idnits 2.17.1 draft-iab-rtrws-over-02.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 Internet-Drafts being working documents. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2280 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 2622) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 2201 (ref. '2') ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2475 (ref. '3') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2362 (ref. '4') (Obsoleted by RFC 4601, RFC 5059) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '5' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '6' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 1584 (ref. '7') -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '9' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '10' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 1075 (ref. '11') Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Internet Architecture Board Steve Deering 2 INTERNET DRAFT Cisco Systems 3 25 December 1999 Sue Hares 4 Merit Networks 5 Charles E. Perkins 6 Nokia Research Center 7 Radia Perlman 8 Sun Microsystems Laboratories 10 Overview of the 1998 IAB Routing Workshop 11 draft-iab-rtrws-over-02.txt 13 Status of This Memo 15 This document is a submission by the Internet Architecture Board 16 Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 17 Comments should be submitted to the 18 iab-routing-workshop@external.cisco.com mailing list. 20 Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 22 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 23 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working 24 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 25 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at 30 any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at: 34 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 35 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at: 36 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 38 Abstract 40 This document is an overview of a Routing workshop held by the 41 Internet Architecture Board during March 25-27, 1998. The major 42 points of discussion are listed, along with some conclusions and 43 action items for many of the points of discussion. 45 Contents 47 Status of This Memo i 49 Abstract i 51 1. Introduction 2 53 2. Conclusions and Action Items 3 54 2.1. Scaling of Unicast Routing and Addressing . . . . . . . . 3 55 2.1.1. Unicast Routing - Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2.1.2. Unicast Routing - Action Items . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2.2. Levels of Addressing of Addressing and Routing . . . . . 4 58 2.3. Network Address Translation (NAT) devices . . . . . . . . 4 59 2.3.1. NAT devices - Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.3.2. NAT devices - Action Items . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2.4. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 2.4.1. Multicast - Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 2.4.2. Multicast - Action Items . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 2.5. Routing Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 2.5.1. Routing Stability - Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 6 66 2.5.2. Routing Stability - Action Items . . . . . . . . 6 67 2.6. ToS/CoS/QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 2.6.1. ToS/CoS/QoS - Action Items . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 2.7. Routing Protocol Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 2.7.1. Routing Security - Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 7 71 2.7.2. Routing Security - Action Items . . . . . . . . . 8 72 2.8. Routing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 2.8.1. Routing Policy - Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 2.8.2. Routing Policy - Action Item . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 2.9. Network to Host Flow of Information . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 2.9.1. Host Information - Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 8 77 2.9.2. Host Information - Action Items . . . . . . . . . 9 78 2.10. Shorter Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 79 2.10.1. Multi-strand Trunking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 80 2.10.2. Routing Diagnostic and Development Tools . . . . 9 81 2.10.3. Anycast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 82 2.10.4. Load Sensitive IGP routing for Best Effort Traffic 10 83 2.10.5. Geographical Addresses and Renumbering . . . . . 11 85 3. Summary of Action items 11 86 3.1. Action Items for the IAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 87 3.2. Action Items for IETF Working Group Chairs . . . . . . . 11 88 3.3. Action Items for the IRTF Routing Research Group . . . . 11 90 A. Participants 13 92 1. Introduction 94 From March 25 to March 27, 1998 the Internet Architecture Board 95 (IAB) held a workshop on Routing. The workshop focused on current 96 problems within the Internet and the long term solutions that should 97 be addressed. This document summarizes the discussions the group 98 had on routing, and lists the conclusions reached by the workshop. 99 Section 2 lists the conclusions reached by the participants of the 100 workshop and the suggestions for additional work or redirection of 101 current work. Sections 2.1-2.10 attempt to extract the major points 102 of what was, in actuality, many multifaceted discussions, sometimes 103 occuring all at the same time. Appendix A contains a list of the 104 participants who attended the workshop. The full body of the report 105 can be found at [URL to be provided]. 107 The topics covered at length during the IAB workshop were: 109 1. Scaling of Unicast Routing and Addressing (section 2.1) 110 2. Unicast Addressing Issues (Section 2.2) 111 3. The Effect of extending IP version 4 in the Internet by using 112 Network Address Transformation boxes (Section 2.3) 113 4. Multicast Routing (Section 2.4) 114 5. Routing Instability (Section 2.5) 115 6. Quality of Service Routing (Section 2.6) 116 7. Routing Security (Section 2.7) 117 8. BGP Policy (Section 2.8) 118 9. Flows of information from network routing to hosts for improved 119 services (Section 2.9) 121 In addition the following topics were briefly covered: 123 a. Multi-strand trunking 124 b. Better tools for monitoring and diagnosis of network problems 125 c. Routing protocol bandwidth minimization 126 d. Automatic renumbering and automatic organization 127 e. Anycast 128 f. Load-sensitive routing 129 g. Geographical addressing 131 These shorter topics are contained in section 2.10. 133 It would be unrealistic to assume that the workshop had definitive 134 answers to all the technical problems that were raised. The best 135 that can be hoped is that we raised most of the relevant issues and 136 gave opinions that were the best guess of the people at the meeting, 137 keeping in mind that the attendees did not come armed with data to 138 back up opinions. Much of the discussion amounted to an exploration 139 of the intuition of the experts in attendance, intuition gained 140 after years of experience in making the Internet work. More work is 141 needed to validate the intuition and experience by way of scientific 142 experimentation and analysis. Unfortunately, it's not so easy to 143 find a spare collection of global Internets upon which one might 144 perform controlled experiments. 146 2. Conclusions and Action Items 148 The participants came to a number of conclusions after the 149 discussions referred to in sections 2.1-2.10. These conclusions, 150 presented in this document, provide summary statements and action 151 items for the IETF community. 153 2.1. Scaling of Unicast Routing and Addressing 155 2.1.1. Unicast Routing - Conclusions 157 The participants of the workshop came to the following conclusions 159 1. Most of the current unicast scaling problems can be fixed with 160 improved implementation. 162 2. Some long term systemic issues that may eventually overwhelm the 163 unicast routing are: 165 - Flaps - which will only get worse unless work is undertaken 166 - Multi-homing 168 3. We'd like more research into what's breaking; not just more data, 169 but more analysis of the data 171 The group reviewed the following potential solutions: 173 - Architected NAT (improving the existing Network Address 174 Translation schemes to provide better scaling) 175 - IPv6 (deploying an IP version 6 infrastructure) 176 - MAP/Encap (map to aggregatable addresses and encapsulate the 177 original packet) 178 - Do nothing 179 - Aggressive renumbering (try to continue to encourage renumbering 180 to improve utilization of the IP version 4 address space) 181 - Metro addressing (use a geographical or metropolitan based 182 addressing scheme) 184 2.1.2. Unicast Routing - Action Items 186 We recommend that the IRTF Routing Research group should encourage 187 more analysis of routing data, not just the collection of more data. 189 2.2. Levels of Addressing of Addressing and Routing 191 Levels of hierarchy do not matter to the customers. Address 192 hierarchy must be distinguished from routing hierarchy. The group 193 examined whether the current Internet has enough levels of hierarchy 194 in Internet addresses or routing infrastructure. The group did not 195 find that levels of hierarchy should be added to the Internet, at 196 least for now. Flat routing at the AS level seems to be workable; 197 if this changes in the future, hierarchy would need to be revisited, 198 and studied with due consideration to convergence time for routing 199 algorithms and trust management. There is no universal agreement 200 that adding levels of hierarchy at this point in time provides a 201 well-defined benefit. Furthermore, two levels is difficult for many 202 people, and any more than that is difficult both to build and to use. 204 2.3. Network Address Translation (NAT) devices 206 2.3.1. NAT devices - Conclusions 208 Upon reviewing the NATs, the group 210 1. Noted that NAT devices are fairly widely deployed 211 2. Identified various problems with the use of NAT devices within 212 the internet 213 3. Discussed the interaction between NAT devices and applications 214 4. Listed the following options regarding NAT devices: 215 - Eliminate NATs 216 - Fix NATs to interact better with the rest of the Internet 217 - Fix applications to interact better with NAT boxes 218 - Don't do certain things -- like IP Security (IPSec) 220 2.3.2. NAT devices - Action Items 222 1. Forward our concerns, problems and suggestions to the appropriate 223 working groups 224 2. Note architectural work outside the NAT working group 225 3. Suggest to the IAB that it continue to be concerned about the 226 issues involving NATs 228 2.4. Multicast 230 2.4.1. Multicast - Conclusions 232 Since the multicast model was created, many multicast applications 233 have been tried over the Internet multicast routing fabric. The 234 group began to discuss the multicast model in terms of enabling 235 multicast applications to run efficiently, and scale favorably with 236 future growth. Multicast applications place varying requirements on 237 multicast routing. 239 Multicast applications may have a variable: 241 - number of sources, 242 - number of receivers, 243 - amount of data, 244 - amount of data in a burst, and length of quiet periods 245 - number of groups utilized per application or per set of 246 cooperating applications, and 247 - amount of time during which the group exists 248 - topological distance between members of the group. 249 - volatility of membership 251 Multicast routing must provide the flexibility to support the varying 252 requirements of different multicast applications. The current 253 multicast model establishes multicast routing paths upon reception 254 of a data packet. The discussion on the viability of the multicast 255 model examined the viability of the model in terms of the uses 256 of multicast routing by applications and the scalability to full 257 Internet usage. For example, providing for many groups of small 258 conferences (a small number of widely-dispersed people) with global 259 topological scope scales badly given the current multicast model. 261 The group felt the existing multicast protocols and multicast should 262 be evaluated in terms of the requirements listed above. The group 263 suggested that the evaluation should include the multicast protocols 264 DVMRP [11], MOSPF [7], PIM [4], CBT [2], and Express (an unpublished 265 single-source multicast model proposed by Hugh Holbrook and David 266 Cheriton), as well as the following mechanisms used by multicast 267 applications: 269 1. Registering with the core or the RP (Rendezvous Point), 270 2. Having the ID of the group include the core, and having joins 271 specify the core 272 3. Having the ID of the group include the core, and having joins and 273 data specify both 274 4. Sending data via unicast to all members, and 275 5. Sending data via unicast transport to the RP. 277 The group acknowledged that the current multicast model does not 278 scale well for all scenarios that applications use. 280 The group noted that reliable multicast is surprisingly orthogonal to 281 the issues about the scaling of the multicast model to all possible 282 applications. 284 2.4.2. Multicast - Action Items 286 Encourage evaluation and written reports on these multicast 287 protocols, and mechanisms for different types of protocols. 289 Notify the IRTF Routing Research Group of the need to charter 290 activity in this area. 292 2.5. Routing Stability 294 2.5.1. Routing Stability - Conclusions 296 Damping the effects of route updates enhances stability, but possibly 297 at the cost of reachability for some prefixes. A prefix can be 298 damped and reachable via another path, so that for such prefixes the 299 effects of damping are less serious than for other prefixes. The 300 performance of various algorithms for enhancing stability should 301 be measured by recording whether the affected route prefixes are 302 reachable or not reachable. Using current damping approaches, 303 approximately 1% of the prefixes are affected at any one point in 304 time. We should try to find out how many prefixes are unreachable 305 because of damping. 307 2.5.2. Routing Stability - Action Items 309 The conclusion is that this effort merits continued investigation. 311 The IRTF Routing Research Group should measure how stable things are, 312 and if stability is an issue, to study methods of making them more 313 stable. 315 2.6. ToS/CoS/QoS 317 The group noted that the terms Type of Service (ToS), Class of 318 Service (CoS), and Quality of Service (QoS) are imprecise as 319 currently used. The discussion started by defining the terminology 320 as follows: 322 ToS: hop by hop routing based on destination plus ToS bits [8] 323 CoS: classes of service based on service contracts. These classes 324 of service are enabled by a variety of mechanisms which include 325 queueing, and multiple physical or link level paths. 326 QoS: managing routes that meet certain quality of service constraints, 327 and involving the following steps: 328 * routing the resource requests 329 * setting up a path that satisfies the constraints 330 * routing the data 332 There is no smooth dividing line between between ToS and QoS. ToS is 333 relative. QoS is absolute. The group discussed whether there is a 334 demand for ToS, CoS and QoS. Differentiated-services [3] as discussed 335 in the IETF is ToS++. 337 The group also discussed a more general concept of "Constraint 338 Based Routing" which was defined as traffic engineering on large 339 aggregated flows. Constraint based routing allows the providers 340 to better utilize the bandwidth in their network to handle traffic 341 requests from users. Besides enabling policy management techniques, 342 constraint based routing allows providers to route traffic based on 343 the characteristics of the traffic flows. 345 2.6.1. ToS/CoS/QoS - Action Items 347 We recommend that IETF should look into the issue of Constraint Based 348 Routing. 350 2.7. Routing Protocol Security 352 2.7.1. Routing Security - Conclusions 354 After a lengthy discussion of the various problems of network 355 security, the group notes that: 357 1. Routers need intrinsic system security as good as or better than 358 any host computer. 359 2. Improving router security will not solve all problems. 360 3. Console access to the router can do everything. 361 4. One compromised router can create disaster. 362 5. ISPs and vendors should consider taking some control traffic out 363 of band, due to lack of wire speed authentication. 364 6. We discussed other issues that will be passed on to the 365 appropriate people involved with network security. 366 7. Identified areas of work to improve things (e.g., wire speed 367 authentication). 369 2.7.2. Routing Security - Action Items 371 The IETF should encourage work on "wire speed" authentication, 372 pair-wise authentication of routers in routing protocols, and 373 Byzantine robustness [5] in routing protocols. 375 2.8. Routing Policy 377 2.8.1. Routing Policy - Conclusions 379 During our discussion on routing policy the group reviewed what could 380 be done with BGP. The group noted that: 382 1. Some routing policies requested by ISPs or NSPs are not solvable 383 with BGP. Some of these "unsolvable" routing policies can be put 384 into effect using tunnels and static configuration. 385 2. BGP is only a mechanism for announcing reachability 386 3. BGP routing controls traffic direction without regard to traffic 387 volume. 388 4. BGP policy management is too delicate, too easy to mess up, and 389 fragile. 390 5. Router Configuration Language is very complex and error-prone 391 6. We can't count on symmetric routing, so ISPs/NSPs/Enterprise nets 392 should deal with it. 394 The group concluded the Internet needed a better routing policy 395 specification language. 397 2.8.2. Routing Policy - Action Item 399 Pass the concerns about the Routing Policy Syntax Language (RPSL) [1] 400 to chairs of the Routing Policy Syntax (RPS) working group [10]. 402 2.9. Network to Host Flow of Information 404 2.9.1. Host Information - Conclusions 406 Publishing information about traffic statistics along backbone routes 407 could improve the way Internet services replicate data for retrieval 408 from various sites. This replication could be especially important 409 for the retrieval of information off the web. Currently, web pages 410 refer people to caches local to their sites; for instance, a European 411 site might be used for United Kingdom customers and a North American 412 site for North American customers. Proponents of web caches want to 413 auto-configure the locations of web caches so a user's web browser 414 can automatically discover the local cache. Other applications share 415 this need for finding the best cache for a particular service. 417 2.9.2. Host Information - Action Items 419 The group recommends a BOF be held on Measuring Path Characteristics. 420 Measurement of path characteristics should include: 422 - format for exchange of measurement data 423 - mechanisms for distribution of measurement data 425 IPPM working group [6] is dealing with issues within the measurement 426 problem space. 428 2.10. Shorter Topics 430 2.10.1. Multi-strand Trunking 432 PPP did multi-link in a way that required too much computation and 433 could not be used for faster links. Internet technology should 434 treat multiple parallel trunks as 1 link at the IP layer, but with 435 multi-dimensional metrics. 437 Multi-strand Trunking - Action Items 439 There is design and development work at layer two which should be 440 done to support the multiple parallel trunks. This layer two work 441 is outside the scope of the IETF. Layer three routing should support 442 richer metrics in OSPF. 444 2.10.2. Routing Diagnostic and Development Tools 446 2.10.2.1. Routing Diagnostics - Conclusions 448 1. It would be nice to have an Authoritative Database listing those 449 prefixes permitted from each AS. The authoritative data base was 450 attempted before without success, but the group felt it might be 451 useful to try again. 452 2. SNMP version 3 should be deployed in order to make use of its 453 improved authentication, scope and rate limiting 454 3. Remotely-controlled traffic monitors should be used to measure 455 traffic 456 4. Better tools are needed for preventative problem detection 458 2.10.2.2. Routing Diagnostics - Action Items 460 1. Encouraged an authoritative database within the Internet 461 2. Notify SNMP version 3 working groups regarding needs for 462 authentication, scope, and rate limiting. 463 3. Encourage funding of better tools for remotely controlled traffic 464 sources and pro-active problem detection. 466 2.10.3. Anycast 468 2.10.3.1. Anycast - Conclusions 470 1. We need to describe the advantages and disadvantages of anycast. 471 2. Local-scoped well-known anycast addresses will be useful to 472 applications. 474 2.10.3.2. Anycast - Action Items 476 A BOF should be held to plan work on anycast. 478 If a working group forms, a paper on the advantages and disadvantages 479 of anycast should be included as part of the charter. 481 2.10.4. Load Sensitive IGP routing for Best Effort Traffic 483 2.10.4.1. Load Sensitive IGP - Conclusions 485 While load sensitive routing is interesting in some ways, it cannot 486 be considered until certain problems are worked out. Currently, 487 constraint based routing is assigning administrative metrics to allow 488 routing to adapt to different traffic patterns. Load sensitive 489 routing may increase oscillation and instability of routes. This 490 instability of routes, sometimes called churn, may affect the ability 491 of the routing infrastructure to scale. 493 Load sensitive routing would allow IGPs to better utilize links. 494 Past and current efforts in load sensitive routing include: QoS 495 OSPF [9], Q-OSPF [9], and load sensitive routers developed by BBN. 497 2.10.4.2. Load Sensitive IGP - Action items 499 The IRTF Routing Research group chair and Routing Area Director 500 should discuss this subject and determine what techniques from 501 Load Sensitive IGP routing are ready for IETF, and what requires 502 additional research. 504 2.10.5. Geographical Addresses and Renumbering 506 This topic was discussed, but without any conclusions or action 507 items. 509 3. Summary of Action items 511 3.1. Action Items for the IAB 513 1. The IAB should be concerned about the issues involving NATs 514 2. Authoritative Database (for addresses within domains) should be 515 encouraged within the Internet 516 3. Encourage funding of better tools for remotely controlled traffic 517 sources and pro-active problem detection. 519 3.2. Action Items for IETF Working Group Chairs 521 1. NAT: Forward our concerns, problems and suggestions to the 522 appropriate working groups 523 2. We recommend that IETF should work the issue of Constraint Based 524 Routing. 525 3. The IETF should encourage work on "wire speed" authentication, 526 pair-wise authentication of routers in routing protocols, and 527 Byzantine robustness in routing protocols. 528 4. Concerns about the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) 529 should go to the Routing Policy Systems (RPS) working group 530 chair. 531 5. The group recommends a BOF be held on Measuring Path 532 Characteristics. The BOF should consider the data exchange 533 format of measurement and mechanisms to distribution of data 534 mechanism. It is noted that the IPPM working group is dealing 535 with issues within the measurement problem space. 536 6. There is layer two work which should be done to support the 537 multiple parallel trunks which is outside the scope of the IETF. 538 Layer three routing should support richer metrics in OSPF. 539 7. SNMP version 3 working groups should be notified about the issues 540 about authentication, scope, and rate limiting. 541 8. A BOF should be held to plan work on anycast. A document on 542 anycast should be part of the proposed working group charter. 544 3.3. Action Items for the IRTF Routing Research Group 546 1. We recommend that the IRTF Routing Research working group try to 547 encourage more analysis of routing data, not just the collection 548 of more data. 550 2. Encourage evaluation and written reports on the evaluation 551 of multicast protocols and mechanisms for different types of 552 protocols 554 3. The IRTF Routing Research group chair and the Routing Area 555 Director should discuss Load Sensitive IGP routing and determine 556 whether it is ready for the IETF. 558 A. Participants 560 Harald Alvestrand Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no, 561 Fred Baker fred@cisco.com, 562 Jeff Burgan burgan@corp.home.net, 563 Brian Carpenter brian@hursley.ibm.com, 564 Noel Chiappa jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, 565 Rob Coltun rcoltun@fore.com, 566 Steve Deering deering@cisco.com, 567 Deborah Estrin estrin@usc.edu, 568 Dino Farinacci dino@cisco.com, 569 Paul Francis francis@slab.ntt.co.jp, 570 Elise Gerich epg@home.net, 571 Joel Halpern jhalpern@newbridge.com, 572 Sue Hares skh@merit.edu, 573 Cyndi Jung cmj@3Com.com, 574 Dave Katz dkatz@jnx.com, 575 Tony Li tli@juniper.net, 576 Peter Lothberg roll@stupi.se, 577 Louis Mamakos louie@uu.net, 578 Dave Meyer dmm@cisco.com, 579 Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu, 580 Bob Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com, 581 Thomas Narten narten@raleigh.ibm.com, 582 Vern Paxson vern@ee.lbl.gov, 583 Charlie Perkins Charles.Perkins@iprg.nokia.com 584 Radia Perlman Radia.Perlman@East.Sun.COM, 585 Yakov Rekhter yakov@cisco.com, 586 Allyn Romanow allyn@MCI.NET, 587 Martha Steenstrup msteenst@bbn.com, 588 George Swallow swallow@cisco.com, 590 References 592 [1] C. Alaettinoglu, T. Bates, E. Gerich, D. Karrenberg, D. Meyer, 593 M. Terpstra, and C. Villamizar. Routing Policy Specification 594 Language (RPSL). Request for Comments (Proposed Standard) 2280, 595 Internet Engineering Task Force, January 1998. 597 [2] A. Ballardie. Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing 598 Architecture. Request for Comments (Experimental) 2201, 599 Internet Engineering Task Force, September 1997. 601 [3] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, and 602 W. Weiss. An Architecture for Differentiated Service. Request 603 for Comments (Informational) 2475, Internet Engineering Task 604 Force, December 1998. 606 [4] D. Estrin, D. Farinacci, A. Helmy, D. Thaler, S. Deering, 607 M. Handley, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, P. Sharma, and L. Wei. 608 Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol 609 Specification. Request for Comments (Experimental) 2362, 610 Internet Engineering Task Force, June 1998. 612 [5] Charlie Kaufman, Radia Perlman, and Mike Speciner. Network 613 Security: Private Communication in a Public World, pages 614 462--465. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1995. 616 [6] W. Leland and M. Zekauskas (chairs). IP Performance Metrics 617 (IPPM), October 1997. 618 http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ippm-charter.html. 620 [7] J. Moy. Multicast Extensions to OSPF. Request for Comments 621 (Proposed Standard) 1584, Internet Engineering Task Force, March 622 1994. 624 [8] K. Nichols, S. Blake, F. Baker, and D. Black. Definition of 625 the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and 626 IPv6 Headers. Request for Comments (Proposed Standard) 2474, 627 Internet Engineering Task Force, December 1998. 629 [9] H. Sandick and E. Crawley (chairs). QoS Routing (qosr), April 630 1997. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/qosr-charter.html. 632 [10] C. Villamizar and C. Alaettinoglu (chairs). Routing Policy 633 Syntax (RPS), July 1995. 634 http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/rps-charter.html. 636 [11] D. Waitzman, C. Partridge, and S. E. Deering. Distance Vector 637 Multicast Routing Protocol. Request for Comments (Experimental) 638 1075, Internet Engineering Task Force, November 1988. 640 Author's Addresses 642 Questions about this memo can be directed to: 644 Stephen E. Deering Susan Hares 645 Cisco Systems, Inc. Merit, Inc. 646 170 West Tasman Drive 1071 Beal Avenue, 647 San Jose, CA 95134-1706 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 648 USA USA 650 Phone: +1 408 527-8213 Phone: +1 313 936-2095 651 EMail: deering@cisco.com EMail: skh@merit.edu 653 Radia Perlman Charles E. Perkins 654 Sun Microsystems Laboratories Nokia Research Center 655 2 Elizabeth Drive 313 Fairchild Drive 656 Chelmsford, MA 01824 Mountain View, CA 94043 657 USA USA 659 Phone: +1 978 442-3252 Phone: +1 650 625-2986 660 EMail: Radia.Perlman@sun.com EMail: charliep@iprg.nokia.com 661 Fax: +1 650 691-2170