CCAMP Working Group JP Vasseur (Ed.)
Cisco System Inc.
IETF Internet Draft JL Le Roux (Ed.)
France Telecom
Proposed Status: Standard
Expires: August 2005 February 2005
Routing extensions for discovery of Traffic Engineering Node
Capabilities
draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any
of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC
3668.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
Abstract
It is highly desired in several cases, to take into account Traffic
Engineering (TE) node capabilities during TE LSP path selection, such
as for instance the capability to act as a branch LSR of a P2MP LSP.
This requires advertising these capabilities within the IGP.
For that purpose, this document specifies OSPF and IS-IS traffic
engineering extensions for the advertisement of control plane and
data plane traffic engineering node capabilities.
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 RFC-2119.
Table of Contents
1. Contributors................................................3
2. Terminology.................................................3
3. Introduction................................................4
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4
4.1. Description.................................................4
4.2. Required Information........................................5
5. OSPF TE extensions..........................................6
5.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............6
5.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................7
5.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...............................8
5.2. Elements of Procedure.......................................9
6. IS-IS TE Extensions........................................10
6.1. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format.............10
6.1.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV.....................................10
6.1.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................11
6.2. Elements of procedure......................................12
7. Backward compatibility.....................................12
8. Security Considerations....................................12
9. Intellectual Property Statement............................12
9.1. IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement.............................13
10. Acknowledgments............................................13
11. References.................................................13
11.1. Normative references.......................................13
11.2. Informative References.....................................14
12. Editors' Address...........................................14
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
1. Contributors
This document was the collective work of several. The text and
content of this document was contributed by the editors and the
co-authors listed below (the contact information for the editors
appears in section 12, and is not repeated below):
Paul Mabey Seisho Yasukawa
Qwest Communications NTT
950 17th street 9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome
Denver, CO 80202 Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585
USA JAPAN
Email: pmabey@qwest.com Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp
Stefano Previdi Peter Psenak
Cisco System, Inc. Cisco System, Inc.
Via del Serafico 200 Pegasus Park
00142 Roma DE Kleetlaan 6A
ITALY 1831, Diegmen
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com BELGIUM
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
2. Terminology
LSR: Label Switch Router.
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
P2MP TE LSP: A TE LSP that has one unique
ingress LSR and one or more egress LSRs.
Branch LSR: An LSR on a P2MP LSP that has more than one directly
connected downstream LSRs.
Bud-LSR: An LSR on a P2MP LSP, that is an egress, but also has one or
more directly connected downstream LSRs.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
3. Introduction
MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing ([IS-IS-TE], [OSPF-TE])
relies on extensions to link state IGP routing protocols ([OSPF],
[IS-IS]) in order to carry Traffic Engineering (TE) link information
used for constraint based routing. Further Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
related routing extensions are defined in [IS-IS-G] and [OSPF-G].
It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to
carry TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information. These
TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints during
path selection.
Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities,
such as, for instance the capability to be a branch LSR or a bud-LSR
of a P2MP LSP. These capabilities are then taken into account as
constraints when computing TE LSP paths.
It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities
such as for instance the capability to support GMPLS
signaling for a packet LSR, or the capability to support P2MP (Point
to Multipoint) TE LSP signaling. This allows selecting a path that
avoids nodes that do not support a given signaling feature, or
triggering a mechanism to support such nodes. Hence this facilitates
backward compatibility.
For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS)
traffic engineering node capability TLVs in order to advertise data
plane and control plane capabilities of a node.
A new TLV is defined for ISIS and OSPF: the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV, to be carried within:
- the ISIS Capability TLV ([ISIS-CAP]) for ISIS
- the Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]), for OSPF.
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor
4.1. Description
LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane
Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor
information defined in this document describes data and control plane
capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used for instance
during path computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a
given TE feature either in the control or data plane or to trigger
procedure to handle these nodes. In some cases, this may also be
useful to ensure backward compatibility.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
4.2. Required Information
The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains two variable length sets
of bit flags:
-The Data Plane Capabilities: This a variable length
set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE data plane
capability.
-The Control Plane Capabilities: This a variable length
set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE control
plane capability.
Two Data Plane Capabilities are currently defined:
-B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [P2MP-REQ]) and [RSVP-
P2MP]).
-E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an LSR that is both
transit and egress.
Three Control Plane Capabilities are currently defined:
-M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]).
-G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]).
-P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
Note that new capabilities may be added in the future if required.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
5. OSPF TE extensions
5.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non
ordered sub-TLVs.
The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV and its sub-
TLVs is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF [OSPF-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2
octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the TLV length and a value
field.
The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in
the length field (so a three octet value would have a length of
three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested
TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. Unrecognized types are ignored. All
types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for vendor-specific
extensions. All other undefined type codes are reserved for future
assignment by IANA.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// sub-TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type To be defined by IANA
Length Variable
Value This comprises one or more sub-TLVs
Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
Sub-TLV type Length Name
1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new
capabilities.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
router information LSA which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
5.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit
correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable
length.
The format of the DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Plane TE Node Capabilities |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type Set to 1.
Length It is set to N x 4 octets. N starts
from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.
Each 4
octets are referred to as a capability flag.
Value This comprises one or more capability flags.
For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most
Significant to the least significant, where each bit
represents one data plane TE node capability. When
the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new
capability flag will be used to accommodate the next
capability.
The following bits in the first capability flag have been assigned:
Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[P2MP-REQ];
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
LSR that is both transit and egress [P2MP-REQ];
2-31 Future assignments.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
5.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each
bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a
variable length.
The format of the CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Control Plane TE Node Capabilities |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type Set to 1.
Length It is set to N x 4 octets. N starts
from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.
Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag.
Value This comprises one or more capability flags.
For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most
Significant to the least significant, where each bit
represents one control plane TE node capability. When
the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new
capability flag will be used to accommodate the next
capability.
The following bits in the first capability flag have been assigned:
Bit Capabilities
0 M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]).
1 G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]).
2 P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
3-31 Future assignments
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
5.2. Elements of Procedure
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
Router information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0)
which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].
A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
the content of any of the carried TLVs changes or whenever
required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every
LSRefreshTime)).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
are taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
its flooding scope is area-local, and MUST be carried within a type
10 router information LSA.
TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs are OPTIONAL. When an OSPF LSA
does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor TLV, this means
that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
6. IS-IS TE Extensions
6.1. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non
ordered sub-TLVs.
The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability TLV and its sub-TLVs is
the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions
to IS-IS [ISIS-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the
type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA
LENGTH: Variable, from 3 to 255
VALUE: set of one or more sub-TLVs
Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
Sub-TLV type Length Name
1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new
capabilities.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an IS-
IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [ISIS-CAP].
6.1.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit
correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable
length.
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: It is set to 1
LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased when
there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a
capability flag.
VALUE: This comprises one or more data plane TE node capability
flags.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
The following bits in the first capability flag have been assigned:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|B|E| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
B bit: P2MP Branch node capability: When set this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[P2MP-REQ]
E bit: P2MP bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
LSR that is both transit and egress [P2MP-REQ].
6.1.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each
bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a
variable length.
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: It is set to 2
LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased
when there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a
capability flag.
VALUE: This comprises one or more control plane TE node capability
flags.
The following bits in the first capability flag have been assigned:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|G|P|Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signaling ([RSVP-TE]).
-G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signaling
([RSVP-G]).
-P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE
signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
6.2. Elements of procedure
The TE Node Capability TLV is carried within an IS-IS Router
CAPABILITY TLV defined in [IS-IS-CAP].
An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content
of any of the TE Node Capability TLV changes or whenever required by
the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
are taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
its flooding is area-local, and MUST be carried within an IS-IS
CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.
TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs are OPTIONAL. When a IS-IS LSP
does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor TLV, this means
that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.
7. Backward compatibility
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do
not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV SHOULD just silently
ignore the TLV as specified in RFC2370. For IS-IS a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV SHOULD just silently
ignore the TLV.
8. Security Considerations
No new security issues are raised in this document.
9. 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
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
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.
9.1. IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
10. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole for its useful comments and
suggestions.
11. References
11.1. Normative references
[RFC] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
[OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routing Exchange Protocol " ISO 10589.
[IS-IS-IP] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[IS-IS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
[OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur,
J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router
Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap-05.txt, work in progress.
[IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising
router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps-00.txt, work in progress.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RSVP-G] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
11.2. Informative References
[GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-ccamp-
gmpls-routing-09.txt (work in progress)
[OSPF-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-
gmpls-extensions-12.txt, work in progress.
[IS-IS-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-
extensions-19.txt, work in progress.
[P2MP-REQ] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Signaling Requirements for Point
to Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-
sig-requirement-00.txt, work in progress.
[RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to
RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-
p2mp-01.txt, work in progress.
12. Editors' Address
Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt February 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 15]