draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-05.txt   draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-06.txt 
6man Working Group A. Matsumoto 6man Working Group A. Matsumoto
Internet-Draft T. Fujisaki Internet-Draft T. Fujisaki
Intended status: Standards Track NTT Intended status: Standards Track NTT
Expires: February 24, 2013 T. Chown Expires: March 25, 2013 T. Chown
University of Southampton University of Southampton
August 23, 2012 September 21, 2012
Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6 Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6
draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-05.txt draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-06.txt
Abstract Abstract
RFC 3484 defines default address selection mechanisms for IPv6 that RFC 6724 defines default address selection mechanisms for IPv6 that
allow nodes to select appropriate address when faced with multiple allow nodes to select appropriate address when faced with multiple
source and/or destination addresses to choose between. The RFC 3484 source and/or destination addresses to choose between. The RFC 6724
allowed for the future definition of methods to administratively allowed for the future definition of methods to administratively
configure the address selection policy information. This document configure the address selection policy information. This document
defines a new DHCPv6 option for such configuration, allowing a site defines a new DHCPv6 option for such configuration, allowing a site
administrator to distribute address selection policy overriding the administrator to distribute address selection policy overriding the
default address selection parameters and policy table, and thus default address selection parameters and policy table, and thus
control the address selection behavior of nodes in their site. control the address selection behavior of nodes in their site.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 February 24, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 25, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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 2, line 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RFC 3484 [RFC3484] describes default algorithms for selecting an RFC 3484 [RFC3484] describes default algorithms for selecting an
address when a node has multiple destination and/or source addresses address when a node has multiple destination and/or source addresses
to choose from by using an address selection policy. In Section 2 of to choose from by using an address selection policy. In Section 2 of
RFC 3484, it is suggested that the default policy table may be RFC 6724, it is suggested that the default policy table may be
administratively configured to suit the specific needs of a site. administratively configured to suit the specific needs of a site.
This specification defines a new DHCPv6 option for such This specification defines a new DHCPv6 option for such
configuration. configuration.
Some problems have been identified with the default RFC 3484 address Some problems have been identified with the default RFC 3484 address
selection policy [RFC5220]. It is unlikely that any default policy selection policy [RFC5220]. It is unlikely that any default policy
will suit all scenarios, and thus mechanisms to control the source will suit all scenarios, and thus mechanisms to control the source
address selection policy will be necessary. Requirements for those address selection policy will be necessary. Requirements for those
mechanisms are described in [RFC5221], while solutions are discussed mechanisms are described in [RFC5221], while solutions are discussed
in [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-sol] and in [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-sol] and
[I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations]. Those documents have [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations]. Those documents have
helped shape the improvements in the default address selection helped shape the improvements in the default address selection
algorithm [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484bis] as well as the DHCPv6 option algorithm [RFC6724] as well as the DHCPv6 option defined in this
defined in this specification. specification.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.2. Terminology 1.2. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC2460] and the This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC2460] and the
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 3, line 44
option-code: OPTION_ADDRSEL (TBD). option-code: OPTION_ADDRSEL (TBD).
option-len: The total length of the Reserved field, A, P flags, and option-len: The total length of the Reserved field, A, P flags, and
POLICY TABLE OPITONS in octets. POLICY TABLE OPITONS in octets.
Reserved: Reserved field. Server MUST set this value to zero and Reserved: Reserved field. Server MUST set this value to zero and
client MUST ignore its content. client MUST ignore its content.
A: Automatic Row Addition flag. This flag toggles the Automatic A: Automatic Row Addition flag. This flag toggles the Automatic
Row Addition flag at client hosts, which is described in the Row Addition flag at client hosts, which is described in the
section 2.1 in RFC 3484 revision [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484bis]. If section 2.1 in RFC 6724 [RFC6724]. If this flag is set to 1, it
this flag is set to 1, it does not change client host behavior, does not change client host behavior, that is, a client MAY
that is, a client MAY automatically add additional site-specific automatically add additional site-specific rows to the policy
rows to the policy table. If set to 0, the Automatic Row table. If set to 0, the Automatic Row Addition flag is
Addition flag is disabled, and a client MAY NOT automatically disabled, and a client MAY NOT automatically add rows to the
add rows to the policy table. policy table.
P: Privacy Preference flag. This flag toggles the Privacy P: Privacy Preference flag. This flag toggles the Privacy
Preference flag at client hosts, which is described in the Preference flag at client hosts, which is described in the
section 5 in RFC 3484 revision [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484bis]. If section 5 in RFC 6724 [RFC6724]. If this flag is set to 1, it
this flag is set to 1, it does not change client host behavior, does not change client host behavior, that is, a client SHOULD
that is, a client SHOULD prefer temporary addresses. If set to prefer temporary addresses. If set to 0, the Privacy Preference
0, the Privacy Preference flag is disabled, and a client SHOULD flag is disabled, and a client SHOULD prefer public addresses.
prefer public addresses.
POLICY TABLE OPTIONS: Zero or more Address Selection Policy Table POLICY TABLE OPTIONS: Zero or more Address Selection Policy Table
options described below. options described below.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_ADDRSEL_TABLE | option-len | | OPTION_ADDRSEL_TABLE | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| label | precedence | prefix-len | | | label | precedence | prefix-len | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | | |
| prefix (variable length) | | prefix (variable length) |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Prefix Specific options .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Address Selection Policy Table option format Figure 2: Address Selection Policy Table option format
option-code: OPTION_ADDRSEL_TABLE (TBD). option-code: OPTION_ADDRSEL_TABLE (TBD).
option-len: The total length of the label field, precedence field, option-len: The total length of the label field, precedence field,
prefix-len field, prefix field, and DASP options field in prefix-len field, and prefix field.
octets.
label: An 8-bit unsigned integer; this value is used to make a label: An 8-bit unsigned integer; this value is for correlation of
combination of source address prefixes and destination address source address prefixes and destination address prefixes.
prefixes.
precedence: An 8-bit unsigned integer; this value is used for precedence: An 8-bit unsigned integer; this value is used for
sorting destination addresses. sorting destination addresses.
prefix-len: An 8-bit unsigned integer; the number of leading bits in prefix-len: An 8-bit unsigned integer; the number of leading bits in
the prefix that are valid. The value ranges from 0 to 128. the prefix that are valid. The value ranges from 0 to 128.
prefix: A variable-length field containing an IP address or the prefix: A variable-length field containing an IP address or the
prefix of an IP address. An IPv4-mapped address [RFC4291] must prefix of an IP address. An IPv4-mapped address [RFC4291] must
be used to represent an IPv4 address as a prefix value. The be used to represent an IPv4 address as a prefix value. The
Prefix should be truncated on the byte boundary. So the length prefix should be zero padded up to the next octet boundary. So
of this field should be between 0 and 16 bytes. the length of this field should be between 0 and 16 bytes.
Prefix Specific options: Options specific to this particular Address
Selection Policy option. This includes, but not limited to,
zero or one Zone Index option that specify the zone index of the
prefix in this option.
The format of the Zone Index option is given below.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_ADDRSEL_ZONE | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| zone-index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Zone Index option format
option-code: OPTION_ADDRSEL_ZONE (TBD).
option-len: 4.
zone-index: The zone-index field is an 32-bit unsigned integer, and
used to specify the zone for scoped addresses. The zone-index
is defined in RFC 3493 [RFC3493] as 'scope ID'.
3. Appearance of the Address Selection options 3. Appearance of the Address Selection options
The Address Selection options MUST NOT appear in any messages other The Address Selection options MUST NOT appear in any messages other
than the following ones: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Renew, Rebind, than the following ones: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Renew, Rebind,
Reconfigure, Information-Request, and Reply. Reconfigure, Information-Request, and Reply.
4. Processing the Policy Table option 4. Processing the Policy Table option
This section describes how to process received Policy Table option at This section describes how to process received Policy Table option at
the DHCPv6 client. the DHCPv6 client.
This option's concept is to serve as a hint for a node about how to This option's concept is to serve as a hint for a node about how to
behave in the network. So, basically, it should be up to the node's behave in the network. So, basically, it should be up to the node's
administrator how to deal with the received policy information in the administrator how to deal with the received policy information in the
way described below. way described below.
4.1. Handling of the local policy table 4.1. Handling of the local policy table
RFC 3484 defines the default policy table. Also, a user is usually RFC 6724 defines the default policy table. Also, a user is usually
able to configure the policy table to satisfy his requirement. able to configure the policy table to satisfy his requirement.
The client implementation SHOULD provide the following choices to the The client implementation SHOULD provide the following choices to the
user: user:
a) It receives distributed policy table, and replaces the existing a) It receives distributed policy table, and replaces the existing
policy tables with that. policy tables with that.
b) It preserves the default policy table, or manually configured b) It preserves the default policy table, or manually configured
policy. policy.
skipping to change at page 6, line 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 48
policy should be restored. policy should be restored.
The received information can be considered stale in several cases, The received information can be considered stale in several cases,
such as, when the interface goes down, the DHCP server does not such as, when the interface goes down, the DHCP server does not
respond for a certain amount of time, and the Information Refresh respond for a certain amount of time, and the Information Refresh
Time is expired. Time is expired.
4.3. Multi-interface situation 4.3. Multi-interface situation
The policy table, and other parameters specified in this document are The policy table, and other parameters specified in this document are
node-global information by its nature. So, the node cannot use node-global information by its nature. One of the reason is that the
multiple received policies at the same time. In other words, once outbound interface is usually chosen after destination address
the received policy from one source is merged with one from another selection. So, a host cannot make use of multiple address selection
source, the effect of both policy are more or less changed. The policy even if they are stored per interface.
policy table is defined as a whole, so the slightest addition/
Even if the received policy from one source is merged with one from
another source, the effect of both policy are more or less changed.
The policy table is defined as a whole, so the slightest addition/
deletion from the policy table brings a change in semantics of the deletion from the policy table brings a change in semantics of the
policy. policy.
It also should be noted that absence of the distributed policy from a It also should be noted that absence of the distributed policy from a
certain network interface should not be treated as absence of policy certain network interface should not be treated as absence of policy
itself, because it may mean preference for the default address itself, because it may mean preference for the default address
selection policy. selection policy.
Under the above assumptions, how to handle received policy is Under the above assumptions, how to handle received policy is
specified below. specified below.
skipping to change at page 7, line 19 skipping to change at page 6, line 32
1: The host is single-homed, where the host belongs to one 1: The host is single-homed, where the host belongs to one
administrative network domain exclusively usually through one administrative network domain exclusively usually through one
active network interface. active network interface.
2: The host implements some advanced heuristics to deal with multiple 2: The host implements some advanced heuristics to deal with multiple
received policy, which is outside the scope of this document. received policy, which is outside the scope of this document.
The above restrictions do not preclude implementations from providing The above restrictions do not preclude implementations from providing
configuration options to enable this option on a certain network configuration options to enable this option on a certain network
interface. interface.
Nor, they do not preclude implementations from storing distributed
address selection policies per interface. They can be used
effectively on such implementations that adopt per-application
interface selection.
5. Implementation Considerations 5. Implementation Considerations
o The value 'label' is passed as an unsigned integer, but there is o The value 'label' is passed as an unsigned integer, but there is
no special meaning for the value, that is whether it is a large or no special meaning for the value, that is whether it is a large or
small number. It is used to select a preferred source address small number. It is used to select a preferred source address
prefix corresponding to a destination address prefix by matching prefix corresponding to a destination address prefix by matching
the same label value within the DHCP message. DHCPv6 clients need the same label value within the DHCP message. DHCPv6 clients need
to convert this label to a representation specified by each to convert this label to a representation specified by each
implementation (e.g., string). implementation (e.g., string).
skipping to change at page 8, line 14 skipping to change at page 7, line 31
a client. This might lead to incorrect address selection by the a client. This might lead to incorrect address selection by the
client, and the affected packets might be blocked at an outgoing ISP client, and the affected packets might be blocked at an outgoing ISP
because of ingress filtering. Alternatively, an IPv6 transition because of ingress filtering. Alternatively, an IPv6 transition
mechanism might be preferred over native IPv6, even if it is mechanism might be preferred over native IPv6, even if it is
available. To guard against such attacks, a legitimate DHCPv6 server available. To guard against such attacks, a legitimate DHCPv6 server
should be communicated through a secure, trusted channel, such as a should be communicated through a secure, trusted channel, such as a
channel protected by IPsec, SEND and DHCP authentication, as channel protected by IPsec, SEND and DHCP authentication, as
described in section 21 of RFC 3315, described in section 21 of RFC 3315,
Another threat is about privacy concern. As in the security Another threat is about privacy concern. As in the security
consideration section of RFC 3484, at least a part of, the address consideration section of RFC 6724, at least a part of, the address
selection policy stored in a host can be leaked by a packet from a selection policy stored in a host can be leaked by a packet from a
remote host. This issue will not be degraded regardless of the remote host. This issue will not be degraded regardless of the
introduction of this option, or regardless of whether the host is introduction of this option, or regardless of whether the host is
multihomed or not. multihomed or not.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign option codes to OPTION_ADDRSEL , IANA is requested to assign option codes to OPTION_ADDRSEL ,
OPTION_ADDRSEL_TABLE, and OPTION_ADDRSEL_ZONE from the option-code OPTION_ADDRSEL_TABLE, and OPTION_ADDRSEL_ZONE from the option-code
space as defined in section "DHCPv6 Options" of RFC 3315. space as defined in section "DHCPv6 Options" of RFC 3315.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484bis]
Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6
(IPv6)", draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-06 (work in progress),
June 2012.
[I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses] [I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses]
Gont, F., "A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced Gont, F., "A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced
Addresses with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration Addresses with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
(SLAAC)", draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-00 (SLAAC)", draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-00
(work in progress), May 2012. (work in progress), May 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations] [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations]
Chown, T. and A. Matsumoto, "Considerations for IPv6 Chown, T. and A. Matsumoto, "Considerations for IPv6
Address Selection Policy Changes", Address Selection Policy Changes",
draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-04 (work in draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-04 (work in
progress), October 2011. progress), October 2011.
[I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-sol] [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-sol]
Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, "Solution Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, "Solution
skipping to change at page 9, line 43 skipping to change at page 9, line 11
[RFC5220] Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama, [RFC5220] Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama,
"Problem Statement for Default Address Selection in Multi- "Problem Statement for Default Address Selection in Multi-
Prefix Environments: Operational Issues of RFC 3484 Prefix Environments: Operational Issues of RFC 3484
Default Rules", RFC 5220, July 2008. Default Rules", RFC 5220, July 2008.
[RFC5221] Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama, [RFC5221] Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama,
"Requirements for Address Selection Mechanisms", RFC 5221, "Requirements for Address Selection Mechanisms", RFC 5221,
July 2008. July 2008.
Appendix A. Past Discussion Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank to Dave Thaler, Pekka Savola, Remi Denis-
Courmont, Francois-Xavier Le Bail, Ole Troan, Bob Hinden, Dmitry
Anipko, and the members of 6man's address selection design team for
their invaluable contributions to this document.
Appendix B. Past Discussion
o The 'zone index' value is used to specify a particular zone for o The 'zone index' value is used to specify a particular zone for
scoped addresses. This can be used effectively to control address scoped addresses. This can be used effectively to control address
selection in the site scope (e.g., to tell a node to use a selection in the site scope (e.g., to tell a node to use a
specified source address corresponding to a site-scoped multicast specified source address corresponding to a site-scoped multicast
address). However, in some cases such as a link-local scope address). However, in some cases such as a link-local scope
address, the value specifying one zone is only meaningful locally address, the value specifying one zone is only meaningful locally
within that node. There might be some cases where the within that node. There might be some cases where the
administrator knows which clients are on the network and wants administrator knows which clients are on the network and wants
specific interfaces to be used though. However, in general case, specific interfaces to be used though. However, in general case,
it is hard to use this value. it is really rare case, and the field was removed.
o Since we got a comment that some implementations use 32-bit
integers for zone index value, we extended the bit length of the
'zone index' field. However, as described above, there might be
few cases to specify 'zone index' in policy distribution, we
defined this field as optional, controlled by a flag.
o There may be some demands to control the use of special address
types such as the temporary addresses described in RFC4941
[RFC4941], address assigned by DHCPv6 and so on. (e.g., informing
not to use a temporary address when it communicate within the an
organization's network). It is possible to indicate the type of
addresses using reserved field value.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Arifumi Matsumoto Arifumi Matsumoto
NTT NT Lab NTT NT Lab
3-9-11 Midori-Cho 3-9-11 Midori-Cho
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585
Japan Japan
Phone: +81 422 59 3334 Phone: +81 422 59 3334
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
84 lines changed or deleted 52 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/