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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-behave-sctpnat

Network Working Group                                         R. Stewart
Internet-Draft                                        The Resource Group
Intended status: Standards Track                               M. Tuexen
Expires: January 15, 2009                                   I. Ruengeler
                                      Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
                                                           July 14, 2008


Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation
                  draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat-04.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 January 15, 2009.

Abstract

   Stream Control Transmission Protocol [RFC4960] provides a reliable
   communications channel between two end-hosts in many ways similar to
   TCP [RFC0793].  With the widespread deployment of Network Address
   Translators (NAT), specialized code has been added to NAT for TCP
   that allows multiple hosts to reside behind a NAT and yet use only a
   single globally unique IPv4 address, even when two hosts (behind the
   NAT) choose the same port numbers for their connection.  This
   additional code is sometimes classified as Network Address and Port
   Translation or NAPT.  To date, specialized code for SCTP has NOT yet
   been added to most NAT's so that only pure NAT is available.  The end



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


   result of this is that only one SCTP capable host can be behind a
   NAT.

   This document describes an SCTP specific variant of NAT which
   provides similar features of NAPT in the single point and multi-point
   traversal scenario.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  SCTP NAT Traversal Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.1.  Single Point Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.2.  Multi Point Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  The SCTP specific variant of NAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Handling of local port number collisions . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Handling of local port number and verification tag
       collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Handling of missing state  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  Multi Point Traversal considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   10. Handling of fragmented SCTP packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   11. Simplification for small NATs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   13. Security considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   14. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14



















Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


1.  Introduction

   Stream Control Transmission Protocol [RFC4960] provides a reliable
   communications channel between two end-hosts in many ways similar to
   TCP [RFC0793].  With the widespread deployment of Network Address
   Translators (NAT), specialized code has been added to NAT for TCP
   that allows multiple hosts to reside behind a NAT and yet use only a
   single globally unique IPv4 address, even when both hosts (behind the
   NAT) choose the same port numbers for their connection.  This
   additional code is sometimes classified as Network Address and Port
   Translation or NAPT.  To date, specialized code for SCTP has NOT yet
   been added to most NAT's so that only true NAT is available.  The end
   result of this is that only one SCTP capable host can be behind a
   NAT.

   This document proposes an SCTP specific variant NAT that provides the
   NAPT functionality without changing SCTP port numbers.  The authors
   feel it is possible and desirable to make these changes for a number
   of reasons.

   o  It is desirable for SCTP end-hosts on multiple platforms to be
      able to share a global IP address behind a NAT, much as TCP does
      today.

   o  If a NAT does not need to change any data within an SCTP packet it
      will reduce the processing burden of NAT'ing SCTP by NOT needing
      to execute the CRC32c checksum required by SCTP.

   o  Not having to touch the IP payload makes the processing of ICMP
      messages in NATs easier.


2.  Conventions

   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

   For this discussion we will use several terms.  For clarity we will
   first define these terms.

   o  Global-Address - That address that a host behind a NAT is
      attempting to contact.





Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


   o  Global-Port - The port number of the peer process at the Global-
      Address.

   o  Local-Address - The local address that is known to the host behind
      the NAT, aka a private address [RFC1918].

   o  Local-Port - The port number that is in use by the host holding
      the Local-Address.  Normally this is the port that will be
      translated by the NAPT to a different port number.

   o  Nat-Global-Address - The global address assigned to the NAT box
      which it uses as a source address when sending packets towards the
      Global-Address.

   o  Natted-Port - The port number that the NAT is using to represent
      the Local-Port when send data packets toward the Global-Address
      and Global-Port.

   o  Local-Vtag - The Verification Tag that the host inside the natted
      address space has chosen for its communication.  The V-Tag is a
      unique 32 bit tag that must accompany any incoming SCTP packet for
      this association to the Local-Address.

   o  Remote-Vtag - The Verification Tag that the host holding the
      Global-Address has chosen for its communication.  The V-Tag is a
      unique 32 bit tag that must accompany any incoming SCTP packet for
      this association to the Global-Address.


4.  SCTP NAT Traversal Scenarios

4.1.  Single Point Traversal

   In this case, all packets in the SCTP association go through a single
   NAT, as shown below:

      +---------+                           +---------+
      |  SCTP   |          +-----+          |  SCTP   |
      |end point|==========| NAT |==========|end point|
      |    A    |          +-----+          |    B    |
      +---------+                           +---------+

   A variation of this case is shown below, i.e., multiple NATs in a
   single path:







Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


      +---------+                           +---------+
      |  SCTP   |    +-----+     +-----+    |  SCTP   |
      |end point|====| NAT |=::==| NAT |====|end point|
      |    A    |    +-----+     +-----+    |    B    |
      +---------+                           +---------+

   The two SCTP endpoints in this case can be either single-homed or
   multi-homed.  However, the important thing is that the NAT (or NATs)
   in this case sees ALL the packets of the SCTP association.

   In this single traverse point scenario, we must acknowledge that
   while one of the main benefits of SCTP multi-homing is redundant
   paths, the NAT function represents a single point of failure in the
   path of the SCTP multi-home association.  However, the rest of the
   path may still benefit from path diversity provided by SCTP multi-
   homing.

4.2.  Multi Point Traversal

   This case involves multiple NATs and each NAT only sees some of the
   packets in the SCTP association.  An example is shown below:

                      +------+
    +---------+  /====|NAT A |====\  +---------+
    |  SCTP   | /     +------+     \ |  SCTP   |
    |end point|/       ...          \|end point|
    |    A    |\                    /|    B    |
    +---------+ \     +------+     / +---------+
                 \====|NAT B |====/
                      +------+

   This case does NOT apply to a singly-homed SCTP association (i.e.,
   BOTH endpoints in the association use only one IP address).  The
   advantage here is that the existence of multiple NAT traverse points
   can preserve the path diversity of a multi-homed association for the
   entire path.  This in turn can improve the robustness of the
   communication.

   To make this work, however, all the NATs involved must recognize the
   packets they see as belonging to the same SCTP association and
   perform address translation in a consistent way.  It may be required
   that a pre-defined table of ports and addresses would be shared
   between the NAT's.  Other external management schemes that help
   multiple NAT's coordinate a multi-homed SCTP association could be
   investigated.






Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


5.  The SCTP specific variant of NAT

   In this section we assume that we have multiple SCTP capable hosts
   behind a NAT which has one Nat-Global address.  Furthermore we are
   focusing in this section on the single point traversal scenario.

   The modification of SCTP packets sent to the public Internet is easy.
   The source address of the packet has to be replaced with the Nat-
   Global-Address.  It may also be necessary to establish some state in
   the NAT box to handle incoming packets, which is discussed later.

   For SCTP packets coming from the public Internet the destination
   address of the packets has to be replaced with the Local-Address of
   the host the packet has to be delivered to.  The lookup of the Local-
   Address is based on the Global-VTag, Global-Port, Global-Address,
   Local-Vtag and the Local-Port.

   For the SCTP NAT processing the NAT box has to maintain a table of
   Global-VTag, Global-Port, Global-Address, Local-VTag, Local-Port and
   Local-Address.  An entry in that table is called a NAT state control
   block.

   The processing of outgoing SCTP packets containing an INIT-chunk is
   described in the following figure.

   Local-Network                               Global-Internet

       [From(Local-Address,Local-Port),
          To(Global-Address:Global-Port)
        INIT(Initiate-Tag)]------->

              Create(Global-Port,Global-Address,Initiate-Tag,
                     Local-Port,Local-Address)
              Returns(NAT-State control block)

              Translate To:

                    [From(Nat-Global-Address:Local-Port),
                     To(Global-Address:Global-Port)
                     INIT(Initiate-Tag)]------->

   It should be noted that normally no NAT control block will be
   created.  However it is possible that that there is already a NAT
   control block with the same Global-Port, Global-Address, Initiate-
   Tag, Local-VTag but different Local-Address.  In this case the INIT
   SHOULD be dropped and an ABORT MAY be sent back.

   The processing of outgoing SCTP packets containing no INIT-chunk is



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


   described in the following figure.

   Local-Network                               Global-Internet

       [From(Local-Address,Local-Port),
          To(Global-Address:Global-Port)]------->


              Translate To:

                    [From(Nat-Global-Address:Local-Port),
                     To(Global-Address:Global-Port)]------->

   The processing of incoming SCTP packets containing INIT-ACK chunks is
   described in the following figure.

   Local-Network                               Global-Internet


                      <-----[From(Global-Address,Global-Port),
                             To(Nat-Global-Address,Local-Port),
                             SCTP(Local-VTag),
                             INIT-ACK(Initiate-Tag)]

              Lookup(0,Global-Port,Global-Address,Local-VTag,Local-Port)
              Update(Initiate-Tag,Global-Port,Global-Address,
                     Local-VTag,Local-Port)
              Returns(NAT-State control block containing Local-Address)

       <-----[From(Global-Address:Global-Port),
              To(Local-Address,Local-Port)
              SCTP(Local-VTag)]


   In the case Lookup fails, the SCTP packet is dropped.  The Update
   routine inserts the Global-VTag in the NAT state control block.

   The processing of incoming SCTP packets containing and ABORT or
   SHUTDOWN-COMLETE chunk with the T-Bit set is described in the
   following figure.











Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


  Local-Network                               Global-Internet


                     <-----[From(Global-Address,Global-Port),
                            To(Nat-Global-Address,Local-Port),
                            SCTP(Global-VTag)]

             Lookup(Global-VTag,Global-Port,Global-Address,0,Local-Port)
             Returns(NAT-State control block containing Local-Address)

      <-----[From(Global-Address:Global-Port),
             To(Local-Address,Local-Port)
             SCTP(Global-VTag)]


   The processing of other incoming SCTP packets is described in the
   following figure.

   Local-Network                               Global-Internet


                      <-----[From(Global-Address,Global-Port),
                             To(Nat-Global-Address,Local-Port),
                             SCTP(Local-VTag)]

              Lookup(0,Global-Port,Global-Address,Local-VTag,Local-Port)
              Returns(NAT-State control block containing Local-Address)

       <-----[From(Global-Address:Global-Port),
              To(Local-Address,Local-Port)
              SCTP(Local-VTag)]


   For an incoming packet containing an INIT-chunk a table lookup is
   made only based on the addresses and port numbers.  If an entry with
   a local vtag of zero is found, it is considered a match and the local
   v-tag is updated.

   This allows the handling of INIT-collision through NAT.


6.  Handling of local port number collisions

   There is one drawback of the SCTP specific variant of NAT compared to
   a NAPT solution like the ones available for TCP.  Consider the case
   where two hosts in the Local-Address space want to setup an SCTP
   association with the same server running on the same host in the
   Internet.  This means that the Global-Port and the Global-Address are



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


   the same.  If they both chose the same Local-Port the server can not
   distinguish both associations based on the address and port numbers.
   For the server it looks like the association is being restarted.  To
   overcome this limitation the client sends a NAT_SUPPORTED parameter
   in the INIT-chunk which is defined as follows:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Type = 0xC007         |          Length=4             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   When the server receives this parameter it will also use the
   verification tag to look up the association.  However, this will make
   it impossible to restart such associations.


7.  Handling of local port number and verification tag collisions

   Consider the case where two hosts in the Local-Address space want to
   setup an SCTP association with the same server running on the same
   host in the Internet.  This means that the Global-Port and the
   Global-Address are the same.  If they both chose the same Local-Port
   and Local-VTag, the NAT box can not distinguish incoming packets
   anymore.  But this is very unlikely.  The Local-Vtags are chosen by
   random and if the Local-Ports are also chosen ephemeral an random
   this gives a 46 bit random number which has to match.  In the TCP
   like NAPT case the NAT box can control the 16 bit Natted Port.

   However, if this unlikely happens the NAT box MUST respond to the
   INIT chunk by sending an ABORT chunk with the M-bit set.  The source
   address of the packet containing the ABORT chunk MUST be the
   destination address of the SCTP packet containing the INIT chunk.
   The sender of the packet containing the INIT chunk MAY start the
   association setup procedure after choosing a new initiate tag.

   The ABORT chunk defined in [RFC4960] is therefore extended by using
   the following format:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 6    | Reserved  |M|T|           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                                                               \
   /                   zero or more Error Causes                   /
   \                                                               \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


   The following error cause with cause code 0x00b0 (Colliding NAT table
   entry) SHOULD be included in the ABORT chunk:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Cause Code=0x00b0         |      Cause Length=Variable    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                          INIT chunk                          /
   /                                                              \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


8.  Handling of missing state

   If the NAT box receives a packet for which the lookup procedure does
   not find an entry in the NAT table, a packet containing an ERROR
   packet is sent back with the M-bit set.  The source address of the
   packet containing the ERROR chunk MUST be the destination address of
   the incoming SCTP packet.  The verification tag is reflected.

   The ERROR chunk defined in [RFC4960] is therefore extended by using
   the following format:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 9    | Reserved  |M|T|           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                                                               \
   /                   zero or more Error Causes                   /
   \                                                               \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The following error cause with cause code 0x00b1 (Missing NAT table
   entry) SHOULD be included in the ERROR chunk:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Cause Code=0x00b0         |      Cause Length=Variable    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                       Incoming Packet                        /
   /                                                              \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   If an end-point receives a packet with this ERROR chunk it MAY send
   an SCTP packet with a ASCONF chunk containing an Add IP Address



Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


   parameter followed by a vtag parameter:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Parameter Type = 0xC007   |     Parameter Length = 12     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Local Verification Tag                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Remote Verification Tag                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   If the NAT box receives a packet for which it has no NAT table entry
   and the packet contains an ASCONF chunk with a vtag parameter, the
   NAT box MUST update its NAT table according to the verification tags
   in the vtag parameter.


9.  Multi Point Traversal considerations

   If a multi-homed SCTP end-point behind a NAT connects to a peer, it
   first sets up the association single-homed.  Then it adds each IP
   address using ASCONF chunks.  The address to add is the wildcard
   address and the lookup address also.  The ASCONF chunks SHOULD also
   contain a vtag parameter.


10.  Handling of fragmented SCTP packets

   A NAT box MUST support IP reassembly of received fragmented SCTP
   packets.  The fragments may arrive in any order.

   When an SCTP packet has to be fragmented by the NAT box and the IP
   header forbids fragmentation a correspond ICMP packet SHOULD be sent.


11.  Simplification for small NATs

   Small NAT boxes, i.e.  NAT boxes which only have to support a small
   number of concurrent SCTP associations, MAY not take the global
   address into account when processing packets.  Therefore the global-
   address could also be removed from the NAT table.

   This simplification may make implementing a NAT box easier, however,
   the collision probability is higher than using a mapping which takes
   the global address into account.





Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


12.  IANA Considerations

   TBD


13.  Security considerations

   State maintenance within a NAT is always a subject of possible Denial
   Of Service attack.  This document recommends that at a minimum a NAT
   run a timer on any SCTP state so that old association state can be
   cleaned up.


14.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to thank Qiaobing Xie, Henning Peters, Bryan Ford,
   David Hayes, and Jason But for their invaluable comments.


15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, September 2007.

15.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.














Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


Authors' Addresses

   Randall R. Stewart
   The Resource Group
   1700 Pennsylvania Ave NW
   Suite 56
   Washington, DC  20006
   USA

   Phone:
   Email: randall.stewart@trgworld.com


   Michael Tuexen
   Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
   Stegerwaldstr. 39
   48565 Steinfurt
   Germany

   Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de


   Irene Ruengeler
   Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
   Stegerwaldstr. 39
   48565 Steinfurt
   Germany

   Email: i.ruengeler@fh-muenster.de






















Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      SCTP Network Address Translation           July 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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, 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.


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.











Stewart, et al.         Expires January 15, 2009               [Page 14]


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