TCP Maintenance and Minor F. Gont
Extensions (tcpm) UTN/FRH
Internet-Draft August 8, 2006
Intended status: Informational
Expires: February 9, 2007
TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors
draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-01.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 February 9, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document discusses the problem of long delays between connection
establishment attempts that may arise in a number of scenarios,
including one in which dual stack nodes that have IPv6 enabled by
default are deployed in IPv4 or mixed IPv4 and IPv6 environments.
Additionally, this document describes a modification to TCP's
reaction to soft errors that has been implemented in a variety of
TCP/IP stacks to help overcome this problem.
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Error Handling in TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Reaction to Hard Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Reaction to Soft Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Problems that may arise from TCP's reaction to soft errors . . 5
3.1. General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Problems that may arise with Dual Stack IPv6 on by
Default . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. A workaround for long delays between
connection-establishment attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Possible drawbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Non-deterministic transient network failures . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Deterministic transient network failures . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Other possible solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.1. A more conservative approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.2. Asynchronous Application Notification . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.3. Issuing several connection requests in parallel . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Change log (to be removed before publication of
the document as an RFC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.1. Changes from draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-00 . . . . . 12
B.2. Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-02 . . . . . 12
B.3. Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-01 . . . . . 12
B.4. Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-00 . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
1. Introduction
The handling of network failures can be separated into two different
actions: fault isolation and fault recovery. Fault isolation
consists of the actions that hosts and routers take to determine that
there is a network failure. Fault recovery, on the other hand,
consists of the actions that hosts and routers perform to survive a
network failure.[RFC0816]
In the Internet architecture, the Internet Control Message Protocol
(ICMP) [RFC0792] is used to perform the fault isolation function,
that is, to report network error conditions to the hosts sending
datagrams over the network.
When a host is signalled of a network error, there is still the issue
of what to do to let communication survive, if possible, the network
failure. The fault recovery strategy may depend on the type of
network failure taking place, and the time the error condition is
detected.
This document analyzes the fault recovery strategy of TCP [RFC0793],
and the problems that may arise due to TCP's policy of reaction to
soft errors. Among others, it analyzes the problems that may arise
in scenarios where dual stack nodes that have IPv6 enabled by default
are deployed in IPv4 or mixed IPv4 and IPv6 environments.
Additionally, it documents a modification to TCP's policy of reaction
to ICMP messages indicating "soft errors", that has been implemented
in a variety of TCP/IP stacks to help overcome the problems discussed
in this document.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Error Handling in TCP
Network errors can be divided into soft and hard errors. Soft errors
are considered to be transient network failures, which are likely to
be solved in the near term. Hard errors, on the other hand, are
considered to reflect permanent network error conditions, which are
unlikely to be solved in the near future.
Therefore, it may make sense for the fault recovery action to be
different depending on the type of error being detected.
When there is a network failure that's not signalled to the sending
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
host, such as a gateway corrupting packets, TCP's fault recovery
action is to repeatedly retransmit the segment until either it gets
acknowledged, or the connection times out. In case the connection
times out before the segment is acknowledged, TCP won't be able to
provide more information than the timeout condition.
In case a host does receive an ICMP error message referring to an
ongoing TCP connection, the IP layer will pass this message up to
corresponding TCP instance to raise awareness of the network failure.
[RFC1122]
TCP's reaction to ICMP messages will depend on the type of error
being signalled.
2.1. Reaction to Hard Errors
When receiving a segment with the RST bit set, or an ICMP error
message indicating a hard error condition, TCP will simply abort the
corresponding connection, regardless of the state the connection is
in.
The "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers" RFC
[RFC1122] states, in section 4.2.3.9, that TCP SHOULD abort
connections when receiving ICMP error messages that indicate hard
errors. This policy is based on the premise that, as hard errors
indicate network error conditions that won't change in the near term,
it will not be possible for TCP to recover from this type of network
failure.
2.2. Reaction to Soft Errors
If an ICMP error message is received that indicates a soft error, TCP
will just record this information [Stevens], and repeatedly
retransmit the data until either they get acknowledged or the
connection times out.
The "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers" RFC
[RFC1122] states, in section 4.2.3.9, that TCP MUST NOT abort
connections when receiving ICMP error messages that indicate soft
errors. This policy is based on the premise that, as soft errors are
transient network failures that will hopefully be solved in the near
term, one of the retransmissions will succeed.
In case the connection timer expires, and an ICMP error message has
been received before the timeout, TCP will use this information to
provide the user with a more specific error message. [Stevens]
This handling of soft errors exploits the valuable feature of the
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
Internet that for many network failures, the network can be
dynamically reconstructed without any disruption of the endpoints.
3. Problems that may arise from TCP's reaction to soft errors
3.1. General Discussion
Even though TCP's fault recovery strategy in the presence of soft
errors allows for TCP connections to survive transient network
failures, there are scenarios in which this policy may cause
undesirable effects.
For example, consider the case in which an application on a local
host is trying to communicate with a destination whose name resolves
to several IP addresses. The application on the local host will try
to establish a connection with the destination host, cycling through
the list of IP addresses, until one succeeds [RFC1123]. Suppose that
some (but not all) of the addresses in the returned list are
permanently unreachable. If they are the first IP addresses in the
list, the application will usually try to use these addresses first.
As discussed in Section 2, this unreachability condition may or may
not be signalled to the sending host. If the local TCP is not
signalled concerning the error condition, there is very little that
can be done other than repeatedly retransmit the SYN segment, and
wait for the existing timeout mechanism in TCP, or an application
timeout, to be triggered. However, even if unreachability is
signalled by some intermediate router to the local TCP by means of an
ICMP error message, the local TCP will record the error message and
will still repeatedly retransmit the SYN segment until the connection
timer expires. The "Requirements For Internet Hosts -- Communication
Layers" RFC [RFC1122] states that this timer MUST be large enough to
provide retransmission of the SYN segment for at least 3 minutes.
This would mean that the application on the local host would spend
several minutes for each unreachable address it uses for trying to
establish a TCP connection. These long delays between connection
establishment attempts would be inappropriate for interactive
applications such as the web. [Shneiderman] [Thadani]
3.2. Problems that may arise with Dual Stack IPv6 on by Default
Another scenario in which this type of problem may occur is that
where dual stack nodes that have IPv6 enabled by default are deployed
in IPv4 or mixed IPv4 and IPv6 environments, and the IPv6
connectivity is non-existent [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault].
As discussed in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault], there are two
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
possible variants of this scenario, which differ in whether the lack
of connectivity is signalled to the sending node, or not.
In cases where packets sent to a destination are silently dropped and
no ICMPv6 [RFC4443] errors are generated, there is very little that
can be done other than waiting for the existing connection timeout
mechanism in TCP, or an application timeout, to be triggered.
In cases where a node has no default routers and Neighbor
Unreachability Detection (NUD) fails for destinations assumed to be
on-link, or where firewalls or other systems that enforce scope
boundaries send ICMPv6 errors, the sending node will be signalled of
the unreachability problem. However, as discussed in Section 2.2,
TCP implementations will not abort connections when receiving ICMP
error messages that indicate soft errors.
4. A workaround for long delays between connection-establishment
attempts
As discussed in Section 1, it may make sense for the fault recovery
action to depend not only on the type of error being reported, but
also on the state of the connection against which the error is
reported. For example, one could infer that when an error arrives in
response to opening a new connection, it is probably caused by
opening the connection improperly, rather than by a transient network
failure. [RFC0816]
A variety of TCP/IP stacks have modified TCP's reaction to soft
errors, to make it abort a connection in the SYN-SENT or the SYN-
RECEIVED state if it receives an ICMP "Destination Unreachable"
message that indicates a soft error about that connection.
The "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers" RFC
[RFC1122] states, in section 4.2.3.9., that the ICMP "Destination
Unreachable" messages that indicate soft errors are ICMP codes 0
(network unreachable), 1 (host unreachable), and 5 (source route
failed). Even though ICMPv6 didn't exist when [RFC1122] was written,
one could extrapolate the concept of soft errors to ICMPv6 Type 1
Codes 0 (no route to destination) and 3 (address unreachable).
It must be noted that this behaviour violates section 4.2.3.9 of
[RFC1122], since it states that as these Unreachable messages
indicate soft error conditions, TCP MUST NOT abort the corresponding
connection.
This workaround has been implemented, for example, in the Linux
kernel since version 2.0.0 (released in 1996) [Linux]. Appendix A.1
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
discusses a more conservative approach than the one introduced in
this section.
5. Possible drawbacks
The following subsections discuss some of the possible drawbacks
arising from the use of the modification to TCP's reaction to soft
errors described in Section 4.
5.1. Non-deterministic transient network failures
In case there's a transient network failure affecting all of the
addresses returned by the name-to-address translation function, all
destinations could be unreachable for some short period of time. In
such a scenario, the application could quickly cycle through all the
IP addresses in the list and return an error, when it could have let
TCP retry a destination a few seconds later, when the transient
problem could have disappeared.
However, it must be noted that non-interactive applications, such as
a Mail Transfer Agent (MTA), usually must implement application-layer
retry mechanisms, and thus are able to handle these scenarios
appropriately. For interactive applications, the user would likely
not be satisfied with a connection attempt that succeeds only after
several seconds, anyway. [Guynes]
5.2. Deterministic transient network failures
There are some scenarios in which transient network failures could be
deterministic. For example, consider the case in which upstream
network connectivity is triggered by network use. That is, network
connectivity is instantiated only on an "as needed" basis. In this
scenario, the connection triggering the upstream connectivity would
deterministically receive ICMP Destination Unreachables while the
upstream connectivity is being activated, and thus would be aborted.
As discussed in Section 5.1, applications usually implement
mechanisms to handle these scenarios appropriately. Also, connection
attempts are usually preceded by a UDP-based DNS name-to-address
lookup. Thus, unless the name-to-address mapping has been cached by
a local nameserver or resolver, it will be the DNS query that will
trigger the upstream network connectivity, and thus the corresponding
connection will not be aborted.
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
6. Future work
A Higher-Level API would be useful for isolating applications from
protocol details. The API could contain the intelligence required to
resolve the hostname, try each destination address, etc. One could
even argue that this document wouldn't have existed if application
programmers had been using a Higher-Level API. However, such an API
would need to be designed, standardized, implemented, deployed, and
documented even before application programmers start (if ever) to use
it.
7. Security Considerations
This document describes a modification to TCP's reaction to soft
errors that has been implemented in a variety of TCP/IP stacks. This
modification makes TCP abort a connection in the SYN-SENT or the SYN-
RECEIVED states when it receives an ICMP "Destination Unreachable"
message that indicates a "soft error" about that connection. While
this modification could be exploited to reset valid connections, it
must be noted that this behaviour is meant only for connections in
the SYN-SENT or the SYN-RECEIVED states, and thus the window of
exposure is very short.
In any case, it must be noted that the workaround discussed in this
document neither strengthens nor weakens TCP's resistance to attack.
An attacker wishing to reset ongoing TCP connections could perform
the attack by sending any of the ICMP error messages that indicate
"hard errors", not only for connections in the SYN-SENT or the SYN-
RECEIVED states, but for connections in any state.
A discussion of the use of ICMP to perform a variety of attacks
against TCP, and a number of counter-measures that eliminate or
greatly minimize the impact of these attacks can be found in
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks].
A discussion of the security issues arising from the use of ICMPv6
can be found in [RFC4443].
8. Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Ron Bonica, Guillermo Gont, Michael
Kerrisk, Eddie Kohler, Mika Liljeberg, Pasi Sarolahti, Pekka Savola,
and Joe Touch, for contributing many valuable comments.
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
9. Contributors
Mika Liljeberg was the first to describe how their implementation
treated soft errors. Based on that, the solution discussed in
Section 4 was documented in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault] by
Sebastien Roy, Alain Durand and James Paugh.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
10.2. Informative References
[Guynes] Guynes, J., "Impact of System Response Time on State
Anxiety", Communications of the ACM , 1988.
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks]
Gont, F., "ICMP attacks against TCP",
draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-00 (work in progress),
February 2006.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault]
Roy, S., Durand, A., and J. Paugh, "Issues with Dual Stack
IPv6 on by Default", draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-03
(work in progress), July 2004.
[Linux] The Linux Project, "http://www.kernel.org".
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
[RFC0816] Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery", RFC 816,
July 1982.
[Shneiderman]
Shneiderman, B., "Response Time and Display Rate in Human
Performance with Computers", ACM Computing Surveys , 1984.
[Stevens] "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols", Addison-
Wesley , 1994.
[Stevens2]
Wright, G. and W. Stevens, "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2:
The Implementation", Addison-Wesley , 1994.
[Thadani] Thadani, A., "Interactive User Productivity", IBM Systems
Journal No. 1, 1981.
Appendix A. Other possible solutions
A.1. A more conservative approach
A more conservative approach would be to abort a connection in the
SYN-SENT or SYN-RECEIVED states only after an ICMP Destination
Unreachable has been received a specified number of times, and the
SYN segment has been retransmitted more than some specified number of
times.
Two new parameters would have to be introduced to TCP, to be used
only during the connection-establishment phase: MAXSYNREXMIT and
MAXSOFTERROR. MAXSYNREXMIT would specify the number of times the SYN
segment would have to be retransmitted before a connection is
aborted. MAXSOFTERROR would specify the number of ICMP messages
indicating soft errors that would have to be received before a
connection is aborted.
Two additional variables would need to be introduced to store
additional state information during the connection-establishment
phase: "nsynrexmit" and "nsofterror". Both would be initialized to
zero. "nsynrexmit" would be incremented by one every time the SYN
segment is retransmitted. "nsofterror" would be incremented by one
every time an ICMP message that indicates a soft error is received.
A connection in the SYN-SENT or SYN-RECEIVED states would be aborted
if nsynrexmit was greater than MAXSYNREXMIT and "nsofterror" was
simultaneously greater than MAXSOFTERROR.
This approach would give the network more time to solve the
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
connectivity problem. However, it should be noted that depending on
the values chosen for the MAXSYNREXMIT and MAXSOFTERROR parameters,
this approach could still lead to long delays between connection
establishment attempts, thus not solving the problem. For example,
BSD systems abort connections in the SYN-SENT or the SYN-RECEIVED
state when a second ICMP error is received, and the SYN segment has
been retransmitted more than three times. They also set up a
"connection-establishment timer" that imposes an upper limit on the
time the connection establishment attempt has to succeed, which
expires after 75 seconds [Stevens2]. Even when this policy may be
better than the three-minutes timeout policy specified in [RFC1122],
it may still be inappropriate for handling the potential problems
described in this document. This more conservative approach has been
implemented in BSD systems since, at least, 1994 [Stevens2].
A.2. Asynchronous Application Notification
In section 4.2.4.1, [RFC1122] states that there MUST be a mechanism
for reporting soft TCP error conditions to the application. Such a
mechanism (assuming one is implemented) could be used by applications
to cycle through the destination IP addresses. However, this
approach would increase application complexity, and would take a long
time to kick in, as it would require all existing applications to be
modified.
A.3. Issuing several connection requests in parallel
For those scenarios in which a domain name maps to several IP
addresses, several connection requests could be issued in parallel,
each one to a different destination IP address. The host would then
use the first connection attempt to succeed, eliminating the
potential delay in establishing a connection with the destination
host. However, this would mean that every attempt to connect to a
multihomed host would imply sending several SYN segments, making it
hard for network operators to distinguish valid connection attempts
from those performing Denial of Service (DoS) attacks.
An alternative approach would be as follows. A host would issue a
connection request to the first IP address in the list returned by
the name-to-address mapping function. If this connection request
didn't succeed in some time, a connection request to the second IP
address in the list would be issued in parallel. If none of these
connection requests succeeded in some time, and there were still more
addresses left in the list, they would be tried in the same way.
While this approach would, in principle, avoid the problems of the
previous approach, it might be hard to define the time interval to
wait before issuing each parallel connection request. A short time
interval would lead to the problems caused by the previous approach,
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
while a long time interval would likely still lead to long delays in
establishing a connection with the destination host.
In any case, it must be noted that both approaches have the same
drawbacks as the solution described in Appendix A.2: they would
increase application complexity, and would take too long to begin to
be used by applications.
Appendix B. Change log (to be removed before publication of the
document as an RFC)
B.1. Changes from draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-00
o Miscellaneous editorial changes
B.2. Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-02
o Draft resubmitted as draft-ietf.
o Miscellaneous editorial changes
B.3. Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-01
o Changed wording to describe the mechanism, rather than proposing
it
o Miscellaneous editorial changes
B.4. Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-00
o Added reference to the Linux implementation in Section 4
o Added Section 5
o Added Section 6
o Added Appendix A.1
o Moved section "Asynchronous Application Notification" to
Appendix A.2
o Added a Appendix A.3
o Miscellaneous editorial changes
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
Author's Address
Fernando Gont
Universidad Tecnologica Nacional/Facultad Regional Haedo
Evaristo Carriego 2644
Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706
Argentina
Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
Email: fernando@gont.com.ar
URI: http://www.gont.com.ar
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors August 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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 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
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Gont Expires February 9, 2007 [Page 14]
