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

Versions: (draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Network Working Group                                             Y. Cui
Internet-Draft                                                     P. Wu
Intended status: Standards Track                                   J. Wu
Expires: November 19, 2012                           Tsinghua University
                                                                T. Lemon
                                                           Nominum, Inc.
                                                            May 18, 2012


                       DHCPv4 over IPv6 Transport
                   draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6-03

Abstract

   In IPv6 networks, there remains a need to provide IPv4 service for
   some residual devices.  This document describes a mechanism for
   allocating IPv4 addresses to such devices, using DHCPv4 with an IPv6
   transport.  It is done by putting a special relay agent function
   (Client Relay Agent) on the client side, as well as extending the
   behavior of the server; in the case where DHCP server only supports
   IPv4 transport, a relay agent is extended to support IPv6 transport
   (IPv6-Transport Relay Agent) and relay DHCP traffic for the server,
   with a new Relay Agent Information sub-option added to carry the IPv6
   address of the Client Relay Agent.

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 November 19, 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



Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                    May 2012


   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
   2.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Protocol Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address Sub-option . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Client Relay Agent Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  IPv6-Transport Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  IPv6-Transport Relay Agent Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   9.  Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   10. IANA consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   12. Appendix: Discussion on One Host Retrieving Multiple
       Addresses through One CRA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     13.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     13.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12






















Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                    May 2012


1.  Introduction

   DHCPv4 [RFC2131] was not designed with IPv6 in mind: DHCPv4 cannot
   operate on an IPv6 network.  However, as dual-stack networks become a
   reality, the need arises to allocate IPv4 addresses in an IPv6
   environment.  To meet this demand, this document extends the DHCPv4
   protocol to allow the use of an IPv6 network for transport.

   A typical scenario that probably requires this feature is IPv4-over-
   IPv6 hub and spoke tunnel [RFC4925].  In this scenario, IPv4-over-
   IPv6 tunnel is used to provide IPv4 connectivity to end users (hosts
   or end networks) across an IPv6 network.  If the IPv4 addresses of
   the end users are provisioned by the concentrator side, then the
   provisioning process should be able to cross the IPv6 network.  One
   such tunnel mechanism is demonstrated in
   [I-D.ietf-softwire-public-4over6].  DHCPv4 over IPv6 would be a
   generic solution for this scenario.

   Three main flavors of solutions may be considered:

   o  Use DHCPv6 instead of DHCPv4, to provision IPv4-related
      connectivity.  In DHCPv6, the provisioned IPv4 address can be
      embedded into IPv6 address, or carried within a new option.  Along
      with that, dedicated options are needed to convey IPv4-related
      information, such as the IPv4 address of DNS server, NTP server,
      etc.  Therefore it will put a certain amount of IPv6-unrelated
      information into DHCPv6 protocol.

   o  Use DHCPv4 and tunnel DHCPv4-in-IPv4 messages over IPv6.  Unlike
      the previous approach where DHCPv6 is used for both IPv4 and IPv6
      connectivity, this approach consists in preserving the separation
      between IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity information.  It allows to
      maintain the IPv4 service without major modification of IPv6-
      related provisioning resources, and sustains DHCPv4 to be the
      IPv4-related information carrier.  However, this approach enforces
      an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel on DHCP, and subsequently requires extra
      efforts to maintain tunnel endpoint information for encapsulation
      use.

   o  Use DHCPv4 and extend it to work on IPv6 transport.  Instead of
      relying on IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, this flavor uses IPv6 directly for
      DHCP message transport, and it keeps the advantage of separation
      with IPv6 connectivity information.  This document focuses on this
      flavor.  The document defines the behavior of extended DHCPv4
      components, as well as a new sub-option of the Relay Agent
      Information Option, to support DHCPv4 over IPv6.





Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                    May 2012


2.  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].


3.  Terminology

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   o  DHCPv4: IPv4 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [RFC2131].

   o  Client Relay Agent(CRA): a special DHCPv4 Relay Agent which works
      as a "proxy" between DHCPv4 client and the IPv6 network by
      converting between IPv4 transport and IPv6 transport.  A CRA
      either sits on the same, IPv6-accessable host with the DHCPv4
      client, or sits on the same link with the host.

   o  Host Client Relay Agent(HCRA): a CRA which sits on the same, IPv6-
      accessible host with the DHCPv4 client.

   o  On-Link Client Relay Agent(LCRA): a CRA which sits on the same
      link with the host that runs DHCPv4 client.

   o  IPv6-Transport Server(TSV): a DHCPv4 Server that supports IPv6
      transport.  TSV listens on IPv6 for incoming DHCPv4 messages, and
      sends DHCPv4 messages in IPv6 packets.

   o  IPv6-Transport Relay Agent(TRA): a DHCPv4 Relay Agent that
      supports IPv6 transport.  TRA sits on a machine which has both
      IPv6 and IPv4 connectivity, and relays DHCP messages between CRA
      and regular DHCPv4 server.  Unlike CRA, TRA sits on the remote end
      of IPv6 network, and communicates with DHCPv4 server through IPv4.

   o  Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address Sub-option(CRA6ADDR sub-option): a
      new sub-option of DHCP Relay Agent Information Option [RFC3046]
      defined in this document.  CRA6ADDR sub-option is used by TRA to
      carry the IPv6 address of a CRA.


4.  Protocol Summary

   The scenario for DHCPv4 over IPv6 transport is shown in Figure 1.
   DHCPv4 clients and DHCPv4 server/relay are separated by an IPv6
   network in the middle.  DHCP messages between a client and the
   server/relay cannot naturally be forwarded to each other because they
   are by default IPv4 UDP packets, either unicast or broadcast.  To



Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                    May 2012


   bridge this gap, both the client side and the server/relay side
   should enable DHCPv4 over IPv6 transport.  More precisely, they
   should support delivering and receiving DHCP messages in IPv6 UDP
   packets and thereby traverse the IPv6 network.

   On the client side, a special relay agent called Client Relay Agent
   is placed on the same host with the client, or on the link of the
   host.  CRA is used to relay DHCP messages from the client to the
   server, and from the server to the client.  CRA sends DHCPv4 messages
   to the server through unicast IPv6 UDP, and receives unicast IPv6 UDP
   packets with the DHCPv4 messages from the server.  By using CRA, no
   extension is required on the DHCP client.


        +-------------------------+
     +------+                     |
     |DHCPv4|                     |
     |Client|                 +-------+
     +------+                 |DHCPv4 |
        |      IPv6 Network   |Server/|
     +------+                 |Relay  |
     |DHCPv4|                 +-------+
     |Client|                     |
     +------+                     |
        +-------------------------+


   Figure 1 Scenario of DHCPv4 over IPv6 Transport

   The IPv6-Transport DHCPv4 server can receive DHCP messages delivered
   in IPv6 UDP from CRA, and send out DHCP messages to CRA using IPv6
   UDP (figure 2(a)).  TSV should send DHCP messages to the IPv6 address
   from which it receives relevant DHCP messages earlier.

   When CRAs communicate with an IPv6-Transport Relay Agent rather than
   with a server directly, the situation will become a little more
   complicated.  Besides the IPv6 communication with CRA, TRA also
   communicates with a regular DHCPv4 server through IPv4.  Therefore,
   when TRA relays DHCP messages between a CRA and the DHCPv4 server, it
   receives DHCP message from the CRA in IPv6 and sends it to the server
   in IPv4, as well as receives DHCP message from the server in IPv4 and
   sends it to the CRA in IPv6.  TRA has to use the DHCP Relay Agent
   Information Option (Option code 82) to record the IPv6 address of the
   CRA, which will be used as forwarding destination when relaying a
   DHCP message from the server.  Since Option 82 doesn't have an
   existing sub-option that fits in the case, this document defines a
   new Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address Sub-option.  The DHCPv4 server
   MUST support the new sub-option in this case.



Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                    May 2012


     +------+                +------+
     |client|  IPv6 network  |TSV   |
     |+HCRA |----------------|      |
     +------+                +------+

     +------+  +------+                +------+
     |client|  |LCRA  |  IPv6 network  |TSV   |
     |      |--|      |----------------|      |
     +------+  +------+                +------+
     (a)client--server case

     +------+                +------+              +------+
     |client|  IPv6 network  |TRA   | IPv4 network |server|
     |+HCRA |----------------|      |--------------|      |
     +------+                +------+              +------+

     +------+  +------+                +------+              +------+
     |client|  |LCRA  |  IPv6 network  |TRA   | IPv4 network |server|
     |      |--|      |----------------|      |--------------|      |
     +------+  +------+                +------+              +------+

     (b)client--relay--server case


   Figure 2 Protocol Summary


5.  Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address Sub-option

   This sub-option MUST be added by a DHCPv4 TRA.  It encodes the IPv6
   address of the machine from which a DHCPv4-in-IPv6 CRA-to-TRA message
   was received.  It is intended for the TRA to relay DHCPv4 replies
   back to the proper CRA.  To be more specific, the TRA uses the IPv6
   address encoded in this sub-option as the destination IPv6 address
   when relaying a DHCPv4 reply to IPv6 network.

   The CRA IPv6 address MUST be unique in the IPv6 domain.

   The CRA6ADDR sub-option has a fixed length of 18 octets.  The SubOpt
   code is tbd by IANA, the length field is 16, and the following 16
   octets contain the CRA IPv6 address.

   DHCP servers handle it following the standard option 82 procedure
   defined in [RFC3046].  DHCP servers MAY use this sub-option to select
   parameters specific to particular hosts.  Servers MAY parse this sub-
   option and extract the IPv6 address.





Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                    May 2012


             SubOpt   Len     Agent Remote ID
            +------+------+------+------+------+-     -+------+
            | tbd  |  16  |  a1  |  a2  |  a3  |  ...  |  a16 |
            +------+------+------+------+------+-     -+------+


   Figure 3 Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address Sub-option format


6.  Client Relay Agent Behavior

   A Client Relay Agent sits on the same host with the DHCPv4 client
   (HCRA), or on the link of the host (LCRA).  CRA is a special type of
   relay agent, which relays DHCPv4 messages between regular client and
   TSV/TRA.  The communication between CRA and the client happens inside
   the last-hop local network using IPv4, and the communication between
   CRA and TSV/TRA happens on the IPv6 network using IPv6.

   A CRA is configured with one or more IPv6 addresses of TSV/TRA.  This
   configuration is provided before DHCPv4 process, for example through
   DHCPv6 option, or by some other mechanisms depending on the
   application scenarios.

   A CRA listens for DHCP messages on IPv4 UDP port 67.  When it
   receives from IPv4 any DHCP message with bootp op field = 1, it
   forwards the message using the standard DHCP relay agent format, but
   over UDPv6, with source port 67 and destination port 67.  The CRA
   forwards the message to each of the TSV or TRA with which it is
   configured.  The CRA SHOULD use a global IPv6 address if it has one.

   A CRA also listens for DHCP messages on IPv6 UDP port 68.  When it
   receives from IPv6 any DHCP message with bootp op field = 2, the CRA
   checks to see if the message contains option 82, and if so, it
   discards the message.  Otherwise, it delivers the message to the DHCP
   client using IPv4.

   The basic functionality of HCRA and LCRA are the same.  The
   difference is that, when relaying DHCP messages, the HCRA MUST NOT
   include an option 82 or modify the giaddr field of the DHCP message,
   while in the LCRA case, it SHOULD NOT include an option 82 or modify
   the giaddr of DHCP message.  If it has to,
   [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation] can be used as the solution
   to the coexistence of LCRA and TRA.

   A HCRA MUST only serve the client inside the same host, while the
   LCRA SHOULD serve any client on the link.  When the IPv6 address of
   TSV/TRA is provisioned to the DHCP client, it uses HCRA; else the
   client depends on LCRA.  A HCRA serves only one link; the multiple



Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                    May 2012


   link case MUST be handled by multiple HCRA instances.  A LCRA does
   not necessarily need an IPv4 address, though it may be configured
   with one.


7.  IPv6-Transport Server Behavior

   To support IPv6 transport, the behavior of DHCPv4 server is extended.
   The IPv6-Transport Server can listen on IPv6 port 67 for DHCPv4
   messages, and send DHCPv4 messages through IPv6.

   A TSV listens for DHCP messages on IPv6 UDP port 67.  When it
   receives from IPv6 a DHCP message, it MUST record the IPv6 source
   address of that message and retain it as the return address of the
   message.  That is to say, when sometime later the TSV responds to
   this message, it MUST send the reply message to the IPv6 return
   address retained earlier, with destination port 68.  When filling in
   the server id option of DHCP replies, the TSV MUST choose an IPv4
   address which is reachable from the client once the residual IPv4
   service is set up.  This follows the server id option requirement in
   [RFC2131].  The rest of TSV DHCP process is the same with normal
   DHCPv4 server.  A TSV MAY also listen on IPv4 UDP port 67 like a
   normal DHCPv4 server, and process normally when receives IPv4 DHCPv4
   message.

   This document places no new requirements on DHCPv4 servers that do
   not listen on UDPv6 (other than to support the CRA6ADDR
   sub-option)--in order to use an IPv4-only DHCPv4 server through an
   IPv6 connection, a TRA is required.


8.  IPv6-Transport Relay Agent Behavior

   An IPv6-Transport Relay Agent sits between IPv6 network and IPv4
   network, and relays DHCPv4 message between CRAs and IPv4-only DHCPv4
   server.  The communication between CRAs and the TRA uses IPv6, while
   the communication between the TRA and the server uses IPv4.  A TRA
   listens on IPv6 UDP port 67 for DHCP messages with bootp op field =
   1, as well as IPv4 UDP port 68 for DHCP messages with bootp op field
   = 2.

   When relaying a DHCP message from CRA to server, TRA MUST add an
   option 82 with a CRA6ADDR sub-option.  This sub-option contains the
   IPv6 source address of the message (the CRA's IPv6 address) which is
   retained when the message is received in IPv6.  The TRA MUST also
   store the IPv4 address of itself in the giaddr field of the DHCP
   message.  The TRA MAY include a Link Selection sub-option [RFC3527]
   to indicate to the DHCP server which link to use when choosing an IP



Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                    May 2012


   address.

   When receiving a DHCP message from the DHCP server, if the option 82
   in the message contains no CRA6ADDR sub-option, the TRA MUST discard
   the message.  Otherwise, it processes it as required by [RFC3046],
   and forwards it to the IPv6 address recorded in the CRA6ADDR sub-
   option, with source port 67 and destination port number 68.  TRA
   SHOULD drop DHCPv4-over-IPv6 traffic that is not originated from
   configured server address.


9.  Security Consideration

   This mechanism may rise a new form of DHCP protocol attack.  A
   malicious attacker in IPv6 can interference with the DHCPv4 process
   by inject fake DHCPv4-in-IPv6 messages which will be handled by TSV
   or TRA.  However, the damage is the same with the known DHCPv4 attack
   happened in IPv4.  The only difference is the attacker and the victim
   could locate in different address families.

   Another impact is DHCP filtering.  There are firewalls today capable
   of filtering DHCP traffic (DHCPv4 over IPv4 and DHCPv6 over IPv6
   packages).  The DHCP messages with the new, DHCPv4-in-IPv6 style may
   bypass these firewalls.  Nevertheless it is not difficult for them to
   make some slight modification and adapt to the new DHCPv4 message
   pattern.


10.  IANA consideration

   IANA is requested to assign one new sub-option code from the registry
   of DHCP Agent Sub-Option Codes maintained in
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters.  This sub-
   option code will be assigned to the Client Relay Agent IPv6 Address
   Sub-option.


11.  Contributors

   The following gentlemen also contributed to the effort:

      Francis Dupont
      Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

      Email: fdupont@isc.org






Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                    May 2012


      Tomasz Mrugalski
      Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

      Email: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com



      Dmitry Anipko
      Microsoft Corporation

      Email: danipko@microsoft.com


12.  Appendix: Discussion on One Host Retrieving Multiple Addresses
     through One CRA

   This document is written with the intention of supporting a use case
   where a single DHCP client is configuring a single tunnel endpoint
   per physical link.  The technique described in this document could be
   used by a host needing to configure more than one tunnel endpoint on
   the same physical link, i.e., to retrieve multiple addresses through
   the same CRA.  However, the following additional behavior is REQUIRED
   to support this case.

   DHCP server implementing this specification MUST implement Client
   Identifier Option in DHCP server replies [I-D.ietf-dhc-client-id].

   In general this specification is intended not to require modification
   of DHCP clients.  However, DHCP clients being used to configure
   multiple tunnel endpoints have to be modified; otherwise there is no
   way for such DHCP clients to differentiate between DHCP responses.
   Therefore, in such case, the DHCP client using this specification
   MUST use a different client identifier for each tunnel endpoint being
   configured.  Such DHCP clients MUST examine the response from the
   DHCP server and use the client identifier to differentiate between
   the DHCP client state machines for each tunnel endpoint.

   In order to satisfy the requirement that client identifiers be
   unique, DHCP clients configuring multiple tunnel endpoints MUST
   implement Node-specific Client Identifiers for DHCPv4 [RFC4361].
   Such clients MUST use a different IAID for each tunnel endpoint.

   It is assumed here that every client state machine on a multiple-
   tunnel-endpoint link can hear all the DHCP messages (and subsequently
   accept the messages intended for it).  How this is accomplished is
   left to the implementor.  However, implementations MUST follow this
   requirement; otherwise, it will be impossible for multiple tunnel
   endpoints to be successfully configured.  The easiest way to



Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                    May 2012


   accomplish this is to have a single DHCP client process with multiple
   DHCP state machines, and to dispatch each DHCP message to the correct
   DHCP client state machine using the client identifier.  However, this
   is not REQUIRED; any mechanism that results in client state machines
   receiving the messages that are intended for them will suffice.


13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
              RFC 2131, March 1997.

   [RFC3046]  Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option",
              RFC 3046, January 2001.

   [RFC3527]  Kinnear, K., Stapp, M., Johnson, R., and J. Kumarasamy,
              "Link Selection sub-option for the Relay Agent Information
              Option for DHCPv4", RFC 3527, April 2003.

   [RFC4361]  Lemon, T. and B. Sommerfeld, "Node-specific Client
              Identifiers for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              Version Four (DHCPv4)", RFC 4361, February 2006.

   [RFC4925]  Li, X., Dawkins, S., Ward, D., and A. Durand, "Softwire
              Problem Statement", RFC 4925, July 2007.

13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-dhc-client-id]
              Swamy, N., Halwasia, G., and S. Unit, "Client Identifier
              Option in DHCP Server Replies",
              draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-02 (work in progress),
              March 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation]
              Lemon, T., Deng, H., and L. Huang, "Relay Agent
              Encapsulation for DHCPv4",
              draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-relay-encapsulation-01 (work in
              progress), July 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-softwire-public-4over6]
              Cui, Y., Wu, J., Wu, P., Metz, C., Vautrin, O., and Y.
              Lee, "Public IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network",



Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              DHCPv4 over IPv6                    May 2012


              draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01 (work in progress),
              March 2012.


Authors' Addresses

   Yong Cui
   Tsinghua University
   Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-10-6260-3059
   Email: yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn


   Peng Wu
   Tsinghua University
   Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
   Email: pengwu.thu@gmail.com


   Jianping Wu
   Tsinghua University
   Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-10-6278-5983
   Email: jianping@cernet.edu.cn


   Ted Lemon
   Nominum, Inc.
   2000 Seaport Blvd
   Redwood City  94063
   USA

   Phone: +1-650-381-6000
   Email: mellon@nominum.com







Cui, et al.             Expires November 19, 2012              [Page 12]


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