[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-l2tpex...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Errata]

Updated by: 5641 PROPOSED STANDARD
Errata Exist
Network Working Group                                        M. Townsley
Request for Comments: 4591                                     G. Wilkie
Category: Standards Track                                       S. Booth
                                                               S. Bryant
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                                  J. Lau
                                                               July 2006


     Frame Relay over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3)

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol, Version 3, (L2TPv3) defines a
   protocol for tunneling a variety of data link protocols over IP
   networks.  This document describes the specifics of how to tunnel
   Frame Relay over L2TPv3, including frame encapsulation, virtual-
   circuit creation and deletion, and status change notification.





















Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Abbreviations ..............................................3
      1.2. Specification of Requirements ..............................3
   2. Control Connection Establishment ................................3
   3. PVC Status Notification and Session Establishment ...............3
      3.1. L2TPv3 Session Establishment ...............................4
      3.2. L2TPv3 Session Teardown ....................................5
      3.3. L2TPv3 Session Maintenance .................................5
      3.4. Use of the Circuit Status AVP for Frame Relay ..............6
      3.5. Frame Relay Header Length AVP ..............................7
   4. Encapsulation ...................................................7
      4.1. Data Packet Encapsulation ..................................7
      4.2. Data Packet Sequencing .....................................9
      4.3. MTU Considerations .........................................9
   5. Applicability Statement ........................................10
   6. Security Considerations ........................................10
   7. IANA Considerations ............................................11
      7.1. Pseudowire Type ...........................................11
      7.2. Result Code AVP Values ....................................11
      7.3. Control Message Attribute Value Pairs (AVPs) ..............11
   8. Acknowledgements ...............................................11
   9. References .....................................................12
      9.1. Normative References ......................................12
      9.2. Informative References ....................................12

1.  Introduction

   [RFC3931] defines a base protocol for Layer 2 Tunneling over IP
   networks.  This document defines the specifics necessary for
   tunneling Frame Relay over L2TPv3.  Such emulated circuits are
   referred to as Frame Relay Pseudowires (FRPWs).

   Protocol specifics defined in this document for L2TPv3 FRPWs
   operating in a "virtual circuit-to-virtual circuit" mode include
   those necessary for frame encapsulation, PVC creation and deletion,
   and status change notification.  Frame Relay traffic may also be
   transported in a "port-to-port" or "interface-to-interface" fashion
   using High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) Pseudowires as defined in
   [RFC4349].  Support for Switched Virtual Circuits (SVCs) and
   Switched/Soft Permanent Virtual Circuits (SPVCs) are outside the
   scope of this document.

   The reader is expected to be very familiar with the terminology and
   protocol constructs defined in [RFC3931].





Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


1.1.  Abbreviations

   FR    Frame Relay
   FRPW  Frame Relay Pseudowire
   LCCE  L2TP Control Connection Endpoint (See [RFC3931])
   PVC   Permanent virtual circuit
   PW    Pseudowire
   VC    Virtual circuit

1.2. Specification of Requirements

   In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
   of the specification.  These words are often capitalized.  The key
   words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
   "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document
   are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  Control Connection Establishment

   In order to tunnel a Frame Relay circuit over IP using L2TPv3, an
   L2TPv3 Control Connection MUST first be established as described in
   [RFC3931].  The L2TPv3 SCCRQ Control Message and corresponding SCCRP
   Control Message MUST include the Frame Relay Data Link Connection
   Identifier (DLCI) PW Type of 0x0001 (see IANA Considerations), in the
   Pseudowire Capabilities List, as defined in Section 5.4.3 of
   [RFC3931].  This identifies the control connection as able to
   establish L2TP sessions to support Frame Relay Pseudowires (FRPWs).

   An LCCE MUST be able to identify itself uniquely in the SCCRQ and
   SCCRP messages via a globally unique value.  By default, this is
   advertised via the structured Router ID Attribute Value Pairs (AVP)
   [RFC3931], though the unstructured Hostname AVP [RFC3931] MAY be used
   to identify LCCEs as well.

3.  PVC Status Notification and Session Establishment

   This section specifies how the status of a PVC is reported between
   two LCCEs.  This includes what should happen when a PVC is created,
   deleted or when it changes state between ACTIVE and INACTIVE.  When
   emulating a Frame Relay service, if the procedures for PVC status
   management defined in [Q933] Annex A are being used between an LCCE
   and the attached Remote System, an LCCE MUST participate in them (see
   Section 3.3).








Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


3.1.  L2TPv3 Session Establishment

   PVC creation (provisioning) results in establishment of an L2TP
   session via the standard three-way handshake described in Section
   3.4.1 of [RFC3931].  An LCCE MAY initiate the session immediately
   upon PVC creation or wait until the PVC state transitions to ACTIVE
   before attempting to establish a session for the PVC.  Waiting until
   the PVC transitions to ACTIVE may be preferred, as it delays
   allocation of L2TP resources until it is absolutely necessary.

   The Pseudowire Type AVP defined in Section 5.4.4 of [RFC3931],
   Attribute Type 68, MUST be present in the Incoming-Call-Request
   (ICRQ) messages and MUST include the Frame Relay DLCI PW Type of
   0x0001 for FRPWs.

   The Circuit Status AVP (see Section 3.4) MUST be present in the ICRQ
   and Incoming-Call-Reply (ICRP) messages and MAY be present in the Set
   Link Info (SLI) message for FRPWs.

   The Frame Relay Header Length AVP (see Section 3.5) MAY be present in
   the ICRQ and ICRP messages.

   The following is an example of the L2TP messages exchanged for an
   FRPW that is initiated after a new PVC is provisioned and becomes
   ACTIVE.

         LCCE (LAC) A                     LCCE (LAC) B
      ------------------               ------------------
      FR PVC Provisioned
                                       FR PVC Provisioned
      FR PVC ACTIVE

                   ICRQ (status = 0x03) ---->

                                       FR PVC ACTIVE

                   <---- ICRP (status = 0x03)

      L2TP session established,
      OK to send data into tunnel

                       ICCN ----->
                                    L2TP session established,
                                    OK to send data into tunnel

   In the example above, an ICRQ is sent after the PVC is created and
   becomes ACTIVE.  The Circuit Status AVP indicates that this PVC is
   ACTIVE and New (0x03).  The Remote End ID AVP [RFC3931] MUST be



Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


   present in the ICRQ in order to identify the PVC (together with the
   identity of the LCCE itself, as defined in Section 2) to associate
   the L2TP session with.  The Remote End ID AVP, defined in [RFC3931],
   is of opaque form and variable length, though one MUST at a minimum
   support use of an unstructured four-octet value that is known to both
   LCCEs (either by direct configuration, or some other means).  The
   exact method of how this value is configured, retrieved, discovered,
   or otherwise determined at each LCCE is outside the scope of this
   document.

   As with the ICRQ, the ICRP is sent only after the FR PVC transitions
   to ACTIVE as well.  If LCCE B had not been provisioned for the PVC
   identified in the ICRQ, a Call-Disconnect-Notify (CDN) would have
   been immediately returned indicating that the circuit was not
   provisioned or available at this LCCE.  LCCE A SHOULD then exhibit a
   periodic retry mechanism.  If so, the period and maximum number of
   retries MUST be configurable.

   An Implementation MAY send an ICRQ or ICRP before a PVC is ACTIVE, as
   long as the Circuit Status AVP reflects that the PVC is INACTIVE and
   an SLI is sent when the PVC becomes ACTIVE (see Section 3.3).

   The Incoming-Call-Connected (ICCN) is the final stage in the session
   establishment, confirming the receipt of the ICRP with acceptable
   parameters to allow bidirectional traffic.

3.2.  L2TPv3 Session Teardown

   In the event that a PVC is deleted (unprovisioned) at either LCCE,
   the associated L2TP session MUST be torn down via the CDN message
   defined in Section 3.4.3 of [RFC3931].

   General Result Codes regarding L2TP session establishment are defined
   in [RFC3931].  Additional Frame Relay result codes are defined as
   follows:

      17: FR PVC was deleted permanently (no longer provisioned) 18: FR
      PVC has been INACTIVE for an extended period of time 19:
      Mismatched FR Header Length

3.3.  L2TPv3 Session Maintenance

   FRPW over L2TP makes use of the SLI control message defined in
   [RFC3931] to signal Frame Relay link status notifications between
   LCCEs.  This includes ACTIVE or INACTIVE notifications of the VC, and
   any other parameters that may need to be shared between the tunnel
   endpoints or LCCEs in order to provide proper PW emulation.  The SLI
   message is a single message that is sent over the L2TP control



Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


   channel signalling the state change.  Since the message is delivered
   reliably, there is no additional response or action required of the
   PW subsystem to ensure that the state change notification was
   received by the tunnel peer.

   The SLI message MUST be sent any time there is a circuit status
   change that may be reported by any values identified in the Circuit
   Status AVP.  The only exceptions to this are the initial ICRQ, ICRP,
   and CDN messages, which establish and tear down the L2TP session
   itself when the PVC is created or deleted.  The SLI message may be
   sent from either LCCE at any time after the first ICRQ is sent (and
   perhaps before an ICRP is received, requiring that the peer to
   perform a reverse Session ID lookup).

   An LCCE participating in the procedures for PVC status management
   defined in [Q933], Annex A, MUST transmit an SLI message including
   the Circuit Status AVP (see Section 3.4) when it detects a change in
   the status for a particular local FR PVC (i.e., when it detects a
   service-affecting condition or the clearing of such a condition).  An
   LCCE receiving an SLI message indicating a change in the status of a
   particular FRPW SHOULD generate corresponding updates for the FR PVC
   towards the Remote System, as defined in [Q933], Annex A.

   All sessions established by a given control connection utilize the
   L2TP Hello facility, defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC3931], for session
   keepalive.  This gives all sessions basic dead peer and path
   detection between LCCEs.

3.4.  Use of the Circuit Status AVP for Frame Relay

   Frame Relay circuit status is reported via the Circuit Status AVP
   defined in [RFC3931], Attribute Type 71.  For reference, this AVP is
   shown below:

    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Reserved        |N|A|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Value is a 16-bit mask with the two least significant bits
   defined and the remaining bits reserved for future use.  Reserved
   bits MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the receiver.

   The N (New) bit indicates whether the Circuit Status indication is
   for a new FR PVC (1) or an existing FR PVC (0).





Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


   The A (Active) bit indicates whether the FR PVC is ACTIVE (1) or
   INACTIVE (0).

3.5.  Frame Relay Header Length AVP

   The "Frame Relay Header Length AVP", Attribute type 85, indicates the
   number of bytes in the Frame Relay header.  The two peer LCCEs MUST
   agree on the length of the Frame Relay header.

   This AVP is exchanged during session negotiation (in ICRQ, ICRP).  If
   the other LCCE supports a different Frame Relay header length, the
   associated L2TP session MUST be torn down via CDN message with result
   code 19 (see Section 3.2).

   If the Frame Relay Header Length AVP is not signalled, it MUST be
   assumed that the peer uses a 2-byte Frame Relay header.

   The Attribute Value field for this AVP has the following format:

   Frame Relay Header Length (ICRQ, ICRP)

       0                   1
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Frame Relay Header Length   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Frame Relay Header Length Type is a 2-octet unsigned integer with
   the following values defined in this document:

      2: Two-octet Frame Relay Header 4: Four-octet Frame Relay Header

   This AVP MAY be hidden (the H bit MAY be 0 or 1).  The M bit for this
   AVP MAY be set to 0 but MAY vary (see Section 5.2 of [RFC3931]).  The
   length (before hiding) of this AVP is 8.

4.  Encapsulation

4.1.  Data Packet Encapsulation

   The FR PDU is transported in its entirety, excluding the opening and
   closing High Level Data Link Control (HDLC) flags and the frame check
   sequence (FCS).  Bit stuffing is undone.  The L2TPv3 Session Header
   is that as defined in [RFC3931].  If sequencing or other features
   require presence of an L2-Specific Sublayer, the Default format
   defined in Section 4.6 of [RFC3931] MUST be used.





Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


   The FR header is defined in [Q922]; however, the notation used
   differs from that used in IETF specifications.  For reference, the FR
   header (referred to as Address Field in [Q922]) in IETF notation is

    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | hi dlci   |C|0|lo dlci|F|B|D|1|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Two-octet FR Header

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | hi dlci   |C|0| dlci  |F|B|D|0|   dlci      |0| dlci_lo   |0|1|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Four-octet FR  Header

   C/R (bit 6) FR frame C/R (command/response) bit [Q922].

   F - FECN (bit 12):  FR FECN (Forward Explicit Congestion
   Notification) bit [Q922].

   B - BECN (bit 13):

   FR BECN (Backward Explicit Congestion Notification) bit [Q922].

   D - DE (bit 14) FR DE bit indicates the discard eligibility [Q922].

   Usage of the C/R, FECN, BECN, and DE bits is as specified in [Q922].

   The C/R bit is conveyed transparently.  Its value MUST NOT be changed
   by the LCCE.

   The FECN bit MAY be set by the LCCE to notify the receiving end-user
   that the frames it receives have encountered congestion.  The end-
   user may use this indication for destination-controlled transmit rate
   adjustment.  The bit must never be cleared by the LCCE.  If the LCCE
   does not support FECN, it shall pass the bit unchanged.

   The BECN bit MAY be set by the LCCE to notify the receiving end-user
   that the frames it transmits may encounter congestion.  The end-user
   may use this indication to adjust its transmit rate.  The bit must
   never be cleared by the LCCE.  If the LCCE does not support BECN, it
   shall pass the bit unchanged.




Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


   The DE bit MAY be set by a policing function on the LCCE to indicate
   that this frame SHOULD be discarded in preference to other frames in
   a congestion situation.  The bit must never be cleared by the LCCE.
   If the LCCE does not support DE, it shall pass the bit unchanged.

   The encapsulation of Frame Relay frames with the two-octet FR Header
   is REQUIRED.  The encapsulation of Frame Relay frames with the four-
   octet FR Header is OPTIONAL.  The encapsulation of Frame Relay frames
   with the three-octet FR Header is outside the scope of this document.

4.2.  Data Packet Sequencing

   Data Packet Sequencing MAY be enabled for FRPWs.  The sequencing
   mechanisms described in [RFC3931] MUST be used for signalling
   sequencing support.  FRPW over L2TP MUST request the presence of the
   L2TPv3 Default L2-Specific Sublayer when sequencing is enabled and
   MAY request its presence at all times.

   If the FRPW is known to be carrying data that does not require packet
   order be strictly maintained (such as IP), then packet sequencing for
   the FRPW SHOULD NOT be enabled.

4.3.  MTU Considerations

   With L2TPv3 as the tunneling protocol, the packet resulted from the
   encapsulation is N bytes longer than Frame Relay frame without the
   opening and closing HDLC flags or FCS.  The value of N depends on the
   following fields:

      L2TP Session Header:
      Flags, Ver, Res       4 octets (L2TPv3 over UDP only)
      Session ID            4 octets
      Cookie Size           0, 4, or 8 octets
      L2-Specific Sublayer  0 or 4 octets (i.e., with sequencing)

   Thus, the range for N in octets is:

      N = 4 - 16   L2TPv3 data messages are over IP
      N = 16 - 28  L2TPv3 data messages are over UDP
      (N does not include the IP header)

   The MTU and fragmentation implications resulting from this are
   discussed in Section 4.1.4 of [RFC3931].








Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


5.  Applicability Statement

   The Frame Relay PW emulation described in this document allows a
   service provider to offer a Frame Relay PVC-based service across an
   IP packet-switched network (PSN).  A Frame Relay port-based service
   can be offered using [RFC4349].

   The FRPW emulation has the following characteristics in relationship
   to the native service:

   o There is a one-to-one mapping between a Frame Relay PVC and an
     FRPW, supporting bi-directional transport of variable length
     frames.  The Frame Relay frame is transported in its entirety,
     including the DLCI and the C/R, FECN, BECN, and DE bits, but
     excluding the opening and closing flags and the FCS.  The egress
     LCCE re-writes the DLCI and regenerates the FCS.

   o Two- and four-octet address fields are supported.  The length is
     negotiated between LCCEs during session establishment (see Section
     3.5).

   o The availability or unavailability of the PVC is signalled between
     LCCEs using the Circuit Status AVP (see Section 3.4).  Loss of
     connectivity between LCCEs can be detected by the L2TPv3 keepalive
     mechanism (see Section 4.4 in [RFC3931]).  These indications can be
     used to determine the PVC status to be signalled through [Q933]
     procedures at the Frame Relay interface.

   o The maximum frame size that can be supported is limited by the PSN
     MTU, unless fragmentation and reassembly is used (see Section 4.1.4
     of [RFC3931]).

   o Sequencing may be enabled on the FRPW to ensure that frames are
     delivered in order (see Section 4.2).

   o Quality of Service characteristics, such as throughput (CIR),
     committed burst size (bc), excess burst size (be), and priority,
     can be provided by leveraging Quality of Service features of the
     LCCEs and the underlying PSN.

6.  Security Considerations

   Frame Relay over L2TPv3 is subject to the security considerations
   defined in [RFC3931].  There are no additional considerations
   specific to carrying Frame Relay that are not present for carrying
   other data link types.





Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


7. IANA Considerations

7.1.  Pseudowire Type

   The following value for the Frame Relay DLCI PW Type (see Pseudowire
   Capabilities List, as defined in 5.4.3 of [RFC3931], and L2TPv3
   Pseudowire Types in 10.6 of [RFC3931]) is allocated by the IANA
   (number space already created as part of publication of [RFC3931]):

      L2TPv3 Pseudowire Types
      -----------------------

      0x0001: Frame Relay DLCI Pseudowire Type

7.2.  Result Code AVP Values

   This number space is managed by IANA as described in Section 2.3 of
   [RFC3438].  Three new L2TP Result Codes for the CDN message appear in
   Section 3.2.  The following is a summary:

      Result Code AVP (Attribute Type 1) Values
      -----------------------------------------

      17: PVC was deleted permanently (no longer provisioned)
      18: PVC has been INACTIVE for an extended period of time
      19: Mismatched FR Header Length

7.3.  Control Message Attribute Value Pairs (AVPs)

   This number space is managed by IANA as described in Section 2.2 of
   [RFC3438].  An additional AVP Attribute, specified in Section 3.5,
   was allocated for this specification:

      Control Message Attribute Value Pairs
      -------------------------------------

      85: Frame Relay Header Length

8.  Acknowledgements

   The first Frame Relay over L2TP document, "Frame Relay Service Type
   for L2TP", was published in February of 2001, by Nishit Vasavada, Jim
   Boyle, Chris Garner, Serge Maskalik, and Vijay Gill.  This document
   is substantially different, but the basic concept of carrying Frame
   Relay over L2TP is the same.






Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


   Thanks to Lloyd Wood for a razor-sharp review.

   Carlos Pignataro helped with review and editing of the document.

   During IETF Last Call, Mark Lewis provided thorough review and
   comments.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC3931] Lau, J., Townsley, M., and I. Goyret, "Layer Two Tunneling
             Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931, March 2005.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4349] Pignataro, C. and M. Townsley, "High-Level Data Link
             Control (HDLC) Frames over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol,
             Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 4349, February 2006.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3438] Townsley, W., "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) Internet
             Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations Update",
             BCP 68, RFC 3438, December 2002.

   [Q922]    ITU-T Recommendation Q.922, "ISDN Data Link Layer
             Specification for Frame Mode Bearer Services", ITU, Geneva,
             1992.

   [Q933]    ITU-T Recommendation Q.933, "Signalling specifications for
             frame mode switched and permanent virtual connection
             control and status monitoring", ITU, Geneva, 2003.

















Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


Authors' Addresses

   W. Mark Townsley
   Cisco Systems
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   PO Box 14987
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

   EMail: mark@townsley.net


   George Wilkie
   Cisco Systems
   96 Commercial Street
   Edinburgh, EH6 6LX
   United Kingdom

   EMail: gwilkie@cisco.com


   Skip Booth
   Cisco Systems
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   PO Box 14987
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

   EMail: ebooth@cisco.com


   Stewart Bryant
   Cisco Systems
   250 Longwater Ave
   Green Park
   Reading RG2 6GB
   United Kingdom

   EMail: stbryant@cisco.com


   Jed Lau

   EMail: jedlau@gmail.com









Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 4591                Frame Relay over L2TPv3                July 2006


Full 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.

   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.

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
   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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Townsley, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/