< draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-01.txt   draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-02.txt >
Internet Area M.Hui Internet Area M.Hui
Internet Draft H.Deng Internet Draft H.Deng
Intended status: Informational China Mobile Intended status: Informational China Mobile
Expires: May 3, 2009 November 3, 2008 Expires: September 9, 2009 March 9, 2009
Problem Statement and Requirement of Simple IP Multi-homing of the Problem Statement and Requirement of Simple IP Multi-homing of the
Host Host
draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-01 draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-02
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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.
This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
be created.
This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
be created, other than to extract section XX as-is for separate use.
This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
be created, except to publish it as an RFC and to translate it into
languages other than English.
This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
be created, except to publish it as an RFC and to translate it into
languages other than English, other than to extract section XX as-is
for separate use.
This document may only be posted in an Internet-Draft.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 1, line 27
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 3, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2009.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Abstract Abstract
This document discusses current issues with simple IP multi-homing. This document discusses current issues with simple IP multi-homing.
In order to have deep understanding of the issue, the document also In order to have deep understanding of the issue, the document also
analyzes related works in IETF. In the end gives the requirements of analyzes related works in IETF. In the end gives the requirements of
the simple IP multi-homing in concern of technical implements. Simple the simple IP multi-homing in concern of technical implements. Simple
IP multi-homing focuses on simultaneous multiple IP connections of IP multi-homing focuses on simultaneous multiple IP connections of
the host. the host.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................3 1. Introduction................................................3
2. Problem statements of Simple IP Multi-homing.................4 2. Problem statements of Simple IP Multi-homing.................4
2.1. Default Gateway.........................................4 2.1. Default Gateway.........................................4
2.2. Metric Rules...........................................4 2.2. Merging of parameters...................................4
2.3. Weak and Strong Host Model..............................5 2.3. Source address selection for IPv4.......................5
3. Analysis of Related Work in IETF.............................6 3. Analysis of Related Work in IETF.............................6
3.1. Multi6.................................................6 3.1. Multi6.................................................6
3.2. Shim6..................................................6 3.2. Shim6..................................................6
3.3. Monami6................................................7 3.3. Monami6................................................7
3.4. Netlmm.................................................7 3.4. Netlmm.................................................7
4. Requirements for Simple IP Multi-homing......................9 4. Requirements for Simple IP Multi-homing......................9
5. Security Considerations.....................................10 5. Security Considerations.....................................10
6. IANA Considerations........................................11 6. IANA Considerations........................................11
7. References.................................................12 7. References.................................................12
7.1. Normative References...................................12 7.1. Normative References...................................12
7.2. Informative References.................................12 7.2. Informative References.................................12
Author's Addresses............................................13 Author's Addresses............................................13
Intellectual Property Statement................................14 Intellectual Property Statement....................
Disclaimer of Validity........................................14 Disclaimer of Validity............................
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Simple IP Multi-homing means the host connects to more than one Simple IP Multi-homing means the host connects to more than one
physical network through different network interfaces, and assigns physical network through different network interfaces, and assigns
different network flows to each interface, and ensure all the different network flows to each interface, and ensure all the
interfaces can deliver the flow simultaneously. interfaces can deliver the flow simultaneously.
Simple IP Multi-homing is a necessary part of daily life, i.e., you Simple IP Multi-homing is a necessary part of daily life, i.e., you
have to connect to your company office network through VPN connection have to connect to your company office network through VPN connection
by your Ethernet interface, at the same time you want to watch the by your Ethernet interface, at the same time you want to watch the
stock market, which is not allowed through office network. And you stock market, which is not allowed through office network. And you
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
Current the operating systems only allow one default network Current the operating systems only allow one default network
connection. If there are multiple connections of the host, all the connection. If there are multiple connections of the host, all the
flows will go to the default gateway based on RFC1122 description. flows will go to the default gateway based on RFC1122 description.
One default gateway guarantees the host always has one entry to the One default gateway guarantees the host always has one entry to the
network, but lead to the multiple connections be difficult. The most network, but lead to the multiple connections be difficult. The most
convenient way to make the host work under several networks at the convenient way to make the host work under several networks at the
same time is to add specific static route in the host route table, so same time is to add specific static route in the host route table, so
that certain flow can use the assigned interface while others use the that certain flow can use the assigned interface while others use the
default one, but it is not easy for the ordinary users to handle it. default one, but it is not easy for the ordinary users to handle it.
2. Problem statements of Simple IP Multi-homing 2. Problem statements of Simple IP Multi-homing
As description above, simple IP multi-homing can not work based on As description above, simple IP multi-homing can not work based on
the current specification. There are several reasons cause it invalid, the current specification. There are several reasons cause it invalid,
and this section analyzes them in detail. and this section analyzes them in detail.
2.1. Default Gateway 2.1. Default Gateway
The Windows operating system in the host follows the default gateway The Windows operating system in the host follows the default gateway
mechanism, which will choose the unify gateway among more than one mechanism, which will choose the unify gateway among more than one
default routes ('0.0.0.0'), the detail is described in RFC1122. The default routes ('0.0.0.0'), the detail is described in RFC1122. The
default gateway guarantees there always has a route to network when default gateway guarantees there always has a route to network when
the host can not find a specific route for a datagram in the route the host can not find a specific route for a datagram in the route
table. table.
But when it comes to multi-homing, the default gateway also causes But when it comes to multi-homing, the default gateway also causes
all the flows go out through one interface, although there has more all the flows go out through one interface, although there has more
skipping to change at page 4, line 34 skipping to change at page 4, line 34
interfaces to connect to more than one networks at the same time. It interfaces to connect to more than one networks at the same time. It
is possible and necessary for the user to require connecting to is possible and necessary for the user to require connecting to
different networks to ensure the best user experiences of different different networks to ensure the best user experiences of different
services, but the default gateway mechanism only allows one services, but the default gateway mechanism only allows one
connection at once. Although you can connect your host to several connection at once. Although you can connect your host to several
networks physically, and each network has already assigned a IP networks physically, and each network has already assigned a IP
address for your host interface, even you can see different default address for your host interface, even you can see different default
routes in the route table, all the flow goes to the default gateway routes in the route table, all the flow goes to the default gateway
chosen by the operation system other than different gateways actually. chosen by the operation system other than different gateways actually.
2.2. Metric Rules 2.2. Merging of parameters
The default gateway is chosen based on the metric rule as RFC1122 In multiple interfaces host, each interface will get its own IP
description. The one have the lowest metric value becomes to the parameters in the procedure of IP address allocation all other policy
default gateway among several connected gateways, and the interface deployment, such as DNS, metrics of routings, TOS. How to merge the
correspond to this gateway turns to be the default interface. same type of parameters derived form multiple interfaces to act
harmoniously in the host is the problem presented in multiple
interfaces host.
Current metric rules define the 100M bps Ethernet network card to be 2.2.1. DNS consideration
20 and 10M bps to be 30. But it is not a strict definition, and the
user can change the metric value manually. The problem is not every
network card follow the metric rules, which represents the lower
metric value is, the faster route is, so that the operating system
can always choose the best performance route as the default one for
the IP flow. For example, CDMA data card set its metric value as 1,
although its speed is lower than 100M bps Ethernet network card. In
this situation, the operating system will choose the CDMA connection
as the default one, so the user is forced to use the slower
connection, which violates the aim of the metric rule.
2.3. Weak and Strong Host Model DNS will be configured to the interface manually or by DHCP procedure,
and multiple interfaces will obtain multiple DNS. The host will
reserve several DNS in this situation. Referring to different domain
names the host should query proper DNS so that the domain names can
be resolved. The problem is current DNS selection mechanism is lack
to choose a right one for specific visited domain name, so that we
need to merge multiple DNS to provide the host with the best
connectivity.
There exists two different host model today, which are weak host 2.2.2. Metrics consideration
model and strong host model, described in RFC 1122. The weak host
model treats the destination and the source as a host rather than an
interface, so the default gateway mechanism chooses only one
connection as the default one. Reversely, the strong host model
divides the host to several separated hosts logically, what means the
flow can only use the specific interface.
The problem is current host operating system such as Windows 2000/XP Metrics are used to measure the performance of routings, the lower
all apply weak host model on its network interface, so the host can metric it owns, the higher priority it has. For example, the default
not differ the flow to different interfaces, only the default gateway gateway is chosen based on the metric rule as RFC1122 description,
is applied. The one have the lowest metric value becomes to the default gateway
among several connected gateways, and the interface correspond to
this gateway turns to be the default interface.
3. Analysis of Related Work in IETF Metric rules are different depending on the access technology and
routing protocol, if the multiple interfaces connect to multiple
access networks which have different measurements of metrics, the
metric will not reflect the routing performances correctly. For
example, current metric rules define the 100M bps Ethernet network
card to be 20 and 10M bps to be 30, but the CDMA data card set its
metric value as 1, although its speed is lower than 100M bps Ethernet
network card. The merging of metrics is necessary in multiple
interfaces condition.
2.2.3. TOS consideration
TOS can be a parameter of routing item to indicate which kind of IP
data is suitable to deliver by this routing. The multiple interfaces
will connect to multiple access networks, so that the preference of
TOS need to be merged to have a better performance of data delivery.
For example, the WiFi access could indicate itself has broader
bandwidth comparing with 2G access, and set the TOS as broad
bandwidth. When another interface connects the Ethernet, the TOS is
also set as broad bandwidth preferred. In this situation, it needs
some mechanism to merge and reorder the TOS getting form multiple
interfaces.
2.3. Source address selection for IPv4
For the host has more than one IP addresses which are obtained by
multiple interfaces, the source address selection is the key issue in
order to use multiple interfaces reasonably. The application needs to
select right source address so that the data will be delivered by the
corresponding interface. This mechanism is lack currently which needs
to be solved in multiple interfaces situation.
3. Analysis of Related Work in IETF
Multi-homing is a wide topic contains different aspects, and there Multi-homing is a wide topic contains different aspects, and there
are some work groups in IETF worked on a certain aspect of multi- are some work groups in IETF worked on a certain aspect of multi-
homing. homing.
This section explains their work, and compares the covered field with This section explains their work, and compares the covered field with
the simple IP multi-homing. In the end we will find the simple IP the simple IP multi-homing. In the end we will find the simple IP
multi-homing is still a problem which is not solved yet. multi-homing is still a problem which is not solved yet.
3.1. Multi6 3.1. Multi6
Multi6 WG in IETF focuses on the multi-homed site, which has more Multi6 WG in IETF focuses on the multi-homed site, which has more
than one connection to the public internet with those connections than one connection to the public internet with those connections
through either the same or different ISPs. The reasons to choose through either the same or different ISPs. The reasons to choose
site multi-homing are to improve fault tolerance, perform load site multi-homing are to improve fault tolerance, perform load
balancing, etc. balancing, etc.
The Multi6 WG mainly focuses on site multi-homing solutions that tend The Multi6 WG mainly focuses on site multi-homing solutions that tend
to minimize adverse impacts on the end-to-end routing system and to minimize adverse impacts on the end-to-end routing system and
limit the number of prefixes that need to be advertised in the limit the number of prefixes that need to be advertised in the
skipping to change at page 6, line 44 skipping to change at page 6, line 44
routing stability decreases because of the burden on convergence time. routing stability decreases because of the burden on convergence time.
Multi6 WG tries to solve this by defining a set of goals for IPv6 Multi6 WG tries to solve this by defining a set of goals for IPv6
site multi-homing architecture, and analyzing the current limitations site multi-homing architecture, and analyzing the current limitations
and the approaches to the site multi-homing. What's need to notice and the approaches to the site multi-homing. What's need to notice
is that the working group is not chartered to make significant is that the working group is not chartered to make significant
changes to the nature of IP addresses or to inter-domain routing. changes to the nature of IP addresses or to inter-domain routing.
Obviously, the site multi-homing does not consider the host multiple Obviously, the site multi-homing does not consider the host multiple
connection which is the key problem of this document. connection which is the key problem of this document.
3.2. Shim6 3.2. Shim6
Shim6 is another WG in IETF aims at site multi-homing. Shim6 work is Shim6 is another WG in IETF aims at site multi-homing. Shim6 work is
based on the architecture developed by the Multi6 WG, and completes based on the architecture developed by the Multi6 WG, and completes
the required protocol developments and the architecture and security the required protocol developments and the architecture and security
analysis of the required protocols. Different form Multi6, Shim6 analysis of the required protocols. Different form Multi6, Shim6
focuses on surviving hosts on the multi-homing site from the changes focuses on surviving hosts on the multi-homing site from the changes
or for creating new associations, when one or more of the site's or for creating new associations, when one or more of the site's
address prefixes becomes unreachable. address prefixes becomes unreachable.
Shim6 WG produces specifications for an IPv6-based site multi-homing Shim6 WG produces specifications for an IPv6-based site multi-homing
solution that inserts a new sub-layer (shim) into the IP stack of solution that inserts a new sub-layer (shim) into the IP stack of
end-system hosts. It enables hosts on multi-homed sites to use a set end-system hosts. It enables hosts on multi-homed sites to use a set
of provider-assigned IP address prefixes and switch between them of provider-assigned IP address prefixes and switch between them
without upsetting transport protocols or applications. But it can without upsetting transport protocols or applications. But it can
not support connecting to all the ISPs simultaneously. not support connecting to all the ISPs simultaneously.
3.3. Monami6 3.3. Monami6
The objective of the Monami6 WG is to produce a clear problem The objective of the Monami6 WG is to produce a clear problem
statement and to produce standard track specifications to the statement and to produce standard track specifications to the
straight-forward problems associated with the simultaneous use of straight-forward problems associated with the simultaneous use of
multiple addresses for either mobile hosts using Mobile IPv6 or multiple addresses for either mobile hosts using Mobile IPv6 or
mobile routers using NEMO Basic Support and their variants (FMIPv6, mobile routers using NEMO Basic Support and their variants (FMIPv6,
HMIPv6,etc). HMIPv6,etc).
The WG does not define a tunnel selection mechanism, but document how The WG does not define a tunnel selection mechanism, but document how
to use existing mechanisms based upon preferences or policies. They to use existing mechanisms based upon preferences or policies. They
skipping to change at page 7, line 43 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
of policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from of policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from
the Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of
the Care-of Address and Home Agent address. the Care-of Address and Home Agent address.
Monami6 focus the same field with simple IP multi-homing, which is Monami6 focus the same field with simple IP multi-homing, which is
ensuring simultaneous use of multiple addresses for the host. The ensuring simultaneous use of multiple addresses for the host. The
difference is Monami6 puts this aim to under a certain condition, the difference is Monami6 puts this aim to under a certain condition, the
mobile host using MIP6, while the simple IP multi-homing focuses on mobile host using MIP6, while the simple IP multi-homing focuses on
ordinary host using IPv4/6. ordinary host using IPv4/6.
3.4. Netlmm 3.4. Netlmm
Netlmm WG studies Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) which supports multiple Netlmm WG studies Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) which supports multiple
interfaces binding, by maintaining multiple binding cache entries for interfaces binding, by maintaining multiple binding cache entries for
a given MN. The scenario concerned by PMIPv6 is each interfaces gets a given MN. The scenario concerned by PMIPv6 is each interfaces gets
different prefix form others, however, there are many other scenarios different prefix form others, however, there are many other scenarios
associated with multiple interface attachment are not covered. The associated with multiple interface attachment are not covered. The
specific scenario needs specific solutions which require some specific scenario needs specific solutions which require some
enhancement/modification to the current PMIPv6 protocol, and the enhancement/modification to the current PMIPv6 protocol, and the
simple IP multi-homing hasn't supported in the PMIPv6 environment as simple IP multi-homing hasn't supported in the PMIPv6 environment as
well. well.
What's more, the multi-homing in PMIPv6 lacks flow filtering support. What's more, the multi-homing in PMIPv6 lacks flow filtering support.
The LMA must has filter rules to allocate certain flow to traverse The LMA must has filter rules to allocate certain flow to traverse
via a certain care-of address, but the mechanism in PMIPv6 is via a certain care-of address, but the mechanism in PMIPv6 is
currently not supported. currently not supported.
4. Requirements for Simple IP Multi-homing 4. Requirements for Simple IP Multi-homing
Based on problem statements and related work analysis, the Based on problem statements and related work analysis, the
requirements for simple IP multi-homing is concluded and listed as requirements for simple IP multi-homing is concluded and listed as
follows: follows:
1) The host with multiple network interfaces should be capable to 1) The host with multiple network interfaces should be capable to
connect with different networks simultaneously. connect with different networks simultaneously.
2) The default gateway mechanism needs to be improved to support 2) The default gateway mechanism needs to be improved to support
several gateways working at the same time. several gateways working at the same time.
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
cards nowadays. cards nowadays.
4) The policies to assign different flows to the appropriate 4) The policies to assign different flows to the appropriate
interface are required, and how to apply the policies to the host interface are required, and how to apply the policies to the host
need to be considered as well. need to be considered as well.
5 Network side should be capable of distributing the IP flow 5 Network side should be capable of distributing the IP flow
according to some parameters, such as IP address prefix, network type according to some parameters, such as IP address prefix, network type
and so on. and so on.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document doesn't propose any new protocol. This document doesn't propose any new protocol.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document doesn't require any new number from IANA. This document doesn't require any new number from IANA.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts-communication [RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts-communication
Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989. Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3582] Abley, J., Black, B., and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site- [RFC3582] Abley, J., Black, B., and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site-
Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582, August 2003. Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582, August 2003.
skipping to change at page 12, line 30 skipping to change at page 12, line 30
[RFC4177] Huston, G., "Architectural Approaches to Multi-homing for [RFC4177] Huston, G., "Architectural Approaches to Multi-homing for
IPv6", RFC 4177, September 2005. IPv6", RFC 4177, September 2005.
[RFC4191] R. Draves, D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and [RFC4191] R. Draves, D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005. More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.
[RFC5213] S. Gundavelli, Ed., K. Leung, ''Proxy Mobile IPv6'', RFC5213, [RFC5213] S. Gundavelli, Ed., K. Leung, ''Proxy Mobile IPv6'', RFC5213,
August 2008 August 2008
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[MONAMI6] Ernst, T., "Motivations and Scenarios for Using Multiple [MONAMI6] Ernst, T., "Motivations and Scenarios for Using Multiple
Interfaces and global Addresses", May 2008, <draft-ietf- Interfaces and global Addresses", May 2008, <draft-ietf-
monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-03(work in monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-03(work in
progress)>. progress)>.
[NETLMM] M. Jeyatharan, C. Ng, J. Hirano, "Multiple Interfaced [NETLMM] M. Jeyatharan, C. Ng, J. Hirano, "Multiple Interfaced
Mobile Nodes in NetlMM", June 2008, <draft-jeyatharan- Mobile Nodes in NetlMM", June 2008, <draft-jeyatharan-
netlmm-multi-interface-ps-02(work in progress)>. netlmm-multi-interface-ps-02(work in progress)>.
skipping to change at page 14, line 4 skipping to change at line 374
China China
Email: huimin.cmcc@gmail.com Email: huimin.cmcc@gmail.com
Hui Deng Hui Deng
China Mobile China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave., 53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
Xuanwu District, Xuanwu District,
Beijing 100053 Beijing 100053
China China
Email: denghui02@gmail.com Email: denghui02@gmail.com
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (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.
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
72 lines changed or deleted 88 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/