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

Versions: (draft-muley-pwe3-redundancy) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 6718

Network Working Group                                   Praveen Muley
Internet Draft                                       Mustapha Aissaoui
Intended Status: Informational                          Matthew Bocci
Expires: August 2008                               Pranjal Kumar Dutta
                                                          Marc Lasserre
                                                                Alcatel

                                                        Jonathan Newton
                                                       Cable & Wireless

                                                            Olen Stokes
                                                       Extreme Networks

                                                      Hamid Ould-Brahim
                                                                 Nortel

                                                           Dave Mcdysan
                                                                Verizon

                                                            Giles Heron
                                                          Thomas Nadeau
                                                        British Telecom



                                                         March 28, 2008

                        Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy
                     draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-00.txt


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
   any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
   aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
   becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
   BCP 79.



   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."



Muley et al.           Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2008.

Abstract

   This document describes a framework comprised of few scenarios and
   associated requirements where PW redundancy is needed. A set of
   redundant PWs is configured between PE nodes in SS-PW applications,
   or between T-PE nodes in MS-PW applications. In order for the PE/T-PE
   nodes to indicate the preferred PW path to   forward to one another,
   a new status is needed to indicate the   preferential forwarding
   status of active or standby for each PW in   the redundancy set.

Conventions used in this document

   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 [1].

Table of Contents


   1. Terminology ......................................... 3
   2. Introduction......................................... 4
   3. Reference Model...................................... 4
      3.1. Multiple Multi-homed CEs with single SS-PW redundancy... 5
      3.2. Single Homed CE with MS-PW redundancy................ 6
      3.3. PW redundancy between MTU-s and PEs in a multi-homed VPLS
      application ......................................... 8
      3.4. PW redundancy between n-PEs........................ 9
      3.5. PW redundancy in Bridge Module Model................. 9
   4. Generic PW redundancy requirements...................... 11
      4.1. Protection switching requirements.................. 11
      4.2. Operational requirements.......................... 11
   5. Security Considerations............................... 12
   6. Acknowledgments..................................... 12
   7. References......................................... 12
      7.1. Normative References............................. 12
      7.2. Informative References........................... 12
   Author's Addresses..................................... 13
   Intellectual Property Statement .......................... 13
   Disclaimer of Validity.................................. 14


Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


   Acknowledgment ........................................ 14

1. Terminology

   o PW Terminating Provider Edge (T-PE). A PE where the customer-
      facing attachment circuits (ACs) are bound to a PW forwarder. A
      Terminating PE is present in the first and last segments of a MS-
      PW. This incorporates the functionality of a PE as defined in
      RFC3985 [3].

   o Single-Segment Pseudo Wire (SS-PW). A PW setup directly between
      two T-PE devices. Each PW in one direction of a SS-PW traverses
      one PSN tunnel that connects the two T-PEs.

   o Multi-Segment Pseudo Wire (MS-PW). A static or dynamically
      configured set of two or more contiguous PW segments that behave
      and function as a single point-to-point PW. Each end of a MS-PW by
      definition MUST terminate on a T-PE.

   o PW Segment. A part of a single-segment or multi-segment PW, which
      is set up between two PE devices, T-PEs and/or S-PEs.

   o PW Switching Provider Edge (S-PE). A PE capable of switching the
      control and data planes of the preceding and succeeding PW
      segments in a MS-PW. The S-PE terminates the PSN tunnels of the
      preceding and succeeding segments of the MS-PW.

   o PW switching point for a MS-PW. A PW Switching Point is never the
      S-PE and the T-PE for the same MS-PW. A PW switching point runs
      necessary protocols to setup and manage PW segments with other PW
      switching points and terminating PEs

   o Active PW.  A PW whose preferential status is set to Active and
      Operational status is UP.

   o Standby PW. A PW whose preferential status is set to Standby and
      Operational status is UP.

   o Primary Path. The configured path which is preferred when
      revertive protection switching is used.

   o Secondary Path.  One or more configured paths that are used by
      protection switching when current active PW path enters
      Operational DOWN state.





Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


   o Revertive protection switching. Traffic will be carried by primary
      path if it is Operationally UP and the wait-to-restore timer
      expires and primary path is made the Active PW.

   o Non-revertive protection switching. Traffic will be carried by the
      last PW path selected as a result of previous active path entering
      Operationally DOWN state.

   o Manual selection of PW path. Ability for the operator to manually
      select the primary/secondary paths.





2. Introduction

   In single-segment PW (SS-PW) applications, protection for the PW is
   provided by the PSN layer. This may be an RSVP LSP with a FRR backup
   and/or an end-to-end backup LSP. There are however applications where
   the backup PW terminates on a different target PE node. PSN
   protection mechanisms cannot protect against failure of the target PE
   node or the failure of the remote AC.

   In multi-segment PW (MS-PW) applications, a primary and one or more
   secondary PWs in standby mode are configured in the network. The
   paths of these PWs are diverse in the sense that they are switched at
   different S-PE nodes. In these applications, PW redundancy is
   important for the service resilience.

       In some deployments, it is important for operators that
   particular PW is preferred if it is available. For example, PW path
   with least latency may be preferred.

   This document describes framework for these applications and its
   associated operational requirements. The framework comprises of new
   required status called preferential status to PW apart from the
   operational status already defined in the PWE3 control protocol [2].
   The definition and operation of the preferential status is covered in
   ref.[7]



3. Reference Model

   Following figures shows the reference model for the PW redundancy and
   its usage in different topologies and applications.


Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


3.1. Multiple Multi-homed CEs with single SS-PW redundancy

             |<-------------- Emulated Service ---------------->|
             |                                                  |
             |          |<------- Pseudo Wire ------>|          |
             |          |                            |          |
             |          |    |<-- PSN Tunnels-->|    |          |
             |          V    V                  V    V          |
             V    AC    +----+                  +----+     AC   V
       +-----+    |     |....|.......PW1........|....|     |    +-----+
       |     |----------| PE1|......   .........| PE3|----------|     |
       | CE1 |          +----+      \ /  PW3    +----+          | CE2 |
       |     |          +----+       X          +----+          |     |
       |     |          |    |....../ \..PW4....|    |          |     |
       |     |----------| PE2|                  | PE4|--------- |     |
       +-----+    |     |....|.....PW2..........|....|     |    +-----+
                  AC    +----+                  +----+    AC


    Figure 1                  Multiple Multi-homed CEs with single SS-PW redundancy

   In the Figure 1 illustrated above both CEs, CE1 and CE2 are dual-
   homed with PEs, PE1, PE2 and PE3, PE4 respectively. The method for
   dual-homing and the used protocols such as Multi-chassis Link
   Aggregation Group (MC-LAG) are outside the scope of this document.
   Note that the PSN tunnels are not shown in this figure for clarity.
   However, it can be assumed that each of the PWs shown is encapsulated
   in a separate PSN tunnel.

          PE1 has PW1 and PW4 service connecting PE3 and PE4
   respectively. Similarly PE2 has PW2 and Pw3 pseudo wire service
   connecting PE4 and PE3 respectively. PW1,PW2, PW3 and PW4 are all
   operationally UP. In order to support N:1 or 1:1 only one PW is
   required to be selected to forward the traffic. Thus the PW needs to
   reflect his new status apart from the operational status. We call
   this as preferential forwarding status with state representing
   'active' the one carrying traffic while the other 'standby' which is
   operationally UP but not forwarding traffic. The method of deriving
   Active/Standby status of the AC is outside the scope of this
   document. In case of MC-LAG it is derived by the Link Aggregation
   Control protocol (LACP) negotiation.

   A new algorithm needs to be developed using the preferential
   forwarding state of PW and select only one PW to forward.





Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


                  On failure of AC between the dual homed  CE1 in this
   case lets say PE1 the preferential status on PE2 needs to be
   changed. Different mechanisms/protocols can be used to achieve this
   and these are beyond the scope of this document. For example the MC-
   LAG control protocol changes the link status on PE2 to active. After
   the change in status the algorithm for selection of PW needs to
   revaluate and select PW to forward the traffic.


   In this application, because each dual-homing algorithm running on
   the two node sets, i.e., {CE1, PE1, PE2} and {CE2, PE3, PE4}, selects
   the active AC independently, there is a need to signal the active
   status of the AC such that the PE nodes can select a common active PW
   path for end-to-end forwarding between CE1 and CE2. This helps in
   restricting the changes occurring on one side of network due to
   failure to the other side of the network.  Note this method also
   protects against any single PE failure or some dual PE failures.

                 One Multi-homed CE with single SS-PW redundancy
   application is a subset of above. Only PW1 and PW3 exist in this
   case. This helps against AC failure and PE failure of dual homed AC.
   Similar requirements applies in usage MS-PW redundancy as well. An
   additional requirement applicable to MS-PW is forwarding of status
   notification through S-PE. In general from customer view, SS-PW and
   MS-PW has similar resiliency requirement.

   There is also a 1:1 protection switching case that is a subset of the
   above where PW3 and PW4 are not present and the CEs do not perform
   native service protection switching, but instead may use load
   balancing. This protects against AC failures and can use the native
   service to indicate active/failed state.

      If each CE homes to different PEs, then the CEs can implement
   native service protection switching, without any PW redundancy
   functions. All that the PW needs to do is detect AC, PE, or PSN
   tunnel failures and convey that information to both PEs at the end of
   the PW. This is applicable to MS-PW as well.

3.2. Single Homed CE with MS-PW redundancy

   This is the main application of interest and the network setup is
   shown in Figure 2







Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


           Native   |<------------Pseudo Wire------------>|  Native
           Service  |                                     |  Service
            (AC)    |     |<-PSN1-->|     |<-PSN2-->|     |  (AC)
              |     V     V         V     V         V     V   |
              |     +-----+         +-----+         +-----+   |
       +----+ |     |T-PE1|=========|S-PE1|=========|T-PE2|   |   +----+
       |    |-------|......PW1-Seg1.......|.PW1-Seg2......|-------|    |
       | CE1|       |     |=========|     |=========|     |       | CE2|
       |    |       +-----+         +-----+         +-----+       |    |
       +----+        |.||.|                          |.||.|       +----+
                     |.||.|         +-----+          |.||.|
                     |.||.|=========|     |========== .||.|
                     |.||...PW2-Seg1......|.PW2-Seg2...||.|
                     |.| ===========|S-PE2|============ |.|
                     |.|            +-----+             |.|
                     |.|============+-----+============= .|
                     |.....PW3-Seg1.|     | PW3-Seg2......|
                      ==============|S-PE3|===============
                                    |     |
                                    +-----+

   Figure 2 Single homed CE with multi-segment pseudo-wire redundancy

   In Figure 2, CE1 is connected to PE1 in provider Edge 1 and CE2 to
   PE2 in provider edge 2 respectively. There are three segmented PWs. A
   PW1, is switched at S-PE1, PW2, which is switched at S-PE2 and PW3,
   is switched at S-PE3.

                Since there is no multi-homing running on the AC, the T-
PE nodes would advertise 'Active" for the forwarding status based on the
priority. Priorities associate meaning of 'primary PW' and 'secondary
PW'. These priorities MUST be used in revertive mode as well and paths
must be switched accordingly. The priority can be configuration or
derivation from the PWid. Lower the PWid higher the priority. However
this does not guarantee that paths of the PW are synchronized because
for example of mismatch of the configuration of the PW priority in each
T-PE.The intent of this application is to have T-PE1 and T-PE2
synchronize the transmit and receive paths of the PW over the network.
In other words, both T-PE nodes are required to transmit over the PW
segment which is switched by the same S-PE. This is desirable for ease
of operation and troubleshooting.








Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


3.3. PW redundancy between MTU-s and PEs in a multi-homed VPLS
   application

   Following figure illustrates the application of use of PW redundancy
   in spoke PW by dual homed MTU-s to PEs.


                         |<-PSN1-->|     |<-PSN2-->|
                         V         V     V         V
                   +-----+         +-----+
                   |MTU-s|=========|PE1  |========
                   |..Active PW group....| H-VPLS-core
                   |     |=========|     |=========
                   +-----+         +-----+
                      |.|
                      |.|           +-----+
                      |.|===========|     |==========
                      |...Standby PW group|.H-VPLS-core
                       =============|  PE2|==========
                                    +-----+

               Figure 3  Multi-homed MTU-s in H-VPLS core

   In Figure 3, MTU-s is dual homed to PE1 and PE2 and has spoke PWs to
   each of them. MTU-s needs to choose only one of the spoke PW (active
   PW) to one of the PE to forward the traffic and the other to standby
   status. MTU-s can derive the status of the PWs based on local policy
   configuration. PE1 and PE2 are connected to H-VPLS core on the other
   side of  network. MTU-s communicates the status of its member PWs for
   a set of VSIs having common status Active/Standby. Here MTU-s
   controls the selection of PWs to forward the traffic. Signaling
   using PW grouping with common group-id in PWid FEC Element or
   Grouping TLV in Generalized PWid FEC Element as defined in [2] to PE1
   and PE2 respectively, is encouraged to scale better.

                      Whenever MTU-s performs a switchover, it requires
   to communicate to PE2-rs for the Standby PW group the changed status
   of active .

                   In this scenario, PE devices are aware of switchovers
   at MTU-s and could generate MAC Withdraw Messages to trigger MAC
   flushing within the H-VPLS full mesh. By default, MTU-s devices
   should still trigger MAC Withdraw messages as currently defined in
   [5] to prevent two copies of MAC withdraws to be sent (one by MTU-s
   and another one by PEs). Mechanisms to disable MAC Withdraw trigger
   in certain devices is out of the scope of this document.



Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


3.4. PW redundancy between n-PEs

   Following figure illustrates the application of use of PW redundancy
   for dual homed connectivity between PE devices in a ring topology.

                 +-------+                     +-------+

                 |  PE1  |=====================|  PE2  |====...

                 +-------+    PW Group 1       +-------+

                     ||                            ||

       VPLS Domain A ||                            || VPLS Domain B

                     ||                            ||

                 +-------+                     +-------+

                 |  PE3  |=====================|  PE4  |==...

                 +-------+    PW Group 2       +-------+

                 Figure 4   Redundancy in Ring topology

   In Figure 4, PE1 and PE3 from VPLS domain A are connected to PE2 and
   PE4 in VPLS domain B via PW group 1 and group 2. Each of the PE in
   respective domain is connected to each other as well to form the ring
   topology. Such scenarios may arise in inter-domain H-VPLS deployments
   where RSTP or other mechanisms may be used to maintain loop free
   connectivity of PW groups.

                Ref.[5] outlines about multi-domain VPLS service without
   specifying how redundant border PEs per domain per VPLS instance can
   be supported. In the example above, PW group1 may be blocked at PE1
   by RSTP and it is desirable to block the group at PE2 by virtue of
   exchanging the PW preferential status as Standby. How the PW grouping
   should be done here is again deployment specific and is out of scope
   of the solution.

3.5. PW redundancy in Bridge Module Model





      ----------------------------+  Provider  +------------------------


Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


                                  .   Core     .

                      +------+    .            .    +------+

                      | n-PE |======================| n-PE |

           Provider   | (P)  |---------\    /-------| (P)  |  Provider

           Access     +------+    ._    \  /   .    +------+  Access

           Network                .      \/    .              Network

             (1)      +------+    .      /\    .    +------+     (2)

                      | n-PE |----------/  \--------| n-PE |

                      |  (B) |----------------------| (B)  |_

                      +------+    .            .    +------+

                                  .            .

      ----------------------------+            +------------------------

                         Figure 5 Bridge Module Model

   In Figure 5, two provider access networks, each having two n-PEs,
   where the n-PEs are connected via a full mesh of PWs for a given VPLS
   instance. As shown in the figure, only one n-PE in each access
   network is serving as a Primary PE (P) for that VPLS instance and the
   other n-PE is serving as the backup PE (B).In this figure, each
   primary PE has two active PWs originating from it. Therefore, when a
   multicast, broadcast, and unknown unicast frame arrives at the
   primary n-PE from the access network side, the n-PE replicates the
   frame over both PWs in the core even though it only needs to send the
   frames over a single PW (shown with == in the figure) to the primary
   n-PE on the other side. This is an unnecessary replication of the
   customer frames that consumes core-network bandwidth (half of the
   frames get discarded at the receiving n-PE). This issue gets
   aggravated when there is three or more n-PEs per provider, access
   network. For example if there are three n-PEs or four n-PEs per
   access network, then 67% or 75% of core-BW for multicast, broadcast
   and unknown unicast are respectively wasted.

                      In this scenario, Standby PW signaling defined in
   [7] can be used among n-PEs that can disseminate the status of PWs
   (active or blocked) among themselves and furthermore to have it tied


Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


   up with the redundancy mechanism such that per VPLS instance the
   status of active/backup n-PE gets reflected on the corresponding PWs
   emanating from that n-PE.

4. Generic PW redundancy requirements

4.1. Protection switching requirements

   o Protection architecture such as N:1,1:1 or 1+1 can be used. N:1
      protection case is somewhat inefficient in terms of capacity
      consumption hence implementations SHOULD support this method while
      1:1 being subset and efficient MUST be supported. 1+1 protection
      architecture can be supported but is left for further study.

   o Non-revertive mode MUST be supported, while revertive mode is an
      optional one.

   o Protection switchover can be operator driven like Manual
      lockout/force switchover or due to signal failure. Both methods
      MUST be supported and signal failure MUST be given higher priority
      than any local or far end request.

4.2.  Operational requirements

   o (T-)PEs involved in protecting a PW SHOULD automatically discover
      and attempt to resolve inconsistencies in the configuration of
      primary/secondary PW.

   o (T-)PEs involved in protecting a PW SHOULD automatically discover
      and attempt to resolve inconsistencies in the configuration of
      revertive/non-revertive protection switching mode.

   o (T-)PEs that do not automatically discover or resolve
      inconsistencies in the configuration of primary/secondary,
      revertive/non-revertive, or other parameters MUST generate an
      alarm upon detection of an inconsistent configuration.

   o (T-)PEs involved with protection switching MUST support the
      configuration of revertive or non-revertive protection switching
      mode.

   o (T-)PEs involved with protection switching SHOULD support the
      local invocation of protection switching.

   o (T-)PEs involved with protection switching SHOULD support the
      local invocation of a lockout of protection switching.



Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


   o In standby status PW can still receive packets in order to avoid
      black holing of in-flight packets during switchover. However in
      case of use of VPLS application packets are dropped in standby
      status except for the OAM packets.



5. Security Considerations

   This document expects extensions to LDP  that are needed for
   protecting pseudo-wires. It will have the same security properties as
   in LDP [4] and the PW control protocol [2].

6. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Vach Kompella, Kendall Harvey,
   Tiberiu Grigoriu, Neil Hart, Kajal Saha, Florin Balus and Philippe
   Niger for their valuable comments and suggestions.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

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

   [2]  Martini, L., et al., "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using
         LDP", RFC 4447, April 2006.

   [3]  Bryant, S., et al., " Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)
         Architecture", March 2005

   [4]  Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and B.
         Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001

   [5]  Kompella,V., Lasserrre, M. , et al., "Virtual Private LAN
         Service (VPLS) Using LDP Signalling", RFC 4762, January 2007

7.2. Informative References

   [6]  Martini, L., et al., "Segmented Pseudo Wire", draft-ietf-pwe3-
         segmented-pw-02.txt, March 2006.

   [7]  Muley, P. et al., "Preferential forwarding status bit", draft-
         muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-00.txt, August 2007.

   [8]  IEEE Std. 802.1D-2003-Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges.


Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008




Author's Addresses

   Praveen Muley
   Alcatel
   701 E. Middlefiled Road
   Mountain View, CA, USA
   Email: Praveen.muley@alcatel.com


   Mustapha Aissaoui
   Alcatel
   600 March Rd
   Kanata, ON, Canada K2K 2E6
   Email: mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel.com

   Matthew Bocci
   Alcatel
   Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Rd
   Maidenhead, Berks, UK SL6 2PJ
   Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk

   Pranjal Kumar Dutta
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Email: pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com

   Marc Lasserre
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Email: mlasserre@alcatel-lucent.com

   Jonathan Newton
   Cable & Wireless
   Email: Jonathan.Newton@cwmsg.cwplc.com

   Olen Stokes
   Extreme Networks
   Email: ostokes@extremenetworks.com

   Hamid Ould-Brahim
   Nortel
   Email: hbrahim@nortel.com

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to


Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy)         February 2008


   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST 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.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.






Muley et al.         Expires September 28, 2008              [Page 14]


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