draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-00.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-01.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-00.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-01.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Expires August 2003 Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom
Ostfold University College
June 2003
Expires December 2003
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Sub-IP Area Standards IETF Sub-IP Area Standards
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at line 32 skipping to change at line 35
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently
deployed IETF Sub-IP Area documented standards. In order to deployed IETF Sub-IP Area documented standards. In order to
successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6 Internet, successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6
many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is the evolution of Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is the
current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is hoped that these evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is
protocols (and their implementations) will be redesigned to be network hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be
address independent, but failing that will at least dually support IPv4 redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will at
and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full,
as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and any dependencies will be documented. Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and
any dependencies will be documented.
1.0 Introduction
This work began as a megolithic document draft-ietf-ngtrans-
ipv4survey-XX.txt. In an effort to rework the information into a more
manageable form, it has been broken into 8 documents conforming to the
current IETF areas (Application, General, Internet, Manangement & Operations,
Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
1.1 Short Historical Perspective
There are many challenges that face the Internet Engineering community.
The foremost of these challenges has been the scaling issue. How to grow
a network that was envisioned to handle thousands of hosts to one that
will handle tens of millions of networks with billions of hosts. Over the
years this scaling problem has been overcome with changes to the network
layer and to routing protocols. (Ignoring the tremendous advances in
computational hardware)
The first "modern" transition to the network layer occurred in during the
early 1980's from the Network Control Protocol (NCP) to IPv4. This
culminated in the famous "flag day" of January 1, 1983. This version of
IP was documented in RFC 760. This was a version of IP with 8 bit network
and 24 bit host addresses. A year later IP was updated in RFC 791 to
include the famous A, B, C, D, & E class system.
Networks were growing in such a way that it was clear that a need for
breaking networks into smaller pieces was needed. In October of 1984 RFC
917 was published formalizing the practice of subnetting.
By the late 1980's it was clear that the current exterior routing protocol
used by the Internet (EGP) was not sufficient to scale with the growth of
the Internet. The first version of BGP was documented in 1989 in RFC
1105.
The next scaling issues to became apparent in the early 1990's was the
exhaustion of the Class B address space. The growth and commercialization
of the Internet had organizations requesting IP addresses in alarming
numbers. In May of 1992 over 45% of the Class B space was allocated. In
early 1993 RFC 1466 was published directing assignment of blocks of Class
C's be given out instead of Class B's. This solved the problem of address
space exhaustion but had significant impact of the routing infrastructure.
The number of entries in the "core" routing tables began to grow
exponentially as a result of RFC 1466. This led to the implementation of
BGP4 and CIDR prefix addressing. This may have solved the problem for the
present but there are still potential scaling issues.
Current Internet growth would have long overwhelmed the current address
space if industry didn't supply a solution in Network Address Translators
(NATs). To do this the Internet has sacrificed the underlying
"End-to-End" principle.
In the early 1990's the IETF was aware of these potential problems and
began a long design process to create a successor to IPv4 that would
address these issues. The outcome of that process was IPv6.
The purpose of this document is not to discuss the merits or problems of
IPv6. That is a debate that is still ongoing and will eventually be
decided on how well the IETF defines transition mechanisms and how
industry accepts the solution. The question is not "should," but "when."
1.2 A Brief Aside
Throughout this document there are discussions on how protocols might be
updated to support IPv6 addresses. Although current thinking is that IPv6
should suffice as the dominant network layer protocol for the lifetime of
the author, it is not unreasonable to contemplate further upgrade to IP.
Work done by the IRTF Interplanetary Internet Working Group shows one idea
of far reaching thinking. It may be a reasonable idea (or may not) to
consider designing protocols in such a way that they can be either IP
version aware or independent. This idea must be balanced against issues
of simplicity and performance. Therefore it is recommended that protocol
designer keep this issue in mind in future designs.
Just as a reminder, remember the words of Jon Postel:
"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what
you accept from others."
2.0 Methodology Table of Contents
To perform this study each class of IETF standards are investigated in 1. Introduction
order of maturity: Full, Draft, and Proposed, as well as Experimental. 2. Document Organisation
Informational RFC are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by 3. Full Standards
either newer versions or as they have transitioned through the standards 4. Draft Standards
process are not covered. 5. Proposed Standards
6. Experimental RFCs
7. Summary of Results
7.1 Standards
7.2 Draft Standards
7.3 Proposed Standards
7.4 Experimental RFCs
8. Security Consideration
9. Acknowledgements
10. References
11. Authors Addresses
12. Intellectual Property Statement
13. Full Copyright Statement
Please note that a side effect of this choice of methodology is that 1.0 Introduction
some protocols that are defined by a series of RFC's that are of different
levels of standards maturity are covered in different spots in the
document. Likewise other natural groupings (i.e. MIBs, SMTP extensions,
IP over FOO, PPP, DNS, etc.) could easily be imagined.
2.1 Scope This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage of
IPv4 addresses in IETF stanadards. In an effort to have the information
in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents conforming
to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Manangement &
Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
The procedure used in this investigation is an exhaustive reading of the For a full introduction, please see the intro[1] draft.
applicable RFC's. This task involves reading approximately 25000 pages
of protocol specifications. To compound this, it was more than a process
of simple reading. It was necessary to attempt to understand the purpose
and functionality of each protocol in order to make a proper determination
of IPv4 reliability. The author has made ever effort to make this effort
and the resulting document as complete as possible, but it is likely that
some subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) dependence was missed. The author
encourage those familiar (designers, implementers or anyone who has an
intimate knowledge) with any protocol to review the appropriate sections
and make comments.
2.2 Document Organization 2.0 Document Organization
The rest of the document sections are described below. The rest of the document sections are described below.
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft, Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft,
and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed in and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed
its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. The comments for in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. The comments
each RFC is "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a vacuum for each RFC is "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a
and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if the vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if
problems have already been fixed. the problems have already been fixed.
Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, and Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, and
6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole and the 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole and the
problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated. problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated.
3.0 Full Standards 3.0 Full Standards
Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as "Standards") Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as
are fully mature protocol specification that are widely implemented and "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely
used throughout the Internet. implemented and used throughout the Internet.
3.1 RFC 1390 Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks
This RFC documents the use of IPv4 address on FDDI networks. It is clear
that a new RFC defining the use of IPv6 addresses in a similar manner
is required. In particular the value of the Protocol Type Code (2048 for
IPv4) and a corresponding Protocol Address length (4 bytes for IPv4) needs
to be created. A discussion of broadcast and multicast addressing
techniques
is also included, and similarly must be updated for IPv6 networks. The
defined
MTU limitation of 4096 octets of data (with 256 octets reserved header
space)
should remain sufficient for IPv6.
3.2 RFC 826 An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.3 RFC 903 A Reverse Address Resolution Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.4 RFC 1132 Standard for the transmission of 802.2 packets over IPX
networks,
This document is clearly intended to only be valid for IPv4 addresses but
could be extended for IPv6 packets. The specification is not tightly
written since it assumes 20 byte IP headers, but adds the term "usually"
which has most likely been implemented as a hard value. A new, more tightly
specified, RFC could be written to allow IPv6 packets,
3.5 RFC 2427 Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay
Section 11. Appendix A - NLPIDS and PIDs
List of Commonly Used NLPIDs
0x00 Null Network Layer or Inactive Set
(not used with Frame Relay)
0x08 Q.933 [2]
0x80 SNAP
0x81 ISO CLNP
0x82 ISO ESIS
0x83 ISO ISIS
0x8E IPv6
0xB0 FRF.9 Data Compression [14]
0xB1 FRF.12 Fragmentation [18]
0xCC IPv4
0xCF PPP in Frame Relay [17]
already has a NLPID defined for the transmission of IPv6 packets. There are no full standars within the scope of this document.
4.0 Draft Standards 4.0 Draft Standards
Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF. Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF.
A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple, A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple,
independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are usually independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are usually
quite mature and widely used. quite mature and widely used.
4.1 RFC 1188 Proposed Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.
over FDDI Networks
In the "Packet Format" Section the following text is seen:
The 24-bit Organization Code in the SNAP must be zero, and
the remaining 16 bits are the EtherType from Assigned
Numbers [13] (IP = 2048, ARP = 2054).
In the "Address Resolution" Section the following text is seen:
The protocol type code for IP is 2048 [13].
The hardware address length is 6.
The protocol address length (for IP) is 4.
In the "Multicast Support" Section
An IP multicast address is mapped to an FDDI group address by placing
the low order 23 bits of the IP address into the low order 23 bits of
the FDDI group address 01-00-5E-00-00-00 (in "canonical" order).
[See 13, page 20.]
For example, the IP multicast address:
224.255.0.2
maps to the FDDI group address:
01-00-5E-7F-00-02
in which the multicast (group) bit is the low order bit of the first
octet (canonical order). When bit-reversed for transmission in the
destination MAC address field of an FDDI frame (native order), it
becomes:
80-00-7A-FE-00-40
that is, with the multicast (group) bit as the high order bit of the
first octet, that being the first bit transmitted on the medium.
There is also a reserved amount of 256 bytes for new header information
which would allow the use of IPv6 addresses without modification of the
overall MTU.
4.2 RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the
Packet Mode (IP-X.25)
Section 3.2 defines an NLPID for IP as follows:
The value hex CC (binary 11001100, decimal 204) is IP [6].
Conformance with this specification requires that IP be supported.
See section 5.1 for a diagram of the packet formats.
Clearly a new NLPID would need to be defined for IPv6 packets.
4.3 RFC 2390 Inverse Address Resolution Protocol (IARP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.0 Proposed Standards 5.0 Proposed Standards
Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no
requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed
are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They
therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the Internet therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the
community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of many competing Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of
solutions to problems. In these later cases, no discussion is presented many competing solutions to problems. In these later cases, no
as it would not serve the purpose of this discussion. discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose of this
discussion.
5.01 RFC 2467 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks
This RFC documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets over
FDDI and is not considered in this discussion.
5.02 RFC 2601 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for ATMARP
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.03 RFC 2602 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for MARS
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.04 RFC 2603 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for NHRP
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.05 RFC 2625 IP and ARP over Fibre Channel
This document states:
Objective and Scope:
The major objective of this specification is to promote interoperable
implementations of IPv4 over FC. This specification describes a
method for encapsulating IPv4 and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
packets over FC.
Therefore a similar method will need to be defined for IPv6.
5.06 RFC 2684 Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation
Layer 5
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.07 RFC 2685 Virtual Private Networks Identifier (VPN)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.08 RFC 3031 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) 5.01 RFC 3031 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.09 RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding 5.01 RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.10 RFC 3034 Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks 5.03 RFC 3034 Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks
Specification Specification
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.11 RFC 3035 MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching 5.04 RFC 3035 MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.12 RFC 3036 LDP Specification 5.05 RFC 3036 LDP Specification
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.13 RFC 3038 VCID Notification over ATM link for LDP 5.06 RFC 3038 VCID Notification over ATM link for LDP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.0 Experimental RFCs 6.0 Experimental RFCs
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale
implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in
nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet
community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other
potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as
alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem. alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem.
6.1 RFC 1149 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian 6.1 RFC 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism
carriers
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. In fact the
flexibility of this protocol is such that all versions of IP should
function within its boundaries, presuming that the packets remains
small enough to be transmitted with the 256 milligrams weight
limitations.
6.2 RFC 1307 Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol (DSLCP)
This protocol is IPv4 dependent. See:
3.1 Control Message Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier | Total length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Function | Event Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Body |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Endpoint addresses: 32 bits each
The internet addresses of the two communicating parties for which
the link is being prepared.
6.3 RFC 2337 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using
Sparse Mode PIM
This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism
must be defined for IPv6 multicasting.
6.4 RFC 2362 Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (PIM-SM)
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
6.5 RFC 2443 A Distributed MARS Service Using SCSP (MARS-SCSP)
This document gives default values for use on IPv4 networks, but
is designed to be extensible so it will work with IPv6 with
appropriate IANA definitions.
6.6 RFC 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
7.0 Summary of Results 7.0 Summary of Results
In the initial survey of RFCs 8 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 0 positives were identified out of a
total of 27, broken down as follows: total of 7, broken down as follows:
Standards 2 of 5 or 40.00% Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00%
Draft Standards 2 of 3 or 66.67% Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00%
Proposed Standards 2 of 13 or 15.38% Proposed Standards 0 of 6 or 0.00%
Experimental RFCs 2 of 6 or 33.33% Experimental RFCs 0 of 1 or 0.00%
Of those identified many require no action because they document Of those identified many require no action because they document
outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols
that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups. that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups.
Additionally there are many instances of standards that SHOULD be Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be
updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not
updated. The remaining instances are documented below. updated. The remaining instances are documented below.
The author has attempted to organize the results in a format that allows
easy reference to other protocol designers. The following recommendations
uses the documented terms "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
described in RFC 2119. They should only be interpreted in the context
of RFC 2119 when they appear in all caps. That is, the word "should" in
the previous SHOULD NOT be interpreted as in RFC 2119.
The assignment of these terms has been based entirely on the authors
perceived needs for updates and should not be taken as an official
statement.
7.1 Standards 7.1 Standards
7.1.1 STD 36 IP and ARP over FDDI (RFC 1390) There are no standards within the scope of this document.
This problem has been fixed by RFC2467, A Method for the Transmission of
IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks.
7.1.2 STD 49 802.2 Over IPX (RFC 1132)
This protocol specification is not tightly defined and it can easily be
updated to tighten the language and explicitly include IPv6 packets.
Since it defines a generic way of tunneling many protocols over IPX
networks and the large installed base of IPX networks, an updated RFC
SHOULD be written.
7.2 Draft Standards 7.2 Draft Standards
7.2.1 IP over FDDI (RFC 1188) There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.
See Section 7.1.13.
7.2.2 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN in the Packet
Mode (RFC 1356)
This problem can be fixed by defining a new NLPID for IPv6.
7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3 Proposed Standards
7.3.1 Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks There are no proposed standards with recommendations in this document.
(RFC 2022)
The problems MUST be addressed in a new protocol. 7.4 Experimental RFCs
7.3.2 IP & ARP Over FibreChannel (RFC 2625) There are no experimental standards with recommendations in this
document.
A new standard MUST be defined to fix these problems. 8.0 Security Consideration
7.4 Experimental RFCs This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does not
have security considerations in itself.
7.4.1 Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol (RFC 1307) 9.0 Acknowledgements
This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard SHOULD NOT The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet
be produced. Society in the research and production of this document.
Additionally the author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to thanks
his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.
7.4.2 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola
Sparse Mode PIM (RFC 2337) for guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this
document.
This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol 10.0 References
standard MAY be produced.
8.0 Acknowledgements 10.1 Normative
The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey of
in the research and production of this document. Additionally the IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
author would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-01.txt IETF work in progress,
June 2003
9.0 Authors Address 11.0 Authors Addresses
Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions
at: at:
Philip J. Nesser II Philip J. Nesser II
Principal Principal
Nesser & Nesser Consulting Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
Kirkland, WA 98034 Kirkland, WA 98034
Email: phil@nesser.com Email: phil@nesser.com
Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Phone: +1 425 481 4303
Fax: +1 425 48 Fax: +1 425 48
Andreas Bergstrom
Ostfold University College
Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
Address: Rute 503 Buer
N-1766 Halden
Norway
12.0 Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
13.0 Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this docu-
ment itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the
copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of develop-
ing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights
defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as
required to translate it into languages other than English. The lim-
ited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked
by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document
and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis
and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DIS-
CLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT
INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/