Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

LISP-Multicast draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-00.txt Dino Farinacci, Dave Meyer, John Zwiebel, Stig Venaas IETF Dublin - July 2008.

Published byIsaac Harrison Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "LISP-Multicast draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-00.txt Dino Farinacci, Dave Meyer, John Zwiebel, Stig Venaas IETF Dublin - July 2008."— Presentation transcript:

1 LISP-Multicast draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-00.txt Dino Farinacci, Dave Meyer, John Zwiebel, Stig Venaas IETF Dublin - July 2008

2 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 2 Agenda Overview of LISP for Unicast Routing LISP-Multicast Design Goals LISP-Multicast Definitions Describe LISP-Multicast LISP-Multicast Interworking AF Case Studies Summary

3 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 3 LISP Internet Drafts draft-farinacci-lisp-08.txt draft-fuller-lisp-alt-02.txt draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-01.txt draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-00.txt draft-meyer-lisp-eid-block-01.txt draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-01.txt draft-brim-lisp-analysis-00.txt draft-meyer-lisp-cons-04.txt draft-lear-lisp-nerd-04.txt draft-curran-lisp-emacs-00.txt

4 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 4 LISP Architecture Locator/ID Separation Protocol –Network-based solution –No changes to hosts whatsoever –No new addressing changes to site devices –Very few configuration file changes –Imperative to be incrementally deployable –Address family agnostic

5 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 5 LISP Architecture Locator/ID Separation Protocol –Defines architecture for 2 address spaces: Endpoint IDs (EIDs) Routing Locators (RLOCs) –Defines how Map-n-Encap routers operate and where they reside –Defines Variants for “EID routing” –Can use other designs for mapping EIDs to RLOCs –Defines encapsulation format for IPv4 and IPv6 –Defines how RLOC reachability is performed –Defines how database mapping entries can be updated –Defines the Map-Request and Map-Reply format

6 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 6 Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S Multi-Level Addressing EIDs are inside of sites RLOCs used in the core R2R1 1.0.0.0/8 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 Mapping Database Entry: 1.0.0.0/8 -> (10.0.0.1, 11.0.0.1)

7 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 7 Map-n-Encap Host Stack: supplies EIDs LISP Router: supplies RLOCs by adding new header EID-prefix: 2.0.0.0/8 Locator-set (RLOCs): 12.0.0.2, priority: 1, weight: 50 13.0.0.2, priority: 1, weight: 50 Mapping Entry:

8 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 8 Packet Forwarding Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ITR D ETR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 PI EID-prefix 1.0.0.0/8 PI EID-prefix 2.0.0.0/8 DNS entry: D.abc.com A 2.0.0.2 EID-prefix: 2.0.0.0/8 Locator-set: 12.0.0.2, priority: 1, weight: 50 (D1) 13.0.0.2, priority: 1, weight: 50 (D2) Mapping Entry 1.0.0.1 -> 2.0.0.2 11.0.0.1 -> 12.0.0.2 Legend: EIDs -> Green Locators -> Red 1.0.0.1 -> 2.0.0.2 11.0.0.1 -> 12.0.0.2 1.0.0.1 -> 2.0.0.2 12.0.0.2 13.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 Policy controlled by destination site

9 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 9 LISP Multicast Design Goals Keep EID state out of core network No head-end replication at source site Packets only go to receiver sites No changes to hosts, site routers, core routers Use existing protocols Support PIM SSM, don’t preclude ASM & Bidir Have separate unicast and multicast policies

10 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 10 LISP Multicast Defs (S-EID, G) –S-EID is source host –G is group address receivers join to –State resides in source and receiver sites (S-RLOC, G) –S-RLOC is ITR on multicast tree –G is group address receivers join to –State resides in core Group addresses have neither ID or Location semantics –G is topologically opaque - can be used everywhere

11 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 11 LISP Multicast Defs Non-LISP Site –Does not support LISP at all uLISP Site –Support LISP-Unicast only LISP-Multicast Site –Supports unicast and multicast LISP

12 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 12 LISP Multicast Defs Multicast ETRs at receiver sites –Receives PIM JP (S-EID, G) messages from site routers –Obtains S-RLOC from mapping for S-EID –Sends unicast PIM JP (S-EID, G) to ITR S-RLOC address –Sends regular PIM JP (S-RLOC, G) through core –Decapsulates multicast (S-RLOC, G) into (S-EID, G) Multicast ITRs at source sites –Receive unicast PIM JP (S-EID, G) messages and forward into source site –Acts as root of (S-RLOC, G) tree for site –Encapsulates (S-EID, G) packets into (S-RLOC, G) mPTRs –Multicast Proxy Tunnel Routers (PTRs)

13 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 13 Multicast Packet Forwarding Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ITR D ETR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 12.0.0.2 13.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 R11 R1R2 R12 ETR R21 ETR R22 ETR R3 11.0.0.11 13.0.0.12 13.0.0.21 13.0.0.22 (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S2-RLOC,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP 1.0.0.1 (S2-RLOC,G) PIM JP Legend: EIDs -> Green Locators -> Red site or core PIM router regular PIM JP unicast PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP

14 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 14 Multicast Packet Forwarding Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ITR D ETR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 12.0.0.2 13.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 R11 R1R2 R12 ETR R21 ETR R22 ETR R3 11.0.0.11 13.0.0.12 13.0.0.21 13.0.0.22 1.0.0.1 1.0.0.1 -> G 11.0.0.1 -> G 1.0.0.1 -> G ETR Aggregated-Trees (S-EID, G): (1.0.0.1, G) (1.0.0.2, G) map to: (S-RLOC, G): (11.0.0.1, G) Use SSM!

15 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 15 Join Policy - 1 Exit, 1 Entrance Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ITR D ETR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 12.0.0.2 13.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 R11 R1R2 R12 ETR R21 ETR R22 ETR R3 11.0.0.11 13.0.0.12 13.0.0.21 13.0.0.22 1.0.0.1

16 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 16 Join Policy - 2 Exits, 1 Entrance Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ITR D ETR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 12.0.0.2 13.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 R11 R1R2 R12 ETR R21 ETR R22 ETR R3 11.0.0.11 13.0.0.12 13.0.0.21 13.0.0.22 1.0.0.1

17 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 17 Join Policy - 1 Exit, 2 Entrances Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ITR D ETR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 12.0.0.2 13.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 R11 R1R2 R12 ETR R21 ETR R22 ETR R3 11.0.0.11 13.0.0.12 13.0.0.21 13.0.0.22 1.0.0.1

18 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 18 Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ITR D ETR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 12.0.0.2 13.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 R11 R1R2 R12 ETR R21 ETR R22 ETR R3 11.0.0.11 13.0.0.12 13.0.0.21 13.0.0.22 1.0.0.1 Join Policy - 2 Exits, 2 Entrances

19 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 19 6.1.4. Map-Reply Message Format +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |x|M| Locator Reach Bits | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Nonce | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type=2 | Reserved | Record Count | +----> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Record TTL | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Locator Count | EID mask-len |A| Reserved | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ R | ITR-AFI | EID-AFI | e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ c | Originating ITR RLOC Address | o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ r | EID-prefix | d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight | | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Loc | Unused Flags |R| Loc-AFI | | \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | \| Locator | +---> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Mapping Protocol Data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

20 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 20 Locator Reachability Loc-reach-bits –Used for both unicast and multicast –Mapping entries contain all locators –You can turn locators on for unicast and off for multicast by setting priority to 255 –Multicast and Unicast fate-share each other A mapping obtained for a unicast packet can be used for a multicast join and vice-versa

21 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 21 LISP-Multicast Interworking Non-LISP sites –Unicast only -Unicast and multicast -uLISP sites -Unicast-LISP -Multicast-Traditional -No Multicast at all -Multicast-LISP sites -Both Unicast-LISP and Multicast-LISP -Simplification -Treat Non-LISP-multicast and uLISP-multicast-traditional the same

22 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 22 Interworking Solutions Unicast Interworking –Translation at source site –Proxy Tunnel Routers (PTR) Multicast Interworking –Translation at receiver site Would require another mapping table Receiver sites must translate to same routable (S-EID) Operationally a non-starter –Multicast Proxy Tunnel Routers (mPTRs) Reduce where (S-EID) state resides in network (S-EID) state exists between non-LISP site and mPTR

23 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 23 Interworking Case Studies Non-LISP multicast source site –All receiver sites are LISP –Mix of LISP and non-LISP receiver sites uLISP source site -- same as above LISP multicast source site –All receiver sites are non-LISP –All receiver sites are LISP –Mix of LISP and non-LISP

24 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 24 LISP-Multicast Interworking Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ITR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 12.0.0.2 13.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 R11 R1R2 R12 R21R22 R3 11.0.0.11 13.0.0.12 13.0.0.21 13.0.0.22 (S-EID,G) PIM JP 1.0.0.1 R4 (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP 1) EIDs must be routable 2) ITRs don’t encapsulate 3) ITRs never receive unicast-JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP Legend: LISP site non-LISP site

25 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 25 LISP-Multicast Interworking Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ITR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 12.0.0.2 13.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 R11 R1R2 R12 ETR R21 ETR R22 ETR R3 11.0.0.11 13.0.0.12 13.0.0.21 13.0.0.22 (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP 1.0.0.1 (S-EID,G) PIM JP R4 (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S2-RLOC,G) PIM JP (S2-RLOC,G) PIM JP 1) ITRs gets two joins Options: Head-end replicate Use mPTR 2) Use mPTR so LISP source site can behave with 1 mechanism 3) mPTRs decapsulate and deliver to non-LISP receiver sites Legend: LISP site non-LISP site

26 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 26 LISP-Multicast Interworking Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ETR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 12.0.0.2 13.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 R11 R1R2 R12 ETR R21 ETR R22 ETR R3 11.0.0.11 13.0.0.12 13.0.0.21 13.0.0.22 (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP 1.0.0.1 (S-EID,G) PIM JP R4 (S-EID,G) PIM JP 1) Receiver LISP sites know source site is non-LISP because there is no mapping 2) EID must be routable 3) No unicast-JPs sent just regular JPs (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP Legend: LISP site non-LISP site

27 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 27 LISP-Multicast Interworking Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ETR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 12.0.0.2 13.0.0.2 10.0.0.1 11.0.0.1 R11 R1R2 R12 R21R22 R3 11.0.0.11 13.0.0.12 13.0.0.21 13.0.0.22 (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP 1.0.0.1 (S-EID,G) PIM JP R4 (S-EID,G) PIM JP 1) Receiver LISP sites know source site is non-LISP because there is no mapping 2) EID must be routable 3) No unicast-JPs sent just regular JPs (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP (S-EID,G) PIM JP Legend: LISP site non-LISP site

28 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 28 Multicast PTRs Unicast PTRs –They proxy for ITR functionality –They advertise coarse prefixes to attract and encapsulate packets Multicast PTRs –They proxy for ETR functionality –They advertise coarse prefixes to attract Joins and therefore attract and decapsulate packets No unicast EID state in core from PTRs to ETRs No multicast (S-EID, G) state in core from ITRs to mPTRs

29 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 29 AF Case Studies 1. LISP-Multicast IPv4 Site 2. LISP-Multicast IPv6 Site 3. LISP-Multicast Dual-Stack Site 4. uLISP IPv4 Site 5. uLISP IPv6 Site 6. uLISP Dual-Stack Site 7. non-LISP IPv4 Site 8. non-LISP IPv6 Site 9. non-LISP Dual-Stack Site

30 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 30 Case Studies A Combinatorial Explosion –(9 1) + (9 2) +... + (9 9) –502 combinations! Rationalize by forcing multicast tree be AF homogenous –Avoid head-end replication and translation –Source site mapping entry priority decides which AF –When source site is non-LISP, use application-level directory to determine AF Further simplification –Make all sites that deploy LISP be unicast & multicast capable from the day-one

31 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 31 LISP Protocol Mechanisms Changes only to ITRs, ETRs, & PTRs Simple change to PIM –Sending/receiving unicast JPs –Translation of JP from EID to RLOC Simple change to MSDP –Translation for RPF-peering for RP Simplification –Only support SSM for inter-domain Use mPTRs to reduce (S-EID, G) state –Using (S-RLOC, G) reduces multicast routing table size we have today!

32 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 32 Best Possible Outcome Provider A 10.0.0.0/8 Provider B 11.0.0.0/8 S ETR Provider Y 13.0.0.0/8 Provider X 12.0.0.0/8 S1 S2 D1 D2 R11 R2 R12 R21R22 ETR R3R4 S mPTR (S-RLOC, G) state only

33 LISP-MulticastIETF Dublin - July 2008Slide 33 lisp-interest@lists.civil-tongue.net m

Download ppt "LISP-Multicast draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-00.txt Dino Farinacci, Dave Meyer, John Zwiebel, Stig Venaas IETF Dublin - July 2008."

Similar presentations

LISP Mobile Node LISP Mobile Node draft-meyer-lisp-mn-00.txt Dino Farinacci, Vince Fuller, Darrel Lewis and David Meyer IETF StockholmHiroshima LISP Working.

LISP Mobile Node LISP Mobile Node draft-meyer-lisp-mn-00.txt Dino Farinacci, Vince Fuller, Darrel Lewis and David Meyer IETF StockholmHiroshima LISP Working.
Overlay Transport Virtualization (OTV)

Overlay Transport Virtualization (OTV)
Why do current IP semantics cause scaling issues? −Today, “addressing follows topology,” which limits route aggregation compactness −Overloaded IP address.

Why do current IP semantics cause scaling issues? −Today, “addressing follows topology,” which limits route aggregation compactness −Overloaded IP address.
Transitioning to IPv6 April 15,2005 Presented By: Richard Moore PBS Enterprise Technology.

Transitioning to IPv6 April 15,2005 Presented By: Richard Moore PBS Enterprise Technology.
Chapter 6-7 IPv6 Addressing. IPv6 IP version 6 (IPv6) is the proposed solution for expanding the possible number of users on the Internet. IPv6 is also.

Chapter 6-7 IPv6 Addressing. IPv6 IP version 6 (IPv6) is the proposed solution for expanding the possible number of users on the Internet. IPv6 is also.
CS440 Computer Networks 1 IPv6 Neil Tang 11/10/2008.

CS440 Computer Networks 1 IPv6 Neil Tang 11/10/2008.
IPv6-The Next Generation Protocol RAMYA MEKALA UIN:01008672.

IPv6-The Next Generation Protocol RAMYA MEKALA UIN:
1 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, nature calls a butterfly. - Anonymous.

1 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, nature calls a butterfly. - Anonymous.
IETF 72 – July 2008 Vince Fuller, Darrel Lewis, Eliot Lear, Scott Brim, Dave Oran, Noel Chiappa, John Curran, Dino Farinacci, and David Meyer LISP Deployment.

IETF 72 – July 2008 Vince Fuller, Darrel Lewis, Eliot Lear, Scott Brim, Dave Oran, Noel Chiappa, John Curran, Dino Farinacci, and David Meyer LISP Deployment.
1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers.

1 o Two issues in practice – Scale – Administrative autonomy o Autonomous system (AS) or region o Intra autonomous system routing protocol o Gateway routers.
Introduction to LISP (not (the (programming ( language))))

Introduction to LISP (not (the (programming ( language))))
LISP-CONS A Mapping Database Service NANOG 41 David Meyer, Dino Farinacci, Vince Fuller, Darrel Lewis, Scott Brim, Noel Chiappa NANOG 41 October, 2007.

LISP-CONS A Mapping Database Service NANOG 41 David Meyer, Dino Farinacci, Vince Fuller, Darrel Lewis, Scott Brim, Noel Chiappa NANOG 41 October, 2007.
Internet Draft Status Internet Draft Status draft-farinacci-lisp-{00-12}.txt Dave Meyer, Vince Fuller, Darrel Lewis, Dino Farinacci IETF San Francisco.

Internet Draft Status Internet Draft Status draft-farinacci-lisp-{00-12}.txt Dave Meyer, Vince Fuller, Darrel Lewis, Dino Farinacci IETF San Francisco.
LISP MIB draft-lisp-mib-05 Vancouver IETF - LISP WG Gregg Schudel, Amit Jain, Victor Moreno July 2012.

LISP MIB draft-lisp-mib-05 Vancouver IETF - LISP WG Gregg Schudel, Amit Jain, Victor Moreno July 2012.
COM555: Mobile Technologies Location-Identifier Separation.

COM555: Mobile Technologies Location-Identifier Separation.
The Evolution of Multicast Research paper presented by Ajith M Jose (u4083453)

The Evolution of Multicast Research paper presented by Ajith M Jose (u )
1 Internet Networking Spring 2006 Tutorial 7 DVMRP.

1 Internet Networking Spring 2006 Tutorial 7 DVMRP.
NANOG-46 Philadelphia, June 2009 Vince Fuller & Dave Meyer (for the rest of the LISP crew: Noel Chiappa, Dino Farinacci, Darrel Lewis, Andrew Partan, and.

NANOG-46 Philadelphia, June 2009 Vince Fuller & Dave Meyer (for the rest of the LISP crew: Noel Chiappa, Dino Farinacci, Darrel Lewis, Andrew Partan, and.
COS 420 Day 18. Agenda Group Project Discussion Program Requirements Rejected Resubmit by Friday Noon Protocol Definition Due April 12 Assignment 3 Due.

COS 420 Day 18. Agenda Group Project Discussion Program Requirements Rejected Resubmit by Friday Noon Protocol Definition Due April 12 Assignment 3 Due.
Oct 21, 2004CS573: Network Protocols and Standards1 IP: Addressing, ARP, Routing Network Protocols and Standards Autumn 2004-2005.

Oct 21, 2004CS573: Network Protocols and Standards1 IP: Addressing, ARP, Routing Network Protocols and Standards Autumn

Similar presentations

Ads by Google