--- 1/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt 2008-04-11 11:01:14.000000000 +0200 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt 2008-04-11 11:01:14.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,240 +1,225 @@ INTERNET-DRAFT R. Hinden, Nokia -February 18, 2005 B. Haberman, JHU-APL +June 15, 2007 G. Huston, APNIC +Intended status: Proposed Standard T. Narten, IBM Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses - + Status of this Memo - This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions - of Section 3 of RFC 3667. 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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with - RFC 3668. + 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 expires on August 23, 2005. + This Internet-Draft will expire on December 21, 2007. Abstract This document defines Centrally allocated IPv6 Unique Local addresses. These addresses are globally unique and are intended for local communications, usually inside of a site. They are not expected to be routable on the global Internet. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction....................................................2 2.0 Acknowledgments.................................................3 3.0 Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses....................................3 3.1 Format..........................................................3 3.2 Global ID.......................................................4 - 3.2.1 Centrally Assigned Global IDs.................................4 - 3.2.2 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm.............6 + 3.2.1 Allocation of Centrally Assigned Global IDs...................5 + 3.2.2 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm.............5 + 3.3 Public Registration Services....................................6 4.0 Operational Guideliens..........................................6 5.0 Global Routing Considerations...................................7 - 5.1 From the Standpoint of the Internet.............................7 - 5.2 From the Standpoint of a Site...................................7 - 6.0 Security Considerations.........................................8 - 7.0 IANA Considerations.............................................8 - 8.0 References......................................................9 - 8.1 Normative References............................................9 - 8.2 Informative References..........................................9 - 9.0 Authors' Addresses.............................................10 - 10.0 Change Log....................................................11 - 11.0 Intellectual Property.........................................11 - 12.0 Disclaimer of Validity........................................12 - 13.0 Copyright Statement...........................................12 + 6.0 Security Considerations.........................................7 + 7.0 IANA Considerations.............................................7 + 8.0 References......................................................8 + 8.1 Normative References............................................8 + 8.2 Informative References..........................................8 + 9.0 Authors' Addresses..............................................9 + 10.0 Change Log....................................................10 + 11.0 Full Copyright................................................10 + 12.0 Intellectual Property.........................................10 1.0 Introduction This document defines the characteristics and technical allocation requirements for centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses in the framework defined in [ULA]. They are not expected to be routable on the global Internet. They are routable inside of a more limited area such as a site. They may also be routed between a limited set of sites. Local IPv6 unicast addresses, as defined in [ULA], have the following characteristics: - Globally unique prefix. - Well known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site boundaries. - - Allows sites to be combined or privately interconnected without - creating any address conflicts or requiring renumbering of - interfaces using these prefixes. - Internet Service Provider independent and can be used for communications inside of a site without having any permanent or intermittent Internet connectivity. - - If accidentally leaked outside of a site via routing or DNS, - there is no conflict with any other addresses. - - In practice, applications may treat these addresses like global scoped addresses. + It is a highly desirable property of ULAs that they are unique, as + ULA uniqueness would allow sites to be combined or privately + interconnected without creating any address conflicts. + Topics that are general to all Local IPv6 address can be found in the following sections of [ULA]: 3.3 Scope Definition 4.0 Operational Guidelines ** 4.1 Routing 4.2 Renumbering and Site Merging 4.3 Site Border Router and Firewall Packet Filtering 4.5 Application and Higher Level Protocol Issues 4.6 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses for Local Communications 4.7 Use of Local IPv6 Addresses with VPNs + 5.0 Global Routing Concerns 6.0 Advantages and Disadvantages - ** Operational guidelines specific to centrally assigned Local IPv6 - addresses are in Section 4.0 of this document. + ** Note: Operational guidelines specific to centrally assigned Local + IPv6 addresses are in Section 4.0 of 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]. 2.0 Acknowledgments - The authors would like to thank Brian Carpenter, Charlie Perkins, - Harald Alvestrand, Keith Moore, Margaret Wasserman, Shannon Behrens, - Alan Beard, Hans Kruse, Geoff Huston, Pekka Savola, Christian - Huitema, Tim Chown, Steve Bellovin, Alex Zinin, Tony Hain, Leslie - Daigle, and Bill Fenner for their comments and suggestions on this - document. + The authors would like to thank Alan Beard, Alex Zinin, Bill Fenner, + Brian Carpenter, Brian Haberman Charlie Perkins, Christian Huitema, + Hans Kruse, Harald Alvestrand, Keith Moore, Leslie Daigle, Margaret + Wasserman, Pekka Savola, Shannon Behrens, Steve Bellovin, Tim Chown, + and Tony Hain for their comments and suggestions on this document. 3.0 Centrally Assigned Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses 3.1 Format The Centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses, based on Unique Local Addresses [ULA], have the following format: | 7 bits |1| 40 bits | 16 bits | 64 bits | - +--------+-+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ + +--------+-+------------+-----------+----------------------------+ | Prefix |L| Global ID | Subnet ID | Interface ID | - +--------+-+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ + +--------+-+------------+-----------+----------------------------+ + Where: Prefix FC00::/7 prefix to identify Local IPv6 unicast addresses. - L Set to 1 if the prefix is locally assigned, - Set to 0 if it is centrally assigned. See - Section 3.2 for additional information. + L Set to 0 if the prefix is centrally assigned, + Note: [ULA] defined L=1 for locally assigned + ULAs. This document defines L=0 for centrally + assigned ULA addresses. See Section 3.2 for + additional information. Global ID 40-bit global identifier used to create a globally unique prefix. See Section 3.2 for additional information. Subnet ID 16-bit Subnet ID is an identifier of a subnet within the site. Interface ID 64-bit Interface ID as defined in [ADDARCH]. 3.2 Global ID The allocation of Global IDs should be pseudo-random [RANDOM]. They - MUST not be assigned sequentially or with well known numbers. This - is to ensure that there is not any relationship between allocations - and to help clarify that these prefixes are not intended to be routed - globally. Specifically, these prefixes are designed to not - aggregate. + MUST not be assigned sequentially. They MUST not be allocated in a + manner where there is a relationship between allocations that would + make it easy to aggregate the resulting prefixes. This is done to + make clear that these prefixes are not intended to be routed + globally. - The major difference between the locally assigned Unique local - addresses defined in [ULA] and the centrally assigned local addresses - defined in this document is that they are uniquely assigned and the - assignments can be escrowed to resolve any disputes regarding - duplicate assignments. + The major difference between the locally assigned Unique Local + Addresses defined in [ULA] and the centrally assigned Unique Local + Addresses, as defined in this document, is that they are uniquely + assigned and the assignments are registered in a public database. It is expected that large managed sites will prefer central assignments and small or disconnected sites will prefer local assignments. It is recommended that sites planning to use Local IPv6 addresses for extensive inter-site communication, initially or as a future possibility, use a centrally assigned prefix as there is no possibility of assignment conflicts. Sites are free to choose either approach. This document defines the allocation procedure for creating global- IDs for centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses (i.e., L=0). The allocation procedure for locally assigned local IPv6 addresses (i.e., L=1) is defined in [ULA]. -3.2.1 Centrally Assigned Global IDs +3.2.1 Allocation of Centrally Assigned Global IDs - Centrally assigned Global IDs MUST be generated with a pseudo-random - algorithm consistent with [RANDOM]. They should not be assigned - sequentially or by locality. This is to ensure that there is no - relationship between allocations and to help clarify that these - prefixes are not intended to be routed globally by eliminating the - possibility of aggregation. Specifically, these prefixes are not - designed to aggregate. + Global IDs should be allocated by a new registry function such that + each allocation is unique and that the assignment is recorded and + published in a public database to verify that that allocation was + unique. - Global IDs should be assigned under the authority of a single - allocation organization because they are pseudo-random and without - any structure. This is easiest to accomplish if there is a single - authority for the assignments. + Global IDs may be assigned under the authority of a single allocation + organization or by multiple organizations. If there are multiple + organizations, there MUST be an operating procedure that ensures that + the entire allocation space maintains it property of uniqueness and + that the allocations are recorded in a single public database. The requirements for centrally assigned Global ID allocations are: + - Globally unique. - Available to anyone in an unbiased manner. - - Permanent with no periodic fees. - - Allocation on a permanent basis, without any need for renewal - and without any procedure for de-allocation. - - Provide mechanisms that prevent hoarding of these allocations. - - The ownership of each individual allocation should be private, - but should be escrowed. - - The allocation authority should permit allocations to be obtained - without having any sort of Internet connectivity. For example in - addition to web based registration they should support some methods - like telephone, postal mail, fax, etc. - The allocation service should include sufficient provisions to avoid - hoarding of numbers. This can be accomplished by various ways, for - example, requiring an exchange of documents, a verbal contact, or a - proof that the request is on behalf of a human rather than a machine. - The service may charge a small fee in order to cover its costs, but - the fee should be low enough to not create a barrier to anyone - needing one. The precise mechanisms should be decided by the - registration authority. + The allocation function must include the ability to make an + allocation on a permanent basis, without any need for renewal and + without any procedure for de-allocation. Other forms of allocation, + including periodic renewable allocations and explicit provision for + de-allocation may also be provided. - The ownership of the allocations is not needed to be public since the - resulting addresses are intended to be used for local communication. - It is escrowed to ensure there are no duplicate allocations and in - case it is needed in the future (e.g., to resolve duplicate - allocation disputes, or to support a change of the central allocation - authority). + The allocation service should include sufficient provisions to + mitigate attempts to artificially reduce the number pool through + hoarding of numbers. The mechanism used by the registration + authority should not include onerous provisions that reduce the + intent that these allocations should be available to anyone in an + unbiased manner, and should not attempt to perform rationing or + impose quotas upon allocations. - Note, there are many possible ways of of creating an allocation - authority. It is important to keep in mind when reviewing - alternatives that the goal is to pick one that can do the job. It - doesn't have to be perfect, only good enough to do the job at hand. + The registration authority may covers its costs through registration + fees and may also use registration agreements to clearly set forth + the terms conditions and liabilities associated with registration of + such allocations. The payments and conditions associated with this + function should not be unreasonably onerous to the extent that the + availability of allocations is impaired. 3.2.2 Sample Code for Pseudo-Random Global ID Algorithm The algorithm described below is intended to be used for centrally assigned Global IDs. In each case the resulting global ID will be used in the appropriate prefix as defined in Section 3.2. 1) Obtain the current time of day in 64-bit NTP format [NTP]. 2) Obtain an EUI-64 identifier from the system running this algorithm. If an EUI-64 does not exist, one can be created from @@ -234,226 +219,202 @@ The algorithm described below is intended to be used for centrally assigned Global IDs. In each case the resulting global ID will be used in the appropriate prefix as defined in Section 3.2. 1) Obtain the current time of day in 64-bit NTP format [NTP]. 2) Obtain an EUI-64 identifier from the system running this algorithm. If an EUI-64 does not exist, one can be created from a 48-bit MAC address as specified in [ADDARCH]. If an EUI-64 cannot be obtained or created, a suitably unique identifier, local to the node, should be used (e.g. system serial number). + 3) Concatenate the time of day with the system-specific identifier creating a key. 4) Compute an SHA-1 digest on the key as specified in [FIPS, SHA1]; the resulting value is 160 bits. 5) Use the least significant 40 bits as the Global ID. - 6) Verify that the computed Global ID is not in the escrow. If it - is, discard the value and rerun the algorithm. - 6) Concatenate FC00::/7, the L bit set to 0, and the 40 bit Global + 6) Verify that the computed Global ID is not already assigned. If + it is, discard the value and rerun the algorithm. + 7) Concatenate FC00::/7, the L bit set to 0, and the 40 bit Global ID to create a centrally assigned Local IPv6 address prefix. This algorithm will result in a Global ID that is unique and can be used to create a centrally assigned local IPv6 address prefix. +3.3 Public Registration Services + + The registration of centrally assigned ULAs should be available in a + public database. This function should support a query of a specific + ULA prefix and then return the registrant's provided detail. + Information should be provided in a robust fashion, consistent with + the current state of similar registration services provided by + address and domain name registration authorities. + 4.0 Operational Guidelines 4.1 DNS Issues - At the present time AAAA and PTR records for centrally assigned local - IPv6 addresses may be installed in the global DNS. This may be - useful if these addresses are being used for site to site or VPN - style applications, or for sites that wish to avoid separate DNS - systems for inside and outside traffic. + AAAA and PTR records for centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses may + be installed in the global DNS. This may be useful if these + addresses are being used for site to site or VPN style applications, + or for sites that wish to avoid separate DNS systems for inside and + outside traffic. The operational issues relating to this are beyond the scope of this document. 5.0 Global Routing Considerations - Section 4.1 of [ULA] provides operational guidelines that forbid - default routing of local addresses between sites. Concerns were - raised to the IPv6 working group and to the IETF as a whole that - sites may attempt to use local addresses as globally routed provider- - independent addresses. This section describes why using local - addresses as globally-routed provider-independent addresses is - unadvisable. - -5.1 From the Standpoint of the Internet - - There is a mismatch between the structure of IPv6 local addresses and - the normal IPv6 wide area routing model. The /48 prefix of an IPv6 - local addresses fits nowhere in the normal hierarchy of IPv6 unicast - addresses. Normal IPv6 unicast addresses can be routed - hierarchically down to physical subnet (link) level and only have to - be flat-routed on the physical subnet. IPv6 local addresses would - have to be flat-routed even over the wide area Internet. - - Thus, packets whose destination address is an IPv6 local address - could be routed over the wide area only if the corresponding /48 - prefix were carried by the wide area routing protocol in use, such as - BGP. This contravenes the operational assumption that long prefixes - will be aggregated into many fewer short prefixes, to limit the table - size and convergence time of the routing protocol. If a network uses - both normal IPv6 addresses [ADDARCH] and IPv6 local addresses, these - types of address will certainly not aggregate with each other, since - they differ from the most significant bit onwards. Neither will IPv6 - local addresses aggregate with each other, due to their random bit - patterns. This means that there would be a very significant - operational penalty for attempting to use IPv6 local address prefixes - generically with currently known wide area routing technology. - -5.2 From the Standpoint of a Site - - There are a number of design factors in IPv6 local addresses that - reduce the likelihood that IPv6 local addresses will be used as - arbitrary global unicast addresses. These include: - - - The default rules to filter packets and routes make it very - difficult to use IPv6 local addresses for arbitrary use across - the Internet. For a site to use them as general purpose unicast - addresses, they would have to make sure that the default rules - were not being used by all other sites and intermediate ISPs - used for their current and future communication. + Since [ULA] was first published, the Regional Internet Address + Registries (RIR) created a new policy to allocate IPv6 Provider + Independent Addresses [RIR-PI]. Given the availability of RIR + allocated provider-independent addresses the authors believe that + there is considerably less concern that ULAs of either type will be + used as IPv6 provider-independent addresses. - - They are not registered in public databases. The lack of public - registration creates operational problems. + The operational guidelines regarding routing of centrally assigned + local addresses is that such address prefixes should be readily + routed within a site or comparable administrative routing domain. - - The addresses are allocated randomly. If a site had multiple - prefixes that they wanted to be used globally the cost of - advertising them would be very high as they could not be - aggregated. + By default, such prefixes should not be announced beyond such a local + scope, due to the non-aggregateability of these prefixes within the + routing system and the potential negative impact on the total size of + the routing space in large scale internet environments. - - They have a long prefix (i.e, /48) so a single local address - prefix doesn't provide enough address space to be used - exclusively by the largest organizations. + Entities wishing to use IPv6 Provider Independent Addresses (PI + Space) in such larger routing contexts should consult the Regional + Internet Registries policies relating to the allocation of PI Space + [RIR-PI]. 6.0 Security Considerations Local IPv6 addresses do not provide any inherent security to the nodes that use them. They may be used with filters at site boundaries to keep Local IPv6 traffic inside of the site, but this is no more or less secure than filtering any other type of global IPv6 unicast addresses. Local IPv6 addresses do allow for address-based security mechanisms, including IPSEC, across end to end VPN connections. 7.0 IANA Considerations - The IANA is instructed to designate an allocation authority, based on - instructions from the IAB, for centrally assigned Unique Local IPv6 - unicast addresses. This allocation authority shall comply with the - requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document, including in - particular allocation on a permanent basis and with sufficient - provisions to avoid hoarding of numbers. If deemed appropriate, the - authority may also consist of multiple organizations performing the - allocation authority duties. + The IANA is instructed to designate an allocation authority for + centrally assigned Unique Local IPv6 unicast addresses. This + allocation authority shall comply with the requirements described in + Section 3.2 of this document, including in particular allocation on a + permanent basis and with sufficient provisions to avoid hoarding of + numbers. If deemed appropriate, the authority may also consist of + multiple organizations performing the allocation authority duties. + + The Regional Internet Address registries are expected to be the + allocation authority for centrally assigned Unique Local IPv6 + addresses. The designated allocation authority is required to document how they will meet the requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document - in an RFC. This RFC will be shepherd through the IETF by the IAB. + in an RFC. 8.0 References 8.1 Normative References [ADDARCH] Hinden, R., S. Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 3515, April 2003. [FIPS] "Federal Information Processing Standards Publication", (FIPS PUB) 180-1, Secure Hash Standard, 17 April 1995. - [GLOBAL] Hinden, R., S. Deering, E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global Unicast - Address Format", RFC 3587, August 2003. - - [ICMPV6] Conta, A., S. Deering, "Internet Control Message Protocol - (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) - Specification", RFC2463, December 1998. - - [IPV6] Deering, S., R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 - (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. - [NTP] Mills, David L., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, Implementation and Analysis", RFC 1305, March 1992. - [POPUL] Population Reference Bureau, "World Population Data Sheet - of the Population Reference Bureau 2002", August 2002. - - [RANDOM] Eastlake, D. 3rd, S. Crocker, J. Schiller, "Randomness - Recommendations for Security", RFC 1750, December 1994. + [RANDOM] Eastlake, D. 3rd, J. Schiller, S. Crocker, "Randomness + Recommendations for Security", RFC 4086, June 2005. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP14, March 1997. [SHA1] D. Eastlake 3rd, P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1 (SHA1)", RFC 3174, September 2001. [ULA] Hinden, R., B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast - Addresses", Internet Draft , November 2004. + Addresses", RFC-4193, October 2005. 8.2 Informative References - [ADDAUTO] Thomson, S., T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address - Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. - - [ADDSEL] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet - Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. - - [DHCP6] Droms, R., et. al., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol - for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC3315, July 2003. - - [RTP] Schulzrinne, H., S. Casner, R. Frederick, V. Jacobson, - "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications" - RFC3550, July 2003. + [RIR-PI] O. DeLong, K. Loch, A. Dul, "Policy Proposal 2005-1: + Provider-independent IPv6 Assignments for End Sites", + http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html, May 2006. 9.0 Authors' Addresses Robert M. Hinden Nokia 313 Fairchild Drive Mountain View, CA 94043 USA phone: +1 650 625-2004 email: bob.hinden@nokia.com - Brian Haberman - Johns Hopkins University - Applied Physics Lab - 11100 Johns Hopkins Road - Laurel, MD 20723 - USA + Geoff Huston + APNIC - phone: +1 443 778 1319 - email: brian@innovationslab.net + Thomas Narten + IBM Corporation + 3039 Cornwallis Ave. + PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502 + Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 + + Phone: +1 919 254 7798 + email: narten@us.ibm.com 10.0 Change Log + Draft + o Major revision based on experience to date with [ULA] and later + input from the RIR community + Draft o Revised to keep consistent with [ULA]. This includes single prefix, L bit, change to SHA-1 algorithm, and clarifications to suggested algorithm. o Revised IANA considerations section based on feedback from the IAB. o Added new DNS operational guidelines sections specific to centrally assigned local IPv6 addresses. o Editorial changes. Draft o Initial Draft created from [ULA]. This draft defines the centrally assigned Local IPv6 addresses. -11.0 Intellectual Property +11. Full 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. + + 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. + +12. 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. @@ -463,25 +424,14 @@ 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. -12.0 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 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. - -13.0 Copyright Statement + Acknowledgment - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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. + Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF + Administrative Support Activity (IASA).