[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 4384

INTERNET-DRAFT                                      D. Meyer
draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-06.txt
Category                               Best Current Practice
Expires: March 2005                           September 2004

                  BGP Communities for Data Collection
            <draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-06.txt>



Status of this Memo


   Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all
   provisions of section 3 of RFC 3667. 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 become
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.

   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 document is a product of the GROW WG. Comments should be
   addressed to the author, or the mailing list at
   grow@lists.uoregon.edu.


D. Meyer                                                        [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.


Abstract


   BGP communities (RFC 1997) are used by service providers for many
   purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically
   originated routes.  Such tagging is typically used to control the
   scope of redistribution of routes within a provider's network, and to
   its peers and customers. With the advent of large scale BGP data
   collection (and associated research), it has become clear that the
   information carried in such communities is essential for a deeper
   understanding of the global routing system. This memo defines
   standard (outbound) communities and their encodings for export to BGP
   route collectors.

































D. Meyer                                                        [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


Table of Contents


   1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
    2.1. Peers and Peering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
    2.2. Customer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
    2.3. Peer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
    2.4. Internal Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
    2.5. Internal More Specific Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
    2.6. Special Purpose Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    2.7. Upstream Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    2.8. National Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    2.9. Regional Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3. RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
    3.1. Community Values for BGP Data Collection. . . . . . . . . .   7
   4. Extended Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
    4.1. Four-octet AS specific extended communities . . . . . . . .  11
   5. Note on BGP Update Packing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
    7.1. Total Path Attribute Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
    9.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
    9.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Author's Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
























D. Meyer                                                        [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


1.  Introduction


   BGP communities [RFC1997] are used by service providers for many
   purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically
   originated routes.  Such tagging is typically used to control the
   scope of redistribution of routes within a providers network, and to
   its customers and peers. Communities are also used for a wide variety
   of other applications, such as allowing customers to set attributes
   such as LOCAL_PREF [RFC1771] by sending appropriate communities to
   their service provider. Other applications include signaling various
   types of VPNs (e.g., VPLS [VPLS]), and carrying link bandwidth for
   traffic engineering applications [EXTCOMM].

   With the advent of large scale BGP data collection [RIS,ROUTEVIEWS]
   (and associated research), it has become clear that the geographical
   and topological information, as well as the relationship the provider
   has to the source of a route (e.g., transit, peer, or customer),
   carried in such communities is essential for a deeper understanding
   of the global routing system. This memo defines standard communities
   for export to BGP route collectors. These communities represent a
   significant part of information carried by service providers as of
   this writing, and as such could be useful for internal use by service
   providers.  However, such use is beyond the scope of this memo.
   Finally, those involved in BGP data analysis are encouraged to verify
   with their data sources as to which peers implement this scheme (as
   there is a large amount of existing data as well as many legacy
   peerings).

   The remainder of this memo is organized as follows. Section 2
   provides both the definition of terms used as well as the semantics
   of the communities used for BGP data collection, and section 3
   defines the corresponding encodings for RFC 1997 [RFC1997]
   communities. Finally, section 4 defines the encodings for use with
   extended communities [EXTCOMM].



2.  Definitions


   In this section, we define the terms used and the categories of
   routes that may be tagged with communities. This tagging is often
   refered to as coloring, and we refer to a route's "color" as its
   community value. The categories defined here are loosely modeled on
   those described in [WANG] and [HUSTON].





D. Meyer                                            Section 2.  [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


2.1.  Peers and Peering


   Consider two network service providers, A and B. Service providers A
   and B are defined to be peers when (i). A and B exchange routes via
   BGP, and (ii). traffic exchange between A and B is settlement-free.
   This arrangement is also typically known as "peering". Peers
   typically exchange only their respective customer routes (see
   "Customer Routes" below), and hence exchange only their respective
   customer traffic. See [HUSTON] for a more in-depth discussion of the
   business models surrounding peers and peering.



2.2.  Customer Routes


   Customer routes are those routes which are heard from a customer via
   BGP and are propagated to peers and other customers. Note that a
   customer can be an enterprise or another network service provider.
   These routes are sometimes called client routes [HUSTON].



2.3.  Peer Routes


   Peer routes are those routes heard from peers via BGP, and not
   propagated to other peers. In particular, these routes are only
   propagated to the service provider's customers.



2.4.  Internal Routes


   Internal routes are those routes that a service provider originates
   and passes to its peers and customers. These routes are frequently
   taken out of the address space allocated to a provider.



2.5.  Internal More Specific Routes


   Internal more-specific routes are those routes which are frequently
   used for circuit load balancing purposes, IGP route reduction, and
   also may correspond to customer services which are not visible



D. Meyer                                          Section 2.5.  [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


   outside the service provider's network. Internal more specific routes
   are not exported to any external peer.



2.6.  Special Purpose Routes


   Special purpose routes are those routes which do not fall into any of
   the other classes described here. In those cases in which such routes
   need to be distinguished, a service provider may color such routes
   with a unique value. Examples of special purpose routes include
   anycast routes, and routes for overlay networks.



2.7.  Upstream Routes


   Upstream routes are typically learned from upstream service provider
   as part of a transit service contract executed with the upstream
   provider.




2.8.  National Routes


   These are route sets that are sourced from and/or received within a
   particular country.



2.9.  Regional Routes


   Several global backbones implement regional policy based on their
   deployed footprint, and on strategic and business imperatives.
   Service providers often have settlement-free interconnections with an
   AS in one region, and that same AS is a customer in another region.
   This mandates use of regional routing, including community attributes
   set by the network in question to allow easy discrimination among
   regional routes. For example, service providers may treat a route set
   received from another service provider in Europe differently than the
   same route set received in North America, as it is common practice to
   sell transit in one region while peering in the other.




D. Meyer                                          Section 2.9.  [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


3.  RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values


   In this section we provide RFC 1997 [RFC1997] community values for
   the categories described above. RFC 1997 communities are encoded as
   BGP Type Code 8, and are treated as 32 bit values ranging from
   0x0000000 through 0xFFFFFFF. The values 0x0000000 through 0x0000FFFF
   and 0xFFFF0000 through 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved.

   The best current practice among service providers is to use the high
   order two octets to represent the provider's AS number, and the low
   order two octets to represent the classification of the route, as
   depicted below:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |            <AS>               |         <Value>               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where <AS> is the 16 bit AS number. For example, the encoding
   0x2A7C029A would represent the AS 10876 with value 666.



3.1.  Community Values for BGP Data Collection


   In this section we define the RFC 1997 community encoding for the
   route types described above for use in BGP data collection. It is
   anticipated that a service provider's internal community values will
   be converted to these standard values for output to a route
   collector.

   This memo follows the best current practice of using the basic format
   <AS>:<Value>. The values for the route categories are described in
   the following table:














D. Meyer                                          Section 3.1.  [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


       Category                                 Value
     ===============================================================
     Reserved                                 <AS>:0000000000000000
     Customer Routes                          <AS>:0000000000000001
     Peer Routes                              <AS>:0000000000000010
     Internal Routes                          <AS>:0000000000000011
     Internal More Specific Routes            <AS>:0000000000000100
     Special Purpose Routes                   <AS>:0000000000000101
     Upstream Routes                          <AS>:0000000000000110
     Reserved                                 <AS>:0000000000000111-
                                              <AS>:0000011111111111
     National and Regional Routes             <AS>:0000100000000000-
                                              <AS>:1111111111111111
      Encoded as                               <AS>:<R><X><CC>
      Reserved National and Regional values    <AS>:0100000000000000-
                                               <AS>:1111111111111111

   Where

    <AS> is the 16-bit AS
    <R>  is the 5-bit Region Identifier
    <X>  is the 1-bit satellite link indication
         X = 1 for satellite links, 0 otherwise
    <CC> is the 10-bit ISO-3166-2 country code

   and <R> takes the values:

    Africa (AF)                            00001
    Oceania (OC)                           00010
    Asia (AS)                              00011
    Antarctica (AQ)                        00100
    Europe (EU)                            00101
    Latin America/Caribbean Islands (LAC)  00110
    North America (NA)                     00111
    Reserved                               01000-11111
















D. Meyer                                          Section 3.1.  [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


   That is:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |            <AS>               |   <R>   |X|        <CC>       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   For example, the encoding for a national route over a terrestrial
   link in AS 10876 from the Fiji Islands would be:

    <AS>  = 10876 = 0x2A7C
    <R>   = 00010
    <X>   = 0
    <CC>  = Fiji Islands Country Code = 242 = 0011110010


   In this case, the low order 16 bits are 0001000011110010 = 0x10F2

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           0x2A7C              |           0x10F2              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Note that a configuration language might allow the specification of
   this community as 10876:4338 (0x10F2 == 4338 decimal).

   Finally, note that these categories are not intended to be mutually
   exclusive, and multiple communities can be attached where
   appropriate.



4.  Extended Communities


   In some cases, the encoding described in section 3.1 may clash with a
   service provider's existing community assignments.  Extended
   communities [EXTCOMM] provide a convenient mechanism that can be used
   to avoid such clashes.

   The Extended Communities Attribute is a transitive optional BGP
   attribute with the Type Code 16, and consists of a set of extended
   communities of the following format:






D. Meyer                                            Section 4.  [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


      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 high    |  Type low(*)  |                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+          Value                |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   For purposes of BGP data collection, we encode the communities
   described in section 3.1 using the two-octet AS specific extended
   community type, which has the following format:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      0x00     |   Sub-Type    |    Global Administrator       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     Local Administrator                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The two-octet AS specific extended community attribute encodes the
   service provider's two octet Autonomous System number (as assigned by
   a Regional Internet Registry, or RIR) in the Global Administrator
   field, and the Local Administrator field may encode any information.

   This memo assigns Sub-Type 0x05 for BGP data collection, and
   specifies that the <Value> field, as defined in section 3.1, is
   carried in the low order octets of the Local Administrator field. The
   two high order octets of the Local Administrator field are reserved,
   and are set to 0x00 when sending and ignored upon receipt.

   For example, the extended community encoding for 10876:4338
   (representing a terrestrial national route in AS 10876 from the Fiji
   Islands) would be:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      0x00     |      0x05     |           0x2A7C              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      0x00     |      0x00     |           0x10F2              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+









D. Meyer                                           Section 4.  [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


4.1.  Four-octet AS specific extended communities


   The four-octet AS specific extended community is encoded 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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      0x02     |    0x05       |    Global Administrator       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Global Administrator (cont.)  |           0x10F2              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   In this case, the 4 octet Global Administrator sub-field contains a
   4-octets Autonomous System number assigned by the IANA.




5.  Note on BGP Update Packing


   Note that data collection communities have the potential of making
   the attribute set of a specific route more unique than it would be
   otherwise (since each route collects data that is specific to it's
   path inside one or more ASes). This, in turn, can affect whether
   multiple routes can be grouped in the same BGP update message, and
   may lead to increased use of bandwidth, router CPU cycles, and
   memory.



6.  Acknowledgments


   The community encoding described in this memo germinated from an
   interesting suggestion from Akira Kato at WIDE. In particular, the
   idea would be to use the collection community values to select paths
   that would result in (hopefully) more efficient access to various
   services. For example, in the case of RFC 3258 [RFC3258] based DNS
   anycast service, BGP routers may see multiple paths to the same
   prefix, and others might be coming from the same origin with
   different paths, but others might be from different region/country
   (with the same origin AS).

   Joe Abley, Randy Bush, Sean Donelan, Xenofontas Dimitropoulos, Vijay
   Gill, John Heasley, Geoff Huston, Steve Huter, Michael Patton,
   Olivier Marce, Ryan McDowell, Rob Rockell, Rob Thomas, Pekka Savola,



D. Meyer                                           Section 6.  [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


   Patrick Verkaik and Alex Zinin all made many insightful comments on
   early versions of this draft. Henk Uijterwaal suggested the use of
   the ISO-3166-2 country codes.
















































D. Meyer                                           Section 6.  [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


7.  Security Considerations


   While this memo introduces no additional security considerations into
   the BGP protocol, the information contained in the communities
   defined in this memo may in some cases reveal network structure that
   was not previously visible outside the provider's network. As a
   result, care should be taken when exporting such communities to route
   collectors. Finally, routes exported to a route collector should also
   be tagged with the NO_EXPORT community (0xFFFFFF01).



7.1.  Total Path Attribute Length


   The communities described in this memo are intended for use on egress
   to a route collector. Hence an operator may choose to overwrite its
   internal communities with the values specified in this memo when
   exporting routes to a route collector. However, operators should in
   general ensure that the behavior of their BGP implementation is well-
   defined when the addition of an attribute causes a PDU to exceed 4096
   octets. For example, since it is common practice to use community
   attributes to implement policy (among other functionality such as
   allowing customers to set attributes such as LOCAL_PREF), the
   behavior of an implementation when the attribute space overflows is
   crucial. Among other behaviors, an implementation might usurp the
   intended attribute data or otherwise cause indeterminate failures.
   These behaviors can result in unanticipated community attribute sets,
   and hence result in unintended policy implications.



8.  IANA Considerations


   This memo assigns a new Sub-Type for the AS specific extended
   community type. In particular, the IANA should assign Sub-type 0x05,
   using the "First Come First Served" policy defined in RFC 2434
   [RFC2434], for the Sub-Type defined in Section 4. This corresponds to
   a Type Field value of 0x0005.










D. Meyer                                           Section 8.  [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [EXTCOMM]       Sangali, S., D. Tappan and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended
                   Communities Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-07.txt,
                   Work in progress.

   [ISO-3166-2]    http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/index.html

   [RIS-ISO-3166]  ftp://ftp.ripe.net/iso3166-countrycodes.txt

   [RFC1771]       Rekhter, Y. and T. Li (Editors), "A Border
                   Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995.

   [RFC1997]       Chandra, R. and P. Traina, "BGP Communities
                   Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.




9.2.  Informative References


   [HUSTON]        Huston, G., "Interconnection, Peering, and Settlements",
                   http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/1e/1e_1.htm

   [RFC2028]       Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations
                   Involved in the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11,
                   RFC 2028, October 1996.

   [RFC2434]       Narten, T., and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
                   Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
                   BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

   [RFC3258]       Hardie, T., "Distributing Authoritative Name
                   Servers via Shared Unicast Addresses", RFC 3258,
                   April 2002.

   [RIS]           "Routing Information Service", http://www.ripe.net/ris

   [ROUTEVIEWS]    "The Routeviews Project", http://www.routeviews.org









D. Meyer                                         Section 9.2.  [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


   [VPLS]          Kompella, K., et al., "Virtual Private LAN
                   Service", draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-02.txt,
                   Work in Progress.

   [WANG]          Wang, F. and L. Gao, "Inferring and Characterizing
                   Internet Routing Policies", ACM SIGCOMM Internet
                   Measurement Conference 2003.


10.  Author's Addresses


   David Meyer
   EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net


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



D. Meyer                                          Section 10.  [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT             Expires: March 2005            September 2004


   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 (2004).  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.




































D. Meyer                                          Section 10.  [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/