



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      P. Brissette
Request for Comments: 9786                               LA. Burdet, Ed.
Category: Standards Track                                  Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   B. Wen
                                                                 Comcast
                                                               E. Leyton
                                                        Verizon Wireless
                                                              J. Rabadan
                                                                   Nokia
                                                               June 2025


                    EVPN Port-Active Redundancy Mode

Abstract

   The Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) group technology enables
   establishing a logical link-aggregation connection with a redundant
   group of independent nodes.  The objective of MC-LAG is to enhance
   both network availability and bandwidth utilization through various
   modes of traffic load balancing.  RFC 7432 defines an EVPN-based MC-
   LAG with Single-Active and All-Active multihoming redundancy modes.
   This document builds on the existing redundancy mechanisms supported
   by EVPN and introduces a new active/standby redundancy mode, called
   'Port-Active'.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9786.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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
   (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Requirements Language
     1.2.  Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG)
   2.  Port-Active Redundancy Mode
     2.1.  Overall Advantages
     2.2.  Port-Active Redundancy Procedures
   3.  Designated Forwarder Algorithm to Elect per Port-Active PE
     3.1.  Capability Flag
     3.2.  Modulo-Based Algorithm
     3.3.  Highest Random Weight Algorithm
     3.4.  Preference-Based DF Election
     3.5.  AC-Influenced DF Election
   4.  Convergence Considerations
     4.1.  Primary/Backup Bits per Ethernet Segment
     4.2.  Backward Compatibility
   5.  Applicability
   6.  IANA Considerations
   7.  Security Considerations
   8.  References
     8.1.  Normative References
     8.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Contributors
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   EVPN [RFC7432] defines the All-Active and Single-Active redundancy
   modes.  All-Active redundancy provides per-flow load balancing for
   multihoming, while Single-Active redundancy ensures service carving
   where only one of the Provider Edge (PE) devices in a redundancy
   relationship is active per service.

   Although these two multihoming scenarios are widely utilized in data
   center and service provider access networks, there are cases where
   active/standby multihoming at the interface level is beneficial and
   necessary.  The primary consideration for this new mode of load
   balancing is the determinism of traffic forwarding through a specific
   interface rather than statistical per-flow load balancing across
   multiple PEs providing multihoming.  This determinism is essential
   for certain QoS features to function correctly.  Additionally, this
   mode ensures fast convergence during failure and recovery, which is
   expected by customers.

   This document defines the Port-Active redundancy mode as a new type
   of multihoming in EVPN and details how this mode operates and is
   supported via EVPN.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

1.2.  Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG)

   When a Customer Equipment (CE) device is multihomed to a set of PE
   nodes using the Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP)
   [IEEE_802.1AX_2014], the PEs must function as a single LACP entity
   for the Ethernet links to form and operate as a Link Aggregation
   Group (LAG).  To achieve this, the PEs connected to the same
   multihomed CE must synchronize LACP configuration and operational
   data among them.  Historically, the Inter-Chassis Communication
   Protocol (ICCP) [RFC7275] has been used for this synchronization.
   EVPN, as described in [RFC7432], covers the scenario where a CE is
   multihomed to multiple PE nodes, using a LAG to simplify the
   procedure significantly.  However, this simplification comes with
   certain assumptions:

   *  A CE device connected to EVPN multihoming PEs MUST have a single
      LAG with all its links connected to the EVPN multihoming PEs in a
      redundancy group.

   *  Identical LACP parameters MUST be configured on peering PEs,
      including the system ID, port priority, and port key.

   This document presumes proper LAG operation as specified in
   [RFC7432].  Issues resulting from deviations in the aforementioned
   assumptions, LAG misconfiguration, and miswiring detection across
   peering PEs are considered outside the scope of this document.

                    +-----+
                    | PE3 |
                    +-----+
                 +-----------+
                 |  MPLS/IP  |
                 |  CORE     |
                 +-----------+
               +-----+   +-----+
               | PE1 |   | PE2 |
               +-----+   +-----+
                  I1       I2
                   \       /
                    \     /
                     \   /
                     +---+
                     |CE1|
                     +---+

                         Figure 1: MC-LAG Topology

   Figure 1 shows an MC-LAG multihoming topology where PE1 and PE2 are
   part of the same redundancy group providing multihoming to CE1 via
   interfaces I1 and I2.  Interfaces I1 and I2 are members of a LAG
   running LACP.  The core, shown as IP or MPLS enabled, provides a wide
   range of L2 and L3 services.  MC-LAG multihoming functionality is
   decoupled from those services in the core, and it focuses on
   providing multihoming to the CE.  In Port-Active redundancy mode,
   only one of the two interfaces, I1 or I2, would be in forwarding, and
   the other interface would be in standby.  This also implies that all
   services on the active interface operate in active mode and all
   services on the standby interface operate in standby mode.

2.  Port-Active Redundancy Mode

2.1.  Overall Advantages

   The use of Port-Active redundancy in EVPN networks provides the
   following benefits:

   a.  It offers open-standards-based active/standby redundancy at the
       interface level rather than VLAN granularity [RFC7432].

   b.  It eliminates the need for ICCP and LDP [RFC5036] (e.g., Virtual
       eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348] or Segment
       Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) [RFC8402] may be used in the network).

   c.  This mode is agnostic of the underlying technology (MPLS, VXLAN,
       and SRv6) and associated services (Layer 2 (L2), Layer 3 (L3),
       Bridging, E-LINE, etc.)

   d.  It enables deterministic QoS over MC-LAG attachment circuits.

   e.  It is fully compliant with [RFC7432] and does not require any new
       protocol enhancements to existing EVPN RFCs.

   f.  It can leverage various Designated Forwarder (DF) election
       algorithms, such as modulo [RFC7432], Highest Random Weight (HRW)
       [RFC8584], etc.

   g.  It replaces legacy MC-LAG ICCP-based solutions and offers the
       following additional benefits:

       *  Efficient support for 1+N redundancy mode (with EVPN using BGP
          Route Reflector), whereas ICCP requires a full mesh of LDP
          sessions among PEs in the redundancy group.

       *  Fast convergence with mass withdraw is possible with EVPN,
          which has no equivalent in ICCP.

2.2.  Port-Active Redundancy Procedures

   The following steps outline the proposed procedure for supporting
   Port-Active redundancy mode with EVPN LAG:

   a.  The Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) MUST be assigned per access
       interface as described in [RFC7432].  The ESI can be auto-derived
       or manually assigned, and the access interface MAY be an L2 or L3
       interface.

   b.  The Ethernet Segment (ES) MUST be configured in Port-Active
       redundancy mode on peering PEs for the specified access
       interface.

   c.  When ESI is configured on an L3 interface, the ES route (Route
       Type-4) can be the only route exchanged by PEs in the redundancy
       group.

   d.  PEs in the redundancy group leverage the DF election defined in
       [RFC8584] to determine which PE keeps the port in active mode and
       which PE(s) keeps it in standby mode.  Although the DF election
       defined in [RFC8584] is per [ES, Ethernet Tag] granularity, the
       DF election is performed per [ES] in Port-Active redundancy mode.
       The details of this algorithm are described in Section 3.

   e.  The DF router MUST keep the corresponding access interface in an
       up and forwarding active state for that ES.

   f.  Non-DF routers SHOULD implement a bidirectional blocking scheme
       for all traffic comparable to the Single-Active redundancy mode
       described in [RFC7432], albeit across all VLANs.

       *  Non-DF routers MAY bring and keep the peering access interface
          attached to them in an operational down state.

       *  If the interface is running the LACP protocol, the non-DF PE
          MAY set the LACP state to Out of Sync (OOS) instead of setting
          the interface to a down state.  This approach allows for
          better convergence during the transition from standby to
          active mode.

   g.  The primary/backup bits of the EVPN Layer 2 Attributes (L2-Attr)
       Extended Community [RFC8214] SHOULD be used to achieve better
       convergence, as described in Section 4.1.

3.  Designated Forwarder Algorithm to Elect per Port-Active PE

   The ES routes operating in Port-Active redundancy mode are advertised
   with the new Port Mode Load-Balancing capability bit in the DF
   Election Extended Community as defined in [RFC8584].  Additionally,
   the ES associated with the port utilizes the existing Single-Active
   procedure and signals the Single-Active multihomed site redundancy
   mode along with the Ethernet A-D per-ES route (refer to Section 7.5
   of [RFC7432]).  Finally, The ESI label-based split-horizon procedures
   specified in Section 8.3 of [RFC7432] SHOULD be employed to prevent
   transient echo packets when L2 circuits are involved.

   Various algorithms for DF election are detailed in Sections 3.2 to
   3.5 for comprehensive understanding, although the choice of algorithm
   in this solution does not significantly impact complexity or
   performance compared to other redundancy modes.

3.1.  Capability Flag

   [RFC8584] defines a DF Election Extended Community and a bitmap (2
   octets) field to encode "DF Election Capabilities" to use with the DF
   election algorithm in the DF algorithm field:

   Bit 0:    D bit or 'Don't Preempt' bit, as described in [RFC9785].

   Bit 1:    AC-Influenced DF (AC-DF) election, as described in
             [RFC8584].

   Bit 3:    Time Synchronization, as described in [RFC9722].

                            1 1 1 1 1 1
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |D|A| |T| |P|                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Figure 2: Amended DF Election Capabilities in the DF Election
                             Extended Community

   This document defines the following value and extends the DF Election
   Capabilities bitmap field:

   Bit 5:    Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election.  This bit
             determines that the DF election algorithm SHOULD be
             modified to consider the port ES only and not the Ethernet
             Tags.

3.2.  Modulo-Based Algorithm

   The default DF election algorithm, or modulo-based algorithm, as
   described in [RFC7432] and updated by [RFC8584], is applied here at
   the granularity of ES only.  Given that the ES-Import Route Target
   extended community may be auto-derived and directly inherits its
   auto-derived value from ESI bytes 1-6, many operators differentiate
   ESIs primarily within these bytes.  Consequently, bytes 3-6 are
   utilized to determine the designated forwarder using the modulo-based
   DF assignment, achieving good entropy during modulo calculation
   across ESIs.

   Assuming a redundancy group of N PE nodes, the PE with ordinal i is
   designated as the DF for an <ES> when (Es mod N) = i, where Es
   represents bytes 3-6 of that ESI.

3.3.  Highest Random Weight Algorithm

   An application of Highest Random Weight (HRW) to EVPN DF election is
   defined in [RFC8584], and it MAY be used and signaled.  For Port-
   Active, this is modified to operate at the granularity of <ES> rather
   than per <ES, VLAN>.

   Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] describes computing a 32-bit Cyclic
   Redundancy Check (CRC) over the concatenation of Ethernet Tag (V) and
   ESI (Es).  For Port-Active redundancy mode, the Ethernet Tag is
   omitted from the CRC computation and all references to (V, Es) are
   replaced by (Es).

   The algorithm used to determine the DF and Backup Designated
   Forwarder (BDF) per Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] is repeated and
   summarized below using only (Es) in the computation:

   1.  DF(Es) = Si| Weight(Es, Si) >= Weight(Es, Sj), for all j.  In the
       case of a tie, choose the PE whose IP address is numerically the
       least.  Note that 0 <= i,j < number of PEs in the redundancy
       group.

   2.  BDF(Es) = Sk| Weight(Es, Si) >= Weight(Es, Sk), and Weight(Es,
       Sk) >= Weight(Es, Sj).  In the case of a tie, choose the PE whose
       IP address is numerically the least.

   Where:

   *  DF(Es) is defined to be the address Si (index i) for which
      Weight(Es, Si) is the highest; 0 <= i < N-1.

   *  BDF(Es) is defined as that PE with address Sk for which the
      computed Weight is the next highest after the Weight of the DF.  j
      is the running index from 0 to N-1; i and k are selected values.

3.4.  Preference-Based DF Election

   When the new capability 'Port Mode' is signaled, the preference-based
   DF election algorithm [RFC9785] is modified to consider the port only
   and not any associated Ethernet Tags.  The Port Mode capability is
   compatible with the 'Don't Preempt' bit and both may be signaled.
   When an interface recovers, a peering PE signaling the D bit enables
   non-revertive behavior at the port level.

3.5.  AC-Influenced DF Election

   The AC-DF bit defined in [RFC8584] MUST be set to 0 when advertising
   Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election capability (P=1).  When an AC
   (sub-interface) goes down, any resulting Ethernet A-D per EVI
   withdrawal does not influence the DF election.

   Upon receiving the AC-DF bit set (A=1) from a remote PE, it MUST be
   ignored when performing Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election.

4.  Convergence Considerations

   To enhance convergence during failure and recovery when the Port-
   Active redundancy mode is employed, prior synchronization between
   peering PEs may be beneficial.

   The Port-Active mode poses a challenge to synchronization since the
   "standby" port may be in a down state.  Transitioning a "standby"
   port to an up state and stabilizing the network requires time.  For
   Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) and L3 services, prior
   synchronization of ARP / Neighbor Discovery (ND) caches is
   recommended.  Additionally, associated Virtual Routing and Forwarding
   (VRF) tables may need to be synchronized.  For L2 services,
   synchronization of MAC tables may be considered.

   Moreover, for members of a LAG running LACP, the ability to set the
   "standby" port to an "out-of-sync" state, also known as "warm-
   standby," can be utilized to improve convergence times.

4.1.  Primary/Backup Bits per Ethernet Segment

   The EVPN L2-Attr Extended Community defined in [RFC8214] SHOULD be
   advertised in the Ethernet A-D per ES route to enable fast
   convergence.

   Only the P and B bits of the Control Flags field in the L2-Attr
   Extended Community are relevant to this document, specifically in the
   context of Ethernet A-D per ES routes:

   *  When advertised, the L2-Attr Extended Community SHALL have only
      the P or B bits set in the Control Flags field, and all other bits
      and fields MUST be zero.

   *  A remote PE receiving the optional L2-Attr Extended Community in
      Ethernet A-D per ES routes SHALL consider only the P and B bits
      and ignore other values.

   For the L2-Attr Extended Community sent and received in Ethernet A-D
   per EVI routes used in [RFC8214], [RFC7432], and [RFC9744]:

   *  P and B bits received SHOULD be considered overridden by "parent"
      bits when advertised in the Ethernet A-D per ES.

   *  Other fields and bits of the extended community are used according
      to the procedures outlined in the referenced documents.

   By adhering to these procedures, the network ensures proper handling
   of the L2-Attr Extended Community to maintain robust and efficient
   convergence across Ethernet Segments.

4.2.  Backward Compatibility

   Implementations that comply with [RFC7432] or [RFC8214] only (i.e.,
   implementations that predate this specification) and that receive an
   L2-Attr Extended Community in Ethernet A-D per ES routes will ignore
   it and continue to use the default path resolution algorithms of the
   two specifications above:

   *  The L2-Attr Extended Community in Ethernet A-D per ES route is
      ignored.

   *  The remote ESI Label Extended Community [RFC7432] signals the
      Single-Active redundancy mode (Section 3).

   *  The remote Media Access Control (MAC) and/or Ethernet A-D per EVI
      routes are unchanged; the P and B bits in the L2-Attr Extended
      Community in Ethernet A-D per EVI routes are used.

5.  Applicability

   A prevalent deployment scenario involves providing L2 or L3 services
   on PE devices that offer multihoming capabilities.  The services may
   include any L2 EVPN solutions such as EVPN Virtual Private Wire
   Service (VPWS) or standard EVPN as defined in [RFC7432].
   Additionally, L3 services may be provided within a VPN context, as
   specified in [RFC4364], or within a global routing context.  When a
   PE provides first-hop routing, EVPN IRB may also be deployed on the
   PEs.  The mechanism outlined in this document applies to PEs
   providing L2 and/or L3 services where active/standby redundancy at
   the interface level is required.

   An alternative solution to the one described in this document is MC-
   LAG with ICCP active/standby redundancy, as detailed in [RFC7275].
   However, ICCP requires LDP to be enabled as a transport for ICCP
   messages.  There are numerous scenarios where LDP is not necessary,
   such as deployments utilizing VXLAN or SRv6.  The solution using
   EVPN, as described in this document, does not mandate the use of LDP
   or ICCP and remains independent of the underlay encapsulation.

6.  IANA Considerations

   Per this document, IANA has added the following entry to the "DF
   Election Capabilities" registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol
   (BGP) Extended Communities" registry group:

       +=====+=========================================+===========+
       | Bit | Name                                    | Reference |
       +=====+=========================================+===========+
       | 5   | Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election | RFC 9786  |
       +-----+-----------------------------------------+-----------+

                                  Table 1

7.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations described in [RFC7432] and [RFC8584] are
   applicable to this document.

   Introducing a new capability necessitates unanimity among PEs.
   Without consensus on the new DF election procedures and Port Mode,
   the DF election algorithm defaults to the procedures outlined in
   [RFC8584] and [RFC7432].This fallback behavior could be exploited by
   an attacker who modifies the configuration of one PE within the ES.
   Such manipulation could force all PEs in the ES to revert to the
   default DF election algorithm and capabilities.  In this scenario,
   the PEs may be subject to unfair load balancing, service disruption,
   and potential issues such as traffic loss or duplicate traffic, as
   mentioned in the security sections of those documents.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [IEEE_802.1AX_2014]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks -- Link Aggregation", IEEE 802-1ax-2014,
              DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.7055197, 5 March 2015,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7055197>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8214]  Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J.
              Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet
              VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>.

   [RFC8584]  Rabadan, J., Ed., Mohanty, S., Ed., Sajassi, A., Drake,
              J., Nagaraj, K., and S. Sathappan, "Framework for Ethernet
              VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility",
              RFC 8584, DOI 10.17487/RFC8584, April 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8584>.

   [RFC9722]  Brissette, P., Sajassi, A., Burdet, LA., Ed., Drake, J.,
              and J. Rabadan, "Fast Recovery for EVPN Designated
              Forwarder Election", RFC 9722, DOI 10.17487/RFC9722, May
              2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9722>.

   [RFC9785]  Rabadan, J., Ed., Sathappan, S., Lin, W., Drake, J., and
              A. Sajassi, "Preference-Based EVPN Designated Forwarder
              (DF) Election", RFC RFC9785, DOI 10.17487/RFC9785, June
              2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9785>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
              "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
              October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.

   [RFC7275]  Martini, L., Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Bocci, M.,
              Matsushima, S., and T. Nadeau, "Inter-Chassis
              Communication Protocol for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
              (L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE) Redundancy", RFC 7275,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7275, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7275>.

   [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
              L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
              eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
              Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
              Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

   [RFC9744]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Brissette, P., Uttaro, J., Drake, J.,
              Boutros, S., and J. Rabadan, "EVPN Virtual Private Wire
              Service (VPWS) Flexible Cross-Connect (FXC) Service",
              RFC 9744, DOI 10.17487/RFC9744, March 2025,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9744>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors thank Anoop Ghanwani for his comments and suggestions and
   Stephane Litkowski and Gunter Van de Velde for their careful reviews.

Contributors

   In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
   people have also contributed to this document:

   Ali Sajassi
   Cisco Systems
   United States of America
   Email: sajassi@cisco.com


   Samir Thoria
   Cisco Systems
   United States of America
   Email: sthoria@cisco.com


Authors' Addresses

   Patrice Brissette
   Cisco Systems
   Ottawa ON
   Canada
   Email: pbrisset@cisco.com


   Luc André Burdet (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   Canada
   Email: lburdet@cisco.com


   Bin Wen
   Comcast
   United States of America
   Email: Bin_Wen@comcast.com


   Edward Leyton
   Verizon Wireless
   United States of America
   Email: edward.leyton@verizonwireless.com


   Jorge Rabadan
   Nokia
   United States of America
   Email: jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
