idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits3502/draft-fuxh-mpls-delay-loss-te-framework-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC3031]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 8, 2011) is 3878 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC3031' is mentioned on line 30, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 2119' is mentioned on line 47, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 496, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3209' is defined on line 499, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3473' is defined on line 503, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3477' is defined on line 507, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3630' is defined on line 511, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4203' is defined on line 515, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'EXPRESS-PATH' is defined on line 524, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement has been published as RFC 7226 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group X. Fu 2 Internet-Draft ZTE 3 Intended status: Standards Track V. Manral 4 Expires: April 10, 2012 Hewlett-Packard Corp. 5 D. McDysan 6 A. Malis 7 Verizon 8 S. Giacalone 9 Thomson Reuters 10 M. Betts 11 Q. Wang 12 ZTE 13 J. Drake 14 Juniper Networks 15 October 8, 2011 17 Traffic Engineering architecture for services aware MPLS 18 draft-fuxh-mpls-delay-loss-te-framework-02 20 Abstract 22 With more and more enterprises using cloud based services, the 23 distances between the user and the applications are growing. A lot 24 of the current applications are designed to work across LAN's and 25 have various inherent assumptions. For multiple applications such as 26 High Performance Computing and Electronic Financial markets, the 27 response times are critical as is packet loss, while other 28 applications require more throughput. 30 [RFC3031] describes the architecture of MPLS based networks. This 31 draft extends the MPLS architecture to allow for latency, loss and 32 jitter as properties. It describes requirements and control plane 33 implication for latency and packet loss as a traffic engineering 34 performance metric in today's network which is consisting of 35 potentially multiple layers of packet transport network and optical 36 transport network in order to make a accurate end-to-end latency and 37 loss prediction before a path is established. 39 Note MPLS architecture for Multicast will be taken up in a future 40 version of the draft. 42 Requirements Language 44 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 45 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 46 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. 48 Status of this Memo 50 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 51 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 53 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 54 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 55 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 56 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 58 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 59 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 60 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 61 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 63 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 10, 2012. 65 Copyright Notice 67 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 68 document authors. All rights reserved. 70 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 71 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 72 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 73 publication of this document. Please review these documents 74 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 75 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 76 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 77 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 78 described in the Simplified BSD License. 80 Table of Contents 82 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 83 2. Architecture requirements overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 84 2.1. Communicate Latency and Loss as TE Metric . . . . . . . . 4 85 2.2. Requirement for Composite Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 86 2.3. Requirement for Hierarchy LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 87 2.4. Latency Accumulation and Verification . . . . . . . . . . 5 88 2.5. Restoration, Protection and Rerouting . . . . . . . . . . 6 89 3. End-to-End Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 90 4. End-to-End Jitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 91 5. End-to-End Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 92 6. Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 93 7. Control Plane Implication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 94 7.1. Implications for Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 95 7.2. Implications for Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 96 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 97 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 98 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 99 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 100 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 101 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 102 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 104 1. Introduction 106 In High Frequency trading for Electronic Financial markets, computers 107 make decisions based on the Electronic Data received, without human 108 intervention. These trades now account for a majority of the trading 109 volumes and rely exclusively on ultra-low-latency direct market 110 access. 112 Extremely low latency measurements for MPLS LSP tunnels are defined 113 in [draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay]. They allow a mechanism to measure 114 and monitor performance metrics for packet loss, and one-way and two- 115 way delay, as well as related metrics like delay variation and 116 channel throughput. 118 The measurements are however effective only after the LSP is created 119 and cannot be used by MPLS Path computation engine to define paths 120 that have the latest latency. This draft defines the architecture 121 used, so that end-to-end tunnels can be set up based on latency, loss 122 or jitter characteristics. 124 End-to-end service optimization based on latency and packet loss is a 125 key requirement for service provider. This type of function will be 126 adopted by their "premium" service customers. They would like to pay 127 for this "premium" service. Latency and loss on a route level will 128 help carriers' customers to make his provider selection decision. 130 2. Architecture requirements overview 132 2.1. Communicate Latency and Loss as TE Metric 134 The solution MUST provide a means to communicate latency, latency 135 variation and packet loss of links and nodes as a traffic engineering 136 performance metric into IGP. 138 Latency, latency variation and packet loss may be unstable, for 139 example, if queueing latency were included, then IGP could become 140 unstable. The solution MUST provide a means to control latency and 141 loss IGP message advertisement and avoid unstable when the latency, 142 latency variation and packet loss value changes. 144 Path computation entity MUST have the capability to compute one end- 145 to-end path with latency and packet loss constraint. For example, it 146 has the capability to compute a route with X amount of bandwidth with 147 less than Y ms of latency and Z% packet loss limit based on the 148 latency and packet loss traffic engineering database. It MUST also 149 support the path computation with routing constraints combination 150 with pre-defined priorities, e.g., SRLG diversity, latency, loss and 151 cost. 153 2.2. Requirement for Composite Link 155 One end-to-end LSP may traverses some Composite Links [CL-REQ]. Even 156 if the transport technology (e.g., OTN) component links are 157 identical, the latency and packet loss characteristics of the 158 component links may differ. 160 The solution MUST provide a means to indicate that a traffic flow 161 should select a component link with minimum latency and/or packet 162 loss, maximum acceptable latency and/or packet loss value and maximum 163 acceptable delay variation value as specified by protocol. The 164 endpoints of Composite Link will take these parameters into account 165 for component link selection or creation. The exact details for 166 component links will be taken up seperately and are not part of this 167 document. 169 2.3. Requirement for Hierarchy LSP 171 One end-to-end LSP may traverse a server layer. There will be some 172 latency and packet loss constraint requirement for the segment route 173 in server layer. 175 The solution MUST provide a means to indicate FA selection or FA-LSP 176 creation with minimum latency and/or packet loss, maximum acceptable 177 latency and/or packet loss value and maximum acceptable delay 178 variation value. The boundary nodes of FA-LSP will take these 179 parameters into account for FA selection or FA-LSP creation. 181 2.4. Latency Accumulation and Verification 183 The solution SHOULD provide a means to accumulate (e.g., sum) of 184 latency information of links and nodes along one LSP across multi- 185 domain (e.g., Inter-AS, Inter-Area or Multi-Layer) so that an latency 186 validation decision can be made at the source node. One-way and 187 round-trip latency collection along the LSP by signaling protocol and 188 latency verification at the end of LSP should be supported. 190 The accumulation of the delay is "simple" for the static component 191 i.e. its a linear addition, the dynamic/network loading component is 192 more interesting and would involve some estimate of the "worst case". 193 However, method of deriving this worst case appears to be more in the 194 scope of Network Operator policy than standards i.e. the operator 195 needs to decide, based on the SLAs offered, the required confidence 196 level. 198 2.5. Restoration, Protection and Rerouting 200 Some customers may insist on having the ability to re-route if the 201 latency and loss SLA is not being met. If a "provisioned" end-to-end 202 LSP latency and/or loss could not meet the latency and loss agreement 203 between operator and his user, the solution SHOULD support pre- 204 defined or dynamic re-routing to handle this case based on the local 205 policy. 207 If a "provisioned" end-to-end LSP latency and/or loss performance is 208 improved (i.e., beyond a configurable minimum value) because of some 209 segment performance promotion, the solution SHOULD support the re- 210 routing to optimize latency and/or loss end-to-end cost. 212 The latency performance of pre-defined protection or dynamic re- 213 routing LSP MUST meet the latency SLA parameter. The difference of 214 latency value between primary and protection/restoration path SHOULD 215 be zero. 217 As a result of the change of latency and loss in the LSP, current LSP 218 may be frequently switched to a new LSP with a appropriate latency 219 and packet loss value. In order to avoid this, the solution SHOULD 220 indicate the switchover of the LSP according to maximum acceptable 221 change latency and packet loss value. 223 3. End-to-End Latency 225 Procedures to measure latency and loss has been provided in ITU-T 226 [Y.1731], [G.709] and [ietf-mpls-loss-delay]. The control plane can 227 be independent of the mechanism used and different mechanisms can be 228 used for measurement based on different standards. 230 Latency on a path has two sources: Node latency which is caused by 231 the node as a result of process time in each node and: Link latency 232 as a result of packet/frame transit time between two neighbouring 233 nodes or a FA-LSP/ Composite Link [CL-REQ]. 235 Latency or one-way delay is the time it takes for a packet within a 236 stream going from measurement point 1 to measurement point 2. 238 The architecture uses assumption that the sum of the latencies of the 239 individual components approximately adds up to the average latency of 240 an LSP. Though using the sum may not be perfect, it however gives a 241 good approximation that can be used for Traffic Engineering (TE) 242 purposes. 244 The total latency of an LSP consists of the sum of the latency of the 245 LSP hop, as well as the average latency of switching on a device, 246 which may vary based on queuing and buffering. 248 Hop latency can be measured by getting the latency measurement 249 between the egress of one MPLS LSR to the ingress of the nexthop LSR. 250 This value may be constant for most part, unless there is protection 251 switching, or other similar changes at a lower layer. 253 The switching latency on a device, can be measured internally, and 254 multiple mechanisms and data structures to do the same have been 255 defined. Add references to papers by Verghese, Kompella, Duffield. 256 Though the mechanisms define how to do flow based measurements, the 257 amount of information gathered in such a case, may become too 258 cumbersome for the Path Computation element to effectively use. 260 An approximation of Flow based measurement is the per DSCP value, 261 measurement from the ingress of one port to the egress of every other 262 port in the device. 264 Another approximation that can be used is per interface DSCP based 265 measurement, which can be an agrregate of the average measurements 266 per interface. The average can itself be calculated in ways, so as 267 to provide closer approximation. 269 For the purpose of this draft it is assumed that the node latency is 270 a small factor of the total latency in the networks where this 271 solution is deployed. The node latency is hence ignored for the 272 benefit of simplicity. 274 The average link delay over a configurable interval should be 275 reported by data plane in micro-seconds. 277 4. End-to-End Jitter 279 Jitter or Packet Delay Variation of a packet within a stream of 280 packets is defined for a selected pair of packets in the stream going 281 from measurement point 1 to measurement point 2. 283 The architecture uses assumption that the sum of the jitter of the 284 individual components approximately adds up to the average jitter of 285 an LSP. Though using the sum may not be perfect, it however gives a 286 good approximation that can be used for Traffic Engineering (TE) 287 purposes. 289 There may be very less jitter on a link-hop basis. 291 The buffering and queuing within a device will lead to the jitter. 293 Just like latency measurements, jitter measurements can be 294 appproximated as either per DSCP per port pair (Ingresss and Egress) 295 or as per DSCP per egress port. 297 For the purpose of this draft it is assumed that the node latency is 298 a small factor of the total latency in the networks where this 299 solution is deployed. The node latency is hence ignored for the 300 benefit of simplicity. 302 The jitter is measured in terms of 10's of nano-seconds. 304 5. End-to-End Loss 306 Loss or Packet Drop probability of a packet within a stream of 307 packets is defined as the number of packets dropped within a given 308 interval. 310 The architecture uses assumption that the sum of the loss of the 311 individual components approximately adds up to the average loss of an 312 LSP. Though using the sum may not be perfect, it however gives a 313 good approximation that can be used for Traffic Engineering (TE) 314 purposes. 316 There may be very less loss on a link-hop basis, except in case of 317 physical link issues. 319 The buffering and queuing mechanisms within a device will decide 320 which packet is to be dropped. Just like latency and jitter 321 measurements, the loss can best be appproximated as either per DSCP 322 per port pair (Ingresss and Egress) or as per DSCP per egress port. 324 The loss is measured in terms of the number of packets per million 325 packets. 327 6. Protocol Considerations 329 The protocol metrics above can be sent in IGP protocol packets RFC 330 3630. They can then be used by the Path Computation engine to decide 331 paths with the desired path properties. 333 As Link-state IGP information is flooded throughout an area, frequent 334 changes can cause a lot of control traffic. To prevent such 335 flooding, data should only be flooded when it crosses a certain 336 configured maximum. 338 A seperate measurement should be done for an LSP when it is UP. Also 339 LSP's path should only be recalculated when the end-to-end metrics 340 changes in a way it becomes more than desired. 342 7. Control Plane Implication 344 7.1. Implications for Routing 346 The latency and packet loss performance metric MUST be advertised 347 into path computation entity by IGP (etc., OSPF-TE or IS-IS-TE) to 348 perform route computation and network planning based on latency and 349 packet loss SLA target. 351 Latency, latecny variation and packet loss value MUST be reported as 352 a average value which is calculated by data plane. 354 Latency and packet loss characteristics of these links and nodes may 355 change dynamically. In order to control IGP messaging and avoid 356 being unstable when the latency, latency variation and packet loss 357 value changes, a threshold and a limit on rate of change MUST be 358 configured to control plane. 360 If any latency and packet loss values change and over than the 361 threshold and a limit on rate of change, then the latency and loss 362 change of link MUST be notified to the IGP again. The receiving node 363 detrimines whether the link affects any of these LSPs for which it is 364 ingress. If there are, it must determine whether those LSPs still 365 meet end-to-end performance objectives. 367 A minimum value MUST be configured to control plane. If the link 368 performance improves beyond a configurable minimum value, it must be 369 re-advertised. The receiving node detrimines whether a "provisioned" 370 end-to-end LSP latency and/or loss performance is improved because of 371 some segment performance promotion. 373 It is sometimes important for paths that desire low latency is to 374 avoid nodes that have a significant contribution to latency. Control 375 plane should report two components of the delay, "static" and 376 "dynamic". The dynamic component is always caused by traffic loading 377 and queuing. The "dynamic" portion SHOULD be reported as an 378 approximate value. It should be a fixed latency through the node 379 without any queuing. Link latency attribute should also take into 380 account the latency of node, i.e., the latency between the incoming 381 port and the outgoing port of a network element. Half of the fixed 382 node latency can be added to each link. 384 When the Composite Links [CL-REQ] is advertised into IGP, there are 385 following considerations. 387 o One option is that the latency and packet loss of composite link 388 may be the range (e.g., at least minimum and maximum) latency 389 value of all component links. It may also be the maximum latency 390 value of all component links. In both cases, only partial 391 information is transmited in the IGP. So the path computation 392 entity has insufficient information to determine whether a 393 particular path can support its latency and packet loss 394 requirements. This leads to signaling crankback. 396 o Another option is that latency and packet loss of each component 397 link within one Composite Link could be advertised but having only 398 one IGP adjacency. 400 One end-to-end LSP (e.g., in IP/MPLS or MPLS-TP network) may traverse 401 a FA-LSP of server layer (e.g., OTN rings). The boundary nodes of 402 the FA-LSP SHOULD be aware of the latency and packet loss information 403 of this FA-LSP. 405 If the FA-LSP is able to form a routing adjacency and/or as a TE link 406 in the client network, the total latency and packet loss value of the 407 FA-LSP can be as an input to a transformation that results in a FA 408 traffic engineering metric and advertised into the client layer 409 routing instances. Note that this metric will include the latency 410 and packet loss of the links and nodes that the trail traverses. 412 If total latency and packet loss information of the FA-LSP changes 413 (e.g., due to a maintenance action or failure in OTN rings), the 414 boundary node of the FA-LSP will receive the TE link information 415 advertisement including the latency and packet value which is already 416 changed and if it is over than the threshold and a limit on rate of 417 change, then it will compute the total latency and packet value of 418 the FA-LSP again. If the total latency and packet loss value of FA- 419 LSP changes, the client layer MUST also be notified about the latest 420 value of FA. The client layer can then decide if it will accept the 421 increased latency and packet loss or request a new path that meets 422 the latency and packet loss requirement. 424 7.2. Implications for Signaling 426 In order to assign the LSP to one of component links with different 427 latency and loss characteristics, RSVP-TE message needs to carry a 428 indication of request minimum latency and/or packet loss, maximum 429 acceptable latency and/or packet loss value and maximum acceptable 430 delay variation value for the component link selection or creation. 431 The composite link will take these parameters into account when 432 assigning traffic of LSP to a component link. 434 One end-to-end LSP (e.g., in IP/MPLS or MPLS-TP network) may traverse 435 a FA-LSP of server layer (e.g., OTN rings). There will be some 436 latency and packet loss constraint requirement for the segment route 437 in server layer. So RSVP-TE message needs to carry a indication of 438 request minimum latency and/or packet loss, maximum acceptable 439 latency and/or packet loss value and maximum acceptable delay 440 variation value. The boundary nodes of FA-LSP will take these 441 parameters into account for FA selection or FA-LSP creation. 443 RSVP-TE needs to be extended to accumulate (e.g., sum) latency 444 information of links and nodes along one LSP across multi-domain 445 (e.g., Inter-AS, Inter-Area or Multi-Layer) so that an latency 446 verification can be made at end points. One-way and round-trip 447 latency collection along the LSP by signaling protocol can be 448 supported. So the end points of this LSP can verify whether the 449 total amount of latency could meet the latency agreement between 450 operator and his user. When RSVP-TE signaling is used, the source 451 can determine if the latency requirement is met much more rapidly 452 than performing the actual end-to-end latency measurement. 454 Restoration, protection and equipment variations can impact 455 "provisioned" latency and packet loss (e.g., latency and packet loss 456 increase). For example, restoration/provisioning action in transport 457 network that increases latency seen by packet network observable by 458 customers, possibly violating SLAs. The change of one end-to-end LSP 459 latency and packet loss performance MUST be known by source and/or 460 sink node. So it can inform the higher layer network of a latency 461 and packet loss change. The latency or packet loss change of links 462 and nodes will affect one end-to-end LSPs total amount of latency or 463 packet loss. Applications can fail beyond an application-specific 464 threshold. Some remedy mechanism could be used. 466 Pre-defined protection or dynamic re-routing could be triggered to 467 handle this case. In the case of predefined protection, large 468 amounts of redundant capacity may have a significant negative impact 469 on the overall network cost. Service provider may have many layers 470 of pre-defined restoration for this transfer, but they have to 471 duplicate restoration resources at significant cost. Solution should 472 provides some mechanisms to avoid the duplicate restoration and 473 reduce the network cost. Dynamic re-routing also has to face the 474 risk of resource limitation. So the choice of mechanism MUST be 475 based on SLA or policy. In the case where the latency SLA can not be 476 met after a re-route is attempted, control plane should report an 477 alarm to management plane. It could also try restoration for several 478 times which could be configured. 480 8. IANA Considerations 482 No new IANA consideration are raised by this document. 484 9. Security Considerations 486 This document raises no new security issues. 488 10. Acknowledgements 490 TBD. 492 11. References 494 11.1. Normative References 496 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 497 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 499 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 500 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 501 Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 503 [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 504 (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 505 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 507 [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links 508 in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering 509 (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. 511 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering 512 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, 513 September 2003. 515 [RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support 516 of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", 517 RFC 4203, October 2005. 519 11.2. Informative References 521 [CL-REQ] C. Villamizar, "Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite 522 Link", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-04 . 524 [EXPRESS-PATH] 525 S. Giacalone, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Express 526 Path", draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01 . 528 [G.709] ITU-T Recommendation G.709, "Interfaces for the Optical 529 Transport Network (OTN)", December 2009. 531 [Y.1731] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731, "OAM functions and mechanisms 532 for Ethernet based networks", Feb 2008. 534 [ietf-mpls-loss-delay] 535 D. Frost, "Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS 536 Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay-03 . 538 Authors' Addresses 540 Xihua Fu 541 ZTE 543 Email: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn 545 Vishwas Manral 546 Hewlett-Packard Corp. 547 191111 Pruneridge Ave. 548 Cupertino, CA 95014 549 US 551 Phone: 408-447-1497 552 Email: vishwas.manral@hp.com 553 URI: 555 Dave McDysan 556 Verizon 558 Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com 560 Andrew Malis 561 Verizon 563 Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com 564 Spencer Giacalone 565 Thomson Reuters 566 195 Broadway 567 New York, NY 10007 568 US 570 Phone: 646-822-3000 571 Email: spencer.giacalone@thomsonreuters.com 572 URI: 574 Malcolm Betts 575 ZTE 577 Email: malcolm.betts@zte.com.cn 579 Qilei Wang 580 ZTE 582 Email: wang.qilei@zte.com.cn 584 John Drake 585 Juniper Networks 587 Email: jdrake@juniper.net