idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-08.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 13. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 519. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 496. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 503. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 509. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (August 22, 2005) is 6819 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC3258' is mentioned on line 379, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-ppvpn-vpls-requirements' is defined on line 461, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1771 (Obsoleted by RFC 4271) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-07 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO3166' -- No information found for draft-ietf-ppvpn-vpls-requirements - is the name correct? Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 GROW WG D. Meyer 2 Internet-Draft August 22, 2005 3 Expires: February 23, 2006 5 BGP Communities for Data Collection 6 draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-08 8 Status of this Memo 10 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 11 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 12 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 13 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 23, 2006. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 37 Abstract 39 BGP communities (RFC 1997) are used by service providers for many 40 purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically 41 originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the 42 scope of redistribution of routes within a provider's network, and to 43 its peers and customers. With the advent of large scale BGP data 44 collection (and associated research), it has become clear that the 45 information carried in such communities is essential for a deeper 46 understanding of the global routing system. This memo defines 47 standard (outbound) communities and their encodings for export to BGP 48 route collectors. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2.1. Peers and Peering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2.2. Customer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 2.3. Peer Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2.4. Internal Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 2.5. Internal More Specific Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 2.6. Special Purpose Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.7. Upstream Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2.8. National Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 2.9. Regional Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3. RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 4. Community Values for BGP Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 4.1. Extended Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 4.2. Four-octet AS specific extended communities . . . . . . . 8 67 5. Note on BGP UPDATE Packing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 69 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 7.1. Total Path Attribute Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 75 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 1. Introduction 80 BGP communities [RFC1997] are used by service providers for many 81 purposes, including tagging of customer, peer, and geographically 82 originated routes. Such tagging is typically used to control the 83 scope of redistribution of routes within a providers network, and to 84 its customers and peers. Communities are also used for a wide 85 variety of other applications, such as allowing customers to set 86 attributes such as LOCAL_PREF [RFC1771] by sending appropriate 87 communities to their service provider. Other applications include 88 signaling various types of VPNs (e.g., VPLS [I-D.ietf-ppvpn-vpls- 89 requirements]), and carrying link bandwidth for traffic engineering 90 applications [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities]. 92 With the advent of large scale BGP data collection [RV][RIS] (and 93 associated research), it has become clear that the geographical and 94 topological information, as well as the relationship the provider has 95 to the source of a route (e.g., transit, peer, or customer), carried 96 in such communities is essential for a deeper understanding of the 97 global routing system. This memo defines standard communities for 98 export to BGP route collectors. These communities represent a 99 significant part of information carried by service providers as of 100 this writing, and as such could be useful for internal use by service 101 providers. However, such use is beyond the scope of this memo. 102 Finally, those involved in BGP data analysis are encouraged to verify 103 with their data sources as to which peers implement this scheme (as 104 there is a large amount of existing data as well as many legacy 105 peerings). 107 The remainder of this memo is organized as follows. Section 2 108 provides both the definition of terms used as well as the semantics 109 of the communities used for BGP data collection, and section 3 110 defines the corresponding encodings for RFC 1997 [RFC1997] 111 communities. Finally, section 4 defines the encodings for use with 112 extended communities [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities]. 114 2. Definitions 116 In this section, we define the terms used and the categories of 117 routes that may be tagged with communities. This tagging is often 118 refered to as coloring, and we refer to a route's "color" as its 119 community value. The categories defined here are loosely modeled on 120 those described in [WANG] and [HUSTON]. 122 2.1. Peers and Peering 124 Consider two network service providers, A and B. Service providers A 125 and B are defined to be peers when (i). A and B exchange routes via 126 BGP, and (ii). traffic exchange between A and B is settlement-free. 127 This arrangement is also typically known as "peering". Peers 128 typically exchange only their respective customer routes (see 129 "Customer Routes" below), and hence exchange only their respective 130 customer traffic. See [HUSTON] for a more in-depth discussion of the 131 business models surrounding peers and peering. 133 2.2. Customer Routes 135 Customer routes are those routes which are heard from a customer via 136 BGP and are propagated to peers and other customers. Note that a 137 customer can be an enterprise or another network service provider. 138 These routes are sometimes called client routes [HUSTON]. 140 2.3. Peer Routes 142 Peer routes are those routes heard from peers via BGP, and not 143 propagated to other peers. In particular, these routes are only 144 propagated to the service provider's customers. 146 2.4. Internal Routes 148 Internal routes are those routes that a service provider originates 149 and passes to its peers and customers. These routes are frequently 150 taken out of the address space allocated to a provider. 152 2.5. Internal More Specific Routes 154 Internal more-specific routes are those routes which are frequently 155 used for circuit load balancing purposes, IGP route reduction, and 156 also may correspond to customer services which are not visible 157 outside the service provider's network. Internal more specific 158 routes are not exported to any external peer. 160 2.6. Special Purpose Routes 162 Special purpose routes are those routes which do not fall into any of 163 the other classes described here. In those cases in which such 164 routes need to be distinguished, a service provider may color such 165 routes with a unique value. Examples of special purpose routes 166 include anycast routes, and routes for overlay networks. 168 2.7. Upstream Routes 170 Upstream routes are typically learned from upstream service provider 171 as part of a transit service contract executed with the upstream 172 provider. 174 2.8. National Routes 176 These are route sets that are sourced from and/or received within a 177 particular country. 179 2.9. Regional Routes 181 Several global backbones implement regional policy based on their 182 deployed footprint, and on strategic and business imperatives. 183 Service providers often have settlement-free interconnections with an 184 AS in one region, and that same AS is a customer in another region. 185 This mandates use of regional routing, including community attributes 186 set by the network in question to allow easy discrimination among 187 regional routes. For example, service providers may treat a route 188 set received from another service provider in Europe differently than 189 the same route set received in North America, as it is common 190 practice to sell transit in one region while peering in the other. 192 3. RFC 1997 Community Encoding and Values 194 In this section we provide RFC 1997 [RFC1997] community values for 195 the categories described above. RFC 1997 communities are encoded as 196 BGP Type Code 8, and are treated as 32 bit values ranging from 197 0x0000000 through 0xFFFFFFF. The values 0x0000000 through 0x0000FFFF 198 and 0xFFFF0000 through 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved. 200 The best current practice among service providers is to use the high 201 order two octets to represent the provider's AS number, and the low 202 order two octets to represent the classification of the route, as 203 depicted below: 205 0 1 2 3 206 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 1 207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 208 | | | 209 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 where is the 16 bit AS number. For example, the encoding 212 0x2A7C029A would represent the AS 10876 with value 666. 214 4. Community Values for BGP Data Collection 216 In this section we define the RFC 1997 community encoding for the 217 route types described above for use in BGP data collection. It is 218 anticipated that a service provider's internal community values will 219 be converted to these standard values for output to a route 220 collector. 222 This memo follows the best current practice of using the basic format 223 :. The values for the route categories are described in 224 the following table: 226 Category Value 227 =============================================================== 228 Reserved :0000000000000000 229 Customer Routes :0000000000000001 230 Peer Routes :0000000000000010 231 Internal Routes :0000000000000011 232 Internal More Specific Routes :0000000000000100 233 Special Purpose Routes :0000000000000101 234 Upstream Routes :0000000000000110 235 Reserved :0000000000000111- 236 :0000011111111111 237 National and Regional Routes :0000100000000000- 238 :1111111111111111 239 Encoded as : 240 Reserved National and Regional values :0100000000000000- 241 :1111111111111111 242 Where 244 is the 16-bit AS 245 is the 5-bit Region Identifier 246 is the 1-bit satellite link indication 247 X = 1 for satellite links, 0 otherwise 248 is the 10-bit ISO-3166-2 country code [ISO3166] 250 and takes the values: 252 Africa (AF) 00001 253 Oceania (OC) 00010 254 Asia (AS) 00011 255 Antarctica (AQ) 00100 256 Europe (EU) 00101 257 Latin America/Caribbean Islands (LAC) 00110 258 North America (NA) 00111 259 Reserved 01000-11111 261 Figure 2: Initially Assigned Community Values 263 That is: 265 0 1 2 3 266 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 1 267 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 268 | | |X| | 269 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 271 For example, the encoding for a national route over a terrestrial 272 link in AS 10876 from the Fiji Islands would be: 274 = 10876 = 0x2A7C 275 = 00010 276 = 0 277 = Fiji Islands Country Code = 242 = 0011110010 279 In this case, the low order 16 bits are 0001000011110010 = 0x10F2 281 0 1 2 3 282 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 1 283 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 284 | 0x2A7C | 0x10F2 | 285 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 287 Note that a configuration language might allow the specification of 288 this community as 10876:4338 (0x10F2 == 4338 decimal). 290 Finally, note that these categories are not intended to be mutually 291 exclusive, and multiple communities can be attached where 292 appropriate. 294 4.1. Extended Communities 296 In some cases, the values and their encodings described in Section 4 297 may clash with a service provider's existing community assignments. 298 Extended communities [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities] provide a 299 convenient mechanism that can be used to avoid such clashes. 301 The Extended Communities Attribute is a transitive optional BGP 302 attribute with the Type Code 16, and consists of a set of extended 303 communities of the following format: 305 0 1 2 3 306 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 1 307 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 308 | Type high | Type low(*) | | 309 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Value | 310 | | 311 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 313 For purposes of BGP data collection, we encode the communities 314 described in Section 4 using the two-octet AS specific extended 315 community type, which has the following format: 317 0 1 2 3 318 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 1 319 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 320 | 0x00 | Sub-Type | Global Administrator | 321 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 322 | Local Administrator | 323 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 325 The two-octet AS specific extended community attribute encodes the 326 service provider's two octet Autonomous System number (as assigned by 327 a Regional Internet Registry, or RIR) in the Global Administrator 328 field, and the Local Administrator field may encode any information. 330 This memo assigns Sub-Type 0x0008 for BGP data collection, and 331 specifies that the field, as defined in section 3.1, is 332 carried in the low order octets of the Local Administrator field. 333 The two high order octets of the Local Administrator field are 334 reserved, and are set to 0x00 when sending and ignored upon receipt. 336 For example, the extended community encoding for 10876:4338 337 (representing a terrestrial national route in AS 10876 from the Fiji 338 Islands) would be: 340 0 1 2 3 341 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 1 342 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 343 | 0x00 | 0x0008 | 0x2A7C | 344 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 345 | 0x00 | 0x00 | 0x10F2 | 346 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 348 4.2. Four-octet AS specific extended communities 350 The four-octet AS specific extended community is encoded as follows: 352 0 1 2 3 353 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 1 354 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 355 | 0x02 | 0x0008 | Global Administrator | 356 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 357 | Global Administrator (cont.) | 0x10F2 | 358 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 360 In this case, the 4 octet Global Administrator sub-field contains a 361 4-octets Autonomous System number assigned by the IANA. 363 5. Note on BGP UPDATE Packing 365 Note that data collection communities have the potential of making 366 the attribute set of a specific route more unique than it would be 367 otherwise (since each route collects data that is specific to it's 368 path inside one or more ASes). This, in turn, can affect whether 369 multiple routes can be grouped in the same BGP update message, and 370 may lead to increased use of bandwidth, router CPU cycles, and 371 memory. 373 6. Acknowledgments 375 The community encoding described in this memo germinated from an 376 interesting suggestion from Akira Kato at WIDE. In particular, the 377 idea would be to use the collection community values to select paths 378 that would result in (hopefully) more efficient access to various 379 services. For example, in the case of RFC 3258 [RFC3258] based DNS 380 anycast service, BGP routers may see multiple paths to the same 381 prefix, and others might be coming from the same origin with 382 different paths, but others might be from different region/country 383 (with the same origin AS). 385 Joe Abley, Randy Bush, Sean Donelan, Xenofontas Dimitropoulos, Vijay 386 Gill, John Heasley, Geoff Huston, Steve Huter, Michael Patton, 387 Olivier Marce, Ryan McDowell, Rob Rockell, Rob Thomas, Pekka Savola, 388 Patrick Verkaik and Alex Zinin all made many insightful comments on 389 early versions of this draft. Henk Uijterwaal suggested the use of 390 the ISO-3166-2 country codes. 392 7. Security Considerations 394 While this memo introduces no additional security considerations into 395 the BGP protocol, the information contained in the communities 396 defined in this memo may in some cases reveal network structure that 397 was not previously visible outside the provider's network. As a 398 result, care should be taken when exporting such communities to route 399 collectors. Finally, routes exported to a route collector should 400 also be tagged with the NO_EXPORT community (0xFFFFFF01). 402 7.1. Total Path Attribute Length 404 The communities described in this memo are intended for use on egress 405 to a route collector. Hence an operator may choose to overwrite its 406 internal communities with the values specified in this memo when 407 exporting routes to a route collector. However, operators should in 408 general ensure that the behavior of their BGP implementation is well- 409 defined when the addition of an attribute causes a PDU to exceed 4096 410 octets. For example, since it is common practice to use community 411 attributes to implement policy (among other functionality such as 412 allowing customers to set attributes such as LOCAL_PREF), the 413 behavior of an implementation when the attribute space overflows is 414 crucial. Among other behaviors, an implementation might usurp the 415 intended attribute data or otherwise cause indeterminate failures. 416 These behaviors can result in unanticipated community attribute sets, 417 and hence result in unintended policy implications. 419 8. IANA Considerations 421 This memo assigns a new Sub-Type for the AS specific extended 422 community type in the First Come First Served extended transitive 423 category. In particular, the IANA should assign Sub-type 0x0008 as 424 defined in Section 4.1. 426 In addition, this memo instructs the IANA to create two registries 427 for BGP Data Collection Communities, one for standard communities and 428 one for extended communities. Both of these registries should 429 initially be populated by the values described in Section 4. IETF 430 Consensus, usually through the Global Routing Operations Working 431 Group (grow) is required for the assignment of new values in these 432 registries (in particular, for or ), as described in 433 Figure 2 [RFC2434]. 435 9. References 437 9.1. Normative References 439 [RFC1771] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 440 (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995. 442 [RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP 443 Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996. 445 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 446 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 447 October 1998. 449 [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities] 450 Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended 451 Communities Attribute", 452 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-communities-07 (work in progress), 453 March 2004. 455 [ISO3166] "ISO 3166 Maintenance agency (ISO 3166/MA)", Web Page: 456 http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/ 457 index.html, 2004. 459 9.2. Informative References 461 [I-D.ietf-ppvpn-vpls-requirements] 462 Augustyn, W., "Requirements for Virtual Private LAN 463 Services (VPLS)", draft-ietf-ppvpn-vpls-requirements-00 464 (work in progress), March 2002. 466 [RIS] "The RIPE Routing Information Service", Web 467 Page: http://www.ripe.net/ris, 2004. 469 [RV] Meyer, D., "The Routeviews Project", Web 470 Page: http://www.routeviews.org, 2002. 472 [WANG] Wang, F. and L. Gao, "Inferring and Characterizing 473 Internet Routing Policies", ACM SIGCOMM Internet 474 Measurement Conference, 2003. 476 [HUSTON] Huston, G., "Interconnection, Peering, and Settlements", 477 Web 478 Page: http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/1e/1e_1.htm, 479 2003. 481 Author's Address 483 David Meyer 485 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 487 Intellectual Property Statement 489 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 490 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 491 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 492 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 493 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 494 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 495 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 496 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 498 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 499 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 500 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 501 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 502 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 503 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 505 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 506 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 507 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 508 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 509 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 511 Disclaimer of Validity 513 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 514 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 515 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 516 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 517 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 518 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 519 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 521 Copyright Statement 523 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 524 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 525 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 527 Acknowledgment 529 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 530 Internet Society.