<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-16"
     ipr="trust200902" submissionType="IETF" tocDepth="5" version="2">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="BGP-SPF Applicability">Usage and Applicability of Link
    State Vector Routing in Data Centers</title>

    <author fullname="Keyur Patel" initials="K" surname="Patel">
      <organization>Arrcus, Inc.</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>2077 Gateway Pl</street>

          <city>San Jose, CA</city>

          <country>USA</country>

          <code>95110</code>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <email>keyur@arrcus.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Acee Lindem" initials="A" surname="Lindem">
      <organization>LabN Consulting, L.L.C.</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>301 Midenhall Way</street>

          <city>Cary, NC</city>

          <country>USA</country>

          <code>95110</code>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <email>acee.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Shawn Zandi" initials="S" surname="Zandi">
      <organization>Linkedin</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>222 2nd Street</street>

          <city>San Francisco</city>

          <region>CA</region>

          <code>94105</code>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>szandi@linkedin.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Gaurav Dawra" initials="G" surname="Dawra">
      <organization>Linkedin</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>222 2nd Street</street>

          <city>San Francisco</city>

          <region>CA</region>

          <code>94105</code>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>gdawra@linkedin.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Jie Dong" initials="J." surname="Dong">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>No. 156 Beiqing Road</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <email>jie.dong@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date/>

    <abstract>
      <t>
        This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP Link-State
        Shortest Path First (BGP-SPF) extensions in data center networks
        utilizing Clos or Fat-Tree topologies. The document is intended to
        provide simplified guidance for the deployment of BGP-SPF extensions.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t>This document complements <xref format="default"
      target="I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf"/> by discussing the applicability of the
      BGP-SPF technology in a simple and fairly common deployment scenario,
      which is described in <xref format="default" target="usecases"/>.</t>

      <t>After describing the deployment scenario, <xref format="default"
      target="motivation"/> describes the reasons for BGP modifications for
      such deployments.</t>

      <t>After the control plane routing protocol requirements are described,
      <xref format="default" target="bgpspf"/> covers the BGP-SPF protocol
      enhancements to BGP to meet these requirements and their applicability
      to data center <xref format="default" target="Clos"/> networks.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="reco" title="Recommended Reading">
      <t>
        This document assumes knowledge of existing data center networks and
        data center network topologies <xref format="default" target="Clos"/>.
        This document also assumes knowledge of data center routing protocols
        such as BGP <xref format="default" target="RFC4271"/>, BGP-SPF <xref
        format="default" target="I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf"/>, OSPF <xref
        format="default" target="RFC2328"/>, as well as data center
        Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
        protocols like Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP)
        <xref format="default" target="RFC4957"/> and Bi-Directional Forwarding
        Detection (BFD) <xref format="default" target="RFC5580"/>.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="usecases" title="Common Deployment Scenario">
      <t>Within a data center, servers are commonly interconnected using the
      Clos topology <xref format="default" target="Clos"/>. The Clos topology
      is fully non-blocking and the topology is realized using Equal Cost
      Multi-Path (ECMP). In a multi-stage Clos topology, the minimum number of
      parallel paths in each tier is determined by the width of the stage as
      shown in the figure 1.</t>

      <t>
        <figure anchor="fig1">
          <name>Illustration of the basic Clos</name>

          <artwork align="left" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[

                                   Tier-1
                                  +-----+
                                  |NODE |
                               +->| 12  |--+
                               |  +-----+  |
                       Tier-2  |           |   Tier-2
                      +-----+  |  +-----+  |  +-----+
        +------------>|NODE |--+->|NODE |--+--|NODE |-------------+
        |       +-----|  9  |--+  | 10  |  +--| 11  |-----+       |
        |       |     +-----+     +-----+     +-----+     |       |
        |       |                                         |       |
        |       |     +-----+     +-----+     +-----+     |       |
        | +-----+---->|NODE |--+  |NODE |  +--|NODE |-----+-----+ |
        | |     | +---|  6  |--+->|  7  |--+--|  8  |---+ |     | |
        | |     | |   +-----+  |  +-----+  |  +-----+   | |     | |
        | |     | |            |           |            | |     | |
      +-----+ +-----+          |  +-----+  |          +-----+ +-----+
      |NODE | |NODE | Tier-3   +->|NODE |--+   Tier-3 |NODE | |NODE |
      |  1  | |  2  |             |  3  |             |  4  | |  5  |
      +-----+ +-----+             +-----+             +-----+ +-----+
        | |     | |                                     | |     | |
        A O     B O            <- Servers ->            Z O     O O

        ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="motivation" title="Justification for BGP-SPF Extension">
      <t>
        To simplify L3 routing and operations, many data centers use BGP as a
        routing protocol to create both an underlay and an overlay network for their Clos
        Topologies <xref format="default" target="RFC7938"/>.
        However, BGP is a path-vector routing protocol. Since it
        does not create a fabric topology, it uses hop-by-hop External BGP
        (EBGP) peering to facilitate hop-by-hop routing to create the underlay
        network and to resolve any overlay next hops. The hop-by-hop BGP peering
        paradigm imposes several restrictions within a Clos. It severely
        prohibits a deployment of Route Reflectors/Route Controllers as the EBGP
        sessions are congruent with the data path. The BGP best-path algorithm
        is prefix-based and it prevents announcements of prefixes to other BGP
        speakers until the best-path decision process has been performed for the
        prefix at each intermediate hop. These restrictions significantly delay
        the overall convergence of the underlay network within a Clos
        network.
      </t>

      <t>
        The BGP-SPF modifications allow BGP to overcome these limitations.
        Furthermore, using the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability Information
        (NLRI) format allows the BGP-SPF data to be
        advertised for nodes, links, and prefixes in the BGP routing domain and
        used for SPF computations <xref target="RFC9552"/>.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="bgpspf" title="BGP-SPF Applicability to Clos Networks">
      <t>With the BGP-SPF extensions <xref format="default"
      target="I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf"/>, the BGP best-path computation and
      route computation are replaced with link-state algorithms such as those
      used by <xref format="default" target="RFC2328"/>, both to determine
      whether an BGP-LS SPF NLRI has changed and needs to be re-advertised and
      to compute the BGP routes. These modifications will significantly
      improve convergence of the underlay while affording the operational
      benefits of a single routing protocol <xref format="default"
      target="RFC7938"/>.</t>

      <t>Data center controllers typically require visibility to the BGP
      topology to compute traffic-engineered paths. These controllers learn
      the topology and other relevant information via the BGP-LS address
      family <xref format="default" target="RFC9552"/> which is totally
      independent of the underlay address families (usually IPv4/IPv6
      unicast). Furthermore, in traditional BGP underlays, all the BGP routers
      will need to advertise their BGP-LS information independently. With the
      BGP-SPF extensions, controllers can learn the topology using the same
      BGP advertisements used to compute the underlay routes. Furthermore,
      these data center controllers can avail the convergence advantages of
      the BGP-SPF extensions. The placement of controllers can be outside of
      the forwarding path or within the forwarding path.</t>

      <t>Alternatively, as each and every router in the BGP-SPF domain will
      have a complete view of the topology, the operator can also choose to
      configure BGP sessions in hop-by-hop peering model described in <xref
      format="default" target="RFC7938"/> along with BFD <xref
      format="default" target="RFC5580"/>. In doing so, while the hop-by-hop
      peering model lacks the inherent benefits of the controller-based model,
      BGP updates need not be serialized by BGP best-path algorithm in either
      of these models. This helps overall network convergence.</t>

      <section anchor="lsvrsafi" title="Usage of BGP-LS SPF SAFI">
        <t>Section 5.1 of <xref format="default"
        target="I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf"/> defines a new BGP-LS-SPF SAFI for
        announcement of BGP-SPF link-state. The NLRI format and its associated
        attributes follow the format of BGP-LS for node, link, and prefix
        announcements. Whether the peering model within a Clos follows
        hop-by-hop peering described in <xref format="default"
        target="RFC7938"/> or any controller-based or route-reflector peering,
        an operator can exchange BGP-LS SPF SAFI routes over the BGP peering
        by simply configuring BGP-LS SPF SAFI between the necessary BGP
        speakers.</t>

        <t>The BGP-LS SPF SAFI can also co-exist with BGP IP Unicast SAFI
        <xref target="RFC4760"/> which could exchange overlapping IP routes.
        The reasons for enabling both SAFIs at the same time is out of the
        scope of this document. The routes received by these SAFIs are
        evaluated, stored, and announced independently according to the rules
        of <xref format="default" target="RFC4760"/>. The tie-breaking of
        route installation is a matter of the local policies and preferences
        of the network operator.</t>

        <t>Finally, as the BGP-SPF peering is done following the procedures
        described in <xref format="default" target="RFC4271"/>, all the
        existing transport security mechanisms including <xref
        format="default" target="RFC5925"/> are available for the BGP-LS SPF
        SAFI.</t>

        <section anchor="other-safi"
                 title="Relationship to Other BGP AFI/SAFI Tuples">
          <t>Normally, the BGP-LS SPF AFI/SAFI is used solely to compute the
          underlay and is given preference over other AFI/SAFIs. Other BGP
          SAFIs, e.g., IPv6/IPv6 Unicast VPN would use the BGP-SPF computed
          routes for next hop resolution.</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section anchor="peering" title="Peering Models">
        <t>As previously stated, BGP-SPF can be deployed using the existing
        peering model where there is a single-hop BGP session on each and
        every link in the data center fabric <xref format="default"
        target="RFC7938"/>. This provides for both the advertisement of routes
        and the determination of link and neighboring switch availability.
        With BGP-SPF, the underlay will converge faster due to changes to the
        decision process that will allow NLRI changes to be advertised faster
        after detecting a change.</t>

        <section anchor="sparse-peering" title="Sparse Peering Model">
          <t>Alternately, BFD <xref format="default" target="RFC5580"/> can be
          used to swiftly determine the availability of links and the BGP
          peering model can be significantly sparser than the data center
          fabric. BGP-SPF sessions only need to be established with enough
          peers to provide a bi-connected graph. If IBGP is used, then the BGP
          routers at tier N-1 will act as route-reflectors for the routers at
          tier N.</t>

          <t>The obvious usage of sparse peering is to avoid parallel BGP
          sessions on links between the same two switches in the data center
          fabric. However, this use case is not very useful since parallel L3
          links between the same two BGP routers are rare in Clos or Fat-Tree
          topologies. Additionally, when there are multiple links, they are
          often aggregated at the link layer rather than the IP layer. Two
          more interesting scenarios are described below.</t>

          <t>In current data center topologies, there is often a very dense
          mesh of links between levels, e.g., leaf and spine, providing
          32-way, 64-way, or more Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) paths. In these
          topologies, it is desirable not to have a BGP session on every link
          and techniques such as the one described in <xref format="default"
          target="bi-connected"/> can be used to establish sessions on some
          subset of northbound links. For example, in a Spine-Leaf topology,
          each leaf switch would only peer with a subset of the spines
          dependent on the flooding redundancy required to be reasonably
          certain that every node within the BGP-LS SPF routing domain has the
          complete topology.</t>

          <t>Alternately, controller-based data center topologies are
          envisioned where BGP speakers within the data center only establish
          BGP sessions with two or more controllers. In these topologies,
          fabric nodes below the first tier, as shown in Figure 1 of
          <xref format="default" target="RFC7938"/>, will establish BGP
          multi-hop sessions with the controllers. For the multi-hop sessions,
          determining the
          route to the controllers without depending on BGP would need to be
          through some other means beyond the scope of this document. However,
          the BGP discovery mechanisms described in <xref format="default"
          target="bgp-discovery"/> would be one possibility.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="bi-connected" title="Bi-Connected Graph Heuristic">
          <t>With this heuristic, discovery of BGP peers is assumed, e.g., as
          described in <xref format="default" target="bgp-discovery"/>.
          Additionally, it assumed that the direction of the peering can be
          ascertained. In the context of a data center fabric, direction is
          either northbound (toward the spine), southbound (toward the
          Top-Of-Rack (ToR) switches) or east-west (same level in hierarchy).
          The determination of the direction is beyond the scope of this
          document. However, it would be reasonable to assume a technique
          where the ToR switches can be identified and the number of hops to
          the ToR is used to determine the direction.</t>

          <t>In this heuristic, BGP speakers allow passive session
          establishment for southbound BGP sessions. For northbound sessions,
          BGP speakers will attempt to maintain two northbound BGP sessions
          with different switches (in data center fabrics there is normally a
          single layer-3 connection anyway). For east-west sessions, passive
          BGP session establishment is allowed. However, BGP speaker will
          never actively establish an east-west BGP session unless it cannot
          establish two northbound BGP sessions.</t>
        </section>
      </section>

      <section anchor="bgp-policy" title="BGP Spine/Leaf Topology Policy">
        <t>One of the advantages of using BGP-SPF as the underlay protocol is
        that BGP policy can be applied at any level. For example, depending on
        the topology, it may be possible to aggregate prefix advertisements
        using existing BGP policy. In Spine/Leaf topologies, it is not
        necessary to advertise BGP-LS Prefix NLRI received by leaves
        northbound to the spine nodes. An aggregate route or a default route
        could suffice. If a common AS is used for the spine nodes, this can
        easily be accomplished with EBGP and a simple policy to filter
        advertisements from the leaves to the spine if the first AS in the AS
        path is the spine AS.</t>

        <t>In the figure below, the leaves would not advertise any NLRI with
        AS 64512 as the first AS in the AS path.</t>

        <t>
          <figure anchor="fig2">
            <name>Spine/Leaf Topology Policy</name>

            <artwork align="left" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
             +--------+    +--------+             +--------+
 AS 64512    |        |    |        |             |        |
 for Spine   | Spine 1+----+ Spine 2+- ......... -+ Spine N|
 Nodes at    |        |    |        |             |        |
 this Level  +-+-+-+-++    ++-+-+-+-+             +-+-+-+-++
        +------+ | | |      | | | |                 | | | |
        |  +-----|-|-|------+ | | |                 | | | |
        |  |  +--|-|-|--------+-|-|-----------------+ | | |
        |  |  |  | | |    +---+ | |                   | | |
        |  |  |  | | |    |  +--|-|-------------------+ | |
        |  |  |  | | |    |  |  | |              +------+ +----+
        |  |  |  | | |    |  |  | +--------------|----------+  |
        |  |  |  | | |    |  |  +-------------+  |          |  |
        |  |  |  | | +----|--|----------------|--|--------+ |  |
        |  |  |  | +------|--|--------------+ |  |        | |  |
        |  |  |  +------+ |  |              | |  |        | |  |
       ++--+--++      +-+-+--++            ++-+--+-+     ++-+--+-+
       | Leaf 1|~~~~~~| Leaf 2|  ........  | Leaf X|     | Leaf Y|
       +-------+      +-------+            +-------+     +-------+


       ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
        </t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="bgp-discovery-req"
               title="BGP Peer Discovery Requirements">
        <t>The basic requirement is to be able to discover the address of a
        single-hop peer in case where the peer address is not pre-configured.
        This is being accomplished today with using IPv6 Router Advertisements
        (RA) <xref format="default" target="RFC4861"/> and assuming that a BGP
        session is desired with any discovered peer. Beyond the basic
        requirement, it is useful to have to following information relating to
        the BGP session:</t>

        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>Autonomous System (AS) and BGP Identifier of a potential peer.
            The latter can be used for debugging and to decrease the
            likelihood of BGP session establishment collisions.</t>

            <t>Security capabilities supported and for cryptographic
            authentication, the security capabilities and possibly a key-chain
            <xref format="default" target="RFC8177"/> to be used.</t>

            <t>Session Policy Identifier - A group number or name used to
            associate common session parameters with the peer. For example, in
            a data center, BGP sessions with a ToR device could have
            parameters than BGP sessions between leaf and spine.</t>
          </list>In a data center fabric, it is often useful to know whether a
        peer is southbound (towards the servers) or northbound (towards the
        spine or super-spine), e.g., <xref format="default"
        target="bi-connected"/>. A potential requirement would be to determine
        this dynamically. One mechanism, without specifying all the details,
        might be for the ToR switches to be identified when installed and for
        the others switches in the fabric to determine their level based on
        the distance from the closest ToR switch.</t>

        <t>If there are multiple links between BGP speakers or the links
        between BGP speakers are unnumbered, it is also useful to be able to
        establish multi-hop sessions using the loopback addresses. This will
        often require the discovery protocol to install route(s) toward the
        potential peer loopback addresses prior to BGP session
        establishment.</t>

        <t>Finally, a simple BGP discovery protocol could also be used to
        establish a multi-hop session with one or more controllers by
        advertising connectivity to one or more controllers. However, once the
        multi-hop session traverses multiple nodes, it is bordering a
        distance-vector routing protocol and possibly this is not a good
        requirement for the discovery protocol.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="bgp-discovery" title="BGP Peer Discovery">
        <section anchor="bgp-ipv6-peering" title="BGP IPv6 Simplified Peering">
          <t>To conserve IPv4 address space and simplify operations, BGP-LS
          SPF routers in Clos/Fat Tree deployments can use IPv6 addresses as
          peer address. For IPv4 address families, IPv6 peering as specified
          in <xref format="default" target="RFC8950"/> can be deployed to
          avoid configuring IPv4 addresses on BGP- LS SPF router interfaces.
          When this is done, dynamic discovery mechanisms, as described in
          <xref format="default" target="bgp-discovery"/>, can used to learn
          the global or link-local IPv6 peer addresses and IPv4 addresses need
          not be configured on these interfaces. If IPv6 link-local peering is
          used, then configuration of IPv6 global addresses is also not
          required and these IPv6 link-local addresses must then be advertised
          in the BGP-LS Link Descriptor IPv6 Address TLV (262) <xref
          format="default" target="RFC9552"/>.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="config-checking"
                 title="BGP-LS SPF Topology Visibility for Management">
          <t>Irrespective of whether or not BGP-LS SPF is used for route
          calculation, the BGP-LS SPF route advertisements can be used to
          periodically construct the Clos/Fat Tree topology. This is
          especially useful in deployments where an Interior Gateway Protocol
          (IGP) is not used and the
          base BGP-LS routes <xref format="default" target="RFC9552"/> are not
          available. The resultant topology visibility can then be used for
          troubleshooting and consistency checking. This would normally be
          done on a central controller or other management tool which could
          also be used for fabric data path verification. The precise
          algorithms and heuristics, as well as the complete set of management
          applications is beyond the scope of this document.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="dci"
                 title="Data Center Interconnect (DCI) Applicability">
          <t>Since BGP-SPF is to be used for the routing underlay and DCI
          gateway boxes typically have direct or very simple connectivity, BGP
          external sessions would typically not include the BGP-LS SPF
          SAFI.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="other-env"
             title="Non-CLOS/FAT Tree Topology Applicability">
      <t>The BGP-SPF extensions <xref format="default"
      target="I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf"/> can be used in other topologies and
      avail the inherent convergence improvements. Additionally, sparse
      peering techniques may be utilized <xref format="default"
      target="peering"/>. However, determining whether to establish a BGP
      session is more complex and the heuristic described in <xref
      format="default" target="bi-connected"/> cannot be used. In such
      topologies, other techniques such as those described in <xref
      format="default" target="RFC9667"/> may be employed. One potential
      deployment would be the underlay for a Service Provider (SP) backbone
      where usage of a single protocol, i.e., BGP, is desired.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="non-transit-node" title="Non-Transit Node Capability">
      <t>In certain scenarios, a BGP node wishes to participate in the BGP-SPF
      topology but never be used for transit traffic. These include situations
      where a server wants to make application services available to clients
      homed at subnets throughout the BGP-SPF domain but does not ever want to
      be used as a router (i.e., carry transit traffic). Another specific
      instance is where a controller is resident on a server and direct
      connectivity to the controller is required throughout the entire domain.
      This can readily be accomplished using the BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute
      SPF Status TLV as described in <xref format="default"
      target="I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="policy" title="BGP Policy Applicability">
      <t>Existing BGP policy including aggregation and prefix filtering may be
      used in conjunction with the BGP-LS SPF SAFI. When aggregation policy is
      used, BGP-LS SPF prefix NLRI will be originated for the aggregate prefix
      and BGP-LS SPF prefix NLRI for components will be filtered.
      Additionally, link and node NLRI may be filtered and the abstracted by
      the prefix NLRI.</t>

      <t>When BGP policy is used with the BGP-LS SPF SAFI, BGP speakers in the
      BGP-LS SPF routing domain will not all have the same set of NLRI and
      will compute a different BGP local routing table. Consequently, care
      must be taken to assure routing is consistent and blackholes or routing
      loops do not ensue. However, this is no different than if tradition BGP
      routing using the IPv4 and IPv6 address families were used.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>No IANA updates are requested by this document.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>This document introduces no new security considerations above and
      beyond those already specified in the <xref format="default"
      target="RFC4271"/> and <xref format="default"
      target="I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>
        The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana, Yan Filyurin, Boris
        Hassanov, Stig Venaas, Ron Bonica, and Mallory Knodel for their review and
        comments.
      </t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf.xml'?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2328.xml'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4271.xml'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4760.xml'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4861.xml'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4957.xml'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5580.xml'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5925.xml'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7938.xml'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8177.xml'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8950.xml'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9552.xml'?>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9667.xml'?>

      <reference anchor="Clos" target="">
        <front>
          <title>A Study of Non-Blocking Switching Networks</title>

          <author initials="" surname="">
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date month="March" year="1953"/>
        </front>

        <seriesInfo name=""
                    value="The Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 32(2), DOI 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
