idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mpls-in-ip-or-gre-04.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == 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 an Introduction section. ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 435 has weird spacing: '...or work on en...' == Line 437 has weird spacing: '...or work on en...' -- 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 (January 2004) is 7406 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: 'RFC2460' is mentioned on line 137, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) == Unused Reference: 'RFC792' is defined on line 449, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2463' is defined on line 460, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2401' is defined on line 478, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2402' is defined on line 481, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2406' is defined on line 484, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2475' is defined on line 490, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3260' is defined on line 499, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1981 (Obsoleted by RFC 8201) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2463 (Obsoleted by RFC 4443) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2401 (Obsoleted by RFC 4301) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2402 (Obsoleted by RFC 4302, RFC 4305) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2406 (Obsoleted by RFC 4303, RFC 4305) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2409 (Obsoleted by RFC 4306) Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Tom Worster 3 Internet Draft 4 Expiration Date: July 2004 5 Yakov Rekhter 6 Juniper Networks, Inc. 8 Eric C. Rosen, editor 9 Cisco Systems, Inc. 11 January 2004 13 Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) 15 draft-ietf-mpls-in-ip-or-gre-04.txt 17 Status of this Memo 19 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 20 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 24 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 Abstract 39 Various applications of MPLS make use of label stacks with multiple 40 entries. In some cases, it is possible to replace the top label of 41 the stack with an IP-based encapsulation, thereby enabling the 42 application to run over networks which do not have MPLS enabled in 43 their core routers. This draft specifies two IP-based 44 encapsulations, MPLS-in-IP, and MPLS-in-GRE (Generic Routing 45 Encapsulation). Each of these is applicable in some circumstances. 47 Table of Contents 49 1 Specification of Requirements .......................... 2 50 2 Motivation ............................................. 2 51 3 Encapsulation in IP .................................... 3 52 4 Encapsulation in GRE ................................... 5 53 5 Common Procedures ...................................... 6 54 5.1 Preventing Fragmentation and Reassembly ................ 6 55 5.2 TTL or Hop Limit ....................................... 7 56 5.3 Differentiated Services ................................ 7 57 6 Applicability .......................................... 8 58 7 IANA Considerations .................................... 8 59 8 Security Considerations ................................ 9 60 8.1 Securing the Tunnel Using IPsec ........................ 9 61 8.2 In the Absence of IPsec ................................ 10 62 9 Acknowledgments ........................................ 11 63 10 Normative References ................................... 11 64 11 Informative References ................................. 12 65 12 Author Information ..................................... 12 66 13 Intellectual Property Notice ........................... 13 67 14 Copyright Notice ....................................... 13 69 1. Specification of Requirements 71 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 72 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 73 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. 75 2. Motivation 77 In many applications of MPLS, packets traversing an MPLS backbone 78 carry label stacks with more than one label. As described in section 79 3.15 of [RFC3031], each label represents a Label Switched Path (LSP). 80 For each such LSP, there is a Label Switching Router (LSR) which is 81 the "LSP Ingress", and an LSR which is the "LSP Egress". If LSRs A 82 and B are the Ingress and Egress, respectively, of the LSP 83 corresponding to a packet's top label, then A and B are adjacent LSRs 84 on the LSP corresponding to the packet's second label (i.e., the 85 label immediately beneath the top label) 86 The purpose (or one of the purposes) of the top label is to get the 87 packet delivered from A to B, so that B can further process the 88 packet based on the second label. In this sense, the top label 89 serves as an encapsulation header for the rest of the packet. In 90 some cases the top label can be replaced, without loss of 91 functionality, by other sorts of encapsulation headers. For example, 92 the top label could be replaced by an IP header or a Generic Routing 93 Encapsulation (GRE) header. As the encapsulated packet would still 94 be an MPLS packet, the result is an MPLS-in-IP or MPLS-in-GRE 95 encapsulation. 97 With these encapsulations, it is possible for two LSRs that are 98 adjacent on an LSP to be separated by an IP network, even if that IP 99 network does not provide MPLS. 101 In order to use either of these encapsulations, the encapsulating LSR 102 must know: 104 - the IP address of the decapsulating LSR, and 106 - that the decapsulating LSR actually supports the particular 107 encapsulation. 109 This knowledge may be conveyed to the encapsulating LSR by manual 110 configuration, or by means of some discovery protocol. In 111 particular, if the tunnel is being used to support a particular 112 application, and that application has a setup or discovery protocol, 113 then this knowledge may be conveyed by the application's protocol. 114 The means of conveying this knowledge is outside the scope of the 115 current document. 117 3. Encapsulation in IP 119 MPLS-in-IP messages have the following format: 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 122 | | 123 | IP Header | 124 | | 125 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 126 | | 127 | MPLS Label Stack | 128 | | 129 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 130 | | 131 | Message Body | 132 | | 133 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 135 IP Header 136 This field contains an IPv4 or an IPv6 datagram header 137 as defined in [RFC791] or [RFC2460] respectively. The 138 source and destination addresses are set to addresses 139 of the encapsulating and decapsulating LSRs respectively. 141 MPLS Label Stack 142 This field contains an MPLS Label Stack as defined in 143 [RFC3032]. 145 Message Body 146 This field contains one MPLS message body. 148 The IPv4 Protocol Number field or the IPv6 Next Header field is set 149 to [value to be assigned by IANA], indicating an MPLS unicast packet. 150 (The use of the MPLS-in-IP encapsulation for MPLS multicast packets 151 is not supported by this specification.) 153 Following the IP header is an MPLS packet, as specified in [RFC3032]. 154 This encapsulation causes MPLS packets to be sent through "IP 155 tunnels". When a packet is received by the tunnel's receive 156 endpoint, the receive endpoint decapsulates the MPLS packet by 157 removing the IP header. The packet is then processed as a received 158 MPLS packet whose "incoming label" [RFC3031] is the topmost label of 159 the decapsulated packet. 161 4. Encapsulation in GRE 163 The MPLS-in-GRE encapsulation encapsulates an MPLS packet in GRE 164 [RFC2784]. The packet then consists of an IP header (either IPv4 or 165 IPv6) followed by a GRE header followed by an MPLS label stack as 166 specified in [RFC3032]. The protocol type field in the GRE header 167 MUST be set to the Ethertype value for MPLS Unicast (0x8847) or 168 Multicast (0x8848). 170 This encapsulation causes MPLS packets to be sent through "GRE 171 tunnels". When a packet is received by the tunnel's receive endpoint, 172 the receive endpoint decapsulates the MPLS packet by removing the IP 173 header and the GRE header. The packet is then processed as a 174 received MPLS packet whose "incoming label" [RFC3031] is the topmost 175 label of the decapsulated packet. 177 [RFC2784] specifies an optional GRE checksum, and [RFC2890] specifies 178 optional GRE key, and sequence number fields. These optional fields 179 are not very useful for the MPLS-in-GRE encapsulation. The sequence 180 number and checksum fields are not needed, as there are no 181 corresponding fields in the native MPLS packets that are being 182 tunneled. The GRE key field is not needed for demultiplexing, as the 183 top MPLS label of the encapsulated packet is used for that purpose. 184 The GRE key field is sometimes considered to be a security feature, 185 functioning as a 32-bit cleartext password, but this is an extremely 186 weak form of security. In order to (a) facilitate high speed 187 implementations of the encapsulation/decapsulation procedures, and 188 (b) ensure interoperability, we require that all implementations be 189 able to operate correctly without these optional fields. 191 More precisely, an implementation of an MPLS-in-GRE decapsulator MUST 192 be able to correctly process packets without these optional fields. 193 It MAY be able to correctly process packets with these optional 194 fields. 196 An implementation of an MPLS-in-GRE encapsulator MUST be able to 197 generate packets without these optional fields. It MAY have the 198 capability to generate packets with these fields, but the default 199 state MUST be that packets are generated without these fields. The 200 encapsulator MUST NOT include any of these optional fields unless it 201 is known that the decapsulator can process them correctly. Methods 202 for conveying this knowledge are outside the scope of this 203 specification. 205 5. Common Procedures 207 Certain procedures are common to both the MPLS-in-IP and the MPLS- 208 in-GRE encapsulations. In the following, the encapsulator, whose 209 address appears in the IP source address field of the encapsulating 210 IP header, is known as the "tunnel head". The decapsulator, whose 211 address appears in the IP destination address field of the 212 decapsulating IP header, is known as the "tunnel tail". 214 In the case where IPv6 is being used (for either MPLS-in-IPv6 or 215 MPLS-in-GRE-in-IPv6), the procedures of [RFC2473] are generally 216 applicable. However, in the next section, this specification does 217 establish an optional modification of those procedures with regard to 218 fragmentation. 220 5.1. Preventing Fragmentation and Reassembly 222 If an MPLS-in-IP or MPLS-in-GRE packet were to get fragmented (due to 223 "ordinary" IP fragmentation), it would have to be be reassembled by 224 the tunnel tail before the contained MPLS packet could be 225 decapsulated. When the tunnel tail is a router, this is likely to be 226 undesirable; the tunnel tail may not have the ability or the 227 resources to perform reassembly at the necessary level of 228 performance. 230 Whether fragmentation of the tunneled packets is allowed MUST be 231 configurable at the tunnel head. The default value MUST be that 232 packets are not to be fragmented. The default value would only be 233 changed if it were known that the tunnel tail could perform the 234 reassembly function adequately. 236 THE PROCEDURES SPECIFIED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS SECTION ONLY APPLY 237 IN THE CASE WHERE PACKETS ARE NOT TO BE FRAGMENTED. 239 Obviously, if packets are not to be fragmented, the tunnel head MUST 240 NOT fragment a packet before encapsulating it. If IPv6 is being 241 used, this requirement is a modification of [RFC2473]. 243 If IPv4 is being used, then the tunnel MUST set the DF bit. This 244 prevents intermediate nodes in the tunnel from performing 245 fragmentation. (If IPv6 is being used, intermediate nodes do not 246 perform fragmentation in any event.) 248 The tunnel head SHOULD perform Path MTU Discovery ([RFC1191] for 249 IPv4, or [RFC1981] for IPv6). 251 The tunnel head MUST maintain a "Tunnel MTU" for each tunnel; this is 252 the minimum of (a) an administratively configured value, and, if 253 known, (b) the discovered Path MTU value minus the encapsulation 254 overhead. 256 If the tunnel head receives, for encapsulation, an MPLS packet whose 257 size exceeds the Tunnel MTU, that packet MUST be discarded. 259 In some cases, the tunnel head receives, for encapsulation, an IP 260 packet, which it first encapsulates in MPLS and then encapsulates in 261 MPLS-in-IP or MPLS-in-GRE. If the source of the IP packet is 262 reachable from the tunnel head, and if the result of encapsulating 263 the packet in MPLS would be a packet whose size exceeds the Tunnel 264 MTU, then the value which the tunnel head SHOULD use for the purposes 265 of fragmentation and PMTU discovery outside the tunnel is the Tunnel 266 MTU value minus the size of the MPLS encapsulation. (That is, the 267 Tunnel MTU value minus the size of the MPLS encapsulation is the MTU 268 that needs to get reported in ICMP messages.) The packet will have 269 to be discarded but the tunnel head should send the IP source of the 270 discarded packet the proper ICMP error message as specified in 271 [RFC1191] or [RFC1981]. 273 5.2. TTL or Hop Limit 275 The tunnel head MAY place the TTL from the MPLS label stack into the 276 TTL field of the encapsulating IPv4 header or the Hop Limit field of 277 the encapsulating IPv6 header. The tunnel tail MAY place the TTL 278 from the encapsulating IPv4 header or the Hop Limit form the 279 encapsulating IPv6 header into the TTL field of the MPLS header, but 280 only if that does not cause the TTL value in the MPLS header to 281 become larger. 283 Whether such modifications are made, and the details of how they are 284 made, will depend on the configuration of the tunnel tail and the 285 tunnel head. 287 5.3. Differentiated Services 289 The procedures specified in this document enable an LSP to be sent 290 through an IP or GRE tunnel. [RFC2983] details a number of 291 considerations and procedures which need to be applied to properly 292 support the Differentiated Services Architecture in the presence of 293 IP-in-IP tunnels. These considerations and procedures also apply in 294 the presence of MPLS-in-IP or MPLS-in-GRE tunnels. 296 Accordingly, when a tunnel head is about to send an MPLS packet into 297 an MPLS-in-IP or MPLS-in-GRE tunnel, the setting of the DS field of 298 the encapsulating IPv4 or IPv6 header MAY be determined (at least 299 partially) by the "Behavior Aggregate" of the MPLS packet. Procedures 300 for determining the Behavior Aggregate of an MPLS packet are 301 specified in [RFC3270]. 303 Similarly, at the tunnel tail, the DS field of the encapsulating IPv4 304 or IPv6 header MAY be used to determine the Behavior Aggregate of the 305 encapsulated MPLS packet. [RFC3270] specifies the relation between 306 the Behavior Aggregate and the subsequent disposition of the packet. 308 6. Applicability 310 The MPLS-in-IP encapsulation is the more efficient, and would 311 generally be regarded as preferable, other things being equal. There 312 are however some situations in which the MPLS-in-GRE encapsulation 313 may be used: 315 - Two routers are "adjacent" over a GRE tunnel that exists for some 316 reason that is outside the scope of this document, and those two 317 routers need to send MPLS packets over that adjacency. As all 318 packets sent over this adjacency must have a GRE encapsulation, 319 the MPLS-in-GRE encapsulation is more efficient than the 320 alternative, which would be an MPLS-in-IP encapsulation which is 321 then encapsulated in GRE. 323 - Implementation considerations may dictate the use of MPLS-in-GRE. 324 For example, some hardware device might only be able to handle 325 GRE encapsulations in its fastpath. 327 7. IANA Considerations 329 The MPLS-in-IP encapsulation requires that IANA allocate an IP 330 Protocol Number, as described in section 3. No future IANA actions 331 will be required. The MPLS-in-GRE encapsulation does not require any 332 IANA action. 334 8. Security Considerations 336 The main security problem faced when using IP or GRE tunnels is the 337 possibility that the tunnel's receive endpoint will get a packet 338 which appears to be from the tunnel, but which was not actually put 339 into the tunnel by the tunnel's transmit endpoint. (I.e., the 340 specified encapsulations do not by themselves enable the decapsulator 341 to authenticate the encapsulator.) A second problem is the 342 possibility that the packet will be altered between the time it 343 enters the tunnel and the time it leaves the tunnel. (I.e., the 344 specified encapsulations do not by themselves assure the decapsulator 345 of the packet's integrity.) A third problem is the possibility that 346 the packet's contents will be seen while the packet is in transit 347 through the tunnel. (I.e., the specification encapsulations do not 348 ensure privacy.) How significant these issues are in practice depends 349 on the security requirements of the applications whose traffic is 350 being sent through the tunnel. E.g., lack of privacy for tunneled 351 packets is not a significant issue if the applications generating the 352 packets do not require privacy. 354 8.1. Securing the Tunnel Using IPsec 356 All of these security issues can be avoided if the MPLS-in-IP or 357 MPLS-in-GRE tunnels are secured using IPsec. 359 When using IPsec, the tunnel head and the tunnel tail should be 360 treated as the endpoints of a Security Association. For this 361 purpose, a single IP address of the tunnel head will be used as the 362 source IP address, and a single IP address of the tunnel tail will be 363 used as the destination IP address. The means by which each node 364 knows the proper address of the other is outside the scope of this 365 document. If a control protocol is used to set up the tunnels (e.g., 366 to inform one tunnel endpoint of the IP address of the other), the 367 control protocol MUST have an authentication mechanism, and this MUST 368 be used when setting up the tunnel. If the tunnel is set up 369 automatically as the result, e.g., of information distributed by BGP, 370 then the use of BGP's MD5-based authentication mechanism is 371 satisfactory. 373 The MPLS-in-IP or MPLS-in-GRE encapsulated packets should be 374 considered as originating at the tunnel head and as being destined 375 for the tunnel tail; IPsec transport mode SHOULD thus be used. 377 An IPsec-secured MPLS-in-IP or MPLS-in-GRE tunnel MUST provide 378 authentication and integrity. (Note that the authentication and 379 integrity will apply to the entire MPLS packet, including the MPLS 380 label stack.) Whether additional security, i.e., confidentiality 381 and/or replay protection, is required will depend upon the needs of 382 the applications whose data is being sent through the tunnel. If 383 confidentiality is not needed, then either the AH or the ESP 384 protocols MAY be used. If confidentiality is needed, the ESP 385 protocol MUST be used, and the payload must be encrypted. If ESP is 386 used, the tunnel tail MUST check that the source IP address of any 387 packet that is received on a given SA is the one that is expected. 389 Key distribution may be done either manually, or automatically by 390 means of IKE [RFC2409]. Manual key distribution is much simpler, but 391 also less scalable, than automatic key distribution. Which method of 392 key distribution is appropriate for a particular tunnel thus needs to 393 be carefully considered by the administrator (or pair of 394 administrators) responsible for the tunnel endpoints. If replay 395 protection is regarded as necessary for a particular tunnel, 396 automatic key distribution MUST be used. 398 If the MPLS-in-IP encapsulation is being used, the selectors 399 associated with the SA would be the source and destination addresses 400 mentioned above, plus the IP protocol number specified in section 3. 401 If it is desired to separately secure multiple MPLS-in-IP tunnels 402 between a given pair of nodes, each tunnel must have unique pair of 403 IP addresses. 405 If the MPLS-in-GRE encapsulation is being used, the selectors 406 associated with the SA would be the the source and destination 407 addresses mentioned above, and the IP protocol number representing 408 GRE (47). If it is desired to separately secure multiple MPLS-in-GRE 409 tunnels between a given pair of nodes, each tunnel must have unique 410 pair of IP addresses. 412 8.2. In the Absence of IPsec 414 If the tunnels are not secured using IPsec, then some other method 415 should be used to ensure that packets are decapsulated and forwarded 416 by the tunnel tail only if those packets were encapsulated by the 417 tunnel head. If the tunnel lies entirely within a single 418 administrative domain, address filtering at the boundaries can be 419 used to ensure that packets with the IP source and/or destination 420 address of a tunnel endpoint cannot enter the domain from outside. 422 However, when the tunnel head and the tunnel tail are not in the same 423 administrative domain, this may become difficult, and it can even 424 become impossible if the packets must traverse the public Internet. 426 This document does not require that the decapsulator validate the IP 427 source address of the tunneled packets; failure to do so may enhance 428 performance, and performing this validation does not protect against 429 packets that have spoofed source addresses (though it does protect 430 against packets which do not have spoofed source addresses and were 431 not really sent by a remote tunnel endpoint.) 433 9. Acknowledgments 435 This specification combines prior work on encapsulating MPLS in IP, 436 by Tom Worster, Paul Doolan, Yasuhiro Katsube, Tom K. Johnson, Andrew 437 G. Malis, and Rick Wilder, with prior work on encapsulating MPLS in 438 GRE, by Yakov Rekhter, Daniel Tappan, and Eric Rosen. The current 439 authors wish to thank all these authors for their contribution. 441 Many people have made valuable comments and corrections, including 442 Scott Bradner, Alex Conta, Mark Duffy, Francois Le Feucheur, Allison 443 Mankin, Thomas Narten, and Pekka Savola. 445 10. Normative References 447 [RFC791] "Internet Protocol," J. Postel, Sep 1981 449 [RFC792] "Internet Control Message Protocol", J. Postel, Sept 1981 451 [RFC1191] "Path MTU Discovery", J.C. Mogul, S.E. Deering, November 452 1990 454 [RFC1981] "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", J. McCann, S. 455 Deering, J. Mogul, August 1996 457 [RFC2460]"Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification," S. 458 Deering and R. Hinden, RFC 2460,Dec 1998 460 [RFC2463] "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the 461 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", A. Conta, S. 462 Deering, December 1998 464 [RFC2473] "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification", A. Conta, 465 S. Deering, December 1998 467 [RFC2784] "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", D. Farinacci, T. Li, 468 S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina, March 2000 470 [RFC3031] "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", E. Rosen, A. 471 Viswanathan, R. Callon, January 2001 473 [RFC3032] "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", E. Rosen, D. Tappan, G. 474 Fedorkow, Y. Rekhter, D. Farinacci, T. Li, A. Conta. January 2001 476 11. Informative References 478 [RFC2401] "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", S. Kent, 479 R. Atkinson, November 1998 481 [RFC2402] "IP Authentication Header", S. Kent, R. Atkinson, November 482 1998 484 [RFC2406] "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", S. Kent 485 R.Atkinson, November 1998 487 [RFC2409] "The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)", D. Harkins, D. Carrel, 488 November 1998 490 [RFC2475] "An Architecture for Differentiated Service", S. Blake, D. 491 Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, W. Weiss. December 1998 493 [RFC2890] "Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE", G. Dommety, 494 August 2000 496 [RFC2983] "Differentiated Services and Tunnels", D. Black. October 497 2000 499 [RFC3260] "New Terminology and Clarifications for Diffserv", D. 500 Grossman, April 2002 502 [RFC3270] "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of 503 Differentiated Services", F. Le Faucheur, L. Wu, B. Davie, S. Davari, 504 P. Vaananen, R. Krishnan, P. Cheval, J. Heinanen. May 2002 506 12. Author Information 508 Tom Worster 509 Email: fsb@thefsb.org 511 Yakov Rekhter 512 Juniper Networks, Inc. 513 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 514 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 515 Email: yakov@juniper.net 516 Eric Rosen 517 Cisco Systems, Inc. 518 1414 Massachusetts Avenue 519 Boxborough, MA 01719 520 Email: erosen@cisco.com 522 13. Intellectual Property Notice 524 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 525 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 526 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 527 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 528 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 529 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 530 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 531 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 532 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 533 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 534 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 535 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 536 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 538 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 539 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 540 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 541 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 542 Director. 544 14. Copyright Notice 546 "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 548 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 549 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 550 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 551 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 552 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 553 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 554 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 555 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 556 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 557 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 558 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 559 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 560 English. 562 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 563 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 565 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 566 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 567 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 568 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 569 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 570 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."