


Network Working Group                                       D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft                                                  D. Meyer
Intended status: Experimental                              cisco Systems
Expires: March 12, 2012                                September 9, 2011


                       LISP Internet Groper (LIG)
                         draft-ietf-lisp-lig-06

Abstract

   A simple tool called the LISP Internet Groper or 'lig' can be used to
   query the LISP mapping database.  This draft describes how it works.

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 http://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 March 12, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (http://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.






Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Definition of Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Implementation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  LISP Router Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Public Domain Host Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Testing the ALT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Future Enhancements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  Deployed Network Diagnostic Tools  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

































Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


1.  Introduction

   LISP [LISP] specifies an architecture and mechanism for replacing the
   addresses currently used by IP with two separate name spaces:
   Endpoint IDs (EIDs), used within sites, and Routing Locators (RLOCs),
   used on the transit networks that make up the Internet
   infrastructure.  To achieve this separation, the Locator/ID
   Separation Protocol (LISP) defines protocol mechanisms for mapping
   from EIDs to RLOCs.  In addition, LISP assumes the existence of a
   database to store and propagate those mappings globally.  Several
   such databases have been proposed, among them: LISP-CONS [CONS],
   LISP-NERD [NERD], and LISP+ALT [ALT], with LISP+ALT being the system
   that is currently being implemented and deployed on the pilot LISP
   network.

   In conjunction with the various mapping systems, there exists a
   network based API called LISP Map-Server [LISP-MS].  Using Map-
   Resolvers and Map-Servers allows LISP sites to query and register
   into the database in a uniform way independent of the mapping system
   used.  Sending Map-Requests to Map-Resolvers provides a secure
   mechanism to obtain a Map-Reply containing the authoritative EID-to-
   RLOC mapping for a destination LISP site.

   The 'lig' is a manual management tool to query the mapping database.
   It can be run by all devices which implement LISP, including ITRs,
   ETRs, PITRs, PETRs, Map-Resolvers, Map-Servers, and LISP-ALT routers,
   as well as by a host system at either a LISP-capable or non-LISP-
   capable site.

   The mapping database system is typically a public database used for
   wide-range connectivity across Internet sites.  The information in
   the public database is purposely not kept private so it can be
   generally accessible for public use.


















Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


2.  Definition of Terms

   Map-Server:   a network infrastructure component which learns EID-to-
      RLOC mapping entries from an authoritative source (typically, an
      ETR, though static configuration or another out-of-band mechanism
      may be used).  A Map-Server advertises these mappings in the
      distributed mapping database.

   Map-Resolver:   a network infrastructure component which accepts LISP
      Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, quickly
      determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of
      the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is
      immediately returned.  Otherwise, the Map-Resolver finds the
      appropriate EID-to-RLOC mapping by consulting the distributed
      mapping database system.

   Routing Locator (RLOC):   the IPv4 or IPv6 address of an egress
      tunnel router (ETR).  It is the output of a EID-to-RLOC mapping
      lookup.  An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.  Typically, RLOCs are
      numbered from topologically-aggregatable blocks that are assigned
      to a site at each point to which it attaches to the global
      Internet.  Thus, the topology is defined by the connectivity of
      provider networks and RLOCs can be thought of as PA addresses.
      Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the same ETR device or to
      multiple ETR devices at a site.

   Endpoint ID (EID):   a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for IPv6) value
      used in the source and destination address fields of the first
      (most inner) LISP header of a packet.  The host obtains a
      destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address
      today, for example through a DNS lookup.  The source EID is
      obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local" IP
      address.  An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-prefix block
      associated with the site where the host is located.  An EID can be
      used by a host to refer to other hosts.  EIDs must not be used as
      LISP RLOCs.  Note that EID blocks may be assigned in a
      hierarchical manner, independent of the network topology, to
      facilitate scaling of the mapping database.  In addition, an EID
      block assigned to a site may have site-local structure
      (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not
      visible to the global routing system.

   EID-to-RLOC Cache:   a short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that
      stores, tracks, and is responsible for timing-out and otherwise
      validating EID-to-RLOC mappings.  This cache is distinct from the
      full "database" of EID-to-RLOC mappings, it is dynamic, local to
      the ITR(s), and relatively small while the database is
      distributed, relatively static, and much more global in scope.



Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


   EID-to-RLOC Database:   a global distributed database that contains
      all known EID-prefix to RLOC mappings.  Each potential ETR
      typically contains a small piece of the database: the EID-to-RLOC
      mappings for the EID prefixes "behind" the router.  These map to
      one of the router's own, globally-visible, IP addresses.

   Encapsulated Map-Request (EMR):   an EMR is a Map-Request message
      which is encapsulated with another LISP header using UDP
      destination port number 4341.  It is used so an ITR, PITR, or a
      system initiating a 'lig' command can get the Map-Request to a
      Map-Resolver by using locater addresses.  When the Map-Request is
      decapsulated by the Map-Resolver it will be forwarded on the ALT
      network to the Map-Server that has injected the EID-prefix for a
      registered site.  The Map-Server will then encapsulate the Map-
      Request in a LISP packet and send it to an an ETR at the site.
      The ETR will then return an authoritative reply to the system that
      initiated the request.  See [LISP] for packet format details.

   Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR):   An ITR is a router which accepts an IP
      packet with a single IP header (more precisely, an IP packet that
      does not contain a LISP header).  The router treats this "inner"
      IP destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC
      mapping lookup.  The router then prepends an "outer" IP header
      with one of its globally-routable RLOCs in the source address
      field and the result of the mapping lookup in the destination
      address field.  Note that this destination RLOC may be an
      intermediate, proxy device that has better knowledge of the EID-
      to-RLOC mapping closer to the destination EID.  In general, an ITR
      receives IP packets from site end-systems on one side and sends
      LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the Internet on the other
      side.

   Egress Tunnel Router (ETR):   An ETR is a router that accepts an IP
      packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is
      one of its own RLOCs.  The router strips the "outer" header and
      forwards the packet based on the next IP header found.  In
      general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the
      Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site
      end-systems on the other side.  ETR functionality does not have to
      be limited to a router device.  A server host can be the endpoint
      of a LISP tunnel as well.

   Proxy ITR (PITR):   A PITR is also known as a PTR is defined and
      described in [INTERWORK], a PITR acts like an ITR but does so on
      behalf of non-LISP sites which send packets to destinations at
      LISP sites.





Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


   Proxy ETR (PETR):   A PETR is defined and described in [INTERWORK], a
      PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites which
      send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites.

   xTR:   A xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data
      flow is not part of the context description. xTR refers to the
      router that is the tunnel endpoint.  Used synonymously with the
      term "Tunnel Router".  For example, "An xTR can be located at the
      Customer Edge (CE) router", meaning both ITR and ETR functionality
      is at the CE router.

   Provider Assigned (PA) Addresses:   PA addresses are an address block
      assigned to a site by each service provider to which a site
      connects.  Typically, each block is sub-block of a service
      provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block and
      is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into
      the global Internet.  Traditionally, IP multihoming has been
      implemented by each multi-homed site acquiring its own, globally-
      visible prefix.  LISP uses only topologically-assigned and
      aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this
      demonstrably non-scalable practice.






























Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


3.  Basic Overview

   When the lig command is run, a Map-Request is sent for a destination
   EID.  When a Map-Reply is returned, the contents are displayed to the
   user.  The information displayed includes:

   o  The EID-prefix for the site the queried destination EID matches.

   o  The locator address of the Map Replier.

   o  The locator-set for the mapping entry which includes the locator
      address, up/down status, priority, and weight of each locator.

   o  An round-trip-time estimate for the Map-Request/Map-Reply
      exchange.

   A possible syntax for a lig command could be:


       lig <destination> [source <source>] [to <map-resolver>]

   Parameter description:

   <destination>:  is either a Fully Qualified Domain Name or a
      destination EID for a remote LISP site.

   source <source>:  is an optional source EID to be inserted in the
      "Source EID" field of the Map-Request.

   to <map-resolver>:  is an optional Fully Qualified Domain Name or
      RLOC address for a Map-Resolver.

   The lig utility has two use cases.  The first being a way to query
   the mapping database for a particular EID.  And the other to verify
   if a site has registered successfully with a Map-Server.

   The first usage has already been described.  Verifying registration
   is called "ligging yourself".  What occurs is in the lig initiator, a
   Map-Request is sent for one of the EIDs for the lig initiator's site.
   The Map-Request is then returned to one of the ETRs for the lig
   initiating site.  In response to the Map-Request, a Map-Reply is sent
   back to the locator address of the lig initiator (note the Map-Reply
   could be sent by the lig initiator).  That Map-Reply is processed and
   the mapping data for the lig initiating site is displayed for the
   user.  Refer to the syntax in section Section 4.1 for an
   implementation of "ligging yourself".  However, for host-based
   implementations within a LISP site, "lig self" is less useful since
   the host may not have an RLOC to receive a Map-Reply with.  But, lig



Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


   can be used in a non-LISP site as well as from infrastructure hosts
   to get mapping information.

















































Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


4.  Implementation Details

4.1.  LISP Router Implementation

   The cisco LISP prototype implementation has support for lig for IPv4
   and IPv6.  The command line description is:


       lig <dest-eid> [source <source-eid>] [to <mr>] [count <1-5>]

   This command initiates the LISP Internet Groper.  It is similar to
   the DNS analogue 'dig' but works on the LISP mapping database.  When
   this command is invoked, the local system will send a Map-Request to
   the configured Map-Resolver.  When a Map-Reply is returned, its
   contents will be displayed to the user.  By default, up to 3 Map-
   Requests are sent if no Map-Reply is returned but once a Map-Reply is
   returned no other Map-Requests are sent.  The destination can take a
   DNS name, or an IPv4 or IPv6 EID address.  The <source-eid> can be
   one of the EID addresses assigned to the site in the default VRF.
   When <mr> is specified, then the Map-Request is sent to the address.
   Otherwise, the Map-Request is sent to a configured Map-Resolver.
   When a Map-Resolver is not configured then the Map-Request is sent on
   the ALT network if the local router is attached to the ALT.  When
   "count <1-5>" is specified, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 Map-Requests are sent.

   Some sample output:


     router# lig abc.example.com
     Send map-request to 10.0.0.1 for 192.168.1.1 ...
     Received map-reply from 10.0.0.2 with rtt 0.081468 secs

     Map-cache entry for abc.example.com EID 192.168.1.1:
     192.168.1.0/24, uptime: 13:59:59, expires: 23:59:58,
                     via map-reply, auth
       Locator          Uptime    State  Priority/Weight  Packets In/Out
       10.0.0.2         13:59:59  up     1/100            0/14

   Using lig to "lig yourself" is accomplished with the following
   syntax:


       lig {self | self6} [source <source-eid>] [to <mr>] [count <1-5>]

   Use this command for a simple way to see if the site is registered
   with the mapping database system.  The destination-EID address for
   the Map-Request will be the first configured EID-prefix for the site
   (with the host-bits set to 0).  For example, if the site's EID-prefix



Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


   is 192.168.1.0/24, the destination-EID for the Map-Request is
   192.168.1.0.  The source-EID address for the Map-Request will also be
   192.168.1.0 (in this example) and the Map-Request is sent to the
   configured Map-Resolver.  If the Map-Resolver and Map-Server are the
   same LISP system, then the "lig self" is testing if the Map-Resolver
   can "turn back a Map-Request to the site".  If another Map-Resolver
   is used, it can test that the site's EID-prefix has been injected
   into the ALT infrastructure in which case the lig Map-Request is
   processed by the Map-Resolver, propagated through each ALT router hop
   to the site's registered Map-Server.  Then the Map-Server returns the
   Map-Request to the originating site.  In which case, an xTR at the
   originating site sends a Map-Reply to the source of the Map-Request
   (could be itself or another xTR for the site).  All other command
   parameters are described above.  Using "lig self6" tests for
   registering of IPv6 EID- prefixes.

   Some sample output for ligging yourself:


     router# lig self
     Send loopback map-request to 10.0.0.1 for 192.168.2.0 ...
     Received map-reply from 10.0.0.3 with rtt 0.001592 secs

     Map-cache entry for EID 192.168.2.0:
     192.168.2.0/24, uptime: 00:00:02, expires: 23:59:57
                     via map-reply, self
       Locator       Uptime    State  Priority/Weight  Packets In/Out
       10.0.0.3      00:00:02  up     1/100            0/0


     router# lig self6
     Send loopback map-request to 10.0.0.1 for 2001:db8:1:: ...
     Received map-reply from 10::1 with rtt 0.044372 secs

     Map-cache entry for EID 192:168:1:::
     2001:db8:1::/48, uptime: 00:00:01, expires: 23:59:58
                      via map-reply, self
       Locator          Uptime    State  Priority/Weight  Packets In/Out
       10.0.0.3         00:00:01  up     1/100            0/0
       2001:db8:ffff::1 00:00:01  up     2/0              0/0

4.2.  Public Domain Host Implementation

   There is a public domain implementation that can run on any x86 based
   system.  The only requirement is that the system that initiates lig
   must have an address assigned from the locator namespace.





Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


       lig [-d] <eid> -m <map-resolver> [-c <count>] [-t <timeout>]

   Parameter description:

   -d:  prints additional protocol debug output.

   <eid>:  is the destination EID or FQDN of a LISP host.

   -m <map-resolver>:  is the RLOC address or FQDN of a Map-Resolver.

   -c <count>:  the number of Map-Requests to send before the first Map-
      Reply is returned.  The default value is 3.  The range is from 1
      to 5.

   -t <timeout>:  the amount of time, in seconds, before another Map-
      Request is sent when no Map-Reply is returned.  The default value
      is 2 seconds.  The range is from 1 to 5.

   Some sample output:


     % lig xyz.example.com -m 10.0.0.1
     Send map-request to 10.0.0.1 for 192.168.1.1 ...
     Received map-reply from 10.0.0.2 with rtt 0.04000 sec

     Mapping entry for EID 192.168.1.1:
     192.168.1.0/24, record ttl: 60
      Locator           State     Priority/Weight
      10.0.0.1          up        1/25
      10.0.0.2          up        1/25
      10.0.0.3          up        1/25
      10.0.0.4          up        2/25

   The public domain implementation of lig is available at
   http://github.com/davidmeyer/lig.
















Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


5.  Testing the ALT

   There are cases where a Map-Reply is returned from a lig request but
   the user doesn't really know how much of the mapping infrastructure
   was tested.  There are two cases to consider, avoiding the ALT and
   traversing the ALT.

   When an ITR sends a lig request to its Map-Resolver for a
   destination-EID, the Map-Resolver could also be configured as a Map-
   Server.  And if the destination-EID is for a site that registers with
   this Map-Server, the Map-Request is sent to the site directly without
   testing the ALT.  This occurs because the Map-Server is the source of
   the advertisement for the site's EID-prefix.  So if the map-reply is
   returned to the lig requesting site, you cannot be sure that other
   sites can reach the same destination-EID.

   If a Map-Resolver is used that is not a Map-Server for the EID-prefix
   being sought, then the ALT infrastructure can be tested.  This test
   case is testing the functionality of the Map-Resolver, traversal of
   the ALT (testing BGP-over-GRE), and the Map-Server.

   It is recommended that users issue 2 lig requests, each of which send
   Map-Requests to different Map-Resolvers.

   The network can have a LISP-ALT router deployed as a "ALT looking-
   glass" node.  This type of router has BGP peering sessions with other
   ALT routers where it does not inject any EID-prefixes into the ALT
   but just learns ones advertised by other ALT routers and Map-Servers.
   This router is configured as a Map-Resolver.  Lig users can point to
   the ALT looking-glass router for Map-Resolver services via the "to
   <map-resolver>" parameter on the lig command.  The ALT looking-glass
   node can be used to lig other sites as well as your own site.  When
   the ALT looking-glass is used as a Map-Resolver, you can be assured
   the ALT network is being tested.

















Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


6.  Future Enhancements

   When negative Map-Replies have been further developed and
   implemented, lig should be modified appropriately to process and
   clearly indicate how and why a negative Map-Reply was received.
   Negative Map-Replies could be sent in the following cases, the lig
   request was initiated for a non-EID address or the Map-Request
   initiated by lig request is being rejected due to rate-limiting on
   the replier.










































Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


7.  Deployed Network Diagnostic Tools

   There is an web-based interface to do auto-polling with lig on the
   back-end for most of the LISP sites on the LISP test network.  The
   web-page can be accessed at http://www.lisp4.net/status.

   There is a LISP site monitoring web-based interface that can be found
   at http://www.lisp4.net/lisp-site.

   At http://baldomar.ccaba.upc.edu/lispmon, written by the folks at
   UPC, shows a geographical map indicating where each LISP site
   resides.







































Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


8.  Security Considerations

   The use of lig does not affect the security of the LISP
   infrastructure as it is simply a tool that facilities diagnostic
   querying.  See [LISP], [ALT], and [LISP-MS] for descriptions of the
   security properties of the LISP infrastructure.

   Lig provides easy access to the information in the public mapping
   database.  Therefore, it is important to protect the mapping
   information for private use.  This can be provided by disallowing
   access to specific mapping entries or to place such entries in a
   private mapping database system.







































Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


9.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of the IANA.
















































Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [INTERWORK]
              Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
              "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6",
              draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-02.txt (work in progress).

   [LISP]     Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
              draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt (work in progress).

   [LISP-MS]  Farinacci, D. and V. Fuller, "LISP Map Server",
              draft-ietf-lisp-ms-11.txt (work in progress).

   [RFC4632]  Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
              (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
              Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.

10.2.  Informative References

   [ALT]      Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP
              Alternative Topology (LISP-ALT)",
              draft-ietf-lisp-alt-08.txt (work in progress).

   [CONS]     Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., and D. Meyer, "LISP-CONS: A
              Content distribution Overlay Network  Service for LISP",
              draft-meyer-lisp-cons-04.txt (work in progress).

   [LISP-LIG]
              Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "LISP Internet Groper (LIG)",
              draft-farinacci-lisp-lig-02.txt (work in progress).

   [NERD]     Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel EID to RLOC Database",
              draft-lear-lisp-nerd-08.txt (work in progress).















Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks and kudos to John Zwiebel, Andrew Partan, Darrel Lewis, and
   Vince Fuller for providing critical feedback on the lig design and
   prototype implementations.  These folks as well as all the people on
   lisp-beta@external.cisco.com who tested lig functionality and
   continue to do so, we extend our sincere thanks.

   This working group draft is based on individual contribution
   draft-farinacci-lisp-lig-02.txt [LISP-LIG].









































Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft         LISP Internet Groper (LIG)         September 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Dino Farinacci
   cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: dino@cisco.com


   Dave Meyer
   cisco Systems
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   Email: dmm@cisco.com

































Farinacci & Meyer        Expires March 12, 2012                [Page 19]

