< draft-jabley-dnsop-as112-dname-00.txt   draft-jabley-dnsop-as112-dname-01.txt >
Network Working Group J. Abley Network Working Group J. Abley
Internet-Draft ICANN Internet-Draft ICANN
Updates: 6304 (if approved) B. Dickson Updates: 6304 (if approved) B. Dickson
Intended status: Experimental June 28, 2013 Intended status: Informational
Expires: December 30, 2013 Expires: April 15, 2014 W. Kumari
Google
G. Michaelson
APNIC
October 12, 2013
AS112 Redirection using DNAME AS112 Redirection using DNAME
draft-jabley-dnsop-as112-dname-00 draft-jabley-dnsop-as112-dname-01
Abstract Abstract
Many sites connected to the Internet make use of IPv4 addresses that Many sites connected to the Internet make use of IPv4 addresses that
are not globally unique. Examples are the addresses designated in are not globally unique. Examples are the addresses designated in
RFC 1918 for private use within individual sites. RFC 1918 for private use within individual sites.
Devices in such environments may occasionally originate Domain Name Devices in such environments may occasionally originate Domain Name
System (DNS) queries (so-called "reverse lookups") corresponding to System (DNS) queries (so-called "reverse lookups") corresponding to
those private-use addresses. Since the addresses concerned have only those private-use addresses. Since the addresses concerned have only
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 25 skipping to change at page 3, line 25
7. IAB Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. IAB Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Address Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.1. Address Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Hosting of AS112.ARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.2. Hosting of AS112.ARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. Delegation of AS112.ARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.3. Delegation of AS112.ARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Updates to RFC6304 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix A. Assessing Support for DNAME in the Real World . . . . 17
A.1. Changes to Section 2.1, Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.2. Changes to Section 2.2, Nameservers . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.2. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.3. Changes to Section 3.4, Routing Software . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix B. Updates to RFC6304 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.4. Changes to Section 3.5, DNS Software . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B.1. Changes to Section 2.1, Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.5. Changes to Section 3.6, Testing a Newly Installed Node . . 17 B.2. Changes to Section 2.2, Nameservers . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.6. Changes to Section 6, On the Future of AS112 Nodes . . . . 17 B.3. Changes to Section 3.4, Routing Software . . . . . . . . . 20
A.7. Changes to Section 8, Security Considerations . . . . . . 18 B.4. Changes to Section 3.5, DNS Software . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.8. Changes to Appendix A, History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B.5. Changes to Section 3.6, Testing a Newly Installed Node . . 20
Appendix B. Editorial Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 B.6. Changes to Section 6, On the Future of AS112 Nodes . . . . 20
B.1. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 B.7. Changes to Section 8, Security Considerations . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B.8. Changes to Appendix A, History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix C. Editorial Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C.1. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The AS112 project is described in detail in [RFC6304]. The AS112 project is described in detail in [RFC6304].
The AS112 nameservers (PRISONER.IANA.ORG, BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG and The AS112 nameservers (PRISONER.IANA.ORG, BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG and
BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG) are required to answer authoritatively for each BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG) are required to answer authoritatively for each
and every zone that is delegated to them. and every zone that is delegated to them.
If a zone is delegated to AS112 nameservers without those nameservers If a zone is delegated to AS112 nameservers without those nameservers
skipping to change at page 6, line 27 skipping to change at page 6, line 27
It is only necessary for a single AS112 server operator to implement It is only necessary for a single AS112 server operator to implement
these extensions for this mechanism to function as intended. It is these extensions for this mechanism to function as intended. It is
beneficial if many more than one AS112 server operators make these beneficial if many more than one AS112 server operators make these
changes, however, since that provides for greater distribution and changes, however, since that provides for greater distribution and
capacity for the nameservers serving the EMPTY.AS112.ARPA zone. It capacity for the nameservers serving the EMPTY.AS112.ARPA zone. It
is not necessary for all AS112 server operators to make these changes is not necessary for all AS112 server operators to make these changes
for the mechanism to be viable. for the mechanism to be viable.
Detailed instructions for the implementation of these extensions is Detailed instructions for the implementation of these extensions is
included in Appendix A. included in Appendix B.
3.2. Redirection of Query Traffic to AS112 Servers 3.2. Redirection of Query Traffic to AS112 Servers
Once the EMPTY.AS112.ARPA zone has been deployed using the Once the EMPTY.AS112.ARPA zone has been deployed using the
nameservers described in Section 3.1, redirections may be installed nameservers described in Section 3.1, redirections may be installed
in the DNS namespace for queries that are intended to be answered by in the DNS namespace for queries that are intended to be answered by
the AS112 infrastructure. the AS112 infrastructure.
For example, reverse queries corresponding to TEST-NET-1 For example, reverse queries corresponding to TEST-NET-1
(192.0.2.0/24) [RFC5737] could be redirected to AS112 nameservers by (192.0.2.0/24) [RFC5737] could be redirected to AS112 nameservers by
installing a DNAME resource record in the 192.IN-ADDR.ARPA zone, as installing a DNAME resource record in the 192.IN-ADDR.ARPA zone, as
illustrated in Figure 1. illustrated in Figure 1.
@ORIGIN 192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. $ORIGIN 192.IN-ADDR.ARPA.
... ...
2.0.IN-ADDR.ARPA. IN DNAME EMPTY.AS112.ARPA. 2.0.IN-ADDR.ARPA. IN DNAME EMPTY.AS112.ARPA.
... ...
Figure 1 Figure 1
There is no practical limit to the number of redirections that can be There is no practical limit to the number of redirections that can be
configured in this fashion. Redirection of a particular part of the configured in this fashion. Redirection of a particular part of the
namespace to EMPTY.AS112.ARPA can be removed at any time, under the namespace to EMPTY.AS112.ARPA can be removed at any time, under the
control of the administrators of the corresponding part of the DNS control of the administrators of the corresponding part of the DNS
skipping to change at page 9, line 8 skipping to change at page 9, line 8
that the existing, unmodified AS112 servers host 10.IN-ADDR.ARPA, the that the existing, unmodified AS112 servers host 10.IN-ADDR.ARPA, the
decision might be made to replace the delegation of those [RFC1918] decision might be made to replace the delegation of those [RFC1918]
zones with DNAME redirection. Once implemented, the zones with DNAME redirection. Once implemented, the
PRISONER.IANA.ORG, BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG and BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG PRISONER.IANA.ORG, BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG and BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG
nameservers could be retired. This document gives no such direction nameservers could be retired. This document gives no such direction
to the IANA, however. to the IANA, however.
5. Candidate Zones for AS112 Redirection 5. Candidate Zones for AS112 Redirection
All zones listed in [RFC6303] are candidates for AS112 redirection. All zones listed in [RFC6303] are candidates for AS112 redirection.
No doubt there are many others that are worth mentioning. Future
revisions of this draft should mention them.
This document is concerned with provision of the AS112 redirection Since no pre-provisioning is required on the part of AS112 operators
service, and does not specify that any particular AS112 redirection to facilitate sinking of any name in the DNS namespace by AS112
be put in place. infrastructure, this mechanism supports AS112 redirection by any zone
owner in the DNS.
This document is simply concerned with provision of the AS112
redirection service, and does not specify that any particular AS112
redirection be put in place.
6. DNAME Deployment Considerations 6. DNAME Deployment Considerations
DNAME was specified a significant time following the original DNAME was specified a significant time following the original
implementations of [RFC1035], and hence universal deployment cannot implementations of [RFC1035], and hence universal deployment cannot
be expected. [RFC6672] specifies a fall-back mechanism which makes be expected. [RFC6672] specifies a fall-back mechanism which makes
use of synthesised CNAME RRSets for this reason. use of synthesised CNAME RRSets for this reason. The expectation
that design choices in the DNAME specification ought to mitigate any
lack of deployment is reviewed below. Experimental validation of
those expectations is included in Appendix A.
It is a fundamental design requirement of AS112 service that It is a fundamental design requirement of AS112 service that
responses be cached. We can safely declare DNAME support on the responses be cached. We can safely declare DNAME support on the
authoritative server to be a prerequisite for DNAME redirection, but authoritative server to be a prerequisite for DNAME redirection, but
the cases where individual elements in resolver chains do not support the cases where individual elements in resolver chains do not support
DNAME processing deserve closer examination. DNAME processing deserve closer examination.
The expected behaviour when a DNAME response is supplied to a The expected behaviour when a DNAME response is supplied to a
resolver that does not support DNAME is that the accompanying, resolver that does not support DNAME is that the accompanying,
synthesised CNAME will be accepted and cached. Re-query frequency synthesised CNAME will be accepted and cached. Re-query frequency
will be determined by the TTLs returned by the DNAME-responding will be determined by the TTLs returned by the DNAME-responding
authoritative servers. authoritative servers.
Resolution of the CNAME target is straightforward and functions Resolution of the CNAME target is straightforward and functions
exactly as the AS112 project has operated since it was deployed. The exactly as the AS112 project has operated since it was deployed. The
negative caching [RFC2308] of the CNAME target follows the parameters negative caching [RFC2308] of the CNAME target follows the parameters
defined in the target zone, EMPTY.AS112.ARPA. This has the side- defined in the target zone, EMPTY.AS112.ARPA. This has the side-
effects that all redirected names ultimately landing on an AS112 node effects that all redirected names ultimately landing on an AS112 node
will be negatively-cached with the same parameters, but this lack of will be negatively-cached with the same parameters, but this lack of
flexibility seems non-contraversial; the effect of reducing the flexibility seems non-controversial; the effect of reducing the
negative cache TTL would be increased query volume on the AS112 node negative cache TTL would be increased query volume on the AS112 node
operator concerned, and hence controls seem well-alligned with operator concerned, and hence controls seem well-aligned with
operation. operation.
Validating resolvers (i.e. those requesting and processing DNSSEC Validating resolvers (i.e. those requesting and processing DNSSEC
[RFC4033] metadata) are required to implement DNAME, and hence should [RFC4033] metadata) are required to implement DNAME, and hence should
not make use of synthesised CNAME RRs. The lack of signature over a not make use of synthesised CNAME RRs. The lack of signature over a
received CNAME RR should hence not limit the ability to sign the received CNAME RR should hence not limit the ability to sign the
redirection point, and for those signatures to be validated. redirection point, and for those signatures to be validated.
In the case where a recursive server implements DNAME, but DNAME is In the case where a recursive server implements DNAME, but DNAME is
not implemented in a stub resolver, CNAME synthesis will again not implemented in a stub resolver, CNAME synthesis will again
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 17, line 5
[RFC4786] Abley, J. and K. Lindqvist, "Operation of Anycast [RFC4786] Abley, J. and K. Lindqvist, "Operation of Anycast
Services", BCP 126, RFC 4786, December 2006. Services", BCP 126, RFC 4786, December 2006.
[RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks [RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010. Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010.
[RFC6303] Andrews, M., "Locally Served DNS Zones", BCP 163, [RFC6303] Andrews, M., "Locally Served DNS Zones", BCP 163,
RFC 6303, July 2011. RFC 6303, July 2011.
Appendix A. Updates to RFC6304 Appendix A. Assessing Support for DNAME in the Real World
To measure the extent to which the DNAME construct is supported in
the Internet, we have used an experimental technique to test the DNS
resolvers used by end hosts, and derive from the test a measurement
of DNAME support within the Internet.
A.1. Methodology
The test was conducted by loading a user's browser with 4 URLs to
retrieve. The first three comprise the test setup, while the final
URL communicates the result the the experiment controller. The URLs
are:
A http://a.<unique_string>.dname.example.com/1x1.png?
a.<unique_string>.dname
B http://b.dname.example.com/1x1.png?
b.<unique_string>.dname
C http://c.<unique_string>.target.example.net/1x1.png?
c.<unique_string>.target
D http://results.recorder.example.net/1x1.png?
results.<unique_string>?za=<a_result>&zb=<b_result>&zc=<c_result>
The A URL is designed to test the end users capability to resolve a
name that has never been seen before, so that the resolution of this
domain name will reliably result in a query at the authoritative name
server. This is intended to test the use of domain names where there
is a dynamic component that also uses the DNAME construct.
The B URL is deliberately designed to be cached by caching resolvers
that are used in the process of resolving the domain name.
The C URL is a control URL. This is a unique URL, similar to A, but
does not refer to a DNAME structure.
The D URL uses a static cacheable domain name.
The <unique_string> value is common to the four URLs used in each
individual instance of this test, but varies from test to test. The
result is that each end user is presented with a unique string.
The contents of the EXAMPLE.COM, TARGET.EXAMPLE.NET and
RECORDER.EXAMPLE.NET zones are shown in Figure 3.
$ORIGIN EXAMPLE.COM.
...
DNAME. IN DNAME TARGET.EXAMPLE.NET.
...
$ORIGIN TARGET.EXAMPLE.NET.
...
B IN A 192.0.2.0
* IN A 192.0.2.0
...
$ORIGIN RECORDER.EXAMPLE.NET.
...
RESULTS IN A 192.0.2.0
...
Figure 3
The first three URLs (A, B and C) are loaded as tasks into the user's
browser upon execution of the test's script. The script starts a
timer with each of these URLs to measure the elapsed time to fetch
the URL. The script then waits for the three fetches to complete, or
10 seconds, whichever occurs first. The script then loads the
results of the three timers into the GET arguments of the D URL, and
performs a fetch to pass these results back to the experiment's
server.
Logs on the web server reached at RESULTS.EXAMPLE.NET will include
entries of the form shown in Figure 4. If any of the URLs fail to
load within 10 secords the D URL will report the failure as a "null"
timer value.
GET /1x1.png?results.<unique_string>?za=1822&zb=1674&zc=1582
GET /1x1.png?results.<unique_string>?za=null&zb=null&zc=161
Figure 4
The script has been encoded in Adobe Flash with a simple image in the
form of an online advertisement. An online advertisement network has
been used to distribute the script. The script is invoked when the
advertisement is presented in the end user's browser or application,
and does not require the user to click on the supplied image in any
way. The advertisement placement parameters were set to to broadest
possible scope to sample users from across the entire internet.
A.2. Results
The test was loaded into an advertisement distributed on the
2013-10-10 and 2013-10-11.
+--------------------+---------+------------+
| | Count | Percentage |
+--------------------+---------+------------+
| Recorded Results: | 338,478 | |
| | | |
| A or B Loaded: | 331,896 | 98.1% |
| | | |
| A Fail and B Fail: | 6,492 | 1.9% |
| | | |
| A Fail and B Load: | 4,249 | 1.3% |
| | | |
| A Load and B Fail: | 1,624 | 0.5% |
| | | |
| C Fail: | 9,355 | 2.8% |
+--------------------+---------+------------+
Table 1
These results indicate that at most 1.9% of tested clients use DNS
resolvers that fail to resolve a domain name that contains a DNAME
redirection. However the failure rate of slightly lower than 3% for
the control URL indicates that the failure rate for the DNAME
construct lies within the bounds of error within the experimental
framework. We conclude that there is no evidence of a consistent
failure on the part of deployed DNS resolvers to correctly resolve a
DNAME construct.
This experiment was conducted by Geoff Huston and George Michaelson.
Appendix B. Updates to RFC6304
The following changes are required to [RFC6304] to provide support The following changes are required to [RFC6304] to provide support
for AS112 redirection. It is proposed that a successor document to for AS112 redirection. It is proposed that a successor document to
[RFC6304] be prepared for joint publication with this document in the [RFC6304] be prepared for joint publication with this document in the
interests of providing clear advice to prospective new AS112 interests of providing clear advice to prospective new AS112
operators. The following sub-sections are hence provided mainly only operators. The following sub-sections are hence provided mainly only
to describe the scope of the changes required for 6304bis, and are to describe the scope of the changes required for 6304bis, and are
not intended for publication in this document. References to this not intended for publication in this document. References to this
section in this document should ultimately be replaced with section in this document should ultimately be replaced with
references to 6304bis. references to 6304bis.
A.1. Changes to Section 2.1, Zones B.1. Changes to Section 2.1, Zones
The list of zones that the AS112 nameserver should answer The list of zones that the AS112 nameserver should answer
authoritatively for is extended to include EMPTY.AS112.ARPA. authoritatively for is extended to include EMPTY.AS112.ARPA.
A.2. Changes to Section 2.2, Nameservers B.2. Changes to Section 2.2, Nameservers
The nameserver BLACKHOLE.AS112.ARPA (IPv4 address TBAv4-1, IPv6 The nameserver BLACKHOLE.AS112.ARPA (IPv4 address TBAv4-1, IPv6
address TBAv6-1) is added to the list of nameserver addresses that address TBAv6-1) is added to the list of nameserver addresses that
the AS112 node should support. The IPv4 prefix TBAv4/24 and the IPv6 the AS112 node should support. The IPv4 prefix TBAv4/24 and the IPv6
prefix TBAv6/48 are added as new prefixes to be originated. prefix TBAv6/48 are added as new prefixes to be originated.
A.3. Changes to Section 3.4, Routing Software B.3. Changes to Section 3.4, Routing Software
The sample configuration provided in this section is extended to The sample configuration provided in this section is extended to
accommodate the IPv4 and IPv6 service prefixes associated with AS112 accommodate the IPv4 and IPv6 service prefixes associated with AS112
redirection, TBAv4/24 and TBAv6/48, respectively. redirection, TBAv4/24 and TBAv6/48, respectively.
A.4. Changes to Section 3.5, DNS Software B.4. Changes to Section 3.5, DNS Software
The sample configuration provided in this section is extended to The sample configuration provided in this section is extended to
accommodate the TBAv4-1 and TBAv6-1 addresses and the accommodate the TBAv4-1 and TBAv6-1 addresses and the
EMPTY.AS112.ARPA zone. The contents of the EMPTY.AS112.ARPA zone EMPTY.AS112.ARPA zone. The contents of the EMPTY.AS112.ARPA zone
should be specified (nameservers differ from that included as should be specified (nameservers differ from that included as
"db.empty"). "db.empty").
A.5. Changes to Section 3.6, Testing a Newly Installed Node B.5. Changes to Section 3.6, Testing a Newly Installed Node
Testing should be extended to test for correct hosting of the Testing should be extended to test for correct hosting of the
EMPTY.AS112.ARPA zone. EMPTY.AS112.ARPA zone.
A.6. Changes to Section 6, On the Future of AS112 Nodes B.6. Changes to Section 6, On the Future of AS112 Nodes
A reference to this document should be included. A reference to this document should be included.
A.7. Changes to Section 8, Security Considerations B.7. Changes to Section 8, Security Considerations
Mention should be made that AS112 redirection, as specified in this Mention should be made that AS112 redirection, as specified in this
document, supports DNSSEC in the sense that the DNAME records which document, supports DNSSEC in the sense that the DNAME records which
signal the redirection can be signed. signal the redirection can be signed.
A.8. Changes to Appendix A, History B.8. Changes to Appendix A, History
A reference to this document should be included. A reference to this document should be included.
Appendix B. Editorial Notes Appendix C. Editorial Notes
This section (and sub-sections) to be removed prior to publication. This section (and sub-sections) to be removed prior to publication.
B.1. Change History C.1. Change History
00 Initial write-up of Brian's idea, circulated for the purposes of 00 Initial write-up of Brian's idea, circulated for the purposes of
entertainment. entertainment.
01 Some particularly egregious spelling mistakes fixed.
02 Warren Kumari and George Michaelson added as co-authors. Intended
status changed to informational. Appendix on DNAME testing added,
describing an experiment conducted by Geoff Huston and George
Michaelson.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Joe Abley Joe Abley
ICANN ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
USA USA
Phone: +1 519 670 9327 Phone: +1 519 670 9327
Email: joe.abley@icann.org Email: joe.abley@icann.org
Brian Dickson Brian Dickson
703 Palmer Drive 703 Palmer Drive
Herndon, VA 20170 Herndon, VA 20170
Email: brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com Email: brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com
Warren Kumari
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
Email: warren@kumari.net
George Michaelson
APNIC
Email: ggm@apnic.net
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 183 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/