Subject: [RADIR] current version of problem statement

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:21:15 -0400

Per today's call, here is the current version of the document.

Action items:

- this mail (with current document)
- work with Marla to get strawman  text for Section 5.5
- I'll come up with strawman text for Section 5 and post
- work on getting a version out that can be sent to RAM list. This may
  mean leaving out section 5.5 for now.
  
Thomas

Network Working Group                                          T. Narten
Internet-Draft                                              June 5, 2007
Intended status: Informational
Expires: December 7, 2007

                Routing and Addressing Problem Statement
               draft-narten-ram-problem-statement-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 7, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

Abstract

   Problem statement for the route scaling problem.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terms and Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Technical Aspects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Business Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Alignment of Incentives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.4.  Table Growth Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Pressures To Deaggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.1.  Traffic Engineering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.2.  Multihoming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.3.  End Site Renumbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.4.  Acquisitions and Mergers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.5.  RIR Address Allocation Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Pressures on Routing Update Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.1.  Interconnection Richness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.2.  Multihoming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.3.  Traffic Engineering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.4.  Questionable Operational Practices?  . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.5.  RIR IPv6 Policy is Not Balanced  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.1.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.2.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

1.  Introduction

   Prompted in part by the recent IAB workshop on Routing & Addressing
   [RAWS-REPORT], there has been a renewed focus on the problem of
   routing scalability within the Internet.  The issue itself is not
   new, with discussions dating back at least 10-15 years [GSE,
   ROAD,...].

   This document attempts to define the "problem", with the aim of
   describing the essential aspects so that the community has a way of
   evaluating whether proposed solutions actually address or impact the
   underlying problem or "pain points" in a significant manner.

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

2.  Terms and Definitions

   Default Free Zone (DFZ):  That part of the Internet where routers
      maintain full routing tables.  Many routers maintain only partial
      routes, having explicit routes for "local" destinations plus a
      "default" for everything else.  For such routers, building and
      maintaining routing tables is relatively simple because the amount
      of information learned and maintained can be small.  In contrast,
      routers in the DFZ maintain complete information about all
      reachable destinations, which currently number in the hundreds of
      the thousands of entries.

   Routing Information Base (RIB):  The data structures a router
      maintains that hold the information about destinations (i.e.,
      prefixes) and paths to those destinations.  The amount of state
      information maintained is dependent on a number of factors,
      including the number of individual prefixes, the number of BGP
      peers, the number of distinct paths, etc.  The RIB may also
      include information about unused ("backup") paths for a given
      prefix as well as the active path(s) used for forwarding.  The RIB
      is typically constructed from specialized hardware components,
      which have different (and higher) cost properties than the
      hardware typically used to maintain the FIB.

   Forwarding Information Base (FIB):  The actual table used while
      making forwarding decisions for individual packets.  The FIB is a
      compact, optimized subset of the RIB, containing only the
      information needed to actually forward individual packets, i.e.,
      mapping a packet's destination address to an outgoing interface
      and next-hop.  The FIB only stores information about paths
      actually used for forwarding; it typically does not store
      information about backup paths.  The FIB is typically constructed
      from specialized hardware components, which have different cost
      properties compared to the hardware typically used to maintain the
      FIB.

   Trafic Engineering (TE):  In this document, "traffic engineering"
      refers to the current practice of inbound, inter-AS traffic
      engineering.  This is accomplished by placing more specific routes
      in the routing table and/ or increasing the frequency of routing
      updates in order to control inbound traffic at the boundary of an
      Autonomous system (AS).

   Provider Aggregatable (PA) address space  Address space that an end
      site obtains from an ISP's address block.  The main benefit of PA
      address space is that reachability to all of a provider's
      customers can be achieved by advertising a single "provider
      aggregate" address prefix into the DFZ, rather than needing to

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

      announce individual prefixes for each customer.  An important
      disadvantages is a requirement that the customer return those
      addresses (and renumber) when changing providers.

   Provider Independent (PI) address space  Address space that an end
      site obtains directly from a Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for
      numbering its devices.  The main advantage (for the end site) is
      that it does not have to return those addresses (and renumber its
      site) upon changing providers.  However, PI address blocks are not
      aggregatable and thus each individual PI assignment results in an
      individual prefix being injected into the DFZ.

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

3.  Background

   Within the DFZ, both the size of the RIB and FIB and the overall
   update rate have historically increased at a greater than linear
   rate.  Specifically:

   o  The number of individual prefixes that are propagated into the DFZ
      is increasing at a super-linear rate.  The reasons behind this
      increase are varied and discussed below.  Because each individual
      prefix requires resources to process, any increase in the number
      of prefixes requires a corresponding increase in resources.  Each
      individual prefix that appears in routing updates requires state
      in the RIB (and possibly the FIB) and consumes processing
      resources when updates related to the prefix are received.

   o  The overall rate of routing updates is increasing, requiring
      routers to process updates at an increased rate or converge more
      slowly if they cannot.  The rate increase is driven by a number of
      factors (discussed below).  It should be noted that the overall
      routing update rate is dependent on two factors: the number of
      individual prefixes and the mean per-prefix update rate.  While it
      is clear that the overall number of prefixes is increasing super-
      linearly, further study is needed to determine whether the mean
      per-prefix update rate is increasing as well [need reference].

   This super linear growth presents a scalability challenge for current
   and/or future routers.  There are two aspects to the challenge.  The
   first one is purely technical: can we build routers (i.e., hardware &
   software) actually capable handling the load, both today and going
   forward?  The second challenge is one of economics: is the cost of
   developing, building and deploying such routers economically
   sustainable, given current and realistic business models that govern
   how ISPs operate as businesses?

   Finally, the scalability challenge is aggravated by the lack of any
   limiting architectural upper-bound on the growth rate and a weakening
   of traditional social constraints on the growth rate that have helped
   restrain growth so far.  Going forward, there is considerable
   uncertainty whether future growth rates will continue to be
   sufficiently constrained so that the routing load can be handled by
   routers available at that time.

3.1.  Technical Aspects

   The technical challenge of building routers relates to the resources
   needed to process a larger and increasingly dynamic amount of routing
   information.  More specifically, routers must maintain an increasing
   amount of associated state information in the RIB, they must be

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

   capable of populating a growing FIB, they must perform forwarding
   lookups at line rates (while accessing the FIB) and they must be able
   to initialize the RIB and FIB at boot time.  Moreover, this activity
   must take place within acceptable time frames (i.e., the overall
   system must converge and stabilize within an acceptable time period).
   Finally, the hardware needed to achieve this cannot have unreasonable
   power consumption or cooling demands.

3.2.  Business Aspects

   Even if it is technically possible to build routers capable of
   meeting the technical and operational requirements, it is also
   necessary that the overall cost to build, maintain and deploy such
   equipment meet reasonable business expectations.  ISPs, after all,
   are run as businesses.  As such, they must be able to plan, develop
   and construct viable business plans that provide an acceptable return
   on investment (i.e., one acceptable to investors).

   While the IETF does not (and cannot) concern itself with business
   models or the profitability of the ISP community, the cost of running
   the routing subsystem as a whole is directly influenced by the
   routing architecture of the Internet, which clearly is the IETF's
   business.  Further, because cost implications are part of each and
   every engineering decision, controlling or limiting the overall cost
   of running the routing subsystem (through architectural decisions) is
   part of the IETF's fundamental charter.  Consequently, having the
   IETF continue with an architectural model that places unbounded cost
   requirements on critical infrastructure represents an undue risk to
   the future of the Internet as a whole.

   One aspect of planning concerns the assumptions made about the
   expected usable lifetime of purchased equipment.  Businesses
   typically expect that once deployed, equipment can remain in use for
   some projected amount of time (e.g., 3-5 years).  Upgrading equipment
   earlier than planned is more easily justified (as an unplanned
   expense) when a new business opportunity is enabled as a result of an
   upgrade.  For example, an upgrade might be justified by an ability to
   support increased traffic or an increase in the number of customer
   connections, etc., where the upgrade can translate into increased
   revenue.  In contrast, it is more difficult to justify unplanned
   upgrades in the absence of corresponding customer benefit (and
   revenue) to cover the upgrade cost.  It is generally desired that
   deployed equipment remain usable over its planned lifetime.  An
   increase in the resources required to support larger or more dynamic
   routing tables is viewed as a sort of "unfunded mandate", in that
   customers do not expect to have to pay more just to continue
   retaining the same level of service as before, i.e., having all
   destinations be reachable as was the case in the past.  This

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

   undermining of planning is particularly problematic when the increase
   in routing demand originates external to the ISP, and the ISP has no
   way to control or limit it (e.g., the increased demand comes from
   being part of the DFZ).

   From a business perspective, it is desirable to maintain or increase
   the useful lifespan of routing equipment, by improving the scaling
   properties of the routing and addressing system.

3.3.  Alignment of Incentives

   Today's growth pattern is influenced by the scaling properties of the
   current system.  If the system had better scaling properties, we
   would be able support and enable more widespread usage of certain
   applications such as multihoming and traffic engineering.  Currently
   the system does not allow everyone to multihome, as there are some
   barriers to multihoming due to operational practices that try to
   strike a balance between the amount of multihoming and preservation
   of routing slots.  It is desirable that the routing and addressing
   system exert the least possible back pressure on end user
   applications and deployment scenarios, to enable the broadest
   possible use of the Internet.

   One aspect of the current architecture is a misalignment of cost and
   benefit.  Injecting individual prefixes into the DFZ creates a small
   amount of "pain" for those routers that are part of the DFZ.  Each
   individual prefix has a small cost, but the aggregate sum of all
   prefixes is significant, and leads to the core problem at hand.
   Those that inject prefixes into the DFZ do not generally pay the cost
   associated with the individual prefix -- it is carried by the routers
   in the DFZ.  But the originator of the prefix receives the benefit.
   Hence, there is misalignment of incentives between those receiving
   the benefit and those bearing the cost of providing the benefit.
   Consequently, incentives are not aligned properly to produce a
   natural balance between the cost and benefit of maintaining routing
   tables.

3.4.  Table Growth Targets

   A precise target for the rate of table size or routing update
   increase that should reasonably be supported going forward is
   difficult to state in quantitative terms.  One target might simply be
   to keep the growth at a stable, but manageable growth rate so that
   the increased router functionality can roughly be covered by
   improvements in technology (e.g., increased processor speeds,
   reductions in component costs, etc.).

   However, it is highly desirable to significantly bring down (or even

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

   reverse) the growth rate in order to meet user expectations for
   specific services.  As discussed below, there are numerous pressures
   to deaggregate routes.  These pressures come from users seeking
   specific, tangible service improvements that provide "business-
   critical" value.  Today, some of those services simply cannot be
   supported to the degree that future demand can be reasonably be
   expected because of the negative implications on DFZ table growth.
   Hence, valuable services are available to some, but not all potential
   customers.  As the need for such services becomes increasingly
   important, it will be difficult to deny such services to large
   numbers of users, especially when some "lucky" sites are able to use
   the service and others are not.

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

4.  Pressures To Deaggregate

   Note: the remainder of this document is in rough outline form and
   remains to be completed.  We decided to defer completing this section
   in order to focus on the problem statement in Section 3 first.

   There are a number of factors behind the increase in the quantity of
   prefixes appearing in the DFZ.  From a theoretical perspective, the
   number of prefixes in the DFZ can be minimized through aggressive
   aggregation [RFC4632].  In practice, strict adherence to the CIDR
   principles is difficult.

4.1.  Traffic Engineering

   Traffic engineering (TE) is the act of arranging for certain Internet
   traffic to use or avoid certain network paths (that is, TE attempts
   to place traffic where capacity exists, or where some set of
   parameters of the path is more favorable to the traffic being placed
   there).

   Outbound TE is typically accomplished by using internal IGP metrics
   to choose the shortest exit for two equally good BGP paths.
   Adjustment of IGP metrics controls how much traffic flows over
   different internal paths to specific exit points for two equally good
   BGP paths.  Additional traffic can be moved by applying some policy
   to depreference or filter certain routes from specific BGP peers.
   Because outbound TE is achieved via a site's own IGP, outbound TE
   does not impact routing outside of a site.

   Inbound TE is performed by announcing a more specific route along the
   preferred path that "catches" the desired traffic and channels it
   away from the path it would take otherwise (i.e., via a larger
   aggregate).  At the BGP level, if the address range requiring TE is a
   portion of a larger address aggregate, network operators implementing
   TE are forced to de-aggregate otherwise aggregatable prefixes in
   order to steer the traffic of the particular address range to
   specific paths.

   TE is performed by both ISPs and customer networks, for three primary
   reasons:

   o  First, to match traffic with network capacity, or to spread the
      traffic load across multiple links (frequently referred to as
      "load balancing").

   o  Second, to reduce costs by shifting traffic to lower cost paths or
      by balancing the incoming and outgoing traffic volume to maintain
      appropriate peering relations.

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

   o  Finally, TE is sometimes deployed to enforce certain forms of
      policy (e.g., government traffic may not be permitted to transit
      through other countries).

   TE impacts route scaling in two ways.  First, inbound TE can result
   in additional prefixes being advertised into the DFZ.  Second,
   Network operators usually achieve traffic engineering by "tweaking"
   the processing of routing protocols to achieve desired results, e.g.,
   by sending updates at an increased rate.  In addition, some devices
   attempt to automatically find better paths and then advertise those
   preferences through BGP, though the extent to which such tools are in
   use and contributing to the routing load is unknown.

   In today's highly competitive environment, providers require TE to
   maintain good performance and low cost in their networks.

4.2.  Multihoming

   Multihoming refers generically to the case in which a site is served
   by more than one ISP [RFC4116].  Multihoming is used to provide
   backup paths (i.e., to remove single points of failure), to achieve
   load-sharing, and to achieve policy or performance objectives (e.g.,
   to use lower latency or higher bandwidth paths).  Multihoming may
   also be a requirement due to contract or law.

   Multihoming can be accomplished using either PI or PA address space.
   A multihomed site advertises its site prefix into the routing system
   of each of its providers.  For PI space, the site's PI space is used,
   and the prefix is propagated throughout the DFZ.  For PA space, the
   PA site prefix may (or may not) be propagated throughout the DFZ,
   with the details depending on what type of multihoming is sought.

   If the site uses PA space, the PA site prefix allocated from one of
   its provider's (whom we'll call the Primary Provider) is used.  The
   PA site prefix will be aggregatable by the Primary Provider but not
   the others.  To achieve the same level of multihoming as described in
   the case with PI addresses above, the PA site prefix will need to be
   injected into the routing system of all of its ISPs, and throughout
   the DFZ.  In addition, because of the longest-match forwarding rule,
   the Primary Provider must also advertise and propagate the individual
   PA site prefix; otherwise, the path via the primary provider (as
   advertised via the aggregate) will never be selected due to the
   longest match rule.  For the type of multihoming described here,
   where the PA site prefix is propagated throughout the DFZ, the use of
   PI vs. PA space has no impact on the load placed on the routing
   system.  The increased load is due entirely to the need to propagate
   the site's individual prefix into the DFZ.

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

   The demand for multihoming is increasing [XXX do we have data to
   cite?].  The increase in multihoming demand is due to the increased
   reliance on the Internet for mission and business-critical
   applications (where businesses require 7x24 availability for their
   services) and the general decrease in cost of Internet connectivity.

4.3.  End Site Renumbering

   It is generally considered painful and costly to renumber a site,
   with the cost proportional to the size and complexity of the network
   and most importantly, to the degree that addresses are stored in
   places that are difficult in practice to update.  When using PA
   space, a site must renumber when changing providers.  Larger sites
   object to this cost and view the requirement to renumber akin to
   being held "hostage" to the provider from which PA space was
   obtained.  Consequently, many sites desire PI space.  Having PI space
   provides independence from any one provider and makes it easier to
   switch providers (for whatever reason).  However, each individual PI
   prefix must be propagated throughout the DFZ and adds to the DFZ
   routing load.

   It should be noted that while larger sites may also want to
   multihome, the cost of renumbering drives some sites to seek PI
   space, even though they do not multihome.

4.4.  Acquisitions and Mergers

   Acquisitions and mergers take place for business reasons, which
   usually have little to do with the network topologies of the impacted
   organizations.  When a business sells off part of itself, the assets
   may include networks, attached devices, etc.  A company that
   purchases or merges with other organizations may quickly find that
   its network assets are numbered out of many different and
   unaggragatable address blocks.  Consequently, individual
   organizations may find themselves unable to announce a single prefix
   for all of their networks without renumbering a significant portion
   of its network.

   Likewise, selling off part of a business may involve selling part of
   a network as well, resulting in the fragmentation of one address
   block into two (or more) smaller blocks.  Because the resultant
   blocks belong to different companies, they can no longer be
   advertised by a single aggregate and the resultant fragments may need
   to be advertised individually into the DFZ.

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

4.5.  RIR Address Allocation Policies

   ISPs and multihoming end sites obtain address space from RIRs.  As an
   entity grows, it needs additional address space and requests more
   from its RIR.  In order to be able to obtain additional address space
   that can be aggregated with the previously-allocated address space,
   the RIR must keep a reserve of space that the requester can grow into
   in the future.  But any reserved address space cannot be used for any
   other purpose.  Hence, there is an inherent conflict between holding
   address space in reserve to allow for the future growth of an
   existing allocation and using address space efficiently.  In IPv4,
   there has been a heavy emphasis on conserving address space and
   obtaining efficient utilization.  Consequently, insufficient space
   has been held in reserve to allow for the growth of all sites and
   some allocations have had to me made from discontiguous address
   blocks.  For IPv6, a greater emphasis has been placed on aggregation.

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

5.  Pressures on Routing Update Rate

5.1.  Interconnection Richness

5.2.  Multihoming

5.3.  Traffic Engineering

5.4.  Questionable Operational Practices?

5.5.  RIR IPv6 Policy is Not Balanced

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

6.  Problem Statement

   There is a need for an approach to routing and addressing that:

   1.  Reduces the growth rate of the DFZ routing load, where the
       routing load is dependent on:

       A.  The number of individual prefixes in the DFZ

       B.  The update rate associated with those prefixes.

   2.  Allows any end site wishing to multihome to do so

   3.  Supports ISP and enterprise TE needs

   4.  Allows end sites to switch providers while minimizing
       configuration changes to internal end site devices.

   5.  Provides meaningful benefits to the parties who bear the costs of
       deploying and maintaining the technology.

   The problem statement in this document has purposefully been scoped
   to focus on the growth of the routing update function of the DFZ.
   Other problems that may seem related, but do not directly impact the
   route scaling problem are not considered to be "in scope" at this
   time.  For example, Mobile IP [[RFC2002], RFC3775] and NEMO [RFC3963]
   place no pressures on the routing system.  They are layered on top of
   existing IP, using tunneling to forward packets via a care-of
   addresses.  Hence, "improving" these technologies (e.g., by having
   them leverage a solution to the multihoming problem), while a
   laudable goal, is not considered a part of this problem statement.

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

7.  Security Considerations

   None.

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

8.  Acknowledgments

   The initial version of this document was produced by the Routing and
   Addressing Directorate (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/radir.html).
   The membership of the directorate at that time included Marla
   Azinger, Vince Fuller, Vijay Gill, Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark,
   Jason Schiller, Peter Schoenmaker, and John Scudder.

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

9.  References

9.1.  Informative References

   [RFC2002]  Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002,
              October 1996.

9.2.  References

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

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

Author's Address

   Thomas Narten (Editor)

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft  Routing and Addressing Problem Statement       June 2007

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   [email-masked].

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Narten                  Expires December 7, 2007               [Page 20]


_______________________________________________
RADIR mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir