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

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe

Softwire WG                                                 M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft                                            France Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track                               I. Farrer
Expires: June 22, 2013                                  Deutsche Telekom
                                                             S. Krishnan
                                                                Ericsson
                                                       December 19, 2012


                   Unified IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire CPE
                   draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe-01

Abstract

   Transporting IPv4 packets encapsulated in IPv6 is a common solution
   to the problem of IPv4 service continuity over IPv6-only provider
   networks.  A number of differing functional approaches have been
   developed for this, each having their own specific characteristics.
   As these approaches share a similar functional architecture and use
   the same data plane mechanisms, this memo describes a specification
   whereby a single CPE can interwork with all of the standardized and
   proposed approaches to providing encapsulated IPv4 in IPv6 services.

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 22, 2013.

Copyright Notice




Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Rationale  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  IPv4 Service Continuity Architectures: A 'Big Picture'
       Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Functional Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Required Provisoning Information . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Unified Softwire CPE Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  IPv4 Address Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Generic CPE Bootstrapping Logic  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Customer Side DHCP Based Provisioning  . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.4.  Forwarding Action by the Customer End-Node . . . . . . . . 11
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

















Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


1.  Introduction

   IPv4 service continuity is one of the major technical challenges
   which must be considered during IPv6 migration.  Over the past few
   years, a number of different approaches have been developed to assist
   with this problem.  These approaches, or modes, exist in order to
   meet the particular deployment, scaling, addressing and other
   requirements of different service provider's networks.  Section 2 of
   this document describes these approaches in more detail.

   A common feature shared between all of the differing modes is the
   integration of softwire tunnel end-point functionality into the CPE
   router.  Due to this inherent data plane similarity, a single CPE may
   be capable of supporting several different approaches.  Users may
   also wish to configure a specific mode of operation.

   A service provider's network may also have more than one mode enabled
   in order to support diverse CPE client functionality, during
   migration between modes or where services require specific supporting
   softwire architectures.

   For softwire based services to be successfully established, it is
   essential that the customer end-node, the service provider end-node
   and provisioning systems are able to indicate their capabilities and
   preferred mode of operation.

   This memo describes the logic required by both the CPE tunnel end-
   node and the service provider's provisioning infrastructure so that
   softwire services can be provided in mixed-mode environments.

1.1.  Rationale

   The following rationale has been adopted for this document:

   (1)  Describe the functionality of each the different solution modes
        and provide clear distinctions between them
   (2)  Simplify solution migration paths: Define unified CPE behavior,
        allowing for smooth migration between the different modes
   (3)  Deterministic CPE co-existence behavior: Specify the behavior
        when several modes co-exist in the CPE
   (4)  Deterministic service provider co-existence behavior: Specify
        the behavior when several modes co-exist in the service
        providers network
   (5)  Re-usability: Maximize the re-use of existing functional blocks
        including tunnel end-points, port restricted NAPT44, forwarding
        behavior, etc.





Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


   (6)  Solution agnostic: Adopt neutral terminology and avoid (as far
        as possible) overloading the document with solution-specific
        terms
   (7)  Flexibility: Allow operators to compile CPE software only for
        the mode(s) necessary for their chosen deployment context(s)
   (8)  Simplicity: Provide a model that allows operators to only
        implement the specific mode(s) that they require without the
        additional complexity of unneeded modes.


2.  IPv4 Service Continuity Architectures: A 'Big Picture' Overview

   The solutions which have been proposed within the Softwire WG can be
   categorized into three main functional approaches, differentiated by
   the amount and type of state that the service provider needs to
   maintain within their network:
   (1)  Full stateful approach (DS-Lite, [RFC6333]): Requires per-
        session state to be maintained in the Service Provider's
        network.
   (2)  Binding approach (e.g., Lightweight 4over6 (Lw4o6)
        [I-D.cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite][I-D.ietf-softwire-publi
        c-4over6] or MAP 1:1 [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] ): Requires a
        single per-subscriber state (or a few) to be maintained in the
        Service Provider's network.
   (3)  Full stateless approach (MAP, [I-D.ietf-softwire-map]): Does not
        require per-session or per-subscriber state to be maintained in
        the Service Provider's network.

   All these approaches share a similar architecture, with a tunnel
   endpoint located in the CPE and a remote tunnel endpoint.  All use
   IPv6 as the transport protocol for the delivery of an IPv4
   connectivity service using an IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme
   [RFC2473].

   Several cases can be envisaged:
   1.  The CPE is complied to support only one mode: No issue is raised
       by this case.
   2.  The CPE supports several modes but only one mode is explicitly
       configured: No issue is raised by this case.
   3.  The CPE supports several modes but no mode is explicitly enabled:
       the CPE will need additional triggers to decide which mode to
       activate.
   4.  The CPE supports several modes and several modes are configured:
       the CPE will need additional triggers to decide which mode to
       activate.

   As this document describes a provisioning profile whereby a single
   CPE could be capable of supporting any, or multiple modes, the



Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


   customer should not be required to have any knowledge of the
   capabilities and configuration of their CPE, or of their service
   provider's network.

   The service provider, however, may have only a single mode enabled,
   or may have multiple modes, but with one preferred mode.  For this
   reason, it is necessary to approach the configuration of CPEs from
   the standpoint of the service provider's network capabilities.

2.1.  Functional Elements

   The functional elements for each of the solution modes are listed in
   Table 1:

                +---------+---------------+--------------+
                |    Mode | Customer side | Network side |
                +---------+---------------+--------------+
                | DS-Lite |       B4      |     AFTR     |
                |   Lw4o6 |      lwB4     |    lwAFTR    |
                |     MAP |     MAP CE    |    MAP BR    |
                +---------+---------------+--------------+

                       Table 1: Functional Elements

   Table 2 describes each functional element:

   +------------+------------------------------------------------------+
   | Functional | Description                                          |
   |    Element |                                                      |
   +------------+------------------------------------------------------+
   |         B4 | An IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint; the B4 creates a    |
   |            | tunnel to a pre-configured remote tunnel endpoint.   |
   |       AFTR | Provides both an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint and a  |
   |            | NAT44 function implemented in the same node.         |
   |       lwB4 | A B4 which supports port-restricted IPv4 addresses.  |
   |            | An lwB4 MAY also provide a NAT44 function.           |
   |     lwAFTR | An IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint which maintains      |
   |            | per-subscriber address binding.  Unlike the AFTR, it |
   |            | MUST NOT perform a NAPT44 function.                  |
   |     MAP CE | A B4 which supports port-restricted IPv4 addresses.  |
   |            | It MAY be co-located with a NAT44.  A MAP CE         |
   |            | forwards IPv4-in-IPv6 packets using provisioned      |
   |            | mapping rules to derive the remote tunnel endpoint.  |
   |     MAP BR | An IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint.  A MAP BR forwards  |
   |            | IPv4-in-IPv6 packets following pre-configured        |
   |            | mapping rules.                                       |
   +------------+------------------------------------------------------+




Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


                  Table 2: Required Element Functionality

   Table 3 identifies features required by the customer end-node.

   +--------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
   |   Functional |  IPv4-in-IPv6  | Port-restricted | Port-restricted |
   |      Element |     tunnel     |       IPv4      |      NAT44      |
   |              |    endpoint    |                 |                 |
   +--------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
   |           B4 |       Yes      |       N/A       |        No       |
   +--------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
   |         lwB4 |       Yes      |       Yes       |     Optional    |
   +--------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
   |     MAP-E CE |       Yes      |       Yes       |     Optional    |
   +--------------+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

                        Table 3: Supported Features

2.2.  Required Provisoning Information

   Table 4 identifies the provisioning information required for each
   solution mode.

         +---------+---------------------------------------------+
         |    Mode | Provisioning Information                    |
         +---------+---------------------------------------------+
         | DS-Lite | Remote IPv4-in-IPv6 Tunnel Endpoint Address |
         |   Lw4o6 | Remote IPv4-in-IPv6 Tunnel Endpoint Address |
         |         | IPv4 Address                                |
         |         | Port Set                                    |
         |   MAP-E | Mapping Rules                               |
         |         | MAP Domain Parameters                       |
         +---------+---------------------------------------------+

                     Table 4: Provisioning Information

   Note: MAP Mapping Rules are translated into the following
   configuration parameters: Set of remote IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint
   addresses, IPv4 address and port set.


     Note: Required provisioning information for each mode may also
           be represented as follows:
     DS-Lite: - Remote IPv4-in-IPv6 Tunnel Endpoint
       Lw4o6: - DS-Lite set of provisioning information
              - IPv4 address
              - Port set
       MAP-E: - Lw4o6 set of provisioning information



Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


              - Forwarding mapping rules



3.  Unified Softwire CPE Behaviour

   This section specifies a unified CPE behavior capable of supporting
   any one, or combination of, the three modes.

3.1.  IPv4 Address Functional Requirements

   The following two requirements must be met by the functional
   elements:

   Full IPv4 Address Assingment  All the aforementioned modes MUST be
      designed to allow either a full or a shared IPv4 address to be
      assigned to a customer end-node.  DS-Lite and MAP-E fulfill this
      requirement.  With minor changes, the
      [I-D.cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite] specification can be
      updated to assign full IPv4 addresses.

   Customer End-Node NAT  A NAT function within the customer end-node is
      not required for DS-Lite, while it is optional for both MAP-E and
      Lw4o6.  When NAT is enabled for MAP-E or Lw4o6, the customer end-
      node NAT MUST be able to restrict the external translated source
      ports to the set of ports that it has been provisioned with.

3.2.  Generic CPE Bootstrapping Logic

   The generic provisioning logic is designed to meet the following
   requirements:

   o  When several service continuity modes are supported by the same
      CPE, it MUST be possible to configure a single mode for use.

   o  For each network attachment, the end-node MUST NOT activate more
      than one mode.

   o  The CPE MAY be configured by a user or via remote device
      management means (e.g., DHCP, TR-069).

   o  A network which supports one or several modes MUST return valid
      configuration data enabling requesting devices to unambiguously
      select a single mode to use for attachment.

   o  A CPE which supports only one mode or it is configured to enable
      only mode MUST ignore any configuration parameter which is not
      required for the mode it supports.



Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


   This section sketches a generic algorithm to be followed by a CPE
   supporting one or more of the modes listed above.  Based on the
   retrieved information, the CPE will determine which mode to activate.

   (1)  If a given mode is enabled (DS-Lite, Lw4o6 or MAP-E), the CPE
        MUST be configured with the required provisioning information
        listed in Table 4.  If all of the required information is not
        available locally, the CPE MUST use available provisioning means
        (e.g., DHCP) to retrieve the missing configuration data.

   (2)  If the CPE supports several modes, but no mode is explicitly
        enabled, the CPE MUST use available provisioning means (e.g.,
        DHCP) to retrieve available configuration parameters and use the
        availability of individual parameters to ascertain which
        functional mode to configure:

        (2.1)  If only a Remote IPv4-in-IPv6 Tunnel Endpoint is
               received, the CPE MUST proceed as follows:
               (2.1.1)  IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint initialization is
                        defined in [RFC6333].
               (2.1.2)  Outbound IPv4 packets are forwarded to the next
                        hop as specified in Section 3.4.

        (2.2)  If a Remote IPv4-in-IPv6 Tunnel Endpoint, an IPv4 Address
               and optionally a Port Set are received, the CPE MUST
               behave as follows:
               (2.2.1)  IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint initialization is
                        similar to the B4 [RFC6333].
               (2.2.2)  When NAPT44 is required (e.g., because the CPE
                        is a router), a NAPT44 module is enabled.
               (2.2.3)  The tunnel endpoint address is selected from the
                        native IPv6 addresses configured on the CPE.  No
                        particular considerations are required to be
                        taken into account to generate the Interface
                        Identifier.
               (2.2.4)  When a port set is provisioned, the external
                        source ports MUST be restricted to the
                        provisioned set of ports.
               (2.2.5)  After translation, outbound IPv4 packets are
                        forwarded to the next hop as specified in
                        Section 3.4.

        (2.3)  If Mapping Rule(s) are received, the CPE MUST behave as
               follows:







Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


               (2.3.1)  IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint initialization is
                        similar to the B4 [RFC6333].
               (2.3.2)  The tunnel endpoint is assigned with an IPv6
                        address which includes an IPv4 address.  The MAP
                        Interface Identifier is based on the format
                        specified in Section 2.2 of [RFC6052].
               (2.3.3)  When NAPT44 is required (e.g., because the CPE
                        is a router), a NAPT44 module is enabled.
               (2.3.4)  When a port set is provisioned, the external
                        source port MUST be restricted to the
                        provisioned set of ports.
               (2.3.5)  After translation, outbound IPv4 packets then
                        forwarded to the next hop as specified in
                        Section 3.4.

3.3.  Customer Side DHCP Based Provisioning

      [DISCUSSION NOTE:

      1.  This section will be updated to reflect the consensus from DHC
          WG.

      2.  As it is proposed that OPTION_MAP would be used for all new
          softwire provisioning, should we rename OPTION_MAP to
          OPTION_SW (incl. the associated sub-options)?]

      ]

   DHCP-based configuration SHOULD be implemented by the customer end-
   node using the following two DHCP options:

   OPTION_AFTR_NAME    [RFC6334] Provides the FQDN for the remote IPv4-
                       in-IPv6 tunnel end-point.

   OPTION_MAP          [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp] Provides IPv4-
                       related configuration for binding mode and/or
                       mapping rules for stateless mode (including MAP
                       parameters such as offset, domain prefix, etc.).
                       OPTION_MAP_BIND is a sub-option used to convey an
                       IPv4 address (for example, encoded as an IPv4-
                       mapped IPv6 address [RFC4291]).  This address is
                       used when binding mode is enabled.  The receipt
                       of OPTION_MAP_BIND is an implicit indication to
                       the customer side device to operate in binding,
                       rather than stateless mode.

   The customer end-node uses the DHCP Option Request Option (ORO) to
   request either one or both of these options depending on which modes



Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


   it is capable of and configured to support.

   The DHCP option(s) sent in the response allow the service provider to
   inform the customer end-node which operating mode to enable.

   The following table shows the different DHCP options (and sub-
   options) that the service provider can supply in a response.

   +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
   |           DHCP Option | Stateful    | Binding     | Stateless     |
   |                       | Mode        | Mode        | Mode          |
   +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
   |      OPTION_AFTR_NAME | Yes         | Yes         | Optional      |
   |       OPTION_MAP_BIND | No          | Yes         | No            |
   |       OPTION_MAP_RULE | No          | No          | Yes           |
   | OPTION_MAP_PORTPARAMS | No          | Optional    | Optional      |
   +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+

                 Table 5: DHCP Option Provisioning Matrix

   The customer side device MUST interpret the received DHCP
   configuration parameters according to the logic defined in
   Section 3.2:

   o  If only OPTION_AFTR_NAME is received, then the device MUST operate
      in stateful mode

   o  If both OPTION_AFTR_NAME and OPTION_MAP_BIND are received then the
      device MUST operate in binding mode

   o  If one or more OPTION_MAP_RULE options are received, then the
      customer side device MUST operate in stateless mode

   o  If both OPTION_AFTR_NAME and OPTION_MAP_RULE(s) are received, then
      the customer side device MUST operate as a MAP CE.
      OPTION_AFTR_NAME provides the FQDN of the MAP BR.

   o  If OPTION_MAP_PORTPARAMS is received as a sub-option to either
      OPTION_MAP_BIND or OPTION_MAP_RULE, then NAPT44 MUST be configured
      using the supplied port-set for external translated source ports.

   From the service providers side, the following rule MUST be followed:

   o  The DHCP server MUST NOT send both OPTION_MAP_BIND and
      OPTION_MAP_RULE in a single OPTION_MAP response.






Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


3.4.  Forwarding Action by the Customer End-Node

   For all modes, the longest prefix match algorithm MUST be enforced to
   forward outbound IPv4 packets.

   Specifically, this algorithm will:

   o  Always return the address of the AFTR for the DS-Lite mode.

   o  Always return the address of the lwAFTR for the binding mode.

   o  Return the next hop according to the pre-configured mapping rules
      for the stateless mode (i.e., MAP-E).


4.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations discussed in Section 7 of
   [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation] and Section 11 of
   [RFC6333] should be taken into account.


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any action from IANA.


6.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to T. Tsou, S. Perrault, S. Sivakumar, O. Troan, W. Dec,
   M. Chen, for their review and comments.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite]
              Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
              Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the DS-Lite
              Architecture", draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-09
              (work in progress), October 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-softwire-map]
              Troan, O., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S., and
              T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port with
              Encapsulation (MAP)", draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 (work in
              progress), September 2012.



Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


   [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp]
              Mrugalski, T., Troan, O., Bao, C., Dec, W., and L. Yeh,
              "DHCPv6 Options for Mapping of Address and Port",
              draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-01 (work in progress),
              August 2012.

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

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

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
              October 2010.

   [RFC6333]  Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
              Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
              Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-softwire-public-4over6]
              Cui, Y., Wu, J., Wu, P., Vautrin, O., and Y. Lee, "Public
              IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network",
              draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04 (work in progress),
              October 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation]
              Boucadair, M., Matsushima, S., Lee, Y., Bonness, O.,
              Borges, I., and G. Chen, "Motivations for Carrier-side
              Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration Solutions",
              draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-05 (work in
              progress), November 2012.

   [RFC6334]  Hankins, D. and T. Mrugalski, "Dynamic Host Configuration
              Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Option for Dual-Stack Lite",
              RFC 6334, August 2011.










Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   Generic v4inv6 CPE Provisioning Profile   December 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Ian Farrer
   Deutsche Telekom
   Germany

   Email: ian.farrer@telekom.de


   Suresh Krishnan
   Ericsson


   Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com





























Boucadair, et al.         Expires June 22, 2013                [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/