One document matched: draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-00.txt
Tsunemasa Hayashi, NTT
Internet Draft Haixiang He, Nortel
Document:draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt Hiroaki Satou, NTT
Expires: April 15, 2006 Hiroshi Ohta, NTT
Susheela Vaidya, Cisco Systems
October 12, 2005
Accounting, Authentication and Authorization Issues in Well Managed
IP Multicasting Services
<draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt>
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 April 15, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005)
Abstract
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
This Internet Draft (I-D) describes problems in the area of
accounting and access control for multicasting. General
requirements for accounting capabilities including quality-of-
service (QoS) related issues are listed. This I-D assumes that
these capabilities can be realized by functions implemented at
edges of a network based on IGMP or MLD. By such functions,
information obtained from edge routers would be logged in a
dedicated database. Finally, cases for Content Delivery Services
(CDS) are described as application examples which could benefit
from multicasting accounting and access control capabilities as
described in the I-D. It is proposed that this I-D be used as a
starting point for further discussion on these issues.
Table of contents
Copyright Notice.................................................1
1. Introduction..................................................3
2. Definitions and Abbreviations.................................4
2.1 Definitions..................................................4
2.2 Abbreviations................................................4
3. Problem statement.............................................5
3.1 Accounting issues...........................................5
3.2 Relationship with secure multicasting (MSEC)................6
4. Functional general requirements for well managed IP multicasting
.................................................................6
5. Application example and its specific requirements............10
5.1 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP
are different entities (companies)..............................10
5.1.1 Network model for Multicast Content Delivery Service......10
5.1.2 Content Delivery Service Requirements.....................12
5.1.2.1 Accounting Requirements.................................12
5.1.2.2 Authorization Requirements..............................13
5.1.2.3 Authentication Requirements.............................13
5.2 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP
are the same entities (companies)...............................14
6. IANA considerations..........................................15
7. Security considerations......................................15
8. Conclusion...................................................15
Normative References............................................16
Full Copyright Statement........................................17
Intellectual Property...........................................17
Acknowledgement.................................................17
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
1. Introduction
The intention of this Internet Draft (I-D) is to initiate a
discussion focused on accounting, authentication and authorization
issues for "well-managed IP multicasting" services ("well-managed"
defined at the end of this introduction). This I-D intends to
develop an informational RFC on requirements for "well-managed IP
multicasting".
IP multicasting is becoming widely used as a method to save network
resources such as bandwidth or CPU processing power of the sender's
server for cases where a large volume of information needs to be
distributed to a large number of receivers. This trend can be
observed both in enterprise use and in broadband services provided
by network operator/service providers.
Distance learning within a university and in-house (in-company)
sharing of multimedia information are examples of enterprise use.
In these examples, sources generate high-bit rate (e.g., 6Mbit/s)
streaming information. When the number of receivers becomes large,
such systems do not scale well without multicasting.
On the other hand, a Content Delivery Service (CDS) is an example
of a broadband service provided by network operators/service
providers. Distribution of movies and other video programs to each
user are typical services. Each channel requires large bandwidth
(e.g., 6Mbit/s) and operator/service providers need to provide many
channels to make their service attractive. In addition, the number
of receivers is large (e.g., more than a few thousands). The
system to provide this service does not scale well without
multicasting.
As such, multicasting can be useful to make the network more
scalable when a large volume of information needs to be distributed
to a large number of receivers. However, multicasting according to
current standards (e.g., IGMPv3[1] and MLDv2[2]) has drawbacks
compared to unicasting when one applies it to commercial services.
Accounting of each user's actions is not possible with multicasting
as it is with unicasting. Accounting consists of grasping each
user's behavior, when she/he starts/stops to receive a channel,
which channel she/he receives, etc.
IP multicasting can be used to distribute free material efficiently,
but there are limitations to multicasting in usage models where
usage accounting is necessary, such as many commercial applications.
Although multicasting has already been used in several applications,
in many cases it is used in such a way that accounting is not
necessary. Alternatively, one could develop and use a proprietary
solution to address this issue. However, non-standard solutions
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
have drawbacks in terms of interoperability or cost of development
and maintenance.
Without accounting capability in multicasting, information
providers desiring accounting capability are forced to use
unicasting even when multicasting would otherwise be desirable from
a bandwidth/server resource perspective. If multicasting could be
used with user-based accounting capabilities, its applicability
would be greatly widened.
This I-D first describes problems on accounting issues in
multicasting. Then the general requirements for this capability
including QoS related issues are listed. This I-D assumes that
these capabilities can be realized by functions implemented at
edges of a network based on IGMP or MLD. Such functions would
record into dedicated database information obtained from edge
routers. Finally, application examples which could benefit from
multicasting with accounting capabilities are shown. It is
proposed that this I-D be used as a starting point for a discussion
on these issues.
This I-D will present general functional requirements related to
accounting, authentication and authorization issues in IP
multicasting networks, and a multicast network which fulfills these
requirements will be called a "well managed" IP multicasting
network.
2. Definitions and Abbreviations
2.1 Definitions
Authentication: action for identifying a user as a genuine one.
Authorization: action for giving permission for a user to access
content or the network.
User-based accounting: actions for grasping each user's behavior,
when she/he starts/stops to receive a channel, which channel she/he
receives, etc.
2.2 Abbreviations
ASM: Any-Source Multicast
CDS: Content Delivery Service
CP: Content Provider
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol
MLD: Multicast Listener Discovery
NSP: Network Service Provider
SSM: Single-Source Multicast
QoS: Quality of Service
3. Problem statement
3.1 Accounting issues
In unicast communications, the server (information source) can
identify the client (information receiver) and only permits
connection by an eligible client when this type of access control
is necessary. In addition, when necessary, the server can grasp
what the client is doing (e.g., connecting to the server, starting
reception, what information the client is receiving, terminating
reception, disconnecting from the server).
On the other hand, in multicast communication as in Fig.1, the
server just feeds its information to the multicast router. Then,
the multicast router replicates the information to distribute to
the clients. According to current standards (e.g., IGMPv3[1] or
MLDv2[2]), the multicast router feeds the replicated information to
any link which has at least one client requesting the information.
In this process, no eligibility check is conducted. Any client can
receive information just by requesting it. In other words, the
current standards do not provide multicasting with authorization or
access control capabilities sufficient to meet the requirements of
accounting.
+--------+
| user |\
+--------+ \
\+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ |Multi-| |Multi-| |Multi-| | |
| user |---|cast |----|cast |----|cast |----|Server|
+--------+ |router| |router| |router| | |
/+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ /
| user |/
+--------+
Fig.1 Example network for multicast communication
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
This is the major reason why multicasting is only used for cases
where no user-based accounting capabilities are necessary. However,
since more and more information is transferred over IP-based
networks and some of these applications may require accounting
capabilities, it is easy to envision the requirement of supporting
such cases. For example, accounting is needed if one wants to
charge for distributed information on a non-flat-fee basis. If the
volume of information and number of clients are large, it is
beneficial to use multicasting for purposes of network resource
efficiency.
As such, the same level of user-based accounting capabilities as
provided in unicast networks should be provided in multicast
networks.
3.2 Relationship with secure multicasting (MSEC)
In many cases, content encryption (e.g. MSEC) is an effective
method for preventing unauthorized access to original content (in
other words, the ability to decode data to return it to its
generally useable form.) This I-D presents requirements for
multicasting networks in the areas of 1) access control to prevent
unauthorized access to the network, and 2) accounting to grasp user
activity. It is not the intention of this I-D to propose
alternatives to encryption. Access control, accounting and
encryption are separate technologies. The implementation of any of
these technologies does not preclude the use of the others.
4. Functional general requirements for well managed IP multicasting
It seems beneficial to use IGMP or MLD for access controlling in
multicast networks. However, from the considerations presented in
section 3, there are issues in the following areas:
(1) User identification
The network should be able to identify each user when they attempt
to access the service so that necessary access controlling actions
can be applied. Also, it is necessary to identify the source
(user) of each request (e.g., join/leave) for user accounting
purposes.
With current protocols, the sender cannot distinguish which
receivers (end hosts) are actually receiving its information with
current protocols (IGMP/MLD.) The sender must rely on the
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
information from the multicasting routers. This can be complicated
if the sender and routers are maintained by different entities.
(2) Issue of network resource protection
In order to guarantee certain QoS it is important for network
providers to be able to protect their network resources from being
wasted, (either maliciously or accidentally).
(2.1) Access control
The network should be able to apply necessary access controlling
actions when an eligible user requests. The network should be able
to reject any action requested from an ineligible user.
(2.2) Control mechanism to support bandwidth of multicast stream
from a physical port of edge router or switch
The network should be able to control the combined bandwidth for
all groups both at the physical port of the edge router or switch
so that these given physical entities are not overflowed with
traffic.
(2.3) Control mechanism of number of groups delivered from a
physical port of edge router and switch
In order to enable an NSP to guarantee a certain level of QoS to
the CP and the receivers, it is important that the NSP can control
the number of groups delivered from a physical port of an edge
router and a switch so that the combined bandwidth between content
servers and multicast routers can be within the limit.
(3) User authentication
The network should be able to authenticate a user.
(4) User authorization
The network should be able to authorize a user's access to content
or a multicast group, so as to meet any demands by a CP to prevent
content access by ineligible users. Also, the NSP does not want to
waste their network resources on ineligible users. Eligibility can
be defined in several ways. The definition of an "eligible user"
should be discussed further.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
(5) Accounting and billing
In many commercial multicast situations, NSP would like to be able
to precisely grasp network resource consumption and CP would like
to be able to precisely grasp the content consumption by end-users.
Such information might be used for "identifying highly viewed
content" for advertising revenue, ratings calculations, programming
decisions, etc., as well as billing and auditing purposes. Also
content and network providers may wish to provide users with access
to their usage history.
To assemble such an understanding of end-user behavior, it is
necessary to precisely log information such as who (host/user) is
accessing what content at what time (join action) until what time
(leave action). The result of the access-control decision (e.g.
results of authorization) would also be valuable information. The
desired degree of logging precisions would depend on the
application used.
Networks need database functions to realize user-based accounting
through the accumulation of logs from edge routers.
(5.1) How to share user information
For commercial multicast applications it is important for NSP and
CP to be able to share information regarding user's behaviour (as
described in (5) in standardized ways.
(6) Notification to users of the result of the join request
It should be possible to provide information to the user about the
status of his/her join request(granted/denied/other).
(7) Service and terminal portability
Networks should allow for a user to receive a service from
different places and/or with a different terminal device.
(8) Support of ASM and SSM
Both ASM (G), and SSM (S,G) should be supported as multicast models.
(9) Admission control for join action
In order to maintain a predefined QoS level, an edge router should
not accept a consequent "join" after a "leave" until the
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
termination of the stream of the multicast group which was "left".
This is essential to protect against e.g., multicast denial of
service (DoS) attacks.
(10) Channel Leave Latency
Commercial implementations of IP multicasting are likely to have
strict requirements in terms of user experience. Leave latency is
the time between when a user sends a signal that he/she wishes to
"leave" a group and when the network recognizes the "leave."
Leave latency impacts :
i. Acceptable end-user experience for fast channel surfing.
In an IP-TV application, users are not going to be receptive to
slow response time when changing channels.
ii. Resource consumption
With a low "leave latency" network providers could minimize
streaming content when there are no audiences.
It is important that any overhead for authentication, authorization,
and access-control be minimized at the times of joining and leaving
multicast groups so as to achieve join and leave latencies
acceptable in terms of user experience. For example this is
important in an IP-TV application, because users are not going to
be receptive to a slow response time when changing channels.
(11) Scalability
Solutions that are used for well managed IP multicasting should
scale enough to support the needs of content providers and network
operators.
(12) Small impact on the existing products
Impact on the existing products (e.g., protocols, software, etc.)
should be as minimal as possible.
Ideally the NSP should be able to use the same infrastructure (such
as access control) to support commercial multicast services for the
so called "triple play" services: voice (VoIP), video, and
broadband Internet access services.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
(13) Deployable as alternative to Unicast
IP Multicasting would ideally be available as an alternative to IP
unicasting when the "on-demand" nature of unicasting is not
required. Therefore interfaces to multicasting should allow for
easy integration into CDS systems that support unicasting.
Especially equivalent interfaces for authorization, access control
and accounting capabilities should be provided.
(14) Multicast replication
The above requirements should also apply if multicast replication
is
being done on an access-node (e.g. DSLAMs or OLTs).
Specific functional requirements for each application can be
derived from the above general requirements. An example is shown
in the section 5.
5. Application example and its specific requirements
This section shows an application example which could benefit from
multicasting. Then, specific functional requirements related to
user-based accounting capabilities are derived.
5.1 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP are
different entities (companies)
Broadband access networks such as ADSL (Asymmetric Digital
Subscriber Line) or FTTH (Fiber to the Home) have been deployed
widely in recent years. Content Delivery Service (CDS) is expected
to be a major application provided through broadband access
networks. Because many services such as television broadcasting
require huge bandwidth (e.g., 6Mbit/s) and processing power at
content server, IP multicast is used as an efficient delivery
mechanism for CDS.
One way to provide high quality CDS is to use closed networks
("walled-garden" model).
This subsection shows an example where CP and NSP are different
entities (companies).
5.1.1 Network model for Multicast Content Delivery Service
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
As shown in Fig.2, networks for CDS contain three different types
of entities: Content Provider (CP), Network Service Provider (NSP),
and end user clients. An NSP owns the network resources
(infrastructure). It accommodates content providers on one side and
accommodates end user clients on the other side. NSP provides the
network for CDS to two other entities (i.e., CPs and end user
clients). A CP provides content to each end-user client through the
network of NSPs. NSPs are responsible for delivering the content to
end user clients, and for controlling the network resources.
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| CP | | CP | | CP |
| #1 | | #2 | | #3 |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| | content | | | | content | | | | content | |
| | server | | | | server | | | | server | |
| +-------+-+ | | +----+----+ | | +-+-------+ |
+----------\--+ +------|------+ +--/----------+
\ | /
\ | / <- network/network
\ | / interface
+------------- \ ------ | ------ / ----+
| \ | / |
| NSP +-+-----+-----+-+ |
| | Provider Edge | |
| +-------+-------+ | +-----------------+
| | |---| Information |
| | | | server |
| +--+------+---+ | +-----------------+
| | User Edge | |
| +--+---+---+--+ |
| / | \ |
+------------- / --- | --- \ ----------+
/ | \
/ | \ <- user/network interface
/ | \
+---------++ +-----+----+ ++---------+
|client #a | |client #b | |client #c |
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+
End user A End user B End user C
Fig.2 Example of CDS network configuration
The NSP provides the information server for all multicast channels,
and a CP gives detailed channel information (e.g., Time table of
each channel) to the information server. An end-user client gets
the information from the information server. In this model,
multicast is used in the NSP's CDS network, and there are two
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
different contracts. One is the contract between the NSP and the
end user which permits the user to access the basic network
resources of the NSP. Another contract is between the CP and end
user to permit the user to subscribe multicast content. Because the
CP and NSP are different entities, and the NSP generally does not
allow a CP to control (operate) the network resources of the NSP,
user authorization needs to be done by the CP and NSP independently.
Since there is no direct connection to the user/network interface,
the CP cannot control the user/network interface. An end user may
want to move to another place, or may want to change her/his device
(client) anytime without interrupting her/his reception of services.
As such, IP Multicast network should support portability
capabilities.
5.1.2 Content Delivery Service Requirements
To have a successful business providing multicast, there are some
specific requirements for the IP Multicast-based Content Delivery
Service.
5.1.2.1 Accounting Requirements
Since the CP and NSP are different business entities, they need to
share the revenue. Such a revenue sharing business relationship
requires accurate and near real-time accounting information about
the end user clients' activity on accessing the content services.
The accounting information should be per content/usage-base to
enable varied billing and charging methods.
The user accessing particular content is represented by the user's
activities of joining or leaving the corresponding multicast
group/channel (<g> or <s,g>). In multicast networks, only NSPs can
collect group joining or leaving activities in real-time through
their last-hop multicast access edge devices. The NSPs can transfer
the accounting information to related CPs for them to generate end
user billing information. The normal AAA technology can be used to
transfer the accounting information.
To match the accounting information with a particular end-user
client, the end-user client has to be authenticated. Usually the
account information of an end-user client for content access is
maintained by the CP. An end user client may have different user
accounts for different CPs. The account is usually in the format of
(username, password) so an end user client can access the content
services from anywhere. For example, an end user client can access
the CP from different NSPs. It should be noted that the user
account used for content access can be different from the one used
for network access maintained by NSPs.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
The NSP-CP model represents a multi-domain AAA environment. There
are plural cases of the model depending on the trust relationship
between the NSP and CP, and additional service requirements such as
a certain QoS level guarantee or service/terminal portability.
A mechanism is necessary to allow a CP and NSP to grasp each user's
behavior independently.
Another requirement related to accounting is the ability to notify
a user when accounting really starts. When a "free preview"
capability is supported, accounting may not start at the same time
as the user's joining of the stream.
5.1.2.2 Authorization Requirements
The NSPs are responsible for delivering content and are required to
meet certain QoS levels or SLA (service level agreements). For
example, video quality is very sensitive to packet loss. So if an
NSP cannot meet the quality requirements due to limited network
resources if it accepts an additional user request, the NSP should
reject that end user's access request to avoid charging the
existing (i.e., already joined) user for bad services. For example,
if an access line is shared by several users, an additional user's
join may cause performance degradation for other users. If the
incoming user is the first user on an edge node, this will initiate
the transmission of data between the multicast router and the edge
node and this extra network traffic may cause performance
degradation. There may also be policies that do not necessarily
give highest priority to the "first-come" users, and these should
also be considered.
In order to protect network resources against misuse/malicious
access and maintain a QoS level, appropriate admission control
function for traffic policing purposes is necessary so that the NSP
can accept or reject the request without degrading the QoS beyond
the specified level.
5.1.2.3 Authentication Requirements
There are two different aims of authentication. One is
authentication for network access, and another one is for content
access. For the first case of authentication, NSP has a AAA server,
and for the second case, each CP has a AAA server. In some cases,
CPs delegate (outsource) the operation of user authentication to
NSPs.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
As such, in addition to network access, multicast group access by a
user also needs to be authenticated. Content authentication should
support the models where:
- authentication for multicast content is outsourced to the
NSP.
- authentication for multicast content access is operated by
the content provider
5.2 IP Multicast-based Content Delivery Service (CDS): CP and NSP are
the same entities (companies)
Another application example is the case where the content provider
(CP) and network service provider (NSP) are the same entity
(company) as shown in Fig. 3. In the case that the CP and NSP are
the same entity, some of the requirements indicated in 4.1 are not
required.
This model does not require the following items:
- Communication method between sender (server) and user (end
host). Since they belong to the same company, they can use
all the available information.
- Methods to share user-related information between network
providers and content providers.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| +---------+ |
| | content | |
| | server | |
| +----+----+ |
| | |
| CP+NSP +-------+-------+ |
| | Provider Edge | |
| +-------+-------+ +--------------------+ |
| | | Information server | |
| | +--------------------+ |
| +-------------+ |
| | User Edge | |
| +--+---+---+--+ |
| / | \ |
+----------- / --- | --- \ ---------------------------+
/ | \
/ | \ <- user/network interface
/ | \
+---------++ +-----+----+ ++---------+
|user #a | |user #b | |user #c |
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+
End user A End user B End user C
Fig.3 Example of CDS network configuration
6. IANA considerations
This I-D does not raise any IANA consideration issues.
7. Security considerations
Accounting capabilities can be used to enhance the security of
multicast networks by excluding ineligible clients from the
networks.
8. Conclusion
This I-D describes general requirements for providing "well
managed"
IP multicasting services. It lists issues related to accounting,
authentication, authorization and admission control for multicast
content delivery, with the goal of finding a solution implemented
at edges of the network based on IGMP or MLD. This solution likely
would assume the existence of a database in the network dedicated
to accumulating logs obtained from edge routers. Content Delivery
Services with different business models is cited as an application
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
which could benefit from the capabilities of "well managed" IP
multicasting described in this document.
It is proposed that this document be used as a starting point for
discussing requirements for "well managed" IP multicasting services.
Normative References
[1] B. Cain, et. al., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC3376, October 2002.
[2] R. Vida, et. al., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
(MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC3810, June 2004.
Authors' Addresses
Tsunemasa Hayashi
NTT Network Innovation Laboratories
1-1 Hikarino'oka, Yokosuka-shi, Kanagawa, 239-0847 Japan
Phone: +81 46 859 8790
Email: hayashi.tsunemasa@lab.ntt.co.jp
Haixiang He
Nortel
600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01801, USA
Phone: +1 978 288 7482
Email: haixiang@nortel.com
Hiroaki Satou
NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
3-9-11 Midoricho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo, 180-8585 Japan
Phone: +81 422 59 4683
Email: satou.hiroaki@lab.ntt.co.jp
Hiroshi Ohta
NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
3-9-11 Midoricho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo, 180-8585 Japan
Phone: +81 422 59 3617
Email: ohta.hiroshi@lab.ntt.co.jp
Susheela Vaidya
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: +1 408 525 1952
Email: svaidya@cisco.com
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-01.txt October, 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
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 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 IETF's procedures with respect to
rights in IETF 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Hayashi, He, Satou, Ohta and Vaidya [Page 17]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 23:37:32 |