idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC2119]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3630, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 486 has weird spacing: '...for the purpo...' (Using the creation date from RFC3630, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1999-04-21) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 2003) is 7470 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'TBD' is mentioned on line 300, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'OSPF' is defined on line 423, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-08 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 2154 (ref. 'OSPF-SIG') Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group K. Kompella, Editor 3 Internet Draft Y. Rekhter, Editor 4 Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks 5 Updates: 3630 October 2003 6 Expires: April 2004 8 OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized 9 Multi-Protocol Label Switching 11 draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt 13 Status of this Memo 15 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 16 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 38 Abstract 40 This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing 41 protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching. 43 Specification of Requirements 45 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 46 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 47 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 49 1. Introduction 51 This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in 52 support of carrying link state information for Generalized 53 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required 54 enhancements to OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. 56 In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of 57 GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The Traffic 58 Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope 59 [OSPF-TE], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and 60 has one or more nested sub-TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV 61 can take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link. In this 62 document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of 63 GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs to the Link TLV: 65 Sub-TLV Type Length Name 66 11 8 Link Local/Remote Identifiers 67 14 4 Link Protection Type 68 15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 69 16 variable Shared Risk Link Group 71 1.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers 73 A Link Local/Remote Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The 74 type of this sub-TLV is 11, and length is eight octets. The value 75 field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link Local Identifier 76 followed by four octets of Link Remote Idenfier (see Section "Support 77 for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If the Link Remote 78 Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0. 80 0 1 2 3 81 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 82 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 83 | Link Local Identifier | 84 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 85 | Link Remote Identifier | 86 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 88 A node can communicate its Link Local Identifier to its neighbor 89 using a link local Opaque LSA, as described in Section "Exchanging 90 Link Local TE Information". 92 1.2. Link Protection Type 94 The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The type of 95 this sub-TLV is 14, and length is four octets. 97 0 1 2 3 98 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 99 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 100 |Protection Cap | Reserved | 101 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 103 The first octet is a bit vector describing the protection 104 capabilities of the link (see Section "Link Protection Type" of 105 [GMPLS-ROUTING]). They are: 107 0x01 Extra Traffic 109 0x02 Unprotected 111 0x04 Shared 113 0x08 Dedicated 1:1 115 0x10 Dedicated 1+1 117 0x20 Enhanced 119 0x40 Reserved 121 0x80 Reserved 123 The remaining three octets SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and 124 SHOULD be ignored by the receiver. 126 The Link Protection Type sub-TLV may occur at most once within the 127 Link TLV. 129 1.3. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) 131 The SRLG is a sub-TLV (of type 16) of the Link TLV. The length is 132 the length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of 133 32 bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The 134 format of the value field is as shown below: 136 0 1 2 3 137 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 1 138 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 139 | Shared Risk Link Group Value | 140 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 141 | ............ | 142 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 143 | Shared Risk Link Group Value | 144 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 146 This sub-TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see 147 Section "Shared Risk Link Group Information" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). 149 The SRLG sub-TLV may occur at most once within the Link TLV. 151 1.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 153 The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type 154 15) of the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in 155 octets. The format of the value field is as shown below: 157 0 1 2 3 158 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 1 159 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 160 | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | 161 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 162 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 | 163 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 164 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 | 165 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 166 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 | 167 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 168 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 | 169 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 170 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 | 171 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 172 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 | 173 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 174 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 | 175 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 176 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 | 177 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 178 | Switching Capability-specific information | 179 | (variable) | 180 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 182 The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the 183 following values: 185 1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) 186 2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) 187 3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) 188 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) 189 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 190 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) 191 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) 192 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) 194 The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section 195 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. 197 Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in 198 the IEEE floating point format [IEEE], with priority 0 first and 199 priority 7 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 201 The content of the Switching Capability specific information field 202 depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. 204 When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4, 205 the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum 206 LSP Bandwidth, Interface MTU, and padding. 208 0 1 2 3 209 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 1 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 | Minimum LSP Bandwidth | 212 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 213 | Interface MTU | Padding | 214 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 216 The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is is encoded in a 4 octets field in the 217 IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per 218 second. The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets integer. The 219 padding is 2 octets, and is used to make the Interface Switching 220 Capability Descriptor sub-TLV 32-bits aligned. It SHOULD be set to 221 zero by the sender and SHOULD be ignored by the receiver. 223 When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no Switching 224 Capability specific information field present. 226 When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the Switching Capability 227 specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth, an 228 indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary 229 SONET/SDH, and padding. 231 0 1 2 3 232 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 1 233 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 234 | Minimum LSP Bandwidth | 235 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 236 | Indication | Padding | 237 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 239 The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE 240 floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 241 The indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary 242 SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the 243 interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface 244 supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH. The padding is 3 octets, and is used 245 to make the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV 32-bits 246 aligned. It SHOULD be set to zero by the sender and SHOULD be 247 ignored by the receiver. 249 When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching 250 Capability specific information field present. 252 To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching 253 Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability 254 Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability 255 Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more than once within the Link TLV. 257 2. Implications on Graceful Restart 259 The restarting node should follow the OSPF restart procedures 260 [OSPF-RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP]. 262 When a restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, the TE LSAs 263 containing Link TLV should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, 264 Traffic Engineering metric set to 0xffffffff, and if the Link has LSC 265 or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP 266 Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of 267 unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by 268 the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the 269 restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of 270 unreserved resources, taking into account the resources reserved by 271 the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the 272 restart, the node should advertise these resources in its TE LSAs. 274 In addition in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, the 275 restarting node SHOULD originate the TE LSAs containing Link TLV with 276 0 as unreserved bandwidth, and if the Link has LSC or FSC as its 277 Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. This 278 would discourage new LSP establishment through the restarting router. 280 Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual 281 unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node. 283 Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE 284 topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE 285 LSA or TE topology changes. 287 3. Exchanging Link Local TE Information 289 It is often useful for a node to communicate some Traffic Engineering 290 information for a given interface to its neighbors on that interface. 291 One example of this is a Link Local Identifier. If nodes X and Y are 292 connected by an unnumbered point-to-point interface I, then X's Link 293 Local Identifier for I is Y's Link Remote Identifier for I. X can 294 communicate its Link Local Identifer for I by exchanging with Y a TE 295 link local opaque LSA described below. Note that this information 296 need only be exchanged over interface I, hence the use of a link 297 local Opaque LSA. 299 A TE Link Local LSA is an opaque LSA of type 9 (link-local flooding 300 scope) with Opaque Type [TBD] and Opaque ID of 0. 302 0 1 2 3 303 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 1 304 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 305 | LS age | Options | 9 | 306 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 307 | Opaque Type | Opaque ID | 308 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 309 | Advertising Router | 310 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 311 | LS sequence number | 312 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 313 | LS checksum | length | 314 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 315 | | 316 +- TLVs -+ 317 | ... | 319 The format of the TLVs that make up the body of the TE Link Local LSA 320 is the same as that of the TE TLVs: a 2-octet Type field followed by 321 a 2-octet Length field which indicates the length of the Value field 322 in octets. The Value field is zero-padded at the end to a four octet 323 boundary. 325 The only TLV defined here is the Link Local Identifier TLV, with Type 326 1, Length 4 and Value the 32 bit Link Local Identifier for the link 327 over which the TE Link Local LSA is exchanged. 329 4. Contributors 331 Ayan Banerjee 332 Calient Networks 333 5853 Rue Ferrari 334 San Jose, CA 95138 335 Phone: +1.408.972.3645 336 Email: abanerjee@calient.net 338 John Drake 339 Calient Networks 340 5853 Rue Ferrari 341 San Jose, CA 95138 342 Phone: +1.408.972.3720 343 Email: jdrake@calient.net 345 Greg Bernstein 346 Ciena Corporation 347 10480 Ridgeview Court 348 Cupertino, CA 94014 349 Phone: +1.408.366.4713 350 Email: greg@ciena.com 352 Don Fedyk 353 Nortel Networks Corp. 354 600 Technology Park Drive 355 Billerica, MA 01821 356 Phone: +1.978.288.4506 357 Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com 358 Eric Mannie 359 Independent Consultant 360 E-mail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com 362 Debanjan Saha 363 Tellium Optical Systems 364 2 Crescent Place 365 P.O. Box 901 366 Ocean Port, NJ 07757 367 Phone: +1.732.923.4264 368 Email: dsaha@tellium.com 370 Vishal Sharma 371 Metanoia, Inc. 372 335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203 373 San Jose, CA 95134-2539 374 Phone: +1.408.943.1794 375 Email: v.sharma@ieee.org 377 5. Acknowledgements 379 The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang, 380 Quaizar Vohra, and Alex Zinin for their comments on the draft. 382 6. Security Considerations 384 This document specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As 385 Opaque LSAs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the 386 extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing. 387 Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an effect on the underlying 388 transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH) network. [OSPF-TE] suggests 389 mechanisms such as [OSPF-SIG] to protect the transmission of this 390 information, and those or other mechanisms should be used to secure 391 and/or authenticate the information carried in the Opaque LSAs. 393 IANA Considerations 395 The memo introduces 4 new sub-TLVs of the TE Link TLV in the TE 396 Opaque LSA for OSPF v2; [OSPF-TE] says that the sub-TLVs of the TE 397 Link TLV in the range 10-32767 must be assigned by Expert Review, and 398 must be registered with IANA. 400 The memo has four suggested values for the four sub-TLVs of the TE 401 Link TLV; it is strongly recommended that the suggested values be 402 granted, as there are interoperable implementations using these 403 values. 405 Normative References 407 [GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing 408 Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 409 Switching", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls- 410 routing-08.txt] 412 [GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 413 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 414 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003 416 [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 417 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 418 January 2003 420 [IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", 421 Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8). 423 [OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. 425 [OSPF-RESTART] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., Lindem, A., "Graceful 426 OSPF Restart", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-ospf-hitless- 427 restart-08.txt] 429 [OSPF-SIG] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with 430 Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997. 432 [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K. and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering 433 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. 435 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 436 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 438 Authors' Information 440 Kireeti Kompella 441 Juniper Networks, Inc. 442 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 443 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 444 Email: kireeti@juniper.net 446 Yakov Rekhter 447 Juniper Networks, Inc. 448 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 449 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 450 Email: yakov@juniper.net 452 Intellectual Property Rights Notices 454 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 455 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 456 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 457 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 458 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 459 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 460 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 461 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 462 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 463 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 464 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 465 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 466 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 468 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 469 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 470 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 471 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 472 Director. 474 Full Copyright Statement 476 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 478 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 479 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 480 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and 481 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, 482 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 483 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 484 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 485 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 486 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 487 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 488 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 489 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 490 English. 492 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 493 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. 495 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 496 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 497 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 498 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 499 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 500 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.