC 7771</a> MS-PW Protection January 2016</span>
[<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-RFC6870">RFC6870</a>] Muley, P., Ed. and M. Aissaoui, Ed., "Pseudowire
Preferential Forwarding Status Bit", <a href="./rfc6870">RFC 6870</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6870, February 2013,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6870">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6870</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7271">RFC7271</a>] Ryoo, J., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., van Helvoort, H.,
D'Alessandro, A., Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the
Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy,
Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network
Operators", <a href="./rfc7271">RFC 7271</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7271, June 2014,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7271">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7271</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7324">RFC7324</a>] Osborne, E., "Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear
Protection", <a href="./rfc7324">RFC 7324</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7324, July 2014,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7324">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7324</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-PW-REDUNDANCY">PW-REDUNDANCY</a>]
Dong, J. and H. Wang, <a style="text-decoration: none" href='https://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=datatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2F&q=inurl:draft-+%22Pseudowire+Redundancy+on+S-PE%22'>"Pseudowire Redundancy on S-PE"</a>,
Work in Progress, <a href="./draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02">draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02</a>,
August 2015.
[<a id="ref-RFC5659">RFC5659</a>] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-
Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", <a href="./rfc5659">RFC 5659</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5659, October 2009,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5659">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5659</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6718">RFC6718</a>] Muley, P., Aissaoui, M., and M. Bocci, "Pseudowire
Redundancy", <a href="./rfc6718">RFC 6718</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6718, August 2012,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6718">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6718</a>>.
<span class="grey">Malis, 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="./rfc7771">RFC 7771</a> MS-PW Protection January 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Optional Linear Protection Approach</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.1" href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>. Introduction</span>
In "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection" [<a href="./rfc6378" title=""MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS- TP) Linear Protection"">RFC6378</a>], as
well as in the later updates of that RFC "MPLS Transport Profile
(MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and
Ethernet Transport Network Operators" [<a href="./rfc7271" title=""MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Operators"">RFC7271</a>] and "Updates to MPLS
Transport Profile Linear Protection" [<a href="./rfc7324" title=""Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection"">RFC7324</a>], the Protection State
Coordination (PSC) protocol was defined for MPLS LSPs only.
This appendix extends these RFCs to be applicable for PWs (SS-PW and
MS-PW) as well. This is useful especially in the case of end-to-end
static provisioned MS-PWs running over MPLS-TP where tunnel
protection alone cannot be relied upon for end-to-end protection of
PWs against S-PE failure. It also enables a uniform operational
approach for protection at LSP and PW layers and an easier management
integration for networks that already implement the approach in RFCs
6378, 7271, and 7324.
The protection architectures are those defined in [<a href="./rfc6378" title=""MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS- TP) Linear Protection"">RFC6378</a>]. For the
purposes of this appendix, we define the protection domain of a
point-to-point PW as consisting of two terminating PEs (T-PEs) and
the transport paths that connect them (see Figure 2).
+-----+ //=======================\\ +-----+
|T-PE1|// Working Path \\|T-PE2|
| /| |\ |
| ?< | | >? |
| \| |/ |
| |\\ Protection Path //| |
+-----+ \\=======================// +-----+
|<-------Protection Domain------->|
Figure 2: Protection Domain
This Appendix is an OPTIONAL alternative approach to the one in
<a href="#section-2">Section 2</a>. For interoperability, all implementations MUST include
the approach in <a href="#section-2">Section 2</a>, even if this alternative approach is used.
The operational considerations in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a> continue to apply when
this approach is used, and operational care must be taken so that the
endpoint T-PEs are identically provisioned regarding the use of this
document.
<span class="grey">Malis, 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="./rfc7771">RFC 7771</a> MS-PW Protection January 2016</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.2" href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>. Encapsulation of the PSC Protocol for Pseudowires</span>
The PSC protocol can be used to protect against defects on any LSP
(segment, link, or path). In the case of MS-PW, the PSC protocol can
also protect failed intermediate nodes (S-PE). Linear protection
protects an LSP or PW end-to-end and if a failure is detected,
switches traffic over to another (redundant) set of resources.
Obviously, the protected entity does not need to be of the same type
as the protecting entity. For example, it is possible to protect a
link by a path. Likewise, it is possible to protect an SS-PW with an
MS-PW, and vice versa.
From a PSC protocol point of view, it is possible to view an SS-PW as
a single-hop LSP and an MS-PW as a multiple-hop LSP. Thus, this
provides end-to-end protection for the SS-PW or MS-PW. The Generic
Associated Channel (G-Ach) carrying the PSC protocol information is
placed in the label stack directly beneath the PW identifier. The
PSC protocol will then work as specified in RFCs 6378, 7271, and
7324.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Matthew Bocci, Yaakov Stein, David
Sinicrope, Sasha Vainshtein, and Italo Busi for their comments on
this document.
Figure 1 and the explanatory paragraph following the figure were
taken from <a href="./rfc6718">RFC 6718</a>. Figure 2 was adapted from <a href="./rfc6378">RFC 6378</a>.
<span class="grey">Malis, 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="./rfc7771">RFC 7771</a> MS-PW Protection January 2016</span>
Authors' Addresses
Andrew G. Malis (editor)
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Loa Andersson
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Huub van Helvoort
Hai Gaoming BV
Email: huubatwork@gmail.com
Jongyoon Shin
SK Telecom
Email: jongyoon.shin@sk.com
Lei Wang
China Mobile
Email: wangleiyj@chinamobile.com
Alessandro D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia
Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it
Malis, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
</pre>
|
