Network Working Group C. Jacquenet Internet Draft France Telecom Document: draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-04.txt January 2003 Category: Experimental Expires July 2003 A COPS client-type for IP traffic engineering Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026 [1]. 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. Abstract This draft specifies a COPS (Common Open Policy Service) client-type designed for the enforcement of IP Routing and Traffic Engineering (TE) policies. The usage of this IP TE COPS client-type is based upon the activation of the COPS protocol for policy provisioning purposes. Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................2 2. Changes since the previous version..........................3 3. Conventions used in this Document...........................3 4. Terminology Considerations..................................3 5. The generic model of an IP routing/TE policy enforcement scheme........................................4 6. IP TE Client-Type Specific Information to be carried in COPS Messages.............................................6 6.1. Client-Type Field of the Common Header of every COPS Message...................................................7 6.2. COPS Message Content........................................7 6.2.1. Request Messages (REQ)......................................7 Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 1] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 6.2.2. Decision Messages (DEC).....................................8 6.2.3. Report messages (RPT).......................................8 6.3. Backward Compatibility Issues...............................9 7. COPS-PR Usage of the IP TE Client-Type.....................10 8. IANA Considerations........................................11 9. Security Considerations....................................11 10. References.................................................11 11. Acknowledgments............................................12 12. Author's Address...........................................12 13. Full Copyright Statement...................................13 1. Introduction The deployment of value-added IP services (such as quality-of- service-based IP Virtual Private Networks) over the Internet has become one of the most competing challenges for service providers, as well as a complex technical issue, from a (dynamic) resource provisioning perspective. From this perspective, the COPS protocol ([2]) and its usage for the support of Policy Provisioning ([3]) is one of the ongoing specification efforts of the Resource Allocation Protocol (rap) Working Group of the IETF that should help service providers by introducing a high level of automation for the dynamic production of a wide range of services and policies. Such policies include routing and traffic engineering policies. Such policies aim at appropriately provisioning, allocating/de-allocating, and using the switching and the transmission resources of an IP network (i.e. the routers and the links that connect these routers, respectively), according to a set of constraints like Quality of Service (QoS) requirements (e.g. rate, one-way delay, inter-packet delay variation, etc.) that have been possibly negotiated between the customers and the service providers, as well as routing metrics, which can reflect the network conditions. Within the context of this document, the actual enforcement of IP routing and traffic engineering policies is primarily based upon the activation of both intra- and inter-domain routing protocols (e.g. [4], [5], not to mention the use of multicast routing protocols [6]) that will be activated in the network to appropriately select, install, maintain and possibly withdraw routes that will comply with the aforementioned QoS requirements and/or specific routing constraints, depending on the type of traffic that will be conveyed along these routes. It is therefore necessary to provide the route selection processes with the information that will depict the routing policies that are to be enforced within a domain and, whenever appropriate, the aforementioned constraints and metrics, given the dynamic routing protocols actually support traffic engineering capabilities for the calculation and the selection of such routes. Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 2] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 These capabilities are currently being specified in [7] and [8] for the OSPF (Open Shortest Path First, [4]) and the IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate System routing protocol, [9]) interior routing protocols respectively, while there is an equivalent specification effort for the BGP4 (Border Gateway Protocol, version 4) protocol, as described in [10], for example. To provide the routers that will participate in the dynamic enforcement of an IP routing and/or traffic engineering policy with the appropriate configuration information (such as metrics' values), one possibility is to use the COPS protocol and its usage for policy provisioning. To do so, a new COPS client-type is specified, called the "IP Traffic Engineering" (IP TE) client-type, and this specification effort is the purpose of this draft. This document is organized into the following sections: - Section 4 introduces terminology as well as basic assumptions, - Section 5 introduces the generic architecture, - Section 6 defines the contents of the COPS messages that MUST include the IP TE client-type specific information, - Section 7 defines the usage of the IP TE client-type, including its mode of operation with the PDP (Policy Decision Point, [11]) with whom a COPS communication has been established, - Finally, sections 8 and 9 introduce IANA and some security considerations, respectively. 2. Changes since the previous version The current version of this draft reflects the following changes: - Updated bibliography, - Re-wording of sections 1 and 6, to reflect the support of any kind of routing and/or traffic engineering policy more explicitly, - Correction of remaining typos. 3. Conventions used in this Document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [12]. 4. Terminology Considerations The enforcement of an IP routing/TE policy is based upon the processing of configuration information that reflects the characteristics of these policies (IGP metric values, BGP attributes' values, QoS requirements and/or constraints, etc.). Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 3] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 This information is called the "QoS-related" information within the context of this draft. Then, this QoS-related information must be taken into account by the routing processes that will participate in the calculation, the selection, the installation and the maintenance of the routes that will comply with the aforementioned requirements. The algorithms invoked by the routing processes take into account the cost metrics (whose corresponding values can possibly be inferred by a DSCP (DiffServ Code Point, [13]) value) that have been assigned by the network administrators. This metric-related information is called the "IP TE"-related information within the context of this draft. Thus, this draft makes a distinction between QoS-related information and IP TE-related information, where: - QoS-related information is negotiated between customers and service providers, - IP TE-related configuration information is dynamically provided to routers, and is exchanged between routers so that they can compute, select, install, and maintain the (traffic-engineered) routes accordingly. From this perspective, QoS-related information provides information on the traffic (both unicast and multicast) to be forwarded in the network (such as source address, destination address, protocol identification, DSCP marking, etc.), whereas IP TE-related information provides information for the routing processes that will indicate the routers of the network how to forward the aforementioned traffic, i.e. compute and select the routes that will convey such traffic. Given these basic assumptions, this draft aims at specifying a COPS- based IP-TE client-type that has the following characteristics: - The IP-TE client-type is supported by the PEP (Policy Enforcement Point) capability that allows a router to enforce a collection of policies, thanks to a COPS communication that has been established between the PEP and the PDP, - The actual enforcement of an IP routing/TE policy is based upon the TE-related configuration information that will be exchanged between the PDP and the PEP, and that will be used by the router for selecting, installing, maintaining and possibly withdrawing IP TE routes. 5. The generic model of an IP routing/TE policy enforcement scheme Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 4] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 The use of the COPS protocol for dynamically enforcing an IP routing/TE policy yields the generic model depicted in figure 1. +----------------+ | | | IP Router | | | | +-----+ | COPS-PR +-----+ +-----------+ | | PEP |<---|-------------->| PDP |<-->| IP TE PIB | | +-----+ | +-----+ +-----------+ | | | | | | | +-----+ | | | LPDP| | | +-----+ | | | | | | | | /-------\ | | | | | | +-----+ +-----+| | | RIB |.| RIB || | +-----+ +-----+| | | | | | | | | | \-------/ | | | | | +-----+ | | | FIB | | | +-----+ | +----------------+ Figure 1: Generic model of an IP routing/TE policy enforcement scheme. As depicted in figure 1, the routers embed the following components: - A PEP capability, which supports the IP TE client-type. The support of the IP TE client-type is notified by the PEP to the PDP, and is unique for the area covered by the IP routing/traffic engineering policy, so that the PEP can treat all the COPS client- types it supports as non-overlapping and independent namespaces, - A Local Policy Decision Point (LPDP), which can be assimilated to the routing processes that have been activated in the router. The LPDP will therefore contribute to the computation and the selection of the IP routes (see section 6 of this draft), - Several instances of Routing Information Bases (RIB), according to the different (unicast and multicast) routing processes that have been activated - one can easily assume the activation of at least one IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol, like OSPF) and BGP4, Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 5] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 - Conceptually one Forwarding Information Base (FIB), which will store the routes that have been selected by the routing processes, but this draft makes no assumption about the number of FIBs that can be supported by a router (e.g. within the context of an IP VPN (Virtual Private Network) service offering). As suggested in [14], the enforcement of an IP routing/traffic engineering policy is based upon the use of a policy server (the PDP in the above figure) that sends IP TE-related information towards the PEP capability embedded in the IP router. The IP TE-related information is stored and maintained in an IP TE Policy Information Base ([15]), which will be accessed by the PDP to retrieve and update the IP TE-related information whenever necessary (see section 6 of this draft). The IP TE-related information is conveyed between the PDP and the PEP thanks to the establishment of a COPS-PR connection between these two entities. The COPS-PR protocol assumes a named data structure (the PIB), so as to identify the type and purpose of the policy information that is sent by the PDP to the PEP for the provisioning of a given policy. Within the context of this draft, the data structure of the PIB refers to the IP routing/TE policy that is described in the PIB as a collection of PRovisioning Classes (PRC). Furthermore, these classes contain attributes that actually describe the IP TE-related policy provisioning data that will be sent by the PDP to the PEP. Some of these attributes consist of the link and traffic engineering metrics that will be manipulated by the routing processes being activated in the routers to compute the IP routes. The IP TE classes are instantiated as multiple PRI (PRovisioning Instance) instances, each of which being identified by PRovisioning Instance iDentifier (PRID). A given PRI specifies the data content carried in the IP TE client specific objects. An IP TE PRI typically contains a value for each attribute that has been defined for the IP TE PRC. Currently, the IP TE PIB has identified a per-DSCP IP TE PRC instantiation scheme, because the DSCP value conveyed in each IP datagram that will be processed by the routers privileges the notion of "DSCP-based" routing. Such a routing scheme aims at reflecting the IP routing/TE policies that have been defined by a service provider, assuming a restricted number of DSCP-identified classes of service that will service the customers' requirements. 6. IP TE Client-Type Specific Information to be carried in COPS Messages This section describes the formalism that is specific to the use of an IP TE client-type, given that only the COPS messages that require an IP TE client-type specific definition are described in this Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 6] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 section, i.e. the other COPS messages to be exchanged between a PEP that supports the IP TE client-type and a PDP, and which do not need to carry IP TE client-type specific information, are those described in the corresponding [2] and [3] documents, without any further elaboration. It must be noted that, whatever the contents of the COPS messages that MAY be exchanged between the PEP supporting the IP TE client- type and the PDP, the actual calculation, selection, installation, maintenance and possible withdrawal of IP routes in the router's FIB is left to the routers. Nevertheless, the information contained in the router's FIB MUST be consistent with the information contained in the IP TE PIB: this is done thanks to the synchronization features of the COPS architecture, as defined in [2]. 6.1. Client-Type Field of the Common Header of every COPS Message All of the IP TE client-type COPS messages MUST contain the COPS Common Header with the 2-byte encoded Client-Type field valued with the yet-to-be assigned IANA number (see section 8 of this draft) for the IP TE client-type. 6.2. COPS Message Content 6.2.1. Request Messages (REQ) The REQ message is sent by the IP TE client-type to issue a configuration request to the PDP, as specified in the COPS Context Object. The REQ message includes the current configuration information related to the enforcement of an IP routing/TE policy. Such configuration information is encoded according to the ClientSI format that is defined for the Named ClientSI object of the REQ message. The configuration information is encoded as a collection of bindings that associate a PRID object and an Encoded Provisioning Instance Data (EPD). Such information MAY consist of: - The identification information of the router, e.g. the identification information that is conveyed in OSPF LSA (Link State Advertisement) Type 1 messages. The use of a loopback interface's IP address is highly recommended for the instantiation of the corresponding EPD, - The link metric values that have been currently assigned to each (physical/logical) interface of the router, as described in [4] for example. Such values MAY vary with an associated DSCP value, i.e. the link metric assigned to an interface is a function of the Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 7] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 DSCP value encoded in each IP datagram that this router may have to forward, - The traffic engineering metric values that specify the link metric values for traffic engineering purposes, as defined in [7], for example. These values MAY be different from the above-mentioned link metric values and they MAY also vary according to DSCP values. 6.2.2. Decision Messages (DEC) The DEC messages are used by the PDP to send IP TE policy provisioning data to the IP TE client-type. DEC messages are sent in response to a REQ message received from the PEP, or they can be unsolicited, e.g. subsequent DEC messages can be sent at any time after, to supply the PEP with additional or updated IP TE policy configuration information without the solicited message flag set in the COPS message header, since such messages correspond to unsolicited decisions. DEC messages typically consist of "install" and/or "remove" decisions, and, when there is no Decision Flags set, the DEC message includes the Named Decision Data (Provisioning) object. Apart from the aforementioned identification information, and according to the kind of (PRID, EPD) bindings that MAY be processed by the PEP (see section 6.2.1. of the draft), DEC messages MAY refer to the following decision examples: - Assign new link/traffic engineering metric values each time a new interface is installed/created on the router. These new values will obviously yield the generation of LSA messages in the case of the activation of the OSPF protocol, and/or the generation of BGP4 UPDATE messages (e.g. in the case of a new instantiation of the MULTI_EXIT_DISC (MED) attribute). This will in turn yield the computation of (new) IP routes that MAY be installed in the router's FIB, - Modify previously assigned metric values, thanks to a remove/install decision procedure (this may yield a modification of the router's FIB as well, obviously), - Remove assigned metric values, e.g. the corresponding interfaces may not be taken into consideration by the routing algorithms anymore (or during a specific period of time, e.g. for maintenance purposes). 6.2.3. Report messages (RPT) The Report message allows the PEP to notify the PDP with a particular set of IP routing/TE policy provisioning instances that have been successfully or unsuccessfully installed/removed. Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 8] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 When the PEP receives a DEC message from the PDP, it MUST send back a RPT message towards the PDP. The RPT message will contain one of the following Report-Types: "Failure": Notification of errors that occurred during the processing of the (PRID, EPD) bindings contained in the DEC message. Such a notification procedure can include a failure report in assigning an updated value of a given metric for example, "Success": Notification of successful assignment of metric values, and/or successful installation of IP routes in the router's FIB. From this perspective, there MAY be routes that will be installed in the router's FIB without any explicit decision sent by the PDP to the PEP w.r.t. the calculation/installation of the aforementioned route. This typically reflects a normal dynamic routing procedure, whenever route advertisement messages are received by the router, including messages related to a topology change. In any case (i.e. whatever the effect that yielded the installation of a route in the router's FIB), a RPT message MUST be sent by the PEP towards the PDP to notify such an event, so that the IP TE PIB will be updated by the PDP accordingly. "Accounting": The accounting RPT message will carry statistical information related to the traffic that will transit through the router. This statistical information MAY be used by the PDP to possibly modify the metric values that have been assigned when thresholds have been crossed: for example, if the RPT message reports that x % of the available rate associated to a given interface have been reached, then the PDP MAY send an unsolicited DEC message in return, so that potential bottlenecks be avoided. 6.3. Backward Compatibility Issues In the case where the IP network is composed of COPS-aware routers (which embed a PEP capability that supports the IP TE client-type), as well as COPS-unaware routers, the activation of a link state routing protocol (like OSPF) together with the reporting mechanism that has been described in section 6.2. of this draft addresses the backward compatibility issue. Indeed, the flooding mechanism that is used by the OSPF protocol for the propagation of the LSA messages assumes that, in particular, the COPS-aware routers will receive these update messages. Upon receipt of such messages, the PEP will have the ability to notify the PDP with the corresponding changes (e.g. by using a "Success" report-type Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 9] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 that will reflect the installation of new routes in the router's FIB), so that the IP TE PIB can be updated accordingly. The same observation can be made within the context of the activation of the BGP4 protocol, because of the iBGP full-mesh topology that is required to allow the routers of a given domain to get a homogeneous view of the "outside" world. 7. COPS-PR Usage of the IP TE Client-Type After having opened a COPS connection with the PDP, the PEP sends a REQ message towards the PDP that will contain a Client Handle. The Client Handle is used to identify a specific request state associated to the IP TE client-type supported by the PEP. The REQ message will contain a "Configuration Request" context object. This REQ message will also carry the named client specific information (including the (default) configuration information), as described in section 6.2.1.of the draft. Default configuration information includes the information available during the bootstrap procedures of the routers. The routes that have been installed in the router's FIB MAY be conveyed in specific (PRID, EPD) bindings in the REQ message as well. Upon receipt of the REQ message, the PDP will send back a DEC message towards the PEP. This DEC message will carry IP TE Named Decision Data object that will convey all the appropriate installation/removal of (PRID, EPD), as described in section 6.2.2 of this draft. One of the basic goals of this named Decision objects consists in making the routers enforce a given IP routing/TE policy. Upon receipt of a DEC message, the IP TE-capable PEP will (try to) apply the corresponding decisions, by making the network device (and its associated implementation-specific Command Line Interface, if necessary) install the named IP TE policy data (e.g. assign a metric value to a recently-installed interface). Then, the PEP will notify the PDP about the actual enforcement of the named IP TE policy decision data, by sending the appropriate RPT message back to the PDP. Depending on the report-type that will be carried in the RPT message, the contents of the message MAY include: - Successfully/unsuccessfully assigned new/updated metric values, - Successfully installed routes from the router's FIB. Note that the notion of "unsuccessfully installed routes" is meaningless, - Successfully/unsuccessfully withdrawn routes from the router's FIB. Route withdrawal is not only subject to the normal IGP and BGP4 procedures (thus yielding the generation of the corresponding advertisement messages), but also subject to named IP TE policy Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 10] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 decision data (carried in a specific DEC message), like those data related to the lifetime of a service. The RPT message MAY also carry the "Accounting" report-type, as described in section 6.2.3.of this draft. 8. IANA Considerations Section 6.1 of this draft has identified the need for the assignment of a specific number that will uniquely identify the IP TE client- type in every COPS message to be exchanged between a PEP and a PDP. This value SHOULD be chosen in the range of 0x8000 - 0xFFFF,according to a First Come First Served policy, as mentioned in both [2] and [16]. 9. Security Considerations This draft specifies a new client-type that will make use of the COPS protocol for the provisioning and the enforcement of IP routing/TE policies. As such, it introduces no new security issues over the COPS protocol itself, or its usage for policy provisioning. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the IP-TE client-type systematically uses the Message Integrity Object (Integrity) for the authentication and the validation of every COPS message it may exchange with the PDP with whom it has established a COPS communication. The Message Integrity Object also prevents from replay attacks. In addition, the IP Security ([17]) protocol suite may be activated, and the IPSec Authentication Header (AH) should be used for the validation of the COPS connection, while the Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP) may be used to provide both validation and secrecy, as stated in [2]. 10. References [1] Bradner, S.,"The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [2] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Raja R., Sastry A., "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol", RFC 2748, Proposed Standard, January 2000. [3] Ho Chan, K., Durham, D., Gai, S., Herzog, S., McLoghrie, K., Reichmeyer, F., Seligson, J., Smith, A., Yavatkar, R., "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)", RFC 3084, March 2001. [4] Moy, J.,"OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [5] Rekhter, Y., Li T., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995. Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 11] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 [6] Jacquenet, C., Proust, C., "An Introduction to IP Multicast Traffic Engineering", Proceedings of the ECUMN 2002 conference. See http://iutsun1.colmar.uha.fr/ECUMN02.html for further details. [7] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF", draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-09.txt, Work in Progress, October 2002. [8] Smit, H., Li T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt, Work in Progress, December 2002. [9] ISO/IEC 10589, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System, Intra-Domain Routing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", June 1992. [10] Jacquenet, C., "Providing Quality of Service Indication by the BGP-4 Protocol: the QOS_NLRI Attribute", draft-jacquenet-qos-nrli- 04.txt, Work in Progress, March 2002. [11] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D., Guerin, R., "A Framework for Policy-Based Admission Control", RFC 2753, January 2000. [12] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [13] Nichols K., Blake S., Baker F., Black D., "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998. [14] Apostopoulos G., Guerin R., Kamat S., Tripathi S. K., "Server Based QOS Routing", Proceedings of the 1999 GLOBCOMM Conference. [15] Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., "An IP Forwarding Policy Information Base", draft-jacquenet-ip-fwd-pib-00.txt, Work in Progress, January 2003. [16] Alvestrand H., Narten T., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [17] Atkinson R., "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, August 1998. 11. Acknowledgments Part of this work is funded by the European Commission, within the context of the MESCAL (Management of End-to-End Quality of Service Across the Internet At Large, http://www.mescal.org) project, which is itself part of the IST (Information Society Technologies) research program. The author would also like to thank all the partners of the MESCAL project for the fruitful discussions that have been conducted so far within the context of the traffic engineering specification effort of the project, as well as MM. Boucadair and Brunner for their valuable input. 12. Author's Address Christian Jacquenet France Telecom Long Distance Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 12] Internet Draft COPS Usage for IP Traffic Engineering January 2003 3, avenue François Château CS 36901 35069 Rennes CEDEX France Phone: +33 2 99 87 63 31 Email: christian.jacquenet@francetelecom.com 13. Full Copyright Statement Copyright(C) The Internet Society (2003). 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 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. Jacquenet Experimental - Expires July 2003 [Page 13]