Networking Working Group                                       K. Pister
Internet-Draft                                                   R. Enns
Intended status: Informational                             Dust Networks
Expires: September 29, 2008                                   P. Thubert
                                                      Cisco Systems, Inc
                                                          March 28, 2008

    Industrial Routing Requirements in Low Power and Lossy Networks

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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2008.


   Wireless, low power field devices enable industrial users to
   significantly increase the amount of information collected and the
   number of control points that can be remotely managed.  The
   deployment of these wireless devices will significantly improve the
   productivity and safety of the plants while increasing the efficiency
   of the plant workers.  For wireless devices to have a significant
   advantage over wired devices in an industrial environment the
   wireless network needs to have three qualities: low power, high
   reliability, and easy installation and maintenance.  The aim of this
   document is to analyze the requirements for the routing protocol used

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

   for low power and lossy networks (L2N) in industrial environments.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Applications and Traffic Patterns  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Quality of Service (QoS) Routing requirements  . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Configurable Application Requirement . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Network Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Device-Aware Routing Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Broadcast/Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Route Establishment Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  Manageability and Ease Of Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   10. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   11. Informative Reference  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

1.  Terminology

   Access Point: The access point is an infrastructure device that
   connects the low power and lossy network system to a plant's backbone

   Actuator: a field device that moves or controls plant equipment.

   Channel Hopping: An algorithm by which field devices synchronously
   change channels during operation.

   Channel: RF frequency band used to transmit a modulated signal
   carrying packets.

   Closed Loop Control: A process whereby a host application controls an
   actuator based on information sensed by field devices.

   Downstream: Data direction traveling from the host application to the
   field device.

   Field Device: physical devices placed in the plant's operating
   environment (both RF and environmental).  Field devices include
   sensors and actuators as well as network routing devices and access
   points in the plant.  Superframe: A collection of timeslots repeating
   at a constant rate.

   HART: "Highway Addressable Remote Transducer", a group of
   specifications for industrial process and control devices
   administered by the HART Foundation (see [HART]).  The latest version
   for the specifications is HART7 which includes the additions for

   Host Application: The host application is a process running in the
   plant that communicates with field devices to perform tasks on that
   may include control, monitoring and data gathering.

   ISA: "International Society of Automation".  ISA is an ANSI
   accredited standards making society.  ISA100 is an ISA working group
   whose charter includes defining a family of standards for industrial
   automation.  ISA100.11a is a work group within ISA100 that is working
   on a standard for non-critical process and control applications.

   L2N: Low Power and Lossy Network Slotted-Link: a data structure that
   is associated with a superframe that contains a connection between
   field devices that comprises a timeslot assignment, and channel and
   usage information.

   Open Loop Control: A process whereby a plant technician controls an

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

   actuator over the network where the decision is influenced by
   information sensed by field devices.

   Timeslot: A fixed time interval that may be used for the transmission
   or reception of a packet between two field devices.  A timeslot used
   for communications is associated with a slotted-link.  Upstream: Data
   direction traveling from the field device to the host application.

   RF: Radio Frequency Sensor: A field device that measures data and/or
   detects an event.

   RL2N: Routing in Low power and Lossy Networks

2.  Introduction

   Wireless, low power field devices enable industrial users to
   significantly increase the amount of information collected and the
   number of control points that can be remotely managed.  The
   deployment of these wireless devices will significantly improve the
   productivity and safety of the plants while increasing the efficiency
   of the plant workers.

   Wireless field devices enable expansion of networked points by
   appreciably reducing cost of installing a device.  The cost
   reductions come from eliminating cabling costs and simplified
   planning.  Cabling for a field device can run from $100s/ft to
   $1,000s/ft. depending on the safety regulations of the plant.
   Cabling also caries an overhead cost associated with planning the
   installation, where the cable has to run, and the various
   organizations that have to coordinate its deployment.  Doing away
   with the network and power cables reduces the planning and
   administrative overhead of installing a device.

   For wireless devices to have a significant advantage over wired
   devices in an industrial environment the wireless network needs to
   have three qualities: low power, high reliability, and easy
   installation and maintenance.  The routing protocol used for low
   power and lossy networks (L2N) is important to fulfilling these

   Industrial automation is segmented into two distinct application
   spaces, known as "process" or "process control" and "discrete
   manufacturing" or "factory automation".  In industrial process
   control, the product is typically a fluid (oil, gas, chemicals ...).
   In factory automation or discrete manufacturing, the products are
   individual elements (screws, cars, dolls).  While there is some
   overlap between products and systems between these two segments, they

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

   are surprisingly separate communities.  The specifications targeting
   industrial process control tend to have more tolerance for network
   latency than what is needed for factory automation.

   Both application spaces desire battery operated networks of hundreds
   of sensors and actuators communicating with wired access points.  In
   an oil refinery, the total number of devices is likely to exceed one
   million, but the devices will be clustered into smaller networks
   reporting to existing wired infrastructure.

   Existing wired sensor networks in this space typically use
   communication protocols with low data rates - from 1,200 baud (wired
   HART) into the one to two hundred kbps range for most of the others.
   The existing protocols are often master/slave with command/response.

   Note that the total low power and lossy network system capacity for
   devices using the IEEE802.15.4-2006 2.4 GHz radio is at most 1.6 Mbps
   when spatial reuse of channels is not utilized.

2.1.  Applications and Traffic Patterns

   The industrial market classifies process applications into three
   broad categories and six classes.

   o  Safety

      *  Class 0: Emergency action - Always a critical function Control

      *  Class 1: Closed loop regulatory control - Often a critical

      *  Class 2: Closed loop supervisory control - Usually non-critical

      *  Class 3: Open loop control - Operator takes action and controls
         the actuator (human in the loop)

   o  Monitoring

      *  Class 4: Alerting - Short-term operational effect (for example
         event-based maintenance)

      *  Class 5: Logging and downloading / uploading - No immediate
         operational consequence (e.g., history collection, sequence-of-
         events, preventive maintenance)

   Critical functions are effect the basic safety or integrity of the
   plant.  Timely deliveries of messages are more important as class

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

   numbers decrease.

   Industrial customers are interested in deploying wireless networks
   for the monitoring classes 4 and 5 and in the non-critical portions
   of classes 3 through 1.

   Classes 4 and 5 also include equipment monitoring which is strictly
   speaking separate from process monitoring.  An example of equipment
   monitoring is the recording of motor vibrations to detect bearing

   Most low power and lossy network systems in the near future will be
   for low frequency data collection.  Packets containing samples will
   be generated continuously, and 90% of the market is covered by packet
   rates of between 1/s and 1/hour, with the average under 1/min.  In
   industrial process these sensors include temperature, pressure, fluid
   flow, tank level, and corrosion.  There are some sensors which are
   bursty, such as vibration monitors which may generate and transmit
   tens of kilo-bytes (hundreds to thousands of packets) of time-series
   data at reporting rates of minutes to days.

   Almost all of these sensors will have built-in microprocessors which
   may detect alarm conditions.  Time crucial alarm packets are expected
   to have lower latency than sensor data, often requiring substantially
   more bandwidth.

   Some devices will transmit a log file every day, again with typically
   tens of Kbytes of data.  For these applications there is very little
   "downstream" traffic coming from the access point and traveling to
   particular sensors.  During diagnostics, however, a technician may be
   investigating a fault from a control room and expect to have "low"
   latency (human tolerable) in a command/response mode.

   Low-rate control, often with a "human in the loop" or "open loop" is
   implemented today via communication to a centralized controller, i.e.
   sensor data makes its way through the access point to the centralized
   controller where it is processed, the operator sees the information
   and takes action, and control information is sent out to the actuator
   node in the network.

   In the future, it is envisioned that some open loop processes will be
   automated (closed loop) and packets will flow over local loops and
   not involve the access point.  These closed loop controls for non-
   critical applications will be implemented on L2Ns.  Non-critical
   closed loop applications have a latency requirement that can be as
   low as 100 ms but many control loops are tolerant of latencies above
   1 s.

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

   In critical control, 10's of milliseconds of latencies are typical.
   In many of these systems, if a packet does not arrive within the
   specified interval, the system will enter an emergency shutdown
   state, often with substantial financial repercussions.  For a 1
   second control loop in a system with a mean-time between shutdowns
   target of 30 years, the latency requirement implies nine 9s of

   Thus, the routing protocol for L2Ns MUST support multi-topology
   routing (e.g especially critical for critical control applications).
   The routing protocol MUST provide the ability to color slotted-links
   (where the color corresponds to a user defined slotted-link
   attribute) and can be used to include/exclude slotted-links from a
   logical topology.

   For all but the most latency-tolerant applications, route discovery
   is likely to be too slow a process to initiate when a route failure
   is detected.

   The routing protocol MUST support multiple paths (a tree-based
   solution is not sufficient).

3.  Quality of Service (QoS) Routing requirements

   The industrial applications fall into four large service categories:

   1.  Published data.  Data that is generated per periodically and has
       a well understood data bandwidth requirement.  The end-to-end
       latency of this data is not as important as regularity with which
       it is presented to the host application.

   2.  Event data.  This category includes alarms and aperiodic data
       reports with bursty data bandwidth requirements

   3.  Client/Server.  Many industrial applications are based on a
       client/server model and implement a command response protocol.
       The data bandwidth required is often bursty.  The round trip
       latency for some operations can be 200 ms.

   4.  Bulk transfer.  Bulk transfers involve the transmission of blocks
       of data in multiple packets where temporary resources are
       assigned to meet a transaction time constraint.  Bulk transfers
       assign resources for a limited period of time to meet the QoS

   For industrial applications QoS parameters include:

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

   o  Data bandwidth - periodic, burst statistics

   o  Latency - the time taken for the data to transit the network from
      the source to the destination.  This may be expressed in terms of
      a deadline for delivery

   o  Transmission phase - process applications can be synchronized to
      wall clock time and require coordinated transmissions.  A common
      coordination frequency is 4 Hz (250 ms).

   o  Reliability - the end-to-end data delivery statistic.  All
      applications have latency and reliability requirements.  In
      industrial applications, these vary over many orders of magnitude.
      Some non-critical monitoring applications may tolerate latencies
      of days and reliability of less than 90%.  Most monitoring
      latencies will be in seconds to minutes, and industrial standard
      such as HART7 has set user reliability expectations at 99.9%.
      Regulatory requirements are a driver for some industrial
      applications.  Regulatory monitoring requires high data integrity
      because lost data is assumed to be out of compliance and subject
      to fines.  This can drive reliability requirements to higher then

   o  QoS contract type - revocation priority.  L2Ns have limited
      network resources that can vary with time.  This means the system
      can become fully subscribed or even over subscribed.  System
      policies determine how resources are allocated when resources are
      over subscribed.  The choices are blocking and graceful

   o  Transmission Priority - within field devices there are limited
      resources need to be allocated across multiple services.  For
      transmissions, a device has to select which packet in its queue
      will be sent at the next transmission opportunity.  Packet
      priority is used as one criterion for selecting the next packet.
      For reception a device has to decide how to store a received
      packet.  The field devices are memory constrained and receive
      buffers may become full.  Packet priority is used to select which
      packets are stored or discarded.

   In industrial wireless L2Ns a time slotting technology is used.  A
   time slotted media access protocol synchronizes channel hopping which
   is one of the means that is used to make the wireless network
   reliable.  Timeslots also are employed to reduce the power by
   minimizing the active duty cycle for field devices.  Communications
   between devices are assigned a combination of timeslot and channel
   assignment called a slotted-link.

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

   The routing protocol MUST also support different metric types for
   each slotted-link used to compute the path according to some
   objective function (e.g. minimize latency, maximize reliability,

   Industrial application data flows between field devices are not
   necessarily symmetric.  The routing protocol MUST be able to set up
   routes that are directional.

3.1.  Configurable Application Requirement

   Time-varying user requirements for latency and bandwidth will require
   changes in the provisioning of the underlying L2 protocols.  The
   wireless worker may initiate a bulk transfer to configure or diagnose
   a field device.  A level sensor device may need to perform a
   calibration and send a bulk file to a host.  The routing protocol
   MUST route on paths which are changed to appropriately provision the
   application requirements.  The routing protocol MUST support the
   ability to recompute paths based on slotted-link characteristics that
   may change dynamically.

4.  Network Topology

   Network topology is very tough to generalize, but networks of 10 to
   200 field devices and maximum number of hops from two to twenty
   covers the majority of existing applications.  It is assumed that the
   field devices themselves will provide routing capability for the
   network, and in most cases additional repeaters/routers will not be

   Timeslot size is about 10 ms and timeslot synchronization
   requirements are on the order of +/-1 ms for non-critical process and
   control data (some L2 protocols provide/require tighter
   synchronization).  Wall clock time *accuracy* requirements vary
   substantially, but are generally about 100ms.  Some applications that
   time stamp data require 1 ms accuracy to determine the sequence of
   events reported.  (Note that data time stamping does not translate to
   a latency requirement.)

   In low power and lossy network systems using the IEEE802.15.4-2006
   2.4 GHz radio the total raw throughput per radio is 250 kbps. 10 ms
   timeslots reduces this to 101.6 Kbps for maximum sized packets.  This
   constrains the typical throughput of a single radio access point to
   less 100 kbps.  Therefore an access point with one IEEE 802.15.4
   radio has a maximum aggregate throughput 100 packets per second and
   no more then about 100 Kbps.

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

   A graph that connects a field device to a host application may have
   more than one access point.  The routing protocol MUST support
   multiple access points and load distribution when aggregate network
   throughputs need to exceed 100 kbps.  The routing protocol MUST
   support multiple access points when access point redundancy is

5.  Device-Aware Routing Requirements

   Wireless L2N nodes in industrial environments are powered by a
   variety of sources.  Battery operated devices with lifetime
   requirements of at least 5 years are the most common.  Battery
   operated devices have a cap on their total energy, and typically can
   report some estimate of remaining energy, and typically do not have
   constraints on the short term average power consumption.  Energy
   scavenging devices are more complex.  These systems contain both a
   power scavenging device (such as solar, vibration, or temperature
   difference) and an energy storage device, such as a rechargeable
   battery or a capacitor.  Therefore these systems have limits on both
   the long term average power consumption (which cannot exceed the
   average scavenged power over the same interval) as well as the short-
   term limits imposed by the energy storage requirements.  For solar-
   powered systems, the energy storage system is generally designed to
   provide days of power in the absence of sunlight.  Many industrial
   sensors run off of a 4-20mA current loop, and can scavenge on the
   order of mW from that source.  Vibration monitoring systems are a
   natural choice for vibration scavenging, which typically only
   provides tens or hundreds of microwatts.  Due to industrial
   temperature ranges and desired lifetimes, the choices of energy
   storage devices can be limited, and the resulting stored energy is
   often comparable to the energy cost of sending or receiving a packet
   rather than the energy of operating the node for several days.  And
   of course some nodes will be line-powered.

   Example 1: solar panel, lead-acid battery sized for two weeks of

   Example 2: vibration scavenger, 1mF tantalum capacitor

   Field devices have limited resources.  Low power, low cost devices
   have limited memory for storing route information.  Typical field
   devices will have a finite number of routes they can support for
   their embedded sensor/actuator application and for forwarding other
   devices packets in a mesh network slotted-link.

   Users may have strong preferences on lifetime that is different for
   the same device in different locations.  A sensor monitoring a non-

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

   critical parameter in an easily-accessed location may have a lifetime
   requirement that is shorter and tolerate more statistical variation
   than a mission-critical sensor in a hard to reach place that requires
   shutdown of the plant to replace.

   The routing algorithm MUST support node constrained routing (e.g.
   taking into account the existing energy state as a node constraint).
   Node constraints include power and memory as well as constraints
   placed on the device by the user such as battery life.

6.  Broadcast/Multicast

   Existing industrial host applications do not use broadcast or
   multicast addressing to communicate to field devices.  Unicast
   address support is sufficient.  However wireless field devices with
   communication controllers and protocol stacks will require control
   and configuration such as firmware downloading that may benefit from
   broadcast and multicast addressing.

   The routing protocol SHOULD support broadcast and multicast

7.  Route Establishment Time

   Network connectivity in real deployments is always time-varying, with
   time constants from seconds to months.  Optimization is perhaps not
   the right word to use, in that network optimization will need to run
   continuously, and single-slotted-link failures that cause loss of
   connectivity are not likely to be tolerated.  Once the network is
   formed, it should never need to "optimized" to a new configuration in
   response to a lost slotted-link.  The routing algorithm SHOULD not
   have to re-optimize in response to the loss of a slotted-link.  The
   routing algorithms SHOULD always be in the process of plesio-
   optimizing the system for the changing RF environment.  The routing
   algorithm MUST re-optimize the path when field devices change due to
   insertion, removal or failure.

8.  Mobility

   Various economic factors have contributed to a reduction of trained
   workers in the plant.  The industry as a whole appears to be trying
   to solve this problem with what is called the "wireless worker".
   Carrying a PDA or something similar, this worker will be able to
   accomplish more work in less time than the older, better-trained
   workers that he or she replaces.  Whether the premise is valid, the

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

   use case is commonly presented: the worker will be wirelessly
   connected to the plant IT system to download documentation,
   instructions, etc., and will need to be able to connect "directly" to
   the sensors and control points in or near the equipment on which he
   or she is working.  It is possible that this "direct" connection
   could come via the normal L2Ns data collection network.  This
   connection is likely to require higher bandwidth and lower latency
   than the normal data collection operation.

   The routing protocol SHOULD support the wireless worker with fast
   network connection times of a few of seconds, low latency command and
   response latencies to host behind the access points and to
   applications and to field devices.  The routing protocol SHOULD also
   support configuring graphs for bulk transfers.  The routing protocol
   MUST support walking speeds for maintaining network connectivity as
   the handheld device changes position in the wireless network.

   Some field devices will be mobile.  These devices may be located on
   moving parts such as rotating components or they may be located on
   vehicles such as cranes or fork lifts.  The routing protocol SHOULD
   support vehicular speeds of up to 35 kmph.

9.  Manageability and Ease Of Use

   The process and control industry is manpower constrained.  The aging
   demographics of plant personnel are causing a looming manpower
   problem for industry across many markets.  The goal for the
   industrial networks is to make the installation process not require
   any new skills for the plant personnel.  The industrial customers do
   not even want to require the current level of networking knowledge
   needed for do-it-yourself home network installations.

   The routing protocol for L2Ns must be easy to deploy and manage.  In
   a further revision of this document, metrics to measure ease of
   deployment for the routing protocol will be detailed.

10.  Security

   Wireless sensor networks in industrial automation operate in systems
   that have substantial financial and human safety implications,
   security is of considerable concern.  Levels of security violation
   which are tolerated as a "cost of doing business" in the banking
   industry are not acceptable when in some cases literally thousands of
   lives may be at risk.

   Industrial wireless device manufactures are specifying security at

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

   the MAC layer and the Transport layer.  A shared "Network Key" is
   used to authenticate messages at the MAC layer.  At the transport
   layer, commands are encrypted with unique randomly-generated end-to-
   end Session keys.  HART7 and ISA100.11a are examples of security
   systems for industrial wireless networks.

   Industrial plants may not maintain the same level of physical
   security for field devices that is associated with traditional
   network sites such as locked IT centers.  In industrial plants it
   must be assumed that the field devices have marginal physical
   security and the security system needs to have limited trust in them.
   The routing protocol SHOULD place limited trust in the field devices
   deployed in the plant network.

   The routing protocol SHOULD compartmentalize the trust placed in
   field devices so that a compromised field device does not destroy the
   security of the whole network.  The routing MUST be configured and
   managed using secure messages and protocols that prevent outsider
   attacks and limit insider attacks from field devices installed in
   insecure locations in the plant.

11.  Informative Reference

   [HART] "Highway Addressable Remote Transducer", a group of
   specifications for industrial process and control devices
   administered by the HART Foundation,

12.  IANA Considerations

   This document includes no request to IANA.

13.  Acknowledgements

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.

14.2.  Informative References

              Vasseur, J. and D. Cullerot, "Routing Requirements for Low

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

              Power And Lossy Networks",
              draft-culler-rl2n-routing-reqs-01 (work in progress),
              July 2007.

Authors' Addresses

   Kris Pister
   Dust Networks
   30695 Huntwood Ave.
   Hayward,   94544


   Rick Enns
   Dust Networks
   30695 Huntwood Ave.
   Hayward,   94544


   Pascal Thubert
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   Village d'Entreprises Green Side - 400, Avenue de Roumanille
   Sophia Antipolis,   06410


Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft   draft-pister-roll-indus-routing-reqs-00      March 2008

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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

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

   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

Pister, et al.         Expires September 29, 2008              [Page 15]