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

Versions: (draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 5461

TCP Maintenance and Minor                                        F. Gont
Extensions (tcpm)                                                UTN/FRH
Internet-Draft                                            August 8, 2006
Intended status: Informational
Expires: February 9, 2007


                     TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors
                 draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-01.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."

   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 February 9, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document discusses the problem of long delays between connection
   establishment attempts that may arise in a number of scenarios,
   including one in which dual stack nodes that have IPv6 enabled by
   default are deployed in IPv4 or mixed IPv4 and IPv6 environments.
   Additionally, this document describes a modification to TCP's
   reaction to soft errors that has been implemented in a variety of
   TCP/IP stacks to help overcome this problem.



Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Error Handling in TCP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Reaction to Hard Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Reaction to Soft Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Problems that may arise from TCP's reaction to soft errors . .  5
     3.1.  General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Problems that may arise with Dual Stack IPv6 on by
           Default  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  A workaround for long delays between
       connection-establishment attempts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Possible drawbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  Non-deterministic transient network failures . . . . . . .  7
     5.2.  Deterministic transient network failures . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Future work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   9.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Appendix A.  Other possible solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     A.1.  A more conservative approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     A.2.  Asynchronous Application Notification  . . . . . . . . . . 11
     A.3.  Issuing several connection requests in parallel  . . . . . 11
   Appendix B.  Change log (to be removed before publication of
                the document as an RFC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     B.1.  Changes from draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-00  . . . . . 12
     B.2.  Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-02  . . . . . 12
     B.3.  Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-01  . . . . . 12
     B.4.  Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-00  . . . . . 12
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14

















Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


1.  Introduction

   The handling of network failures can be separated into two different
   actions: fault isolation and fault recovery.  Fault isolation
   consists of the actions that hosts and routers take to determine that
   there is a network failure.  Fault recovery, on the other hand,
   consists of the actions that hosts and routers perform to survive a
   network failure.[RFC0816]

   In the Internet architecture, the Internet Control Message Protocol
   (ICMP) [RFC0792] is used to perform the fault isolation function,
   that is, to report network error conditions to the hosts sending
   datagrams over the network.

   When a host is signalled of a network error, there is still the issue
   of what to do to let communication survive, if possible, the network
   failure.  The fault recovery strategy may depend on the type of
   network failure taking place, and the time the error condition is
   detected.

   This document analyzes the fault recovery strategy of TCP [RFC0793],
   and the problems that may arise due to TCP's policy of reaction to
   soft errors.  Among others, it analyzes the problems that may arise
   in scenarios where dual stack nodes that have IPv6 enabled by default
   are deployed in IPv4 or mixed IPv4 and IPv6 environments.

   Additionally, it documents a modification to TCP's policy of reaction
   to ICMP messages indicating "soft errors", that has been implemented
   in a variety of TCP/IP stacks to help overcome the problems discussed
   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 [RFC2119].


2.  Error Handling in TCP

   Network errors can be divided into soft and hard errors.  Soft errors
   are considered to be transient network failures, which are likely to
   be solved in the near term.  Hard errors, on the other hand, are
   considered to reflect permanent network error conditions, which are
   unlikely to be solved in the near future.

   Therefore, it may make sense for the fault recovery action to be
   different depending on the type of error being detected.

   When there is a network failure that's not signalled to the sending



Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


   host, such as a gateway corrupting packets, TCP's fault recovery
   action is to repeatedly retransmit the segment until either it gets
   acknowledged, or the connection times out.  In case the connection
   times out before the segment is acknowledged, TCP won't be able to
   provide more information than the timeout condition.

   In case a host does receive an ICMP error message referring to an
   ongoing TCP connection, the IP layer will pass this message up to
   corresponding TCP instance to raise awareness of the network failure.
   [RFC1122]

   TCP's reaction to ICMP messages will depend on the type of error
   being signalled.

2.1.  Reaction to Hard Errors

   When receiving a segment with the RST bit set, or an ICMP error
   message indicating a hard error condition, TCP will simply abort the
   corresponding connection, regardless of the state the connection is
   in.

   The "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers" RFC
   [RFC1122] states, in section 4.2.3.9, that TCP SHOULD abort
   connections when receiving ICMP error messages that indicate hard
   errors.  This policy is based on the premise that, as hard errors
   indicate network error conditions that won't change in the near term,
   it will not be possible for TCP to recover from this type of network
   failure.

2.2.  Reaction to Soft Errors

   If an ICMP error message is received that indicates a soft error, TCP
   will just record this information [Stevens], and repeatedly
   retransmit the data until either they get acknowledged or the
   connection times out.

   The "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers" RFC
   [RFC1122] states, in section 4.2.3.9, that TCP MUST NOT abort
   connections when receiving ICMP error messages that indicate soft
   errors.  This policy is based on the premise that, as soft errors are
   transient network failures that will hopefully be solved in the near
   term, one of the retransmissions will succeed.

   In case the connection timer expires, and an ICMP error message has
   been received before the timeout, TCP will use this information to
   provide the user with a more specific error message.  [Stevens]

   This handling of soft errors exploits the valuable feature of the



Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


   Internet that for many network failures, the network can be
   dynamically reconstructed without any disruption of the endpoints.


3.  Problems that may arise from TCP's reaction to soft errors

3.1.  General Discussion

   Even though TCP's fault recovery strategy in the presence of soft
   errors allows for TCP connections to survive transient network
   failures, there are scenarios in which this policy may cause
   undesirable effects.

   For example, consider the case in which an application on a local
   host is trying to communicate with a destination whose name resolves
   to several IP addresses.  The application on the local host will try
   to establish a connection with the destination host, cycling through
   the list of IP addresses, until one succeeds [RFC1123].  Suppose that
   some (but not all) of the addresses in the returned list are
   permanently unreachable.  If they are the first IP addresses in the
   list, the application will usually try to use these addresses first.

   As discussed in Section 2, this unreachability condition may or may
   not be signalled to the sending host.  If the local TCP is not
   signalled concerning the error condition, there is very little that
   can be done other than repeatedly retransmit the SYN segment, and
   wait for the existing timeout mechanism in TCP, or an application
   timeout, to be triggered.  However, even if unreachability is
   signalled by some intermediate router to the local TCP by means of an
   ICMP error message, the local TCP will record the error message and
   will still repeatedly retransmit the SYN segment until the connection
   timer expires.  The "Requirements For Internet Hosts -- Communication
   Layers" RFC [RFC1122] states that this timer MUST be large enough to
   provide retransmission of the SYN segment for at least 3 minutes.
   This would mean that the application on the local host would spend
   several minutes for each unreachable address it uses for trying to
   establish a TCP connection.  These long delays between connection
   establishment attempts would be inappropriate for interactive
   applications such as the web.  [Shneiderman] [Thadani]

3.2.  Problems that may arise with Dual Stack IPv6 on by Default

   Another scenario in which this type of problem may occur is that
   where dual stack nodes that have IPv6 enabled by default are deployed
   in IPv4 or mixed IPv4 and IPv6 environments, and the IPv6
   connectivity is non-existent [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault].

   As discussed in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault], there are two



Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


   possible variants of this scenario, which differ in whether the lack
   of connectivity is signalled to the sending node, or not.

   In cases where packets sent to a destination are silently dropped and
   no ICMPv6 [RFC4443] errors are generated, there is very little that
   can be done other than waiting for the existing connection timeout
   mechanism in TCP, or an application timeout, to be triggered.

   In cases where a node has no default routers and Neighbor
   Unreachability Detection (NUD) fails for destinations assumed to be
   on-link, or where firewalls or other systems that enforce scope
   boundaries send ICMPv6 errors, the sending node will be signalled of
   the unreachability problem.  However, as discussed in Section 2.2,
   TCP implementations will not abort connections when receiving ICMP
   error messages that indicate soft errors.


4.  A workaround for long delays between connection-establishment
    attempts

   As discussed in Section 1, it may make sense for the fault recovery
   action to depend not only on the type of error being reported, but
   also on the state of the connection against which the error is
   reported.  For example, one could infer that when an error arrives in
   response to opening a new connection, it is probably caused by
   opening the connection improperly, rather than by a transient network
   failure.  [RFC0816]

   A variety of TCP/IP stacks have modified TCP's reaction to soft
   errors, to make it abort a connection in the SYN-SENT or the SYN-
   RECEIVED state if it receives an ICMP "Destination Unreachable"
   message that indicates a soft error about that connection.

   The "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers" RFC
   [RFC1122] states, in section 4.2.3.9., that the ICMP "Destination
   Unreachable" messages that indicate soft errors are ICMP codes 0
   (network unreachable), 1 (host unreachable), and 5 (source route
   failed).  Even though ICMPv6 didn't exist when [RFC1122] was written,
   one could extrapolate the concept of soft errors to ICMPv6 Type 1
   Codes 0 (no route to destination) and 3 (address unreachable).

   It must be noted that this behaviour violates section 4.2.3.9 of
   [RFC1122], since it states that as these Unreachable messages
   indicate soft error conditions, TCP MUST NOT abort the corresponding
   connection.

   This workaround has been implemented, for example, in the Linux
   kernel since version 2.0.0 (released in 1996) [Linux].  Appendix A.1



Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


   discusses a more conservative approach than the one introduced in
   this section.


5.  Possible drawbacks

   The following subsections discuss some of the possible drawbacks
   arising from the use of the modification to TCP's reaction to soft
   errors described in Section 4.

5.1.  Non-deterministic transient network failures

   In case there's a transient network failure affecting all of the
   addresses returned by the name-to-address translation function, all
   destinations could be unreachable for some short period of time.  In
   such a scenario, the application could quickly cycle through all the
   IP addresses in the list and return an error, when it could have let
   TCP retry a destination a few seconds later, when the transient
   problem could have disappeared.

   However, it must be noted that non-interactive applications, such as
   a Mail Transfer Agent (MTA), usually must implement application-layer
   retry mechanisms, and thus are able to handle these scenarios
   appropriately.  For interactive applications, the user would likely
   not be satisfied with a connection attempt that succeeds only after
   several seconds, anyway.  [Guynes]

5.2.  Deterministic transient network failures

   There are some scenarios in which transient network failures could be
   deterministic.  For example, consider the case in which upstream
   network connectivity is triggered by network use.  That is, network
   connectivity is instantiated only on an "as needed" basis.  In this
   scenario, the connection triggering the upstream connectivity would
   deterministically receive ICMP Destination Unreachables while the
   upstream connectivity is being activated, and thus would be aborted.

   As discussed in Section 5.1, applications usually implement
   mechanisms to handle these scenarios appropriately.  Also, connection
   attempts are usually preceded by a UDP-based DNS name-to-address
   lookup.  Thus, unless the name-to-address mapping has been cached by
   a local nameserver or resolver, it will be the DNS query that will
   trigger the upstream network connectivity, and thus the corresponding
   connection will not be aborted.







Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


6.  Future work

   A Higher-Level API would be useful for isolating applications from
   protocol details.  The API could contain the intelligence required to
   resolve the hostname, try each destination address, etc.  One could
   even argue that this document wouldn't have existed if application
   programmers had been using a Higher-Level API.  However, such an API
   would need to be designed, standardized, implemented, deployed, and
   documented even before application programmers start (if ever) to use
   it.


7.  Security Considerations

   This document describes a modification to TCP's reaction to soft
   errors that has been implemented in a variety of TCP/IP stacks.  This
   modification makes TCP abort a connection in the SYN-SENT or the SYN-
   RECEIVED states when it receives an ICMP "Destination Unreachable"
   message that indicates a "soft error" about that connection.  While
   this modification could be exploited to reset valid connections, it
   must be noted that this behaviour is meant only for connections in
   the SYN-SENT or the SYN-RECEIVED states, and thus the window of
   exposure is very short.

   In any case, it must be noted that the workaround discussed in this
   document neither strengthens nor weakens TCP's resistance to attack.
   An attacker wishing to reset ongoing TCP connections could perform
   the attack by sending any of the ICMP error messages that indicate
   "hard errors", not only for connections in the SYN-SENT or the SYN-
   RECEIVED states, but for connections in any state.

   A discussion of the use of ICMP to perform a variety of attacks
   against TCP, and a number of counter-measures that eliminate or
   greatly minimize the impact of these attacks can be found in
   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks].

   A discussion of the security issues arising from the use of ICMPv6
   can be found in [RFC4443].


8.  Acknowledgements

   The author wishes to thank Ron Bonica, Guillermo Gont, Michael
   Kerrisk, Eddie Kohler, Mika Liljeberg, Pasi Sarolahti, Pekka Savola,
   and Joe Touch, for contributing many valuable comments.






Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


9.  Contributors

   Mika Liljeberg was the first to describe how their implementation
   treated soft errors.  Based on that, the solution discussed in
   Section 4 was documented in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault] by
   Sebastien Roy, Alain Durand and James Paugh.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, September 1981.

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

   [RFC1123]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
              and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.

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

   [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.

10.2.  Informative References

   [Guynes]   Guynes, J., "Impact of System Response Time on State
              Anxiety", Communications of the ACM , 1988.

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks]
              Gont, F., "ICMP attacks against TCP",
              draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-00 (work in progress),
              February 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault]
              Roy, S., Durand, A., and J. Paugh, "Issues with Dual Stack
              IPv6 on by Default", draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-03
              (work in progress), July 2004.

   [Linux]    The Linux Project, "http://www.kernel.org".




Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


   [RFC0816]  Clark, D., "Fault isolation and recovery", RFC 816,
              July 1982.

   [Shneiderman]
              Shneiderman, B., "Response Time and Display Rate in Human
              Performance with Computers", ACM Computing Surveys , 1984.

   [Stevens]  "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols", Addison-
              Wesley , 1994.

   [Stevens2]
              Wright, G. and W. Stevens, "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2:
              The Implementation", Addison-Wesley , 1994.

   [Thadani]  Thadani, A., "Interactive User Productivity", IBM Systems
              Journal No. 1, 1981.


Appendix A.  Other possible solutions

A.1.  A more conservative approach

   A more conservative approach would be to abort a connection in the
   SYN-SENT or SYN-RECEIVED states only after an ICMP Destination
   Unreachable has been received a specified number of times, and the
   SYN segment has been retransmitted more than some specified number of
   times.

   Two new parameters would have to be introduced to TCP, to be used
   only during the connection-establishment phase: MAXSYNREXMIT and
   MAXSOFTERROR.  MAXSYNREXMIT would specify the number of times the SYN
   segment would have to be retransmitted before a connection is
   aborted.  MAXSOFTERROR would specify the number of ICMP messages
   indicating soft errors that would have to be received before a
   connection is aborted.

   Two additional variables would need to be introduced to store
   additional state information during the connection-establishment
   phase: "nsynrexmit" and "nsofterror".  Both would be initialized to
   zero. "nsynrexmit" would be incremented by one every time the SYN
   segment is retransmitted. "nsofterror" would be incremented by one
   every time an ICMP message that indicates a soft error is received.

   A connection in the SYN-SENT or SYN-RECEIVED states would be aborted
   if nsynrexmit was greater than MAXSYNREXMIT and "nsofterror" was
   simultaneously greater than MAXSOFTERROR.

   This approach would give the network more time to solve the



Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


   connectivity problem.  However, it should be noted that depending on
   the values chosen for the MAXSYNREXMIT and MAXSOFTERROR parameters,
   this approach could still lead to long delays between connection
   establishment attempts, thus not solving the problem.  For example,
   BSD systems abort connections in the SYN-SENT or the SYN-RECEIVED
   state when a second ICMP error is received, and the SYN segment has
   been retransmitted more than three times.  They also set up a
   "connection-establishment timer" that imposes an upper limit on the
   time the connection establishment attempt has to succeed, which
   expires after 75 seconds [Stevens2].  Even when this policy may be
   better than the three-minutes timeout policy specified in [RFC1122],
   it may still be inappropriate for handling the potential problems
   described in this document.  This more conservative approach has been
   implemented in BSD systems since, at least, 1994 [Stevens2].

A.2.  Asynchronous Application Notification

   In section 4.2.4.1, [RFC1122] states that there MUST be a mechanism
   for reporting soft TCP error conditions to the application.  Such a
   mechanism (assuming one is implemented) could be used by applications
   to cycle through the destination IP addresses.  However, this
   approach would increase application complexity, and would take a long
   time to kick in, as it would require all existing applications to be
   modified.

A.3.  Issuing several connection requests in parallel

   For those scenarios in which a domain name maps to several IP
   addresses, several connection requests could be issued in parallel,
   each one to a different destination IP address.  The host would then
   use the first connection attempt to succeed, eliminating the
   potential delay in establishing a connection with the destination
   host.  However, this would mean that every attempt to connect to a
   multihomed host would imply sending several SYN segments, making it
   hard for network operators to distinguish valid connection attempts
   from those performing Denial of Service (DoS) attacks.

   An alternative approach would be as follows.  A host would issue a
   connection request to the first IP address in the list returned by
   the name-to-address mapping function.  If this connection request
   didn't succeed in some time, a connection request to the second IP
   address in the list would be issued in parallel.  If none of these
   connection requests succeeded in some time, and there were still more
   addresses left in the list, they would be tried in the same way.
   While this approach would, in principle, avoid the problems of the
   previous approach, it might be hard to define the time interval to
   wait before issuing each parallel connection request.  A short time
   interval would lead to the problems caused by the previous approach,



Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


   while a long time interval would likely still lead to long delays in
   establishing a connection with the destination host.

   In any case, it must be noted that both approaches have the same
   drawbacks as the solution described in Appendix A.2: they would
   increase application complexity, and would take too long to begin to
   be used by applications.


Appendix B.  Change log (to be removed before publication of the
             document as an RFC)

B.1.  Changes from draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-00

   o  Miscellaneous editorial changes

B.2.  Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-02

   o  Draft resubmitted as draft-ietf.

   o  Miscellaneous editorial changes

B.3.  Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-01

   o  Changed wording to describe the mechanism, rather than proposing
      it

   o  Miscellaneous editorial changes

B.4.  Changes from draft-gont-tcpm-tcp-soft-errors-00

   o  Added reference to the Linux implementation in Section 4

   o  Added Section 5

   o  Added Section 6

   o  Added Appendix A.1

   o  Moved section "Asynchronous Application Notification" to
      Appendix A.2

   o  Added a Appendix A.3

   o  Miscellaneous editorial changes






Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


Author's Address

   Fernando Gont
   Universidad Tecnologica Nacional/Facultad Regional Haedo
   Evaristo Carriego 2644
   Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires  1706
   Argentina

   Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
   Email: fernando@gont.com.ar
   URI:   http://www.gont.com.ar








































Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors          August 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

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

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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

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


Acknowledgment

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





Gont                    Expires February 9, 2007               [Page 14]


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