Network Working Group M. Blanchet
Internet-Draft G. Leclanche
Intended status: Standards Track Viagenie
Expires: April 2, 2015 September 29, 2014
Finding the Authoritative Registration Data (RDAP) Service
draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-07.txt
Abstract
This document specifies a method to find which Registration Data
Access Protocol (RDAP) server is authoritative to answer queries for
a requested scope, such as domain names, IP addresses or Autonomous
System numbers.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Structure of RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries . . . . . . . 3
4. Domain Name RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Internet Numbers RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries . . . . . 6
5.1. IPv4 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry . . . 6
5.2. IPv6 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry . . . 7
5.3. Autonomous Systems RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry . . . 8
6. Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Non-existent Entries or RDAP URL Values . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Deployment and Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . 10
9. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Formal Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Imported JSON Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Registry Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. IPv4 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry . . . 13
12.2. IPv6 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry . . . 13
12.3. Autonomous System Number Space RDAP Bootstrap Service
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.4. Domain Name Space RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry . . . 13
12.5. Policies and Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . 14
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
Querying and retrieving registration data from registries are defined
in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap
-query][I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http][I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response].
These documents do not specify where to send the queries. This
document specifies a method to find which server is authoritative to
answer queries for the requested scope.
The proposed mechanism is based on the fact that allocation data for
domain names and IP addresses are maintained by IANA, are publicly
available and are in a structured format. The mechanism assumes some
data structure within these registries. This document requests IANA
to create these registries for the specific purpose of RDAP use,
herein named RDAP Bootstrap Service registries. An RDAP client
fetches the RDAP Bootstrap Service registries, extracts the data and
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
then does a match with the query data to find the authoritative
registration data server and appropriate query base URL.
2. Conventions Used 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 [RFC2119].
3. Structure of RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries
The RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries are made available as JSON
[RFC7159] objects. The JSON registry output starts with metadata
such as a version identifier, a timestamp of the publication date of
the registry and a description. There exists a "services" element,
which is an array of arrays. Each second level array contains two
elements, each of them being an array (third-level arrays). The
first third-level array, named 'Entry array', contains all entries
that have the same set of base RDAP URLs. The second third-level
array, named 'Service URL array', contains the list of base RDAP URLs
usable for the entries found in the 'Entry array'. There is no
assumption of sorting except that the two arrays found in each
second-level array MUST appear in the correct order: 'Entry array'
first followed by 'Service URL array'. An example structure of the
JSON output of a RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry is illustrated:
{
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"description": "Some text",
"services": [
[
["entry1", "entry2", "entry3"],
[
"https://registry.example.com/myrdap/",
"http://registry.example.com/myrdap/"
]
],
[
["entry4"],
[
"http://example.org/"
]
]
]
}
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
The formal syntax is described in Section 10.
The "version" corresponds to the format version of the registry.
This specification defines "1.0".
The syntax of "publication" value conforms to the Internet date/time
format [RFC3339].
The optional "description" string can contain a comment regarding the
content of the bootstrap object.
Per [RFC7258], in each array of base RDAP URLs, the secure versions
of the transport protocol SHOULD be preferred and tried first. For
example, if the base RDAP URLs array contain both https and http
URLs, the bootstrap client SHOULD try the https version first.
Base RDAP URLs MUST have a trailing "/" character because they are
concatenated to the various segments defined in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query].
JSON names MUST follow the format recommendations of
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]. Any unknown or unspecified JSON object
properties or values should be ignored by implementers.
Internationalized Domain Names labels used as entries or base RDAP
URLs in the registries defined in this document MUST be only
represented using their A-Label form as defined in [RFC5890].
All Domain Names labels used as entries or base RDAP URLs in the
registries defined in this document MUST be only represented in
lowercase.
4. Domain Name RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry
The JSON output of this registry contains domain labels entries
attached to the root, grouped by base RDAP URLs, as shown in this
example.
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
{
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
"description": "Some text",
"services": [
[
["net", "com"],
[
"https://registry.example.com/myrdap/"
]
],
[
["org", "mytld"],
[
"http://example.org/"
]
],
[
["xn--zckzah"],
[
"https://example.net/rdapxn--zckzah/",
"http://example.net/rdapxn--zckzah/"
]
]
]
}
The domain names authoritative registration data service is found by
doing the label-wise longest match of the target domain name with the
domain values in the arrays in the IANA Domain Name RDAP Bootstrap
Service Registry. The values contained in the second element of the
array are the valid base RDAP URLs as described in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query].
For example, a domain RDAP query for a.b.example.com matches the com
entry in one of the arrays of the registry. The base RDAP URL for
this query is then taken from the second element of the array, which
is an array of base RDAP URLs valid for this entry. The client
chooses one of the base URLs from this array; in this example it
chooses the only one available, "https://registry.example.com/
myrdap/". The segment specified in [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] is
then appended to the base URL to complete the query. The complete
query is then "https://registry.example.com/myrdap/domain/
a.b.example.com".
If a domain RDAP query for a.b.example.com matches both com and
example.com entries in the registry, then the longest match applies
and the example.com entry is used by the client.
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
5. Internet Numbers RDAP Bootstrap Service Registries
This section discusses IPv4 and IPv6 address space and autonomous
system numbers.
For IP address space, the authoritative registration data service is
found by doing a longest match of the target address with the values
of the arrays in the corresponding Address Space RDAP Bootstrap
Service registry. The longest match is done the same way as for
routing: the addresses are converted in binary form and then the
binary strings are compared to find the longest match up to the
specified prefix length. The values contained in the second element
of the array are the base RDAP URLs as described in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query]. The longest match method enables
covering prefixes of a larger address space pointing to one base RDAP
URL while more specific prefixes within the covering prefix being
served by another base RDAP URL.
5.1. IPv4 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry
The JSON output of this registry contains IPv4 prefix entries,
specified in CIDR format and grouped by RDAP URLs, as shown in this
example.
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
{
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "2024-01-07T10:11:12Z",
"description": "RDAP Bootstrap file for example registries.",
"services": [
[
["1.0.0.0/8", "192.0.0.0/8"],
[
"https://rir1.example.com/myrdap/"
]
],
[
["28.2.0.0/16", "192.0.2.0/24"],
[
"http://example.org/"
]
],
[
["28.3.0.0/16"],
[
"https://example.net/rdaprir2/",
"http://example.net/rdaprir2/"
]
]
]
}
For example, a query for "192.0.2.1/25" matches the "192.0.0.0/8"
entry and the "192.0.2.0/24" entry in the example registry above.
The latter is chosen by the client given the longest match. The base
RDAP URL for this query is then taken from the second element of the
array, which is an array of base RDAP URLs valid for this entry. The
client chooses one of the base URLs from this array; in this example
it chooses the only one available, "http://example.org/". The
{resource} specified in [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] is then appended
to the base URL to complete the query. The complete query is then
"https://example.org/ip/192.0.2.1/25".
5.2. IPv6 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry
The JSON output of this registry contains IPv6 prefix entries, using
[RFC4291] text representation of address prefixes format, grouped by
base RDAP URLs, as shown in this example.
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
{
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "2024-01-07T10:11:12Z",
"description": "RDAP Bootstrap file for example registries.",
"services": [
[
["2001:0200::/23", "2001:db8::/32"],
[
"https://rir2.example.com/myrdap/"
]
],
[
["2600::/16", "2100:ffff::/32"],
[
"http://example.org/"
]
],
[
["2001:0200:1000::/28"],
[
"https://example.net/rdaprir2/",
"http://example.net/rdaprir2/"
]
]
]
}
For example, a query for "2001:0200:1000::/48" matches the
"2001:0200::/23" entry and the "2001:0200:1000::/28" entry in the
example registry above. The latter is chosen by the client given the
longest match. The base RDAP URL for this query is then taken from
the second element of the array, which is an array of base RDAP URLs
valid for this entry. The client chooses one of the base URLs from
this array; in this example it chooses "https://example.net/
rdaprir2/" because it's the secure version of the protocol. The
segment specified in [I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] is then appended to
the base URL to complete the query. The complete query is therefore
"https://example.net/rdaprir2/ip/2001:0200:1000::/48". If the server
does not answer, the client can then use another URL prefix from the
array.
5.3. Autonomous Systems RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry
The JSON output of this contains Autonomous Systems Number Ranges
entries, grouped by base RDAP URLs, as shown in this example. The
first element of each second-level array is an array containing the
list of AS number ranges served by the base RDAP URLs found in the
second element. The array always contains two AS numbers which
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
represents the range of AS Numbers between the two elements of the
array. When the two AS numbers are identical, then it only refers to
that single AS number.
{
"version": "1.0",
"publication": "2024-01-07T10:11:12Z",
"description": "RDAP Bootstrap file for example registries.",
"services": [
[
["2045-2045"],
[
"https://rir3.example.com/myrdap/"
]
],
[
["10000-12000", "300000-400000"],
[
"http://example.org/"
]
],
[
["64512-65534"],
[
"http://example.net/rdaprir2/",
"https://example.net/rdaprir2/"
]
]
]
}
For example, a query for AS 65411 matches the 64512-65534 entry in
the example registry above. The base RDAP URL for this query is then
taken from the second element of the array, which is an array of base
RDAP URLs valid for this entry. The client chooses one of the base
URLs from this array; in this example it chooses
"https://example.net/rdaprir2/". The segment specified in
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query] is then appended to the base URL to
complete the query. The complete query is therefore
"https://example.net/rdaprir2/autnum/65411". If the server does not
answer, the client can then use another URL prefix from the array.
6. Entity
Since there is no global namespace for entities, this document does
not describe how to find the authoritative RDAP server for entities.
It is possible however that, if the entity identifier was received
from a previous query, the same RDAP server could be queried for that
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
entity or the entity identifier itself is a fully referenced URL that
can be queried.
7. Non-existent Entries or RDAP URL Values
The registries may not contain the requested value or the base RDAP
URL value may be empty. In these cases, there is no known RDAP
server for that requested value and the client SHOULD provide an
appropriate error message to the user.
8. Deployment and Implementation Considerations
This method relies on the fact that RDAP clients are fetching the
IANA registries to then find the servers locally. Clients SHOULD NOT
fetch the registry on every RDAP request. Clients SHOULD cache the
registry, but use underlying protocol signalling, such as the HTTP
Expires header field [RFC7234], to identify when it is time to
refresh the cached registry.
If the query data does not match any entry in the client cached
registry, then the client may implement various methods, such as the
following:
o In the case of a domain object, the client may first query the DNS
to see if the respective entry has been delegated or if it is a
mistyped information by the user. The DNS query could be to fetch
the NS records for the TLD domain. If the DNS answer is negative,
then there is no need to fetch the new version of the registry.
However, if the DNS answer is positive, this may mean that the
currently cached registry is no longer current. The client could
then fetch the registry, parse and then do the normal matching as
specified above. This method may not work for all types of RDAP
objects.
o If the client knows the existence of an RDAP aggregator or
redirector and trusts that service, then it could send the query
to the redirector, which would redirect the client if it knows the
authoritative server that client has not found.
Some authorities of registration data may work together on sharing
their information for a common service, including mutual redirection
[I-D.ietf-weirds-redirects].
When a new object is allocated, such as a new AS range, a new TLD or
a new IP address range, there is no guarantee that this new object
will have an entry in the corresponding bootstrap RDAP registry,
since the setup of the RDAP server for this new entry may become live
and registered later. Therefore, the clients should expect that even
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
if an object, such as TLD, IP address range or AS range is allocated,
the existence of the entry in the corresponding bootstrap registry is
not guaranteed.
9. Limitations
This method does not provide a direct way to find authoritative RDAP
servers for any other objects than the ones described in this
document. In particular, the following objects are not bootstrapped
with the method described in this document:
o entities
o queries using search patterns that do not contain a terminating
string that matches some entries in the registries
o nameservers
o help
10. Formal Definition
This section is the formal definition of the registries. The
structure of JSON objects and arrays using a set of primitive
elements is defined in [RFC4627]. Those elements are used to
describe the JSON structure of the registries.
10.1. Imported JSON Terms
o OBJECT: a JSON object, defined in Section 2.2 of [RFC4627]
o MEMBER: a member of a JSON object, defined in Section 2.2 of
[RFC4627]
o MEMBER-NAME: the name of a MEMBER, defined as a "string" in
Section 2.2 of [RFC4627]
o MEMBER-VALUE: the value of a MEMBER, defined as a "value" in
Section 2.2 of [RFC4627]
o ARRAY: an array, defined in Section 2.3 of [RFC4627]
o ARRAY-VALUE: an element of an ARRAY, defined in Section 2.3 of
[RFC4627]
o STRING: a "string" as defined in Section 2.5 of [RFC4627]
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
10.2. Registry Syntax
Using the above terms for the JSON structures, the syntax of a
registry is defined as follows:
o rdap-bootstrap-registry: an OBJECT containing a MEMBER version and
a MEMBER publication and a MEMBER description and a MEMBER
services-list
o version: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "version" and MEMBER-VALUE a
STRING
o publication: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "publication" and MEMBER-
VALUE a STRING
o description: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "description" and MEMBER-
VALUE a STRING
o services-list: a MEMBER with MEMBER-NAME "services" and MEMBER-
VALUE a services-array
o services-array: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is a service
o service: an ARRAY of 2 elements, where the first ARRAY-VALUE is a
an entry-list and the second ARRAY-VALUE is a service-uri-list
o entry-list: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is a entry
o entry: a STRING
o service-uri-list: an ARRAY, where each ARRAY-VALUE is a service-
uri
o service-uri: a STRING
11. Security Considerations
By providing a bootstrap method to find RDAP servers, this document
helps to ensure that the end-users will get the RDAP data from an
authoritative source, instead of from rogue sources. The method has
the same security properties as the RDAP protocols themselves. The
transport used to access the registries could be more secure by using
TLS [RFC5246] if IANA supports it.
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
12. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to implement the following registries in JSON
format conformant to the syntax defined in Section 10.
Multiple entries pointing to the same set of URLs are grouped
together in an array. Since multiple entries of non contiguous space
may be grouped together, the registry may not be sortable by entries,
therefore it is not required or expected that the entries be sorted
in a registry.
12.1. IPv4 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry
Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
o a CIDR specification of the network block being registered
o one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
registration.
12.2. IPv6 Address Space RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry
Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
o an IPv6 prefix [RFC4291] specification of the network block being
registered
o one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
registration.
12.3. Autonomous System Number Space RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry
Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
o a range of Autonomous System numbers being registered
o one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
registration.
12.4. Domain Name Space RDAP Bootstrap Service Registry
Entries in this registry contain at least the following:
o a domain name attached to the root being registered
o one or more URLs that provide the RDAP service regarding this
registration.
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
12.5. Policies and Additional Considerations
It is envisioned that these new registries will have similar entries
than the corresponding IANA allocation registries, such as [ipv4reg],
[ipv6reg], [asreg], [domainreg], and possibly similar registration
policies. Given that the data required by RDAP clients is limited
compared to the content of the existing corresponding registries, and
given that this data has to be made available in a JSON format using
a specific key/value structure, this document is not defining an
extension of the existing IANA allocation registries. The
registration policies for the new registries of this document are
left to IANA.
IANA should make sure that the service of those registries is able to
cope with a larger demand and should take appropriate measures such
as caching, load balancing and redundancy.
The base URL of these registries is not defined in this document and
is left to IANA.
The HTTP Content-Type returned to clients accessing the JSON output
of the registries MUST be "application/json" as defined in [RFC7159].
13. Acknowledgements
The WEIRDS working group had multiple discussions on this topic,
including a session during IETF 84, where various methods such as in-
DNS and others were debated. The idea of using IANA registries was
discovered by the editor during discussions with his colleagues as
well as by a comment from Andy Newton. All the people involved in
these discussions are herein acknowledged. Linlin Zhou, Jean-
Philippe Dionne, John Levine, Kim Davies, Ernie Dainow, Scott
Hollenbeck, Arturo Servin, Andy Newton, Murray Kucherawy, Tom
Harrison, Naoki Kambe, Alexander Mayrhofer, Edward Lewis have
provided input and suggestions to this document. The section on
formal definition was inspired by section 6.2 of [RFC7071].
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, August 2010.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.
14.2. Non-Normative References
[I-D.ietf-weirds-json-response]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-json-response-09 (work in progress), September
2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-rdap-query]
Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol Query Format", draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query-14
(work in progress), September 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-redirects]
Martinez, C., Zhou, L., and G. Rada, "Redirection Service
for Registration Data Access Protocol", draft-ietf-weirds-
redirects-04 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-weirds-using-http]
Newton, A., Ellacott, B., and N. Kong, "HTTP usage in the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", draft-ietf-
weirds-using-http-12 (work in progress), September 2014.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC7071] Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for
Reputation Interchange", RFC 7071, November 2013.
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", RFC 7234, June
2014.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, May 2014.
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Finding Authoritative RDAP service September 2014
[asreg] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA), , "Autonomous
System (AS) Numbers", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-
numbers/as-numbers.xml>.
[domainreg]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA), , "Root Zone
Database", <http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db>.
[ipv4reg] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA), , "IPv4 Address
Space", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-
space/ipv4-address-space.xml>.
[ipv6reg] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA), , "IPv6 Global
Unicast Address Assignments",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-
assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xml>.
Authors' Addresses
Marc Blanchet
Viagenie
246 Aberdeen
Quebec, QC G1R 2E1
Canada
Email: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
Guillaume Leclanche
Viagenie
246 Aberdeen
Quebec, QC G1R 2E1
Canada
Email: Guillaume.Leclanche@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
Blanchet & Leclanche Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 16]
