< draft-ietf-ospf-cap-03.txt		draft-ietf-ospf-cap-04.txt >
			Network Working Group A. Lindem (Editor)
			Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc
			Expires: May 30, 2005 N. Shen
			BCN Networks, Inc
			R. Aggarwal
			Juniper Networks
			S. Schaffer
			BridgePort Networks
			JP. Vasseur
			Cisco Systems, Inc
			November 29, 2004
	Network Working Group Acee Lindem		Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities
	Internet Draft Naiming Shen		draft-ietf-ospf-cap-04.txt
	Expiration Date: February 2005 Redback Networks
	Rahul Aggarwal
	Juniper Networks
	Scott Shaffer
	Level 3 Communications
	JP Vasseur
	Cisco Systems, Inc
	Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities
	draft-ietf-ospf-cap-03.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable		This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
	patent or IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and		of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
	any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with		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.		RFC 3668.
	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		other groups may also distribute working documents as
	Internet-Drafts.		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.
	Abstract		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 30, 2005.
	It is useful for routers in an OSPF routing domain to know the		Copyright Notice
	capabilities of their neighbors and other routers in the OSPF
	routing domain. This draft proposes extensions to OSPF for
	advertising optional router capabilities. A new Router
	Information (RI) opaque LSA is proposed for this purpose.
	Conventions used in this document		Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		Abstract
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in		It is useful for routers in an OSPF routing domain to know the
	this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [3].		capabilities of their neighbors and other routers in the OSPF routing
			domain. This draft proposes extensions to OSPF for advertising
			optional router capabilities. A new Router Information (RI) opaque
			LSA is proposed for this purpose.
	1. Motivation		Table of Contents
	It is useful for routers in an OSPF routing domain to know the		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	capabilities of their neighbors and other routers in the OSPF		2. OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	routing domain. This can be useful for various applications:		2.1 OSPF Router Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
			2.2 Reserved OSPF Router Capability Bits . . . . . . . . . . . 6
			2.3 Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA . . . . . . . 6
			3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
			4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
			5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			5.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			5.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
			Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 13
	o In MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE), it can be used as a discovery		1. Introduction
	mechanism [7, 8] to announce a LSR's TE capabilities like
	Path Computation Server capability (Capability of an LSR to be
	a Path Computation Server for TE LSP path computation) or the
	intention of an LSR to be part of a particular MPLS TE mesh group.
	o For network management and troubleshooting. It gives operators a		It is useful for routers in an OSPF routing domain to know the
	network wide view of OSPF capabilities on different routers.		capabilities of their neighbors and other routers in the OSPF routing
	The presence of a capability on a given router implies		domain. This can be useful for various applications:
	that the software version supports the capability and the router		o In MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE), it can be used as a discovery
	is configured to support it. On the other hand, the absence of an		mechanism [TECAP] to announce a LSR's TE capabilities like Path
	expected capability on a particular router can imply either		Computation Server capability (Capability of an LSR to be a Path
	misconfiguration or an incorrect software version. Hence, this		Computation Server for TE LSP path computation) or the intention
	capability information can be used to track problems resulting from		of an LSR to be part of a particular MPLS TE mesh group.
	misconfiguration or an incorrect software version.		o For network management and troubleshooting. It gives operators a
			network wide view of OSPF capabilities on different routers. The
			presence of a capability on a given router implies that the
			software version supports the capability and the router is
			configured to support it. On the other hand, the absence of an
			expected capability on a particular router can imply either
			misconfiguration or an incorrect software version. Hence, this
			capability information can be used to track problems resulting
			from misconfiguration or an incorrect software version.
	OSPF uses the options field in the hello packet to advertise optional		OSPF uses the options field in the hello packet to advertise optional
	router capabilities [1]. However, all the bits in this field have		router capabilities [OSPF]. However, all the bits in this field have
	been allocated and there is no way to advertise new optional		been allocated and there is no way to advertise new optional or MPLS
	or MPLS TE capabilities. This document proposes extensions to OSPF		TE capabilities. This document proposes extensions to OSPF to
	to advertise these optional capabilities. For existing OSPF		advertise these optional capabilities. For existing OSPF
	capabilities, this advertisement will be used primarily for		capabilities, this advertisement will be used primarily for
	informational purposes. For MPLS TE features, it is used for		informational purposes. For MPLS TE features, it is used for
	advertisement and discovery. Future OSPF features could also		advertisement and discovery. Future OSPF features could also use
	use this mechanism for advertisement and discovery.		this mechanism for advertisement and discovery.
	2. OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA		2. OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA
	OSPF routers will optionally advertise their optional capabilities		OSPF routers will optionally advertise their optional capabilities in
	in an area-scoped, local scope, or AS-scoped Opaque-LSA [2].		an area-scoped, local scope, or AS-scoped Opaque-LSA [OPAQUE]. If a
	If a router does not advertise this LSA, it does not imply that the		router does not advertise this LSA, it does not imply that the router
	router does not support one or more of the defined capabilities.		does not support one or more of the defined capabilities. For
	For existing OSPF capabilities, this advertisement will be used		existing OSPF capabilities, this advertisement will be used primarily
	primarily for informational purposes. For MPLS TE features,		for informational purposes. For MPLS TE features, it is used for
	it is used for advertisement and discovery. Future OSPF features		advertisement and discovery. Future OSPF features could also use
	could also use this mechanism for advertisement and discovery.		this mechanism for advertisement and discovery. The RI opaque LSA
	The RI opaque LSA will be originated when one of the advertised		will be originated when one of the advertised capabilities is
	capabilities is configured or changed.		configured or changed.
	The Router Information LSA will have an Opaque type of 4 and Opaque		The Router Information LSA will have an Opaque type of 4 and Opaque
	ID of 0.		ID of 0.
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| LS age | Options | 9, 10 or 11 |		| LS age | Options | 9, 10 or 11 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| 4 | 0 |		| 4 | 0 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Advertising Router |		| Advertising Router |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| LS sequence number |		| LS sequence number |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| LS checksum | length |		| LS checksum | length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |		| |
	+- TLV's -+		+- TLV's -+
	| ... |		| ... |
	Figure 2. OSPF Router Information LSA
	The format of the TLV's within the body of a router information LSA		The format of the TLV's within the body of a router information LSA
	is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering		is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions
	Extensions to OSPF [4]. The LSA payload consists of one or		to OSPF [TE]. The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/
	more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The format of		Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The format of each TLV is:
	each TLV is:
	0 1 2 3		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		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 | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Value... |		| Value... |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 3. TLV Format		The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets
			(thus a TLV with no value portion would have a length of zero). The
	The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets		TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in
	(thus a TLV with no value portion would have a length of zero). The		the length field (so a three octet value would have a length of
	TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in		three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested
	the length field (so a three octet value would have a length of		TLV's are also 32-bit aligned. For example, a one byte value would
	three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested		have the length field set to 1, and three bytes of padding would be
	TLV's are also 32-bit aligned. For example, a one byte value		added to the end of the value portion of the TLV. Unrecognized types
	would have the length field set to 1, and three bytes of padding		are ignored.
	would be added to the end of the value portion of the TLV.
	Unrecognized types are ignored.
	2.1 OSPF Router Capabilities TLV		2.1 OSPF Router Capabilities TLV
	The first defined TLV in the body of an RI opaque LSA is		The first defined TLV in the body of an RI opaque LSA is the Router
	the Router Capabilities TLV. A router advertising an RI opaque LSA		Capabilities TLV. A router advertising an RI opaque LSA SHOULD
	SHOULD include the Router Capabilities TLV and SHOULD correctly		include the Router Capabilities TLV and SHOULD correctly identify the
	identify the status of the capabilities defined in section 2.2.		status of the capabilities defined in section 2.2.
	The format of the Router Capabilities TLV is as follows:		The format of the Router Capabilities TLV is as follows:
	0 1 2 3		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		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 | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Capabilities |		| Capabilities |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 4. OSPF Router Capabilities TLV
	Type A 16 bit field set to 1.		Type A 16 bit field set to 1.
	Length A 16 bit field that indicates the length of the value		Length A 16 bit field that indicates the length of the value
	portion in bytes. Its set to N x 4 octets. N starts		portion in bytes. Its set to N x 4 octets. N starts
	from 1 and can be increased when there is a need. Each 4		from 1 and can be increased when there is a need. Each 4
	octets are referred to as a capability flag.		octets are referred to as a capability flag.
	Value This comprises one or more capability flags. For each 4		Value This comprises one or more capability flags. For each 4
	octets, the bits are indexed from the most significant		octets, the bits are indexed from the most significant
	to the least significant, where each bit represents one		to the least significant, where each bit represents one
	router capability. When the first 32 capabilities are		router capability. When the first 32 capabilities are
	defined, a new capability flag will be used to		defined, a new capability flag will be used to
	accommodate the next capability.		accommodate the next capability.
	The Router Capabilities TLV MAY be followed by optional TLV's that		The Router Capabilities TLV MAY be followed by optional TLV's that
	further specify a capability.		further specify a capability.
	2.2 Reserved OSPF Router Capability Bits		2.2 Reserved OSPF Router Capability Bits
	The following bits in the first capability flag have been		The following bits in the first capability flag have been assigned:
	assigned:
	Bit Capabilities		Bit Capabilities
	0-3 Reserved		0-3 Reserved
	4 OSPF graceful restart capable [5]		4 OSPF graceful restart capable [GRACE]
	5 OSPF graceful restart helper [5]		5 OSPF graceful restart helper [GRACE]
	6 Stub Router support [6]		6 OSPF Stub Router support [STUB]
	7 Traffic Engineering support [4]		7 OSPF Traffic Engineering support [TE]
	8 OSPF point-to-point over LAN [9]		8 OSPF point-to-point over LAN [P2PLAN]
	9 OSPF Path Computation Server discovery [7, 8]		9 OSPF Path Computation Server discovery [TECAP]
	10-31 Future assignments		10 OSPF Experimental TE [EXPTE]
			11-31 Future assignments
	2.3 Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA		2.3 Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA
	The flooding scope for a Router Information opaque LSA is determined		The flooding scope for a Router Information opaque LSA is determined
	by the LSA type. A type 9 (link-scope), type 10 (area-scoped), or a		by the LSA type. A type 9 (link-scope), type 10 (area-scoped), or a
	type 11 (AS-scoped) opaque LSA may be flooded. If a type 11 opaque		type 11 (AS-scoped) opaque LSA may be flooded. If a type 11 opaque
	LSA is chosen, the originating router should also advertise type 10		LSA is chosen, the originating router should also advertise type 10
	LSA(s) into any attached NSSA/stub area(s). An OSPF router MAY		LSA(s) into any attached NSSA/stub area(s). An OSPF router MAY
	advertise different capabilities when both NSSA/stub area type 10		advertise different capabilities when both NSSA/stub area type 10
	LSA(s) and an AS scoped type 11 opaque LSA is advertised. The choice		LSA(s) and an AS scoped type 11 opaque LSA is advertised. The choice
	of flooding scope is made by the advertising router and is a matter		of flooding scope is made by the advertising router and is a matter
	of local policy. The originating router MAY advertise multiple RI		of local policy. The originating router MAY advertise multiple RI
	opaque LSAs as long as the flooding scopes differ. TLV flooding		opaque LSAs as long as the flooding scopes differ. TLV flooding
	scope rules will be specified on a per-TLV basis.		scope rules will be specified on a per-TLV basis.
	3. Security Consideration		3. Security Considerations
	This memo does not create any new security issues for the OSPF		This memo does not create any new security issues for the OSPF
	protocol. Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are		protocol. Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are
	covered in [1].		covered in [OSPF].
	4. Acknowledgments
	The idea for this work grew out of a conversation with Andrew Partan
	and we would like to thank him for his contribution. The authors
	would like to thanks Peter Psenak for his review and helpful
	comments early versions of the draft.
	5. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	A new opaque LSA type will need to be assigned by IANA.		A new opaque LSA type will need to be assigned by IANA.
	Additionally, IANA will need to have registries for the Router		Additionally, IANA will need to have registries for the Router
	Information opaque LSA TLV's. The TLV assignee will be responsible		Information opaque LSA TLV's. The TLV assignee will be responsible
	for allocation of any sub-TLV's for the IANA assigned TLV. All		for allocation of any sub-TLV's for the IANA assigned TLV. All TLV's
	TLV's and sub-TLV's will be subject to OSPF WG review.		and sub-TLV's will be subject to OSPF WG review.
	6. References		5. References
	Normative References		5.1 Normative References
	[1] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July		[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
	1998.
	[2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate
			Requirement Levels", RFC 2328, March 1977.
	[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement		[TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D. and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering
	Level", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003.
	Informative References		5.2 Informative References
	[4] Katz, D., D. Yeung and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering		[EXPTE] Srisuresh, P. and P. Joseph, "OSPF OSPF-TE: An
	Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003.		experimental extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering",
			draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-07.txt (work in progress).
	[5] Moy, J., P. Pillay-Esnault and A. Lindem, "OSPF Graceful		[GRACE] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P. and A. Lindem, "Graceful OSPF
	OSPF Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003.		Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003.
	[6] Retana, A., et al, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement",		[OPAQUE] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July
	RFC 3137, June 2001.		1998.
	[7] Vasseur, J., P. Psenak, "Traffic Engineering Capability TLV		[P2PLAN] Shen, N. and A. Zinin, "Point-to-point operation over LAN
	for OSPF", Internet Draft, work in progress.		in link-state routing protocols",
			draft-ietf-isis-igp-p2p-over-lan-05.txt (work in progress).
	[8] Vasseur, J., et al, "RSVP Path computation request and reply		[STUB] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A. and D.
	messages", draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-te-03.txt,		McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137, June
	work in progress		2001.
	[9] N. Shen, et al, "Point-to-point operation over LAN in		[T3CAP] Vasseur, JP., Psenak, P., Yasukawa, S. and JL. Le Roux,
	link-state-routing protocols", Internet Draft, work in		"OSPF MPLS Traffic Engineering Capabilities",
	progress.		draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00.txt (work in progress).
	7. Author Information		Authors' Addresses
	Acee Lindem		Acee Lindem
	Redback Networks		Cisco Systems, Inc
	350 Holger Way		7025 Kit Creek Road
	San Jose, CA 95134		Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
	e-mail: acee@redback.com		USA
	Naiming Shen		EMail: acee@cisco.com
	Redback Networks		Naiming Shen
	350 Holger Way		BCN Networks, Inc
	San Jose, CA 95134		2975 San Ysidro Way
	e-mail: naiming@redback.com		Santa Clara, CA 95051
			USA
	Rahul Aggarwal		EMail: naiming@bcn-inc.net
	Juniper Networks
	1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
	Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
	e-mail: rahul@juniper.net
	Scott Shaffer		Rahul Aggarwal
	Level 3 Communications		Juniper Networks
	e-mail: scott.shaffer@level3.com		1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
			Sunnyvale, CA 94089
			USA
	JP Vasseur		EMail: rahul@juniper.net
	Cisco Systems, Inc.
	300 Apollo Drive
	Chelmsford, MA 01824
	e-mail: jpv@cisco.com
	8. Full Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject		Scott Schaffer
	to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and		BridgePort Networks
	except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.		One Main Street, 7th Floor
			Cambridge, MA 02142
			USA
	This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to		EMail: sschafferl@bridgeport-networks.com
	others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
	or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
	and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
	kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
	included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
	document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
	the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
	Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
	developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
	copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
	followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
	English.
	The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be		Jean-Philippe Vasseur
	revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.		Cisco Systems, Inc
			300 Beaver Brook Road
			Boxborough, MA 01719
			USA
	This document and the information contained herein is provided on an		EMail: jpv@cisco.com
	"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
	TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
	9. Intellectual Property		Appendix A. Acknowledgments
			The idea for this work grew out of a conversation with Andrew Partan
			and we would like to thank him for his contribution. The authors
			would like to thanks Peter Psenak for his review and helpful comments
			early versions of the draft.
			The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
			Intellectual Property Statement
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any		The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to		Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
	pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in		pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
	this document or the extent to which any license under such rights		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		might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
	made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information		made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
	on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be		on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
	found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.		found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any		Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
	assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an		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		attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
	such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this		such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
	specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at		specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
	http://www.ietf.org/ipr.		http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
	The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any		The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
	copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary		copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
	rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement		rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
	this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-		this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
	ipr@ietf.org.		ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
	10. Acknowledgement		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.
			Copyright Statement
			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.
			Acknowledgment
	Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the		Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
	Internet Society.		Internet Society.
End of changes. 59 change blocks.
	213 lines changed or deleted		224 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/