Network Working Group M. Kaat
Request for Comments: 2956 SURFnet EXPertiseCentrum bv
Category: Informational October 2000
Overview of 1999 IAB Network Layer Workshop
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document is an overview of a workshop held by the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB) on the Internet Network Layer architecture
hosted by SURFnet in Utrecht, the Netherlands on 7-9 July 1999. The
goal of the workshop was to understand the state of the network layer
and its impact on continued growth and usage of the Internet.
Different technical scenarios for the (foreseeable) future and the
impact of external influences were studied. This report lists the
conclusions and recommendations to the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) community.
Table of Contents
1. IntrodUCtion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conclusions and Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Transparency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 NAT, Application Level Gateways & Firewalls . . . . . . 4
2.3 Identification and Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 Observations on Address Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5 Routing Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6 Observations on Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7 DNS Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.8 NAT and RSIP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.9 NAT, RSIP and IPv6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.10 Observations on IPv6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1 Recommendations on Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Recommendations on RSIP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3 Recommendations on IPv6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 Recommendations on IPsec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5 Recommendations on DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6 Recommendations on Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7 Recommendations on Application Layer and APIs. . . . . . 12
4. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
From July 7 to July 9, 1999 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
held a workshop on the architecture of the Internet Network Layer.
The Network Layer is usually referred to as the IP layer. The goal
of the workshop was to discuss the current state of the Network Layer
and the impact various currently deployed or future mechanisms and
technologies might have on the continued growth and usage of the
Internet.
The most important issues to be discussed were:
o Status of IPv6 deployment and transition issues
o Alternative technical strategies in case IPv6 is not adopted
o Globally unique addresses and 32 bit address depletion
o Global connectivity and reachability
o Fragmentation of the Internet
o End to end transparency and the progressive loss thereof
o End to end security
o Complications of address sharing mechanisms (NAT, RSIP)
o Separation of identification and location in addressing
o Architecture and scaling of the current routing system
The participants looked into several technical scenarios and
discussed the feasibility and probability of the deployment of each
scenario. Among the scenarios were for example full migration to
IPv6, IPv6 deployment only in certain segments of the network, no
significant deployment of IPv6 and increased segmentation of the IPv4
address space due to the use of NAT devices.
Based on the discussion of these scenarios several trends and
external influences were identified which could have a large impact
on the status of the network layer, such as the deployment of
wireless network technologies, mobile networked devices and special
purpose IP devices.
The following technical issues were identified to be important goals:
o Deployment of end to end security
o Deployment of end to end transport
o Global connectivity and reachability should be maintained
o It should be easy to deploy new applications
o It should be easy to connect new hosts and networks to the
Internet ("plug and ping")
By the notion "deployment of end to end transport" it is meant that
it is a goal to be able to deploy new applications that span from any
host to any other host without intermediaries, and this requires
transport protocols with similar span (see also [1]).
This document summarizes the conclusions and recommendations made by
the workshop. It should be noted that not all participants agreed
with all of the statements, and it was not clear whether anyone
agreed with all of them. The recommendations made however are based
on strong consensus among the participants.
2. Conclusions and Observations
The participants came to a number of conclusions and observations on
several of the issues mentioned in section 1. In the following
sections 2.1-2.10 these conclusions will be described.
2.1 Transparency
In the discussions transparency was referred to as the original
Internet concept of a single universal logical addressing scheme and
the mechanisms by which packets may flow from source to destination
essentially unaltered [1]. This traditional end to end transparency
has been lost in the current Internet, specifically the assumption
that IPv4 addresses are globally unique or invariant is no longer
true.
There are multiple causes for the loss of transparency, for example
the deployment of network address translation devices, the use of
private addresses, firewalls and application level gateways, proxies
and caches. These mechanisms increase fragmentation of the network
layer, which causes problems for many applications on the Internet.
It adds up to complexity in applications design and inhibits the
deployment of new applications. In particular, it has a severe
effect on the deployment of end to end IP security.
Another consequence of fragmentation is the deployment of "split DNS"
or "two faced DNS", which means that the correspondence between a
given FQDN and an IPv4 address is no longer universal and stable over
long periods (see section 2.7).
End to end transparency will probably not be restored due to the fact
that some of the mechanisms have an intrinsic value (e.g. firewalls,
caches and proxies) and the loss of transparency may be considered by
some as a security feature. It was however concluded that end to end
transparency is desirable and an important issue to pursue.
Transparency is further explored in [1].
2.2 NAT, Application Level Gateways & Firewalls
The previous section indicated that the deployment of NAT (Network
Address Translation), Application Level Gateways and firewalls causes
loss of network transparency. Each of them is incompatible with
certain applications because they interfere with the assumption of
end to end transparency. NAT especially complicates setting up
servers, peer to peer communications and "always-on" hosts as the
endpoint identifiers, i.e. IP addresses, used to set up connections
are globally ambiguous and not stable (see [2]).
NAT, application level gateways and firewalls however are being
increasingly widely deployed as there are also advantages to each,
either real or perceived. Increased deployment causes a further
decline of network transparency and this inhibits the deployment of
new applications. Many new applications will require specialized
Application Level Gateways (ALGs) to be added to NAT devices, before
those applications will work correctly when running through a NAT
device. However, some applications cannot operate effectively with
NAT even with an ALG.
2.3 Identification and Addressing
In the original IPv4 network architecture hosts are globally,
permanently and uniquely identified by an IPv4 address. Such an IP
address is used for identification of the node as well as for
locating the node on the network. IPv4 in fact mingles the semantics
of node identity with the mechanism used to deliver packets to the
node. The deployment of mechanisms that separate the network into
multiple address spaces breaks the assumption that a host can be
uniquely identified by a single IP address. Besides that, hosts may
wish to move to a different location in the network but keep their
identity the same. The lack of differentiation between the identity
and the location of a host leads to a number of problems in the
current architecture.
Several technologies at this moment use tunneling techniques to
overcome the problem or cannot be deployed in the case of separate
address spaces. If a node could have some sort of a unique
identifier or endpoint name this would help in solving a number of
problems.
It was concluded that it may be desirable on theoretical grounds to
separate the node identity from the node locator. This is especially
true for IPsec, since IP addresses are used (in transport mode) as
identifiers which are cryptographically protected and hence MUST
remain unchanged during transport. However, such a separation of
identity and location will not be available as a near-term solution,
and will probably require changes to transport level protocols.
However, the current specification of IPsec does allow to use some
other identifier than an IP address.
2.4 Observations on Address Space
There is a significant risk that a single 32 bit global address space
is insufficient for foreseeable needs or desires. The participants'
opinions about the time scale over which new IPv4 addresses will
still be available for assignment ranged from 2 to 20 years.
However, there is no douBT that at the present time, users cannot
obtain as much IPv4 address space as they desire. This is partly a
result of the current stewardship policies of the Regional Internet
Registries (RIRs).
It was concluded that it ought to be possible for anybody to have
global addresses when required or desired. The absence of this
inhibits the deployment of some types of applications. It should
however be noted that there will always be administrative boundaries,
firewalls and intranets, because of the need for security and the
implementation of policies. NAT is seen as a significant
complication on these boundaries. It is often perceived as a
security feature because people are confusing NATs with firewalls.
2.5 Routing Issues
A number of concerns were raised regarding the scaling of the current
routing system. With current technology, the number of prefixes that
can be used is limited by the time taken for the routing algorithm to
converge, rather than by memory size, lookup time, or some other
factor. The limit is unknown, but there is some speculation, of
extremely unclear validity, that it is on the order of a few hundred
thousand prefixes. Besides the computational load of calculating
routing tables, the time it takes to distribute routing updates
across the network, the robustness and security of the current
routing system are also important issues. The only known addressing
scheme which produces scalable routing mechanisms depends on
topologically aggregated addresses, which requires that sites
renumber when their position in the global topology changes.
Renumbering remains operationally difficult and expensive ([3], [4]).
It is not clear whether the deployment of IPv6 would solve the
current routing problems, but it should do so if it makes renumbering
easier.
At least one backbone operator has concerns about the convergence
time of internetwork-wide routing during a failover. This operator
believes that current convergence times are on the order of half a
minute, and possibly getting worse. Others in the routing community
did not believe that the convergence times are a current issue. Some,
who believe that real-time applications (e.g. telephony) require
sub-second convergence, are concerned about the implications of
convergence times of a half minute on such applications.
Further research is needed on routing mechanisms that might help
palliate the current entropy in the routing tables, and can help
reduce the convergence time of routing computations.
The workshop discussed global routing in a hypothetical scenario with
no distinguished root global address space. Nobody had an idea how
to make such a system work. There is currently no well-defined
proposal for a new routing system that could solve such a problem.
For IPv6 routing in particular, the GSE/8+8 proposal and IPNG WG
analysis of this proposal ([5]) are still being examined by the IESG.
There is no consensus in the workshop whether this proposal could be
made deployable.
2.6 Observations on Mobility
Mobility and roaming require a globally unique identifier. This does
not have to be an IP address. Mobile nodes must have a widely usable
identifier for their location on the network, which is an issue if
private IP addresses are used or the IP address is ambiguous (see
also section 2.3). Currently tunnels are used to route traffic to a
mobile node. Another option would be to maintain state information
at intermediate points in the network if changes are made to the
packets. This however reduces the flexibility and it breaks the end
to end model of the network. Keeping state in the network is usually
considered a bad thing. Tunnels on the other hand reduce the MTU
size. Mobility was not discussed in detail as a separate IAB
workshop is planned on this topic.
2.7 DNS issues
If IPv6 is widely deployed, the current line of thinking is that site
renumbering will be significantly more frequent than today. This
will have an impact on DNS updates. It is not clear what the scale
of DNS updates might be, but in the most aggressive models it could
be millions a day. Deployment of the A6 record type which is defined
to map a domain name to an IPv6 address, with the provision for
indirection for leading prefix bits, could make this possible ([6]).
Another issue is the security ASPect of frequent updates, as they
would have to been done dynamically. Unless we have fully secured
DNS, it could increase security risks. Cached TTL values might
introduce problems as the cached records of renumbered hosts will not
be updated in time. This will become especially a problem if rapid
renumbering is needed.
Another already mentioned issue is the deployment of split DNS (see
section 2.1). This concept is widely used in the Intranet model,
where the DNS provides different information to inside and outside
queries. This does not necessarily depend on whether private
addresses are used on the inside, as firewalls and policies may also
make this desirable. The use of split DNS seems inevitable as
Intranets will remain widely deployed. But operating a split DNS
raises a lot of management and administrative issues. As a work
around, a DNS Application Level Gateway ([7]) (perhaps as an
extension to a NAT device) may be deployed, which intercepts DNS
messages and modifies the contents to provide the appropriate
answers. This has the disadvantage that it interferes with the use
of DNSSEC ([8]).
The deployment of split DNS, or more generally the existence of
separate name spaces, makes the use of Fully Qualified Domain Names
(FQDNs) as endpoint identifiers more complex.
2.8 NAT and RSIP
Realm-Specific IP (RSIP), a mechanism for use with IPv4, is a work
item of the IETF NAT WG. It is intended as an alternative (or as a
complement) to network address translation (NAT) for IPv4, but other
uses are possible (for example, allowing end to end traffic across
firewalls). It is similar to NAT, in that it allows sharing a small
number of external IPv4 addresses among a number of hosts in a local
address domain (called a 'realm'). However, it differs from NAT in
that the hosts know that different externally-visible IPv4 addresses
are being used to refer to them outside their local realm, and they
know what their temporary external address is. The addresses and
other information are obtained from an RSIP server, and the packets
are tunneled across the first routing realm ([9], [10]).
The difference between NAT and RSIP - that an RSIP client is aware of
the fact that it uses an IP address from another address space, while
with NAT, neither endpoint is aware that the addresses in the packets
are being translated - is significant. Unlike NAT, RSIP has the
potential to work with protocols that require IP addresses to remain
unmodified between the source and destination. For example, whereas
NAT gateways preclude the use of IPsec across them, RSIP servers can
allow it [11].
The addition of RSIP to NATs may allow them to support some
applications that cannot work with traditional NAT ([12]), but it
does require that hosts be modified to act as RSIP clients. It
requires changes to the host's TCP/IP stack, any layer-three protocol
that needs to be made RSIP-aware will have to be modified (e.g. ICMP)
and certain applications may have to be changed. The exact changes
needed to host or application software are not quite well known at
this moment and further research into RSIP is required.
Both NAT and RSIP assume that the Internet retains a core of global
address space with a coherent DNS. There is no fully prepared model
for NAT or RSIP without such a core; therefore NAT and RSIP face an
uncertain future whenever the IPv4 address space is finally exhausted
(see section 2.4). Thus it is also a widely held view that in the
longer term the complications caused by the lack of globally unique
addresses, in both NAT and RSIP, might be a serious handicap ([1]).
If optimistic assumptions are made about RSIP (it is still being
defined and a number of features have not been implemented yet), the
combination of NAT and RSIP seems to work in most cases. Whether
RSIP introduces specific new problems, as well as removing some of
the NAT issues, remains to be determined.
Both NAT and RSIP may have trouble with the future killer
application, especially when this needs QoS features, security and/or
multicast. And if it needs peer to peer communication (i.e. there
would be no clear distinction between a server and a client) or
assumes "always-on" systems, this would probably be complex with both
NAT and RSIP (see also section 2.2).
2.9 NAT, RSIP and IPv6
Assuming IPv6 is going to be widely deployed, network address
translation techniques could play an important role in the transition
process from IPv4 to IPv6 ([13]). The impact of adding RSIP support
to hosts is not quite clear at this moment, but it is less than
adding IPv6 support since most applications probably don't need to be
changed. And RSIP needs no changes to the routing infrastructure,
but techniques such as automatic tunneling ([14]) and 6to4 ([15])
would also allow IPv6 traffic to be passed over the existing IPv4
routing infrastructure. While RSIP is principally a tool for
extending the life of IPv4, it is not a roadblock for the transition
to IPv6. The development of RSIP is behind that of IPv6, and more
study into RSIP is required to determine what the issues with RSIP
might be.
2.10 Observations on IPv6
An important issue in the workshop was whether the deployment of IPv6
is feasible and probable. It was concluded that the transition to
IPv6 is plausible modulo certain issues. For example applications
need to be ported to IPv6, and production protocol stacks and
production IPv6 routers should be released. The core protocols are
finished, but other standards need to be pushed forward (e.g. MIBs).
A search through all RFCs for dependencies on IPv4 should be made, as
was done for the Y2K problem, and if problems are found they must be
resolved. As there are serious costs in implementing IPv6 code, good
business arguments are needed to promote IPv6.
One important question was whether IPv6 could help solve the current
problems in the routing system and make the Internet scale better.
It was concluded that "automatic" renumbering is really important
when prefixes are to be changed periodically to get the addressing
topology and routing optimized. This also means that any IP layer
and configuration dependencies in protocols and applications will
have to be removed ([3]). One example that was mentioned is the use
of IP addresses in the PKI (IKE). There might also be security
issues with "automatic" renumbering as DNS records have to be updated
dynamically (see also section 2.7).
Realistically, because of the dependencies mentioned, IPv6
renumbering cannot be truly automatic or instantaneous, but it has
the potential to be much simpler operationally than IPv4 renumbering,
and this is critical to market and ISP acceptance of IPv6.
Another issue is whether existing TCP connections (using the old
address(es)) should be maintained across renumbering. This would
make things much more complex and it is foreseen that old and new
addresses would normally overlap for a long time.
There was no consensus on how often renumbering would take place or
how automatic it can be in practice; there is not much experience
with renumbering (maybe only for small sites).
3. Recommendations
3.1 Recommendation on Namespace
The workshop recommends the IAB to appoint a panel to make specific
recommendations to the IETF about:
i) whether we should encourage more parts of the stack to adopt a
namespace for end to end interactions, so that a) NAT works
'better', and b) we have a little more independence between the
internetwork and transport and above layers;
ii) if so, whether we should have a single system-wide namespace
for this function, or whether it makes more sense to allow
various subsystems to chose the namespace that makes sense for
them;
iii) and also, what namespace(s) [depending on the output of the
point above] that ought to be.
3.2 Recommendations on RSIP
RSIP is an interesting idea, but it needs further refinement and
study. It does not break the end to end network model in the same
way as NAT, because an RSIP host has explicit knowledge of its
temporary global address. Therefore, RSIP could solve some of the
issues with NAT. However, it is premature to recommend it as a
mainstream direction at this time.
It is recommended that the IETF should actively work on RSIP, develop
the details and study the issues.
3.3 Recommendations on IPv6
3.3.1
The current model of TLA-based addressing and routing should be
actively pursued. However, straightforward site renumbering using
TLA addresses is really needed, should be as nearly automatic as
possible, and should be shown to be real and credible by the IPv6
community.
3.3.2
Network address translation techniques, in addition to their
immediate use in pure IPv4 environments, should also be viewed as
part of the starting point for migration to IPv6. Also RSIP, if
successful, can be a starting point for IPv6 transition.
While the basic concepts of the IPv4 specific mechanisms NAT and RSIP
are also being used in elements of the proposed migration path to
IPv6 (in NAT-PT for NAT, and SIIT and AIIH for RSIP), NAT and RSIP
for IPv4 are not directly part of a documented transition path to
IPv6.
The exact implications, for transition to IPv6, of having NAT and
RSIP for IPv4 deployed, are not well understood. Strategies for
transition to IPv6, for use in IPv4 domains using NAT and RSIP for
IPv4, should be worked out and documented by the IETF.
3.3.3
The draft analysis of the 8+8/GSE proposal should be evaluated by the
IESG and accepted or rejected, without disturbing ongoing IPv6
deployment work. The IESG should use broad expertise, including
liaison with the endpoint namespace panel (see section 3.1) in their
evaluation.
3.4 Recommendations on IPsec
It is urgent that we implement and deploy IPsec using some other
identifier than 32-bit IP addresses (see section 2.3). The current
IPsec specifications support the use of several different Identity
types (e.g. Domain Name, User@Domain Name). The IETF should promote
implementation and deployment of non-address Identities with IPsec.
We strongly urge the IETF to completely deprecate the use of the
binary 32-bit IP addresses within IPsec, except in certain very
limited circumstances, such as router to router tunnels; in
particular any IP address dependencies should be eliminated from
ISAKMP and IKE.
Ubiquitous deployment of the Secure DNS Extensions ([8]) should be
strongly encouraged to facilitate widespread deployment of IPsec
(including IKE) without address-based Identity types.
3.5 Recommendations on DNS
Operational stability of DNS is paramount, especially during a
transition of the network layer, and both IPv6 and some network
address translation techniques place a heavier burden on DNS. It is
therefore recommended to the IETF that, except for those changes that
are already in progress and will support easier renumbering of
networks and improved security, no fundamental changes or additions
to the DNS be made for the foreseeable future.
In order to encourage widespread deployment of IPsec, rapid
deployment of DNSSEC is recommended to the operational community.
3.6 Recommendations on Routing
The only known addressing scheme which produces scalable routing
mechanisms depends on topologically aggregated addresses, which
requires that sites renumber when their position in the global
topology changes. Thus recommendation 3.3.1 is vital for routing
IPv6.
Although the same argument applies to IPv4, the installed base is
simply too large and the PIER working group showed that little can be
done to improve renumbering procedures for IPv4. However, NAT and/or
RSIP may help.
In the absence of a new addressing model to replace topological
aggregation, and of clear and substantial demand from the user
community for a new routing architecture (i.e. path-selection
mechanism) there is no reason to start work on standards for a "next
generation" routing system in the IETF. Therefore, we recommend that
work should continue in the IRTF Routing Research Group.
3.7 Recommendations on Application layer and APIs
Most current APIs such as sockets are an obstacle to migration to a
new network layer of any kind, since they expose network layer
internal details such as addresses.
It is therefore recommended, as originally recommended in RFC1900
[3], that IETF protocols, and third-party applications, avoid any
explicit awareness of IP addresses, when efficient operation of the
protocol or application is feasible in the absence of such awareness.
Some applications and services may continue to need to be aware of IP
addresses. Until we once again have a uniform address space for the
Internet, such applications and services will necessarily have
limited deployability, and/or require ALG support in NATs.
Also we recommend an effort in the IETF to generalize APIs to offer
abstraction from all network layer dependencies, perhaps as a side-
effect of the namespace study of section 3.1.
4. Security Considerations
The workshop did not address security as a separate topic, but the
role of firewalls, and the desirability of end to end deployment of
IPsec, were underlying assumptions. Specific recommendations on
security are covered in sections 3.4 and 3.5.
References
[1] Carpenter, B., "Internet Transparency", RFC2775, February
2000.
[2] Hain, T., "Architectural Implications of NAT", Work in
Progress.
[3] Carpenter, B. and Y. Rekhter, "Renumbering Needs Work", RFC
1900, February 1996.
[4] Ferguson, P and H. Berkowitz, "Network Renumbering Overview:
Why would I want it and what is it anyway?", RFC2071, January
1997.
[5] M. Crawford, A. Mankin, T. Narten, J.W. Stewart, III, L. Zhang,
"Separating Identifiers and Locators in Addresses: An Analysis
of the GSE Proposal for IPv6", Work in Progress.
[6] Crawford, M., and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support IPv6
Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC2874, July 2000.
[7] Srisuresh, P., Tsirtsis, G., Akkiraju, P. and A. Heffernan,
"DNS extensions to Network Address Translators (DNS_ALG)", RFC
2694, September 1999.
[8] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
2535, March 1999.
[9] M. Borella, D. Grabelsky, J. Lo, K. Tuniguchi "Realm Specific
IP: Protocol Specification", Work in Progress.
[10] M. Borella, J. Lo, D. Grabelsky, G. Montenegro "Realm Specific
IP: Framework", Work in Progress.
[11] G. Montenegro, M. Borella, "RSIP Support for End-to-end IPsec",
Work in Progress.
[12] M. Holdrege, P. Srisuresh, "Protocol Complications with the IP
Network Address Translator", Work in Progress.
[13] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address Translation -
Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC2766, February 2000.
[14] Gilligan, R. and E. Nordmark, "Transition Mechanisms for IPv6
Hosts and Routers", RFC2893, August 2000.
[15] B. Carpenter, K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4
Clouds", Work in Progress.
Appendix A. Participants
Harald Alvestrand harald@alvestrand.no
Ran Atkinson rja@corp.home.net
Rob Austein sra@hactrn.net
Steve Bellovin smb@research.att.com
Randy Bush randy@psg.com
Brian E Carpenter
brian@hursley.ibm.com
Vint Cerf vcerf@MCI.NET
Noel Chiappa jnc@lcs.mit.edu
Matt Crawford crawdad@fnal.gov
Robert Elz kre@munnari.OZ.AU
Tony Hain tonyhain@microsoft.com
Matt Holdrege matt@ipverse.com
Erik Huizer huizer@cs.utwente.nl
Geoff Huston gih@telstra.net
Van Jacobson van@cisco.com
Marijke Kaat Marijke.Kaat@surfnet.nl
Daniel Karrenberg Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net
John Klensin klensin@jck.com
Peter Lothberg roll@Stupi.SE
Olivier H. Martin Olivier.Martin@cern.ch
Gabriel Montenegro gab@sun.com
Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu
Robert (Bob) Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com
Philip J. Nesser II pjnesser@nesser.com
Kathleen Nichols kmn@cisco.com
Erik Nordmark nordmark@eng.sun.com
Dave Oran oran@cisco.com
Yakov Rekhter yakov@cisco.com
Bill Sommerfeld sommerfeld@alum.mit.edu
Bert Wijnen wijnen@vnet.ibm.com
Lixia Zhang lixia@cs.ucla.edu
Author's Address
Marijke Kaat
SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv
P.O. Box 19115
3501 DC Utrecht
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 230 5305
Fax: +31 30 230 5329
EMail: Marijke.Kaat@surfnet.nl
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
document 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
developing 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 limited 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 DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFCEditor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
