Personal T. Melsen
Internet-Draft S. Blake
Expires: July 31, 2006 Ericsson
January 27, 2006
MAC-Forced Forwarding: A Method for Traffic Separation on an Ethernet
Access Network
draft-melsen-mac-forced-fwd-04.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 July 31, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to ensure layer-2 separation of
LAN stations accessing an v4IPv4 gateway over a bridged Ethernet
segment.
The mechanism - called "MAC-Forced Forwarding" - implements an ARP
proxy function that prohibits MAC address resolution between hosts
located within the same IPv4 subnet but at different customer
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
premises, and in effect directs all upstream traffic to an IPv4
gateway. The IPv4 gateway provides IP-layer connectivity between
these same hosts.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Access Network Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Using Ethernet as an Access Network Technology . . . . . . 5
3. Solution Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Obtaining the IP and MAC addresses of the Access Router . 7
3.2. Responding to ARP Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Filtering Upstream Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Restricted Access to Application Servers . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Access Router Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Resiliency Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IPv6 Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
1. Terminology
Access Node (AN)
The entity interconnecting individual subscriber lines to the
shared aggregation network.
Access Router (AR)
The entity interconnecting the access network to the Internet or
other IP-based networks. The AR provides connectivity between
hosts on the access network at different customer premises. It is
also used to provide security filtering, policing, and accounting
of customer traffic.
Application Server (AS)
A server, usually owned by a service provider, that attaches
directly to the aggregation network, and is directly reachable at
layer-2 by customer hosts.
Ethernet Access Node (EAN)
An Access Node supporting Ethernet-based subscriber lines and
uplinks to an Ethernet-based aggregation network, and MAC-Forced
Forwarding. For example, for xDSL access, the EAN is an Ethernet-
centric DSLAM. The EAN is a special type of filtering bridge that
does not forward Ethernet broadcast and multicast frames
originating on a subscriber line to other subscriber lines, but
either discards them or forwards them upstream (towards the
aggregation network). The EAN also discards unicast Ethernet
frames originating on a subscriber line and not addressed to an
AR.
2. Introduction
The main purpose of an access network is to provide connectivity
between customer hosts and service provider access routers (ARs),
typically offering reachability to the Internet and other IP networks
and/or IP-based applications.
An access network may be decomposed into a subscriber line part and
an aggregation network part. The subscriber line - often referred to
as "the first mile" - is characterized by an individual physical (or
logical, in the case of some wireless technologies) connection to
each customer premise. The aggregation network - "the second mile" -
performs aggregation and concentration of customer traffic.
The subscriber line and the aggregation network are interconnected by
an Access Node (AN). Thus, the AN constitutes the border between
individual subscriber lines and the common aggregation network. This
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
is illustrated in the following figure.
Access Aggregation Access Subscriber Customer
Routers Network Nodes Lines Premise
Networks
+----+ |
--+ AR +-----------| +----+
+----+ | | +----------------[]--------
|--------+ AN |
| | +----------------[]--------
| +----+
|
| +----+
| | +----------------[]--------
|--------+ AN |
| | +----------------[]--------
| +----+
|
| +----+
| | +----------------[]--------
|--------+ AN |
+----+ | | +----------------[]--------
--+ AR +-----------| +----+
+----+ |
2.1. Access Network Requirements
There are two basic requirements that an access network solution must
satisfy:
1. Layer-2 traffic separation between customer premises.
2. High IPv4 address assignment efficiency.
It is required that all traffic to and from customer hosts located at
different premises (i.e., accessed via different subscriber lines, or
via different access networks) be forwarded via an AR, and not
bridged or switched at layer-2 (Requirement 1). This enables the
access network service provider to use the AR(s) to perform security
filtering, policing, and accounting of all customer traffic. This
implies that within the access network, layer-2 traffic paths should
not exist that circumvent an AR (with some exceptions; see
Section 3.4).
In ATM-based access networks, the separation of individual customer
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
hosts' traffic is an intrinsic feature achieved by the use of ATM
permanent virtual connections (PVCs) between the customers' access
device (e.g., DSL modem) and the AR (typically co-located/integrated
with access control functionality in a Broadband Remote Access Server
(BRAS)). In this case, the AN is an ATM-based Digital Subscriber
Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM).
This document, however, targets Ethernet-based access networks.
Techniques other than ATM PVCs must be employed to ensure the desired
separation of traffic to and from individual customer hosts.
Efficient address assignment is necessary to minimize consumption of
scarce IPv4 address space (Requirement 2). See [RFC3069] for further
discussion. Address assignment efficiency is improved if host
addresses are assigned out of one or more large pools, rather than by
being assigned out of separate, smaller subnet blocks allocated to
each customer premise. IPv6 address assignment efficiency is of much
less concern, and it is anticipated that IPv6 deployments will
allocate separate IPv6 subnet blocks to each customer premise [v6BB].
2.2. Using Ethernet as an Access Network Technology
A major aspect of using Ethernet as an access technology is that
traffic pertaining to different customer hosts is conveyed over a
shared broadcast network. Layer-2 isolation between customer premise
networks could be provided by implementing access router
functionality in each EAN, treating each subscriber line as a
separate IP interface. However, there are a variety of reasons why
it is often desirable to avoid IP routing in the access network,
including the need to satisfy regulatory requirements for direct
layer-2 accessibility to multiple IP service providers. In addition,
this solution would not solve Requirement 2.
To avoid IP routing within the access network, the Ethernet
aggregation network is bridged via EANs to individual Ethernet
networks at the customers' premises. If the EAN were a standard
Ethernet bridge then there would be direct layer-2 visibility between
Ethernet stations (hosts) located at different customers' premises.
Specifically, hosts located within the same IP subnet would have this
visibility. This violates Requirement 1 (Section 2.1) and introduces
security issues, as malicious end-users could attack hosts at other
customers' premises directly at the Ethernet layer.
Existing standardized solutions may be deployed to prevent layer-2
visibility between stations:
o PPP over Ethernet [RFC2516]. The use of PPPoE creates individual
PPP sessions between hosts and one or more BRASs over a bridged
Ethernet topology. Traffic always flows between a BRAS and hosts,
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
never directly between hosts. The AN can force upstream traffic
to flow only to the BRAS initially selected by the host.
o VLAN per-customer premise network [RFC3069]. Traffic to/from each
customer premise network can be separated into different VLANs
across the aggregation network between the AN and the AR.
Both solutions provide layer-2 isolation between customer hosts, but
they are not considered optimal for broadband access networks,
because:
o PPPoE does not support efficient multicast: packets must be
replicated on each PPPoE session to hosts listening on a multicast
group. This negates one of the major advantages of using Ethernet
(instead of ATM) as an access technology. This is an especially
problematic limitation for services such as IPTV which require
high bandwidth per-multicast group (channel), and which may often
have hundreds or thousands of listening customer hosts per-group.
o Using VLANs to isolate individual customer premise networks also
forces multicast packets to be replicated to each VLAN with a
listening host. Furthermore, the basic limit of a maximum of 4096
VLANs per-Ethernet network limits the scalability of the solution.
This scalability limit can be removed by deploying VLAN stacking
techniques within the access network, but this approach increases
provisioning complexity.
The solution proposed in this document avoids these problems.
3. Solution Aspects
The basic property of the solution is that the EAN ensures that
upstream traffic is always sent to a designated AR, even if the IP
traffic should ultimately flow between customer hosts located within
the same IP subnet.
The solution has three major aspects:
1. Initially, the EAN obtains the IP and MAC address of the legal
target ARs for each customer host.
2. The EAN replies to any upstream ARP request [RFC0826] from
customer hosts with the MAC address of a legal target AR.
3. The EAN discards any upstream unicast traffic to MAC addresses
other than the legal target ARs. The EAN also discards all non-
essential broadcast and multicast packets received on subscriber
lines.
These aspects are discussed in the following sections.
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
3.1. Obtaining the IP and MAC addresses of the Access Router
An access network may contain multiple ARs, and different hosts may
be assigned to different (groups of) ARs. This implies that the EAN
must register the assigned AR addresses on a per-customer host basis.
For each customer host, one of the ARs is acting as the default
gateway. If a customer has simultaneous access to multiple ARs, the
other ARs typically will provide access to other IP networks.
The EAN learns the IPv4 address of the legal target ARs in one of two
ways, depending on the host IPv4 address assignment method. For each
host using DHCP, the EAN learns the AR IPv4 addresses dynamically by
snooping the DHCPACK reply to a host [RFC2131]. If a host using DHCP
shall have simultaneous access to multiple ARs, DHCP option 121
[RFC3442] or DHCP option 33 [RFC2132] must be used to specify them to
that host. If static address assignment is used instead of DHCP,
then AR IPv4 addresses must be pre-provisioned in the EAN by the
network operator. In both cases, the EAN will need to ARP to
determine the ARs' corresponding MAC addresses. This can be done
immediately after the IPv4 addresses are learned, or when the MAC
addresses are first required.
The DHCP server can associate customer hosts with subscriber lines if
the EAN uses the DHCP Relay Agent Information Option (82) to convey a
subscriber line identifier to the DHCP server in DHCP messages
flowing upstream from the customer host [RFC3046].
3.2. Responding to ARP Requests
If all customer networks were assigned individual IP subnet blocks
(and if routing protocols were blocked inside the access network),
then all upstream traffic would normally go to an AR (typically the
default gateway), and the EAN could validate all upstream traffic by
checking that the destination MAC address matched an AR's.
However, to comply with Requirement 2 of Section 2.1, residential
customer networks are not (usually) assigned individual IPv4 subnet
blocks. In other words, several hosts located at different premises
are within the same IPv4 subnet. Consequently, if a host wishes to
communicate with a host at another premise, an ARP is issued to
obtain that host's corresponding MAC address. This ARP request is
intercepted by the EAN's ARP proxy, and an ARP reply is sent,
specifying a legal AR MAC address (typically the default gateway's)
as the requested layer-2 destination address, in a manner similar to
the "proxy ARP" mechanism described in [RFC1009]. In this way, the
ARP table of the requesting host will register an AR MAC address as
the layer-2 destination for any host within that IPv4 subnet (except
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
those at the same customer premise; see below).
ARP requests for an IPv4 address of a legal target AR are replied to
by the EAN's ARP proxy with that AR's MAC address, rather than the
MAC address of the default gateway AR.
An exception is made when a host is ARPing for another host located
within the same premise network. If this ARP request reaches the
EAN, it should be discarded, because it is assumed to be answered
directly by the target host within the premise network. The EAN must
keep track of all assigned IPv4 addresses on a subscriber line so
that it can detect these ARP requests and discard them.
3.3. Filtering Upstream Traffic
Since the EAN's ARP proxy will reply always with the MAC address of
an AR, the requesting host will never learn MAC addresses of hosts
located at other premises. However, malicious customers or
malfunctioning hosts may still try to send traffic using other
unicast destination MAC addresses. The EAN must discard all unicast
frames received on a subscriber line that are not addressed to a
destination MAC address for a legal AR (with some exceptions; see
Section 3.4.
Similarly, broadcast or multicast packets received on a subscriber
line must never be forwarded on other subscriber lines, but only on
EAN uplinks to the aggregation network. An EAN must discard all
broadcast packets received on subscriber lines, except when DHCP is
in use, in which case the EAN must forward client-to-server DHCP
broadcast messages (DHCPDISCOVER, DHCPREQUEST, DHCPDECLINE,
DHCPINFORM) [RFC2131] upstream. An EAN should rate limit upstream
broadcast packets.
Broadcast packets forwarded on an EAN uplink may be forwarded to
other EANs by the aggregation network. EANs should discard all
broadcast packets received from the aggregation network, except
server-to-client DHCP messages (DHCPOFFER, DHCPACK, DHCPNAK)
[RFC2131], when DHCP is in use.
Filtering of multicast packets to and from an EAN uplink is discussed
in Section 6.
3.4. Restricted Access to Application Servers
The previous discussion (Section 3.1) describes how customer hosts
are allowed direct layer-2 connectivity only to one or more ARs.
Similarly, a customer host could be allowed direct layer-2 access to
one or more Application Servers (ASs) which are directly connected to
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
the aggregation network. There is no functional difference in the
way that MAC-Forced Forwarding treats access to ARs or ASs.
4. Access Router Considerations
Traffic between customer hosts that belong to the same IPv4 subnet
but are located at different customer premises always will be
forwarded via an AR. In this case, the AR will forward the traffic
to the originating network, i.e., on the same interface from where it
was received. This normally results in an ICMP redirect message
[RFC0792] being sent to the originating host. To prevent this
behavior, the ICMP redirect function for aggregation network
interfaces must be disabled in the AR.
5. Resiliency Considerations
The operation of MAC-Forced Forwarding does not interfere with or
delay IP connectivity recovery in the event of a sustained AR
failure. Use of DHCP to configure hosts with information on
multiple, redundant ARs, or use of VRRP [RFC2338] to implement AR
redundancy, allows IP connectivity to be maintained.
MAC-Forced Forwarding is a stateful protocol. If static IPv4 address
assignment is used in the access network, then the EAN must be pre-
provisioned with state information on the customer hosts which may be
configured on a subscriber line, and the ARs associated with those
hosts. In the event of a transient EAN failure, the EAN's state
database can be quickly recovered from its configuration storage.
If DHCP is used to assign IPv4 addresses in the access network, then
MAC-Forced Forwarding operates as a soft-state protocol. Since the
DHCP and ARP messages that are snooped to construct the EAN state
database are usually sent infrequently, a transient failure may not
be detected by either the AR(s) or the customer hosts. Therefore, a
transient failure of an EAN could lead to an extended loss of
connectivity. To minimize connectivity loss, an EAN should maintain
its dynamic state database in resilient storage to permit timely
database and connectivity restoration.
The EAN is a single point of attachment between a subscriber line and
the aggregation network; hence, the EAN is a single point of
connectivity failure. Customers seeking more resilient connectivity
should multi-home.
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
6. Multicast Considerations
Multicast traffic delivery for streams originating from within the
aggregation network or further upstream, and delivered to one or more
customer hosts in an access network, is supported in a scalable
manner by virtue of Ethernet's native multicast capability.
Bandwidth efficiency can be enhanced if the EAN behaves as an IGMP
snooping bridge; e.g., if it snoops on IGMP Membership Report and
Leave Group messages originating on subscriber lines, to prune the
set of subscriber lines on which to forward particular multicast
groups [RFC3376].
An EAN must discard all IPv4 multicast packets received on a
subscriber line other than IGMP Membership Report and Leave Group
messages [RFC3376]. If a customer host wishes to source multicast
packets to a group, the host must tunnel them to an upstream
multicast router; e.g., an AR acting as a PIM-SM Designated Router .
An AR will forward them back into the access network if there are any
listening customer hosts.
EAN processing of IPv6 multicast packets is discussed in the next
section.
7. IPv6 Considerations
MAC-Forced Forwarding is not directly applicable for IPv6 access
networks, for the following reasons:
1. IPv6 access networks do not require the same efficiency of
address allocation as IPv4 access networks. It is expected that
customer premise networks will be allocated unique network
prefixes (e.g., /48) accommodating large numbers of customer
subnets and hosts [v6BB].
2. IPv6 nodes do not use ARP, but instead use the Neighbor Discovery
protocol [RFC2461] for layer-2 address resolution.
To simultaneously support IPv6 and MAC-Forced Forwarding for IPv4, an
EAN can still implement the unicast, broadcast, and multicast
filtering rules described in Section 3.3. To correctly perform
unicast filtering, the EAN must learn the IPv6 and MAC addresses of
the legal ARs for a particular subscriber line. It can learn these
addresses either through static configuration, or by snooping Router
Discovery messages exchanged between the customer premises router and
one or more ARs [RFC2461].
Multicast is an intrinsic part of the IPv6 protocol suite.
Therefore, an EAN must not indiscriminately filter IPv6 multicast
packets flowing upstream, although it may rate limit them. Detailed
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
IPv6 multicast filtering rules are not discussed in this document.
8. Security Considerations
MAC-Forced Forwarding is by its nature a security function, ensuring
layer-2 isolation of customer hosts sharing a broadcast access
medium. In that sense it provides security equivalent to alternative
PVC-based solutions. Security procedures appropriate for any shared
access medium are equally appropriate when MAC-Forced Forwarding is
employed. It does not introduce any additional vulnerabilities over
those of standard Ethernet bridging.
In addition to layer-2 isolation, An EAN implementing MAC-Forced
Forwarding must discard all upstream broadcast packets, except for
valid DHCP messages. In particular, the EAN must discard any DHCP
replies originated on a subscriber line. Further, an EAN may rate
limit upstream broadcast DHCP messages.
An EAN implementing MAC-Forced Forwarding must keep track of IPv4
addresses allocated on subscriber lines. The EAN therefore has
sufficient information to discard upstream traffic with spoofed IPv4
source addresses.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ulf Jonsson, Thomas Narten, James
Carlson, Rolf Engstrand, Tomas Thyni, and Johan Kolhi for their
helpful comments.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC0826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37,
RFC 826, November 1982.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent
Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification",
RFC 2362, June 1998.
[RFC3046] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option",
RFC 3046, January 2001.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC3442] Lemon, T., Cheshire, S., and B. Volz, "The Classless
Static Route Option for Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol (DHCP) version 4", RFC 3442, December 2002.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC1009] Braden, R. and J. Postel, "Requirements for Internet
gateways", RFC 1009, June 1987.
[RFC2338] Knight, S., Weaver, D., Whipple, D., Hinden, R., Mitzel,
D., Hunt, P., Higginson, P., Shand, M., and A. Lindem,
"Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol", RFC 2338,
April 1998.
[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
December 1998.
[RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[RFC2516] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D.,
and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over
Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999.
[RFC3069] McPherson, D. and B. Dykes, "VLAN Aggregation for
Efficient IP Address Allocation", RFC 3069, February 2001.
[v6BB] Asadullah, S., Ahmed, A., Popoviciu, C., Savola, P., and
J. Palet, "ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband
Access Networks", work in progress.
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
Authors' Addresses
Torben Melsen
Ericsson
Faelledvej
Struer DK-7600
Denmark
Email: Torben.Melsen@ericsson.com
Steven Blake
Ericsson
920 Main Campus Drive
Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27606
USA
Phone: +1 919 472 9913
Email: steven.blake@ericsson.com
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MAC-Forced Forwarding January 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Melsen & Blake Expires July 31, 2006 [Page 14]