[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-6man-r...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

PROPOSED STANDARD

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                            J. Hui
Request for Comments: 6554                                   JP. Vasseur
Category: Standards Track                                  Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                D. Culler
                                                             UC Berkeley
                                                               V. Manral
                                                     Hewlett Packard Co.
                                                              March 2012


             An IPv6 Routing Header for Source Routes with
      the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)

Abstract

   In Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs), memory constraints on routers
   may limit them to maintaining, at most, a few routes.  In some
   configurations, it is necessary to use these memory-constrained
   routers to deliver datagrams to nodes within the LLN.  The Routing
   Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) can be used in some
   deployments to store most, if not all, routes on one (e.g., the
   Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) root) or a few routers and forward the
   IPv6 datagram using a source routing technique to avoid large routing
   tables on memory-constrained routers.  This document specifies a new
   IPv6 Routing header type for delivering datagrams within a RPL
   routing domain.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6554.











Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Requirements Language ......................................3
   2. Overview ........................................................3
   3. Format of the RPL Routing Header ................................6
   4. RPL Router Behavior .............................................8
      4.1. Generating Source Routing Headers ..........................8
      4.2. Processing Source Routing Headers ..........................9
   5. Security Considerations ........................................11
      5.1. Source Routing Attacks ....................................11
      5.2. ICMPv6 Attacks ............................................12
   6. IANA Considerations ............................................12
   7. Acknowledgements ...............................................12
   8. References .....................................................12
      8.1. Normative References ......................................12
      8.2. Informative References ....................................13

1.  Introduction

   The Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) is a
   distance vector IPv6 routing protocol designed for Low-Power and
   Lossy Networks (LLNs) [RFC6550].  Such networks are typically
   constrained in resources (limited communication data rate, processing
   power, energy capacity, memory).  In particular, some LLN
   configurations may utilize LLN routers where memory constraints limit
   nodes to maintaining only a small number of default routes and no
   other destinations.  However, it may be necessary to utilize such
   memory-constrained routers to forward datagrams and maintain
   reachability to destinations within the LLN.






Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


   To utilize paths that include memory-constrained routers, RPL relies
   on source routing.  In one deployment model of RPL, more-capable
   routers collect routing information and form paths to arbitrary
   destinations within a RPL routing domain.  However, a source routing
   mechanism supported by IPv6 is needed to deliver datagrams.

   This document specifies the Source Routing Header (SRH) for use
   strictly between RPL routers in the same RPL routing domain.  A RPL
   routing domain is a collection of RPL routers under the control of a
   single administration.  The boundaries of routing domains are defined
   by network management by setting some links to be exterior, or inter-
   domain, links.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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.  Overview

   The format of the SRH draws from that of the Type 0 Routing header
   (RH0) [RFC2460].  However, the SRH introduces mechanisms to compact
   the source route entries when all entries share the same prefix with
   the IPv6 Destination Address of a packet carrying an SRH, a typical
   scenario in LLNs using source routing.  The compaction mechanism
   reduces consumption of scarce resources such as channel capacity.

   The SRH also differs from RH0 in the processing rules to alleviate
   security concerns that led to the deprecation of RH0 [RFC5095].
   First, RPL routers implement a strict source route policy where each
   and every IPv6 hop between the source and destination of the source
   route is specified within the SRH.  Note that the source route may be
   a subset of the path between the actual source and destination and is
   discussed further below.  Second, an SRH is only used between RPL
   routers within a RPL routing domain.  RPL Border Routers, responsible
   for connecting other RPL routing domains and IP domains that use
   other routing protocols, do not allow datagrams already carrying an
   SRH header to enter or exit a RPL routing domain.  Third, a RPL
   router drops datagrams that include multiple addresses assigned to
   any interfaces on that router to avoid forwarding loops.

   There are two cases that determine how to include an SRH when a RPL
   router requires the use of an SRH to deliver a datagram to its
   destination.






Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


   1.  If the SRH specifies the complete path from source to
       destination, the router places the SRH directly in the datagram
       itself.

   2.  If the SRH only specifies a subset of the path from source to
       destination, the router uses IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling [RFC2473] and
       places the SRH in the outer IPv6 header.  Use of tunneling
       ensures that the datagram is delivered unmodified and that ICMP
       errors return to the source of the SRH rather than the source of
       the original datagram.

   In a RPL network, Case 1 occurs when both source and destination are
   within a RPL routing domain and a single SRH is used to specify the
   entire path from source to destination, as shown in the following
   figure:

                           +--------------------+
                           |                    |
                           |  (S) -------> (D)  |
                           |                    |
                           +--------------------+
                             RPL Routing Domain


   In the above scenario, datagrams traveling from source, S, to
   destination, D, have the following packet structure:

                   +--------+---------+-------------//-+
                   | IPv6   | Source  | IPv6           |
                   | Header | Routing | Payload        |
                   |        | Header  |                |
                   +--------+---------+-------------//-+

   S's address is carried in the IPv6 header's Source Address field.

   D's address is carried in the last entry of the SRH for all but the
   last hop, when D's address is carried in the IPv6 header's
   Destination Address field of the packet carrying the SRH.

   In a RPL network, Case 2 occurs for all datagrams that have a source
   and/or destination outside the RPL routing domain, as shown in the
   following diagram:









Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


                            +-----------------+
                            |                 |
                            |  (S) --------> (R) --------> (D)
                            |                 |
                            +-----------------+
                            RPL Routing Domain

                            +-----------------+
                            |                 |
             (S) --------> (R) --------> (D)  |
                            |                 |
                            +-----------------+
                            RPL Routing Domain

                            +-----------------+
                            |                 |
             (S) --------> (R) ------------> (R) --------> (D)
                            |                 |
                            +-----------------+
                            RPL Routing Domain

   In the scenarios above, R may indicate a RPL Border Router (when
   connecting to other routing domains) or a RPL Router (when connecting
   to hosts).  The datagrams have the following structure when traveling
   within the RPL routing domain:

               +--------+---------+--------+-------------//-+
               | Outer  | Source  | Inner  | IPv6           |
               | IPv6   | Routing | IPv6   | Payload        |
               | Header | Header  | Header |                |
               +--------+---------+--------+-------------//-+
                                   <--- Original Packet --->
                <---          Tunneled Packet           --->


   Note that the outer header (including the SRH) is added and removed
   by the RPL router.

   Case 2 also occurs whenever a RPL router needs to insert a source
   route when forwarding a datagram.  One such use case with RPL is to
   have all RPL traffic flow through a Border Router and have the Border
   Router use source routes to deliver datagrams to their final
   destination.  When including the SRH using tunneled mode, the Border
   Router would encapsulate the received datagram unmodified using IPv6-
   in-IPv6 and include an SRH in the outer IPv6 header.






Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


                           +-----------------+
                           |                 |
                           |  (S) -------\   |
                           |              \  |
                           |               (LBR)
                           |              /  |
                           |  (D) <------/   |
                           |                 |
                           +-----------------+
                           RPL Routing Domain

   In the above scenario, datagrams travel from S to D through the Low-
   Power and Lossy Network Border Router (LBR).  Between S and the LBR,
   the datagrams are routed using the DAG built by the RPL and do not
   contain an SRH.  The LBR encapsulates received datagrams unmodified
   using IPv6-in-IPv6 and the SRH is included in the outer IPv6 header.

3.  Format of the RPL Routing Header

   The Source Routing Header 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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Next Header  |  Hdr Ext Len  | Routing Type  | Segments Left |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                        Addresses[1..n]                        .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Next Header         8-bit selector.  Identifies the type of header
                       immediately following the Routing header.  Uses
                       the same values as the IPv6 Next Header field
                       [RFC2460].

   Hdr Ext Len         8-bit unsigned integer.  Length of the Routing
                       header in 8-octet units, not including the first
                       8 octets.  Note that when Addresses[1..n] are
                       compressed (i.e., value of CmprI or CmprE is not
                       0), Hdr Ext Len does not equal twice the number
                       of Addresses.





Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


   Routing Type        8-bit selector.  Identifies the particular
                       Routing header variant.  An SRH should set the
                       Routing Type to 3.

   Segments Left       8-bit unsigned integer.  Number of route segments
                       remaining, i.e., number of explicitly listed
                       intermediate nodes still to be visited before
                       reaching the final destination.  The originator
                       of an SRH sets this field to n, the number of
                       addresses contained in Addresses[1..n].

   CmprI               4-bit unsigned integer.  Number of prefix octets
                       from each segment, except than the last segment,
                       (i.e., segments 1 through n-1) that are elided.
                       For example, an SRH carrying full IPv6 addresses
                       in Addresses[1..n-1] sets CmprI to 0.

   CmprE               4-bit unsigned integer.  Number of prefix octets
                       from the last segment (i.e., segment n) that are
                       elided.  For example, an SRH carrying a full IPv6
                       address in Addresses[n] sets CmprE to 0.

   Pad                 4-bit unsigned integer.  Number of octets that
                       are used for padding after Address[n] at the end
                       of the SRH.

   Reserved            This field is unused.  It MUST be initialized to
                       zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
                       receiver.

   Address[1..n]       Vector of addresses, numbered 1 to n.  Each
                       vector element in [1..n-1] has size (16 - CmprI)
                       and element [n] has size (16-CmprE).  The
                       originator of an SRH places the next (first)
                       hop's IPv6 address in the IPv6 header's IPv6
                       Destination Address and the second hop's IPv6
                       address as the first address in Address[1..n]
                       (i.e., Address[1]).

   The SRH shares the same basic format as the Type 0 Routing header
   [RFC2460].  When carrying full IPv6 addresses, the CmprI, CmprE, and
   Pad fields are set to 0 and the only difference between the SRH and
   Type 0 encodings is the value of the Routing Type field.

   A common network configuration for a RPL routing domain is that all
   routers within a RPL routing domain share a common prefix.  The SRH
   introduces the CmprI, CmprE, and Pad fields to allow compaction of
   the Address[1..n] vector when all entries share the same prefix as



Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


   the IPv6 Destination Address field of the packet carrying the SRH.
   The CmprI and CmprE fields indicate the number of prefix octets that
   are shared with the IPv6 Destination Address of the packet carrying
   the SRH.  The shared prefix octets are not carried within the Routing
   header and each entry in Address[1..n-1] has size (16 - CmprI) octets
   and Address[n] has size (16 - CmprE) octets.  When CmprI or CmprE is
   non-zero, there may exist unused octets between the last entry,
   Address[n], and the end of the Routing header.  The Pad field
   indicates the number of unused octets that are used for padding.
   Note that when CmprI and CmprE are both 0, Pad MUST carry a value of
   0.

   The SRH MUST NOT specify a path that visits a node more than once.
   When generating an SRH, the source may not know the mapping between
   IPv6 addresses and nodes.  Minimally, the source MUST ensure that
   IPv6 addresses do not appear more than once and the IPv6 Source and
   Destination addresses of the encapsulating datagram do not appear in
   the SRH.

   Multicast addresses MUST NOT appear in an SRH or in the IPv6
   Destination Address field of a datagram carrying an SRH.

4.  RPL Router Behavior

4.1.  Generating Source Routing Headers

   To deliver an IPv6 datagram to its destination, a router may need to
   generate a new SRH and specify a strict source route.  When the
   router is the source of the original packet and the destination is
   known to be within the same RPL routing domain, the router SHOULD
   include the SRH directly within the original packet.  Otherwise, the
   router MUST use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling [RFC2473] and place the SRH in
   the tunnel header.  Using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling ensures that the
   delivered datagram remains unmodified and that ICMPv6 errors
   generated by an SRH are sent back to the router that generated the
   SRH.

   When using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, in order to respect the IPv6 Hop
   Limit value of the original datagram, a RPL router generating an SRH
   MUST set the Segments Left to less than the original datagram's IPv6
   Hop Limit value upon forwarding.  In the case that the source route
   is longer than the original datagram's IPv6 Hop Limit, only the
   initial hops (determined by the original datagram's IPv6 Hop Limit)
   should be included in the SRH.  If the RPL router is not the source
   of the original datagram, the original datagram's IPv6 Hop Limit
   field is decremented before generating the SRH.  After generating the
   SRH, the RPL router decrements the original datagram's IPv6 Hop Limit
   value by the SRH Segments Left value.  Processing the SRH Segments



Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                    [Page 8]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


   Left and original datagram's IPv6 Hop Limit fields in this way
   ensures that ICMPv6 Time Exceeded errors occur as would be expected
   on more traditional IPv6 networks that forward datagrams without
   tunneling.

   To avoid fragmentation, it is desirable to employ MTU sizes that
   allow for the header expansion (i.e., at least 1280 + 40 (outer IP
   header) + SRH_MAX_SIZE), where SRH_MAX_SIZE is the maximum path
   length for a given RPL network.  To take advantage of this, however,
   the communicating endpoints need to be aware of the MTU along the
   path (i.e., through Path MTU Discovery).  Unfortunately, the larger
   MTU size may not be available on all links (e.g., 1280 octets on IPv6
   Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) links).  However,
   it is expected that much of the traffic on these types of networks
   consists of much smaller messages than the MTU, so performance
   degradation through fragmentation would be limited.

4.2.  Processing Source Routing Headers

   As specified in [RFC2460], a routing header is not examined or
   processed until it reaches the node identified in the Destination
   Address field of the IPv6 header.  In that node, dispatching on the
   Next Header field of the immediately preceding header causes the
   Routing header module to be invoked.

   The function of the SRH is intended to be very similar to the Type 0
   Routing header defined in [RFC2460].  After the routing header has
   been processed and the IPv6 datagram resubmitted to the IPv6 module
   for processing, the IPv6 Destination Address contains the next hop's
   address.  When forwarding an IPv6 datagram that contains an SRH with
   a non-zero Segments Left value, if the IPv6 Destination Address is
   not on-link, a router MUST drop the datagram and SHOULD send an ICMP
   Destination Unreachable (ICMPv6 Type 1) message with ICMPv6 Code set
   to 7 to the packet's Source Address.  This ICMPv6 Code indicates that
   the IPv6 Destination Address is not on-link and the router cannot
   satisfy the strict source route requirement.  When generating ICMPv6
   error messages, the rules in Section 2.4 of [RFC4443] MUST be
   observed.

   To detect loops in the SRH, a router MUST determine if the SRH
   includes multiple addresses assigned to any interface on that router.
   If such addresses appear more than once and are separated by at least
   one address not assigned to that router, the router MUST drop the
   packet and SHOULD send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, to the
   Source Address.  While this loop check does add significant per-
   packet processing overhead, it is required to mitigate bandwidth
   exhaustion attacks that led to the deprecation of RH0 [RFC5095].




Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                    [Page 9]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


   The following describes the algorithm performed when processing an
   SRH:

   if Segments Left = 0 {
      proceed to process the next header in the packet, whose type is
      identified by the Next Header field in the Routing header
   }
   else {
      compute n, the number of addresses in the Routing header, by
      n = (((Hdr Ext Len * 8) - Pad - (16 - CmprE)) / (16 - CmprI)) + 1

      if Segments Left is greater than n {
         send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, message to the Source
         Address, pointing to the Segments Left field, and discard the
         packet
      }
      else {
         decrement Segments Left by 1

         compute i, the index of the next address to be visited in
         the address vector, by subtracting Segments Left from n

         if Address[i] or the IPv6 Destination Address is multicast {
            discard the packet
         }
         else if 2 or more entries in Address[1..n] are assigned to
                 local interface and are separated by at least one
                 address not assigned to local interface {
            send an ICMP Parameter Problem (Code 0) and discard the
            packet
         }
         else {
            swap the IPv6 Destination Address and Address[i]

            if the IPv6 Hop Limit is less than or equal to 1 {
               send an ICMP Time Exceeded -- Hop Limit Exceeded in
               Transit message to the Source Address and discard the
               packet
            }
            else {
               decrement the Hop Limit by 1

               resubmit the packet to the IPv6 module for transmission
               to the new destination
            }
         }
      }
   }



Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                   [Page 10]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


   RPL routers are responsible for ensuring that an SRH is only used
   between RPL routers:

   1.  For datagrams destined to a RPL router, the router processes the
       packet in the usual way.  For instance, if the SRH was included
       using tunneled mode and the RPL router serves as the tunnel
       endpoint, the router removes the outer IPv6 header, at the same
       time removing the SRH as well.

   2.  Datagrams destined elsewhere within the same RPL routing domain
       are forwarded to the correct interface.

   3.  Datagrams destined to nodes outside the RPL routing domain are
       dropped if the outermost IPv6 header contains an SRH not
       generated by the RPL router forwarding the datagram.

5.  Security Considerations

5.1.  Source Routing Attacks

   The RPL message security mechanisms defined in [RFC6550] do not apply
   to the RPL Source Route Header.  This specification does not provide
   any confidentiality, integrity, or authenticity mechanisms to protect
   the SRH.

   [RFC5095] deprecates the Type 0 Routing header due to a number of
   significant attacks that are referenced in that document.  Such
   attacks include bypassing filtering devices, reaching otherwise
   unreachable Internet systems, network topology discovery, bandwidth
   exhaustion, and defeating anycast.

   Because this document specifies that the SRH is only for use within a
   RPL routing domain, such attacks cannot be mounted from outside a RPL
   routing domain.  As specified in this document, RPL routers MUST drop
   datagrams entering or exiting a RPL routing domain that contain an
   SRH in the IPv6 Extension headers.

   Such attacks, however, can be mounted from within a RPL routing
   domain.  To mitigate bandwidth exhaustion attacks, this specification
   requires RPL routers to check for loops in the SRH and drop datagrams
   that contain such loops.  Attacks that include bypassing filtering
   devices and reaching otherwise unreachable Internet systems are not
   as relevant in mesh networks since the topologies are, by their very
   nature, highly dynamic.  The RPL routing protocol is designed to
   provide reachability to all devices within a RPL routing domain and
   may utilize routes that traverse any number of devices in any order.





Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                   [Page 11]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


   Even so, these attacks and others (e.g., defeating anycast and
   routing topology discovery) can occur within a RPL routing domain
   when using this specification.

5.2.  ICMPv6 Attacks

   The generation of ICMPv6 error messages may be used to attempt
   denial-of-service attacks by sending an error-causing SRH in back-to-
   back datagrams.  An implementation that correctly follows Section 2.4
   of [RFC4443] would be protected by the ICMPv6 rate-limiting
   mechanism.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new IPv6 Routing Type, the "RPL Source Route
   Header", and has been assigned number 3 by IANA.

   This document defines a new ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable Code,
   "Error in Source Routing Header", and has been assigned number 7 by
   IANA.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank Jari Arkko, Ralph Droms, Adrian Farrel, Stephen
   Farrell, Richard Kelsey, Suresh Krishnan, Erik Nordmark, Pascal
   Thubert, Sean Turner, and Tim Winter for their comments and
   suggestions that helped shape this document.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC2473]  Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
              IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
              Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
              Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

   [RFC5095]  Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
              of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
              December 2007.



Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                   [Page 12]

RFC 6554                 RPL Source Route Header              March 2012


8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
              Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
              JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.

Authors' Addresses

   Jonathan W. Hui
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, California  95134
   USA

   Phone: +408 424 1547
   EMail: jonhui@cisco.com


   JP. Vasseur
   Cisco Systems
   11, Rue Camille Desmoulins
   Issy Les Moulineaux  92782
   France

   EMail: jpv@cisco.com


   David E. Culler
   UC Berkeley
   465 Soda Hall
   Berkeley, California  94720
   USA

   Phone: +510 643 7572
   EMail: culler@cs.berkeley.edu


   Vishwas Manral
   Hewlett Packard Co.
   19111 Pruneridge Ave.
   Cupertino, California  95014
   USA

   EMail: vishwas.manral@hp.com






Hui, et al.                  Standards Track                   [Page 13]


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