One document matched: draft-ietf-autoconf-statement-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-autoconf-statement-01.txt
MANET Autoconfiguration (Autoconf) E. Baccelli (Ed.)
Internet-Draft INRIA
Expires: May 22, 2008 K. Mase
Niigata University
S. Ruffino
Telecom Italia
S. Singh
Samsung
November 19, 2007
Address Autoconfiguration for MANET: Terminology and Problem Statement
draft-ietf-autoconf-statement-02
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
Abstract
Traditional dynamic IPv6 address assignment solutions are not adapted
to mobile ad hoc networks. This document elaborates on this problem,
states the need for new solutions, and requirements to these
solutions.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Connected MANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Standalone MANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Deployment Scenarios Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. MANET Autoconfiguration Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Multi-hop Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2. Dynamic Topology Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. Network Merging Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.4. Network Partitioning Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. MANET Autoconfiguration Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. Address and Prefix Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Prefix and Address Uniqueness Requirements . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Internet Configuration Provider Related Issues . . . . 11
5. Solutions Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
1. Introduction
A Mobile Ad hoc NETwork (also known as a MANET [1]) consists of a
loosely connected set of MANET routers. Each MANET router embodies
IP routing/forwarding functionality and may also incorporate host
functionality [2]. These routers dynamically self-organize and
maintain a routing structure among themselves, regardless of the
availability of a connection to any infrastructure.
MANET routers may be mobile and may communicate over symmetric or
assymetric wireless links. They may thus join and leave the MANET at
any time, at a rate that can be substantially higher than in usual
networks.
However, prior to participation in IP communication, each MANET
router that does not benefit from appropriate static configuration
needs to automatically acquire at least one IP address, and may also
need to be delegated an IP prefix. This address or this prefix may
be required to be unique within a given scope, or to be topologically
appropriate.
Standard automatic IPv6 address assignment and prefix delegation
solutions [5], [3] [4] do not work "as-is" on MANETs due to ad hoc
networks' unique characteristics [2]. Therefore new or modified
mechanisms are needed for operation within MANET scope, and this
document thus details and categorizes the issues that need to be
addressed.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
2. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [2], as well as the
following terms :
MANET Local Prefix (MLP) - An IP prefix delegated to a MANET router,
consisting in chunks of IP addresses valid for communications
inside the MANET.
MANET Local Address (MLA) - An IP address configured on a MANET
interface, and valid for communications inside the MANET.
Global prefix - An IP prefix delegated to a MANET router, consisting
in chunks of IP addresses valid for communications reaching
outside the MANET (as well as communications within the MANET).
Global address - An IP address configured on an interface and valid
for communications reaching outside the MANET (as well as
communications within the MANET).
Internet Configuration Provider (ICP) - A router that can provide
other routers requesting configuration with addresses or prefixes
derived from a global prefix.
Connected MANET - A mobile ad hoc network, which contains at least
one ICP.
Standalone MANET - A mobile ad hoc network, which does not contain
any ICP.
Network merger - The process by which two or more previously
disjoint ad hoc networks get connected.
Network partitioning - The process by which an ad hoc network splits
into two or more disconnected ad hoc networks.
Address generation - The process of selecting a tentative address
with the purpose of configuring an interface.
Address assignment - The process of configuring an interface with a
given address.
Prefix delegation - The process of providing a router with a set of
contiguous addresses it may manage for the purpose of configuring
interfaces or other routers.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
Pre-service address uniqueness - The property of an address which is
assigned at most once within a given scope, and which is unique,
before it is being used.
In-service address uniqueness - The property of an address which was
assigned at most once within a given scope, and which remains
unique over time, after the address has started being used.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
3. Deployment Scenarios
Automatic configuration of IP addresses on MANET interfaces and
prefix delegation to MANET routers are necessary in a number of
deployment scenarios. This section outlines the different categories
of scenarios that are considered.
3.1. Connected MANET
Connected MANETs are mobile ad hoc networks which contain at least
one ICP, i.e. a router that can provide other routers requesting
configuration with addresses or prefixes derived from a global
prefix. Routers joining a connected MANET may either (i) have no
previous configuration, or (ii) already own pre-configured local or
global IP addresses (or prefixes).
Typical instances of this scenario include public wireless networks
of scattered fixed WLAN Access Points participating in a MANET of
mobile users, and acting as MANET border routers. Another example of
such a scenario is coverage extension of a fixed wide-area wireless
network, where one or more mobile routers in the MANET are connected
to the Internet through technologies such as UMTS or WiMAX.
3.2. Standalone MANET
Standalone MANETs are mobile ad hoc networks which do not contain any
ICP, i.e. which do not contain any router able to provide other
routers requesting configuration with addresses or prefixes derived
from a global prefix. Again, routers joining a standalone MANET may
either have (i) no previous configuration, or (ii) pre-configured
local or global IP addresses (or prefixes). Due to potential network
partitions and mergers, standalone MANETs may be composed of routers
of either types.
Typical instances of this scenario include private or temporary
networks, set-up in areas where neither wireless coverage nor network
infrastructure exist (e.g. emergency networks for disaster recovery,
or conference-room networks).
3.3. Deployment Scenarios Selection
Both "Standalone MANET" and "Connected MANET" scenarios are to be
addressed by solutions for MANET autoconfiguration. Note that
solutions should also aim at addressing cases where a MANET transits
from one scenario to an other.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
4. Problem Statement
This section details the goals of MANET autoconfiguration. A
taxonomy of autoconfiguration issues specific to MANETs is then
elaborated.
4.1. MANET Autoconfiguration Goals
A MANET router needs to configure IP addresses and prefixes as usual,
on its non-MANET interfaces as well as its attached hosts and
routers, if any. In addition, a MANET router needs to configure at
least one IP address on its MANET interface, this being a link local
address, an MLA or a global address. A MANET router may also require
a delegated MLP, provided prefix uniqueness is guaranteed [2].
The primary goal of MANET autoconfiguration is thus to provide
mechanisms for IPv6 prefix delegation and address assignment for
operation on mobile ad hoc networks. Note that this task is distinct
from that of propagating knowledge about address or prefix location,
as a routing protocol does (see for example [8], [9]), or as
described in [7].
The mechanisms employed by solutions to be designed must address the
distributed, multi-hop nature of MANETs [2], and be able to follow
topology and connectivity changes by (re)configuring addresses and/or
prefixes accordingly.
Traditional dynamic IP address assignment protocols, such as [5], [3]
or [4], do not work efficiently (if at all) on MANETs, due to these
networks' unique properties. The following thus overviews what must
be specifically supported for efficient operation on mobile ad hoc
networks.
4.1.1. Multi-hop Support
Traditional solutions assume that a broadcast directly reaches every
router or host on the subnetwork, whereas this generally is not the
case in MANETs (see [2]). Some routers in the MANET will typically
assume multihop broadcast, and expect to receive through several
intermediate relayings by peer MANET routers. For example, in Fig.
1, the MANET router MR3 cannot communicate directly with a DHCP
server [4] that would be available through a MANET border router,
since the server and the MANET router are not located on the same
logical link. While DHCP can to some extent overcome this issue in a
static network, it is not the case in a dynamic topology, as
explained below.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
----- MR1...MR3
/ .
+-------------+ +------------+ / .
| | p2p | MANET |/ .
| ISP Edge | Link | Border | .
| Router +---------+ Router |\ .
| | | | \ .
+-------------+ +------------+ \----- MR2
Fig. 1. Connected MANET router topology.
4.1.2. Dynamic Topology Support
A significant proportion of the routers in the MANET may be mobile
with wireless interface(s), leading to ever changing neighbor sets
for most MANET routers (see [1]). Therefore, network topology may
change rather dynamically compared to traditional networks, which
invalidates traditional delegation solutions that were developed for
infrastructure-based networks, such as [11], which do not assume
intermittent reachability of configuration server(s), and a
potentially ever changing hierarchy among devices. For instance, in
Fig. 1, even if MR1 would be able to delegate prefixes to MR3 with
DHCP [4], it cannot be assumed that MR1 and MR3 will not move and
become unable to communicate directly. Moreover, possible frequent
reconfiguration due to intermittent reachability cause [5] to be less
efficient than expected, due to large amounts of control signalling.
In particular, supporting multihop dynamic topologies means that even
if some address configuration servers are present somewhere, it
cannot be assumed that they are reachable most of the time, contrary
to usual scenarios. Therefore, reusing "as-is" existing solutions
(for instance [4]) using servers on a MANET would basically imply
that "everyone is a server" in order to ensure server reachability.
This implication is the specificity of MANETs that brings the
requirement for new levels of service distribution, since the
"everyone is a server" approach is essentially not functional.
4.1.3. Network Merging Support
Network merging is a potential event that was not considered in the
design of traditional solutions, and that may greatly disrupt the
autoconfiguration mechanisms in use (see [2]). Examples of network
merging related issues include cases where a MANET A may feature
routers and hosts that use IP addresses that are locally unique
within MANET A, but this uniqueness is not guaranteed anymore if
MANET A merges with another MANET B. If address uniqueness is
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
required within the MANET (see Section 4.2.2), issues arise that were
not accounted for in traditional networks and solutions. For
instance, [5] and [3] test address uniqueness via messages that are
sent to neighbors only, and as such cannot detect the presence of
duplicate addresses configured within the network but located several
hops away. However, since MANETs are generally multi-hop, detection
of duplicate addresses over several hops is a feature that may be
required for MANET interface address assignment (see Section 4.2.2).
4.1.4. Network Partitioning Support
Network partitioning is a potential event that was not considered in
the design of traditional solutions, and that may invalidate usual
autoconfiguration mechanisms (see [2]). Examples of related issues
include cases such as a standalone MANET, whereby connection to the
infrastructure is not available, possibly due to network partitioning
and loss of connectivity to a MANET border router. The MANET must
thus function without traditional address allocation server
availability. While stateless protocols such as [5] and [3] could
provide IP address configuration (for MANET interfaces, loopback
interfaces), these solutions do not provide any mechanism for
allocating "unique prefix(es)" to routers in order to enable the
configuration of host interfaces.
----- MR1...MR3...MR5
/ .
/ .
/ .
MR4 .
\ .
\ .
\----- MR2
Fig. 2. Standalone MANET router topology.
4.2. MANET Autoconfiguration Issues
Taking into account the shortcomings of traditional solutions in the
mobile ad hoc context, this section categorizes general issues with
regards to MANET autoconfiguration.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
4.2.1. Address and Prefix Generation
The distributed nature of MANETs brings the need for address
generation algorithms that can complement existing solutions by
supporting operation outside "client-server" schemes and without
fixed hierarchies to provide routers with appropriate addresses and
prefixes. In addition, the multi-hop aspect of MANETs brings
specific needs as far as address and prefix uniqueness is concerned,
as detailed below.
4.2.2. Prefix and Address Uniqueness Requirements
If prefix or address uniqueness is required within a specific scope,
and if the address/prefix generation mechanism in use does not ensure
address/prefix uniqueness, then additional issues arise. This
section overviews these problems.
Pre-service Issues -- Address or prefix uniqueness problems in this
category are called pre-service issues. Conceptually, they relate to
the fact that before a generated address or prefix is assigned and
used, it should be verified that it will not create an address
conflict within the specified scope. This is essential in the
context of routing, where it is desireable to reduce the risks of
loops due to routing table pollution with duplicate addresses.
In-Service Issues -- Address or prefix uniqueness problems in this
category are called in-service issues. They come from the fact that
even if an assigned address or prefix is currently unique within the
specified scope, it cannot be ensured that it will indeed remain
unique over time.
Phenomena such as MANET merging and MANET partitioning may bring the
need for checking the uniqueness (within the specified scope) of
addresses or prefixes that are already assigned and used. This need
may depend on (i) the probability of address conflicts, (ii) the
amount of the overhead for checking uniqueness of addresses, and
(iii) address/prefix uniqueness requirements from applications.
For instance, if (i) is extremely low and (ii) significant, then
checking pre-service uniqueness of addresses and prefixes may not be
used. If on the other hand (i) is not extremely low, then checking
pre-service and in-service uniqueness of addresses or prefixes may be
required. In any case, if the application has a hard requirement for
address uniqueness assurance, in-service uniqueness checks of
addresses and prefixes should always be used, no matter how unlikely
is the event of address conflict.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
4.2.3. Internet Configuration Provider Related Issues
Another category of problems concern the management of Internet
configuration providers (ICPs).
In the case where multiple ICPs are available in the MANET, providing
access to multiple address configuration servers, specific problems
arise. One problem is the way in which global prefixes are managed
within the MANET. If one prefix is used for the whole MANET,
partitioning of the MANET may result in invalid routes towards MANET
routers, over the Internet. On the other hand, the use of multiple
network prefixes guarantees traffic is unambiguously routed from the
hosts/routers in the Internet towards the border router responsible
for one particular prefix. However, asymmetry in the routers' choice
of ingress/egress border router can lead to non-optimal paths
followed by inbound/outbound data traffic, or to broken connectivity,
if egress filtering is being done.
When a router changes its ICP affiliation, some routes may be broken,
affecting MANET packet forwarding performance and applications. In a
multiple border router / multiple-prefixes MANET, frequent
reconfiguration could cause a large amount of control signalling (for
instance if [5] is used).
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
5. Solutions Considerations
Solutions must achieve their task with (i) low overhead, due to
scarse bandwidth, and (ii) low delay/convergence time, due to the
dynamicity of the topology. The evaluation of such criteria may
depend on the targeted network properties, which include (but are not
limited to) node cardinality, node mobility characteristics, etc.
Solutions are to be designed to work at the network layer and thus to
apply to all link types. However, in situations where link-layer
multicast is needed it is possible that on some link types (e.g.
NBMA links), alternative mechanisms or protocols specifying operation
over a particular link type would be required.
Solutions must interact with existing protocols in a way that
leverages as much as possible appropriate mechanisms that are
deployed. For instance, besides the possible use of the well-known
IPv6 multicast addresses defined for neighbor discovery in [3] (e.g.
for Duplicate Address Detection), solutions may as well use some
addresses defined in [10] for auto-configuration purposes. However,
it must be ensured that no modification of existing protocols is to
be required outside of MANET scope.
Solutions must also take into account the security and trust issues
that are specific to ad hoc networking (see Section 6).
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
6. Security Considerations
Address configuration in MANET could be prone to security attacks, as
in other types of IPv6 networks. Security threats to IPv6 neighbor
discovery were discussed in SEND WG and described in [6]: three
different trust models are specified, with varying levels of trust
among network nodes and routers. Among them, the model by which no
trust exists among nodes may be suitable a priori for most ad hoc
networks. However, the other two models may be applicable in some
cases, for example when a trust relationship exists between an
operator and some MANET routers, or between military devices that are
in the same unit. Although [6] does not explicitly address MANETs,
the trust models it provides for ad hoc networks can be valid also in
the context of MANET autoconfiguration.
It is worth noting that analysis of [6] is strictly related to
Neighbor Discovery, Neighbor Unreachability Detection and Duplicate
Address Detection procedures, as defined in [3] and [5]. As
explained in the present document, current standard procedures cannot
be used as-is in MANET context to achieve autoconfiguration of MANET
routers and, therefore, design of new mechanisms can be foreseen.
In this case, although security threats and attacks defined in [6]
could also apply in presence of new solutions, additional threats and
attacks could be possible (e.g., non-cooperation in message
forwarding in multi-hop communications). Therefore, the security
analysis has to be further extended to include threats, specific to
multi-hop networks and related to the particular address
configuration solution.
General security issues of ad hoc routing protocols' operations are
not in the scope of MANET autoconfiguration.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
7. IANA Considerations
This document does currently not specify IANA considerations.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
8. Informative References
[1] Macker, J. and S. Corson, "MANET Routing Protocol Performance
Issues and Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999.
[2] Macker, J., Chakeres, I., and T. Clausen, "Mobile Ad hoc
Network Architecture", ID draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch,
February 2007.
[3] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IPv6", RFC 4861, September 2007.
[4] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M.
Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6",
RFC 3315, July 2003.
[5] Narten, T., Thomson, S., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[6] Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756, May 2004.
[7] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and More-
Specific Routes", RFC 4191, 2005.
[8] Moy, J., "OSPF version 2", RFC 2328, 1998.
[9] Moy, J., Coltun, R., and D. Ferguson, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740, 1999.
[10] Chakeres, I., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Allocations for the Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANET) Working
Group", ID draft-ietf-manet-iana, May 2007.
[11] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option", RFC 3046,
2001.
[12] Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, 2001.
[13] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, 2005.
[14] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, 2005.
[15] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for
IPv6", RFC 4429, 2006.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
[16] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, 2005.
[17] Thubert, P. and TJ. Kniveton, "Mobile Network Prefix
Delegation", ID draft-ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation, August 2007.
[18] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for DHCPv6",
RFC 3633, 2003.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
Contributors
This document is the result of joint efforts, including those of the
following contributers, listed in alphabetical order: C. Adjih, C.
Bernardos, T. Boot, T. Clausen, C. Dearlove, H. Moustafa, C. Perkins,
A. Petrescu, P. Ruiz, P. Stupar, F. Templin, D. Thaler, K. Weniger.
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
Authors' Addresses
Emmanuel Baccelli
INRIA
Phone: +33 1 69 33 55 11
Email: Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr
Kenichi Mase
Niigata University
Phone: +81 25 262 7446
Email: Mase@ie.niigata-u.ac.jp
Simone Ruffino
Telecom Italia
Phone: +39 011 228 7566
Email: Simone.Ruffino@telecomitalia.it
Shubhranshu Singh
Samsung
Phone: +82 31 280 9569
Email: Shubranshu@gmail.com
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MANET Autoconf Problem Statement November 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Baccelli (Ed.), et al. Expires May 22, 2008 [Page 19]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 05:41:05 |