Internet DRAFT - draft-ash-mpls-diffserv-te-alternative

draft-ash-mpls-diffserv-te-alternative



Network Working Group                                         Jerry Ash
Internet Draft                                              Luyuan Fang
<draft-ash-mpls-diffserv-te-alternative-02.txt>             Wai Sum Lai
Category: Informational                                            AT&T
Expiration Date: February 2002
                                                            August 2001


          Alternative Technical Solution for MPLS DiffServ TE


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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

   Service Provider requirements for support of DiffServ-aware MPLS
   Traffic Engineering (DS-TE) are presented in [DS-TE-REQ].  [DS-TE-
   SOLN] describes a proposed technical solution for meeting the DS-TE
   requirements.  The draft proposes complex IGP extensions of per-
   class-type link-state advertisements (LSA) to communicate per-class-
   type available bandwidth, etc. There is concern about scalability of
   the IGP overhead, and particularly the IGP response to overloads and
   failures [IGP-SCALE]. This Draft presents an alternative technical
   solution which avoids further extensions of the IGP.  We give an
   example of this in this draft which shows how to use measurement-
   based/reservation-crankback admission control rather than flooding
   more per-CT-available-bandwidth information).  This draft proposes
   this as an alternative Technical Solution for discussion.

Table of Contents

      1. Introduction
      2. Concerns over Scalability of IGP Link-State Protocols
      3. DS-TE Technical Solution Alternative
         3.1 General Requirements
         3.2 Example of DS-TE Technical Solution Alternative
         3.3 Scalability Comparison
      4. Security Considerations
      5. Acknowledgements
      6. References
      7. Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

   Service Provider requirements for support of DiffServ-aware MPLS
   Traffic Engineering (DS-TE) are presented in [DS-TE-REQ].  DS-TE is
   discussed in the Traffic Engineering Working Group Framework
   document [TEWG-FW].  DS-TE requirements are defined for class types
   (CTs), where CTs are defined in [TEWG-FW] as aggregations of
   individual service classes.  Instead of having per-class parameters
   being configured and propagated on each LSR interface, classes are
   aggregated into CTs having common per-CT parameters (e.g., minimum
   bandwidth) to satisfy required performance levels, however, no
   bandwidth requirements are enforced for classes within a CT. The
   main motivation for grouping a set of classes into a CT is to
   improve the scalability of IGP LSAs by propagating information on a
   per-CT basis instead of on a per-class basis, and also to allow
   better bandwidth sharing between classes in the same CT.

   [DS-TE-SOLN] describes a proposed technical solution for meeting the
   DS-TE requirements.  The draft proposes complex IGP extensions of
   per-class-type link-state advertisements (LSA) to communicate per-
   class-type available bandwidth, etc.  It already gets so complex
   that the draft proposes to compress the advertisements.  There is
   concern about scalability of the IGP overhead, and particularly the
   IGP response to overloads and failures [IGP-SCALE].  Hence there is
   concern about further significant extensions to increase IGP
   overhead, which will further exacerbate the problem identified in
   [IGP-SCALE].  Furthermore we think the extensions are unnecessary,
   because there are other, equally effective ways to do DS-TE without
   the IGP TE extensions.

   The draft addresses both establishing an LSP and modifying LSPs 
   (e.g., increasing LSP bandwidth allocation, such as described in 
   [MODIFY].  Either of these functions might use additional IGP/LSA 
   advertisements/fields in order to update the TE database (TED) so as 
   to select an LSP path to establish and/or modify.  The draft points 
   out that such additional IGP/LSA extensions are not necessarily 
   required if one uses alternative methods to select/modify LSPs on a 
   per-CT basis, such as through use of LSP 
   event-dependent-routing/crankback methods [QoS-ROUTING], which is 
   illustrated by an example.  The example illustrates that the per-CT 
   extension for IGP/LSA's described in [DS-TE-SOLN], is not really 
   necessary.  Making the proposed extensions, which only exacerbates 
   the problem and concern with IGP/LSA overhead [IGP-SCALE], can be 
   avoided.

   First we briefly review concerns over the scalability of IGPs, and
   then present an alternative technical solution which avoids further
   extensions of the IGP.  We give an example of this which shows how
   to use measurement-based/reservation-crankback admission control
   rather than flooding more per-CT-available-bandwidth information).
   This draft proposes this as an alternative Technical Solution for
   discussion.

2. Concerns over the Scalability of IGP Link-State Protocols

   Congestion can arise in data networks for many different reasons.
   There is evidence based on previous failures that link state (LS)
   routing protocols, such as OSPF and ISIS, currently can not recover
   from large failures which result in widespread loss of topology
   database information (especially when areas/peer-groups get "too
   large").  LS protocols typically use topology-state update (TSU)
   mechanisms to build the topology database at each node, typically
   conveying the topology status through flooding of TSU messages
   containing link, node, and reachable-address information between
   nodes.  In OSPF, they use the link state advertisement (LSA), in
   PNNI, such mechanisms use the PNNI topology state element (PTSE), in
   frame-relay and proprietary-routing networks, they may use other TSU
   mechanisms to exchange topology status information to build the
   topology database at each node.

   Earlier papers and contributions identified issues of congestion
   control and failure recovery for LS protocol networks, such as OSPF,
   ISIS, and PNNI networks [IGP-SCALE, maunder, choudhury, pappalardo1,
   pappalardo2, atm01-0101].  In [IGP-SCALE] much evidence is presented
   of the current problems associated with LS failure recovery from
   various failure conditions, which is based on a) failure experience,
   b) vendor analysis of product performance, and c) analytic modeling,
   simulation analysis, and emulation analysis.

   As to failure experience, AT&T has experienced serious data network
   outages in which recovery of the underlying LS protocols was
   inadequate.  For example, in the failure in the AT&T Frame Relay
   Network on April 13, 1998 [att], an initial procedural error
   triggered two undetected software bugs, leading to a huge overload
   of control messages in the network.  The result of this control
   overload was the loss of all topology database information, and the
   link-state protocol then attempted to recover the database with the
   usual Hello and TSU updates.

   Analysis has shown that several problems then occurred to prevent
   the network from recovering properly:

   - Very large number of TSUs being sent to every node to process,
     causing general processor overload

   - Route computation based on incomplete topology recovery, causing
     routes to be generated based on transient, asynchronous topology
     information and then in need of frequent re-computation

   - Inadequate work queue management to allow processes to complete
     before more work is put into the process queue

   - Inability to segment the network (into smaller "peer groups") to
     aid in the link-state protocol recovery

   - Inability to access the node processors with network management
     commands due to lack of necessary priority of these messages

   A more recent failure occurred on February 20, 2001 in the AT&T ATM
   Network, which resulted in a large overload of TSUs, and a lengthy
   network outage [pappalardo1, pappalardo2].  Manual procedures were
   put in place to reduce TSU flooding, which worked to stabilize the
   network.  It is desirable that such TSU flooding reduction be
   automatic under overload.

   In general, there have been a number of major outages reported by
   most major carriers, and routing protocol issues have generally been
   involved.  Other relevant LS-network failures are reported in
   [cholewka, jander].

   Various networks employing LS protocols use various control messages
   and mechanisms to update the LS database, not necessarily LSAs,
   PTSEs, or flooding mechanisms.  Based on experience, however, the LS
   protocols are found to be vulnerable to loss of database
   information, control overload to re-sync databases, and other
   failure/overload scenarios which make such networks more vulnerable
   in the absence of adequate protection mechanisms. Hence we are
   addressing a generic problem of LS protocols across a variety of
   implementations, and the basic problem is prevalent in LS protocol
   networks employing frame-relay, ATM, and IP based technologies.

   As a result of these failures, a number of congestion
   control/failure recovery mechanisms are being recommended [IGP-
   SCALE].  The goal is to enable LS protocols to a) gracefully recover
   from massive loss of topology database information, and b) respond
   gracefully to network overloads and failures. [IGP-SCALE] proposes
   specific additional considerations for network congestion
   control/failure recovery.  Candidate mechanisms are proposed for
   control of network congestion and failure recovery, in particular
   the following mechanisms are proposed for investigation in OSPF and
   ISIS working groups:

   a) throttle new connection setups, topology-state updates, and Hello
      updates based on automatic congestion control mechanisms,
   b) special marking of critical control messages (e.g., Hello and
      topology-state-update Ack) so that they may receive prioritized
      processing,
   c) database backup, in which a topology database could be
      automatically recovered from loss based on local backup
      mechanisms, and
   d) hitless restart, which allows routes to continue to be used if
      there is an uninterrupted data path, even if the control path is
      interrupted due to a failure.

   There is much work already underway in standards bodies, namely the
   IETF, ATM Forum, and ITU-T, to address issues of congestion control
   and failure recovery in ATM- and IP-based packet networks.  Numerous
   references are cited and are further explained in the document
   [maunder, moy1, moy2, moy3, murphy, whitehead, zinin, atm01-0101,
   btd-cs-congestion-02.00].

3. DS-TE Technical Solution Alternative

3.1 General Requirements

   The following are some proposed, high-level requirements for MPLS-
   DiffServ TE, which address some of the IGP scalability concerns
   discussed in Section 2. This is all very preliminary and high-level,
   and intended to initiate further discussion.  Also, the numerical
   values below are for illustrative purposes only.

   1. No new LSAs used to signal per-CT available bandwidth, maximum
     bandwidth, preemption parameters, etc.  Rather, CT-bandwidth
     allocated and protected by mechanisms that do not require new per-
     CT LSAs, such as in #3-5 below.  (Note that [boyle] proposed that
     current specifications could be adapted to accomplish MPLS-
     DiffServ TE.)

   2. MPLS connection-admission control and QoS/DiffServ signaling
     should be decoupled.

   3. CT-Bandwidth allocated and protected by MPLS connection admission
     control, but done without additional LSA extensions.

3.2 Example DS-TE Technical Solution Alternative

   We now give an existence proof example of how these requirements can
   be met.  The example presented uses measurement-based/reservation-
   crankback admission control rather than flooding more per-CT-
   available-bandwidth information.  This draft proposes this as an
   alternative Technical Solution for discussion.

   We now present the details of the example using the following 6
   example class-types (CT):

   CT 1: QoS class: Y.1541 Class-0, interactive (real-time), 
                    DiffServ EF
         admission-control priority: key
         restoration priority: premium
   CT 2: QoS class: Y.1541 Class-1, interactive (real-time), 
                    DiffServ EF
         admission-control priority: normal
         restoration priority: basic
   CT 3: QoS class: Y.1541 Class-3, non-interactive (low loss), 
                    DiffServ AF1
         admission-control priority: key
         restoration priority: premium
   CT 4: QoS class: Y.1541 Class-2 or 4, non-interactive (low loss),
                    DiffServ AF2
         admission-control priority: normal
         restoration priority: basic
   CT 5: QoS class: Y.1541 Class-5, Unspecified, DiffServ BE
         admission-control priority: best-effort
         restoration priority: unprotected
   CT 6: QoS class: Y.1541 Class-0, interactive (real-time), 
                    control traffic, DiffServ EF
         admission-control priority: key (LSP preemption allowed)
         restoration priority: premium (LSP preemption allowed)
  
   In the above CT definitions we generalize the notion of CTs and 
   consider them to be a combination of a) QoS classes (e.g., as 
   specified in [Y.1541] consistent with DiffServ queuing priority 
   classes), b) admission-control priority classes, and c) restoration
   priority classes at both the MPLS-LSP and transport link level.  
   This is discussed further in a forthcoming Internet Draft.
   Restoration priority is a way of giving preference to protect higher
   priority LSPs ahead of lower priority LSPs. A premium service LSP
   can be protected in preference over a basic service LSP.  Admission
   control priority is a way of giving preference to admit higher
   priority LSPs ahead of lower priority LSPs. A key service LSP can be
   admitted in preference over a normal service LSP.  For both
   restoration and admission control, no preemption of existing LSPs is
   assumed beyond what is specified for CT6.

   We now present the details of the example, which is proposed in 
   this draft as an alternative Technical Solution for discussion.

  1. CT-Bandwidth allocated and protected by MPLS connection admission
     control, but done without additional LSA extensions.
     a.  at ingress LER:
       -   CTs 1 and 3 given unrestricted access to bandwidth on any
           candidate LSP up to 10% of total traffic load; beyond 10% of
           total traffic load, bandwidth allocated only when > 5%
           bandwidth is idle (reservation signaled in the latter cases,
           perhaps using Setup Priority parameter);
       -   CTs 2 and 4 given unrestricted access to bandwidth only on
           primary LSP up to the protected-CT-bandwidth level;
           otherwise (on alternate LSPs and/or when protected-CT-
           bandwidth exceeded) bandwidth allocated only when > 5%
           bandwidth is idle (reservation signaled in the latter cases,
           perhaps using Setup Priority parameter);
       -   CT 5 allocated up to maximum protected-CT-bandwidth of 1%
           only on primary LSP, no alternate LSPs allowed;
       -   ingress LER signals class type (perhaps using L-LSP
           parameter) and bandwidth allocation to transit LSRs in LSP.
     b.  at transit LSRs
       -   bandwidth allocation protected by QoS mechanisms (DiffServ
           priority, policing, etc.) according to signaled class type;
       -   reservation not signaled (perhaps using Setup Priority
           parameter): bandwidth allocation unrestricted, if bandwidth
           unavailable, crankback to ingress LER;
       -   reservation signaled (perhaps using Setup Priority
           parameter): bandwidth allocation restricted to when > 5%
           bandwidth is idle, if bandwidth unavailable, crankback to
           ingress LER;
     c.  CAC is applied for bandwidth allocation per-aggregated-
       bandwidth-CT, not per microflow.

  2. Protected-CT-bandwidth limit can be pre-provisioned per node-pair

  3. Protected-CT-bandwidth can be dynamically computed per node-pair,
     for example:
     PBWi    = protected bandwidth for CT i
     PBWi(w) = .5 x  PBWi(w-1) + .5 x BWIPi(w)
     BWIPi   = average bandwidth-in-progress across a load set
               period on CT i
     The quantities PBWi are computed periodically, such as every week
     w, per node-pair.

  4. MPLS LSP restoration
     a. assigns a minimum of 5 diverse LSP backup path per premium-CT
        LSP
     b. assigns a minimum of 2 diverse LSP backup path per basic-CT LSP
     c. triggers redirecting all flows to backup LSPs upon specified
        triggers (e.g., LOS, LOF)
     d. sequentially hunts backup LSPs for available bandwidth to
        redirect flows
     e. alternatively, dynamically compute and hunt backup LSPs

  5. Transport link restoration
     a. assigns a minimum of 5 diverse backup transport paths per
        premium-CT transport link
     b. assigns a minimum of 2 diverse backup transport paths per
        premium-CT transport link
     c. triggers redirecting all LSPs to backup transport paths upon
        specified triggers (e.g., LOS, LOF)
     d. sequentially hunts backup transport paths for available
        bandwidth to redirect transport links
     e. alternatively, dynamically compute and hunt backup transport
        paths

  6. No preemption of MPLS-LSPs and/or transport links across CTs,
     except for control-traffic CT.

   The above example addresses both establishing an LSP and modifying 
   LSPs (e.g., increasing LSP bandwidth allocation, such as described 
   in [MODIFY]).  That is, the process of adding traffic to an LSP will 
   result in:

   1. evaluating whether the LSP (not the topology) has enough capacity.
   2. If the LSP does not currently have enough capacity, evaluating 
      whether the topology will permit increasing the capacity.
   3. If the topology will not permit increasing the capacity, either
      re-placing the LSP or establishing a new LSP, using appropriate 
      information to decide where to place it.
   
   Any of these functions might use additional IGP/LSA 
   advertisements/fields in order to update the TED so as to select an 
   LSP path to establish and/or modify.  The example points 
   out that such additional IGP/LSA extensions are not necessarily 
   required if one uses alternative methods to select/modify LSPs on a 
   per-CT basis, such as through use of LSP 
   event-dependent-routing/crankback methods [QoS-ROUTING], which is 
   illustrated by an example.  

   The example illustrates that the per-CT extension for IGP/LSA's 
   described in [DS-TE-SOLN], is not really necessary.  Making the 
   proposed extensions, which only exacerbates the problem and concern 
   with IGP/LSA overhead [IGP-SCALE], can be avoided.

3.3 Scalability Comparison

   The crankback approach may cause more signaling messages in place
   of routing information.  The scalability comparison between the 
   crankback method and TE routing extensions has been evaluated in 
   some earlier work.  There is considerable experience in other 
   networks with such methods [ASH], and there are simulation studies 
   for IP-based networks reported in [QoS-ROUTING] (e.g., see ANNEX 4, 
   Section 4.7).  In [QoS-ROUTING], simulation data is presented 
   comparing the scalability between the crankback method and TE 
   routing extensions.  

   Table 1 gives an example comparison of the performance of state 
   dependent routing  (SDR) with LSA flooding compared to event 
   dependent routing (EDR) described in the draft.  The numbers in 
   the table give the total messages of each type needed to do the 
   indicated TE functions, including flow setup, bandwidth 
   allocation, crankback, and LSA flooding to update the traffic 
   engineering database (TED).  The SDR TE method does available 
   link bandwidth (ALBW) flooding to update the TED while the EDR 
   method does not.  In the simulation there is a 6-times focused 
   overload on one node (OKBR), and clearly the SDR/flooding method 
   is consuming more message resources, particular LSA flooding 
   messages, than the EDR method, while the traffic lost/delayed 
   performance of the two methods is comparable [QoS-ROUTING].

                                Table 1
            Performance Comparison of SDR/flooding Vs. EDR
                     6X focused overload on OKBK 
               (total number of messages in simulation)

	----------------------------------------------------------
	TE Function	Message 	SDR/		EDR
 			Type		flooding
	----------------------------------------------------------
	Flow Routing	Flow Setup	18,758,992	18,758,992

	QoS Resource    LSP Bandwidth	18,469,477	18,839,216
	Management	Allocation
	(LSP Rtg., BW 	
	Alloc., Queue	Crankback	30,459		12,850
	Mgmt.)	

	TE Database 	LSA		14,405,040	0
	Update		
	----------------------------------------------------------

   These results, plus experience and the other referenced 
   comparisons favor a method which does not further increase 
   IGP/LSA overhead.

4. Security Considerations

   There are no new security considerations based on proposals in this
   draft.

5. Acknowledgements

   The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and suggestions from
   many people.  At AT&T we thank Chuck Dvorak, Al Morton, and Percy
   Tarapore, Joel Halpern at Longitude Systems, Lei Yao at Worldcom,
   and Kwangil Lee at NIST.

6. References

   [DS-TE-REQ] Le Faucheur, F., et. al., "Requirements for support of 
   Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering," work in progress.

   [DS-TE-SOLN] Le Faucher, F., et. al., " Protocol extensions for 
   support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering," work in
   progress.

   [BOYLE]  Boyle, J., "Accomplishing DiffServ TE Needs with Current
   Specifications," work in progress.

   [KOMPELLA]  Kompella, K., "Bandwidth Accounting for Traffic 
   Engineering," work in progress.

   [MODIFY] Ash, J., et. al., "LSP Modification Using CR-LDP," work
   in progress.

   [QoS-ROUTING] Ash, J., "Traffic Engineering & QoS Methods for 
   IP-, ATM-, & TDM-Based Multiservice Networks," work in progress. 

   [TE-REQ] Awduche et al, Requirements for Traffic Engineering over
   MPLS, RFC2702, September 1999.

   [TEWG-FW] Awduche et al, A Framework for Internet Traffic
   Engineering, work in progress.

   [OSPF-TE] Katz, Yeung, Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,
   work in progress.

   [ISIS-TE] Smit, Li, IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering, work 
   in progress.

   [RSVP-TE] Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
   Tunnels", work in progress.

   [DIFF-MPLS] Le Faucheur et al, "MPLS Support of Diff-Serv", work 
   in progress.

   [CR-LDP] Jamoussi et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP",
   work in progress.

   [DIFF-NEW] Grossman, "New Terminology for Diffserv", work in
   progress, work in progress.

   [IGP-SCALE] Ash, G., et. al., Proposed Mechanisms for Congestion
   Control/Failure Recovery in OSPF & ISIS Networks, work in progress.

   [af-pnni-0055.000]  "Private Network-Network Interface Specification
   Version 1.0 (PNNI 1.0)," March 1996.

   [ash]  Ash, G. R., "Dynamic Routing in Telecommunications Networks,"
   McGraw Hill.

   [atmf00-0249] "Scalability and Reliability of large ATM networks."

   [atm00-0257] "Signaling Congestion Control in PNNI Networks: The
   Need and Proposed Solution Outline."

   [atm00-0480] "Congestion Control/Failure Recovery in PNNI Networks."

   [atm01-0101] "Proposed Mechanisms for Congestion Control/Failure
   Recovery in PNNI Networks."

   [att]  "AT&T announces cause of frame-relay network outage," AT&T
   Press Release, April 22, 1998.

   [btd-cs-congestion-02.00] "Signaling Congestion Control Version
   1.0", Baseline Text

   [cholewka]  Cholewka, K., "MCI Outage Has Domino Effect,"
   Inter@ctive Week, August 20, 1999.

   [choudhury]  Choudhury, G., Maunder, A. S., Sapozhnikova, V.,
   "Faster Link-State Convergence and Improving Network Scalabiity and
   Stability," sumitted for presentation at LCN 2001.

   [hosein1] Hosein, P., "An Improved ACC Algorithm for
   Telecommunication Networks," Telecommunication Systems 0, 1998.

   [hosein2] Hosein, P., "Overload Control for Real-Time
   Telecommunication Databases," International Teletraffic Congress -
   16, Edinburgh, Scotland, June 1999.

   [jander]  Jander, M., "In Qwest Outage, ATM Takes Some Heat," Light
   Reading, April 6, 2001.

   [maunder] Maunder, A. S., Choudhury, G., "Explicit Marking and
   Prioritized Treatment of Specific IGP Packets for Faster IGP
   Convergence and Improved Network Scalability and Stability," draft-
   ietf-ospf-scalability-00, March 2001.

   [mummert] Mummert, V. S., "Network Management and its Implementation
   on the No. 4ESS," International Switching Symposium, Japan, 1976.

   [moy1] Moy, J., "Hitless OSPF Restart", work in progress.

   [moy2]  Moy, J., "Flooding over parallel point-to-point links,"
   work in progress.

   [moy3]  Moy, J., "Flooding Over a Subset Topology," work in progress.

   [murphy]  Murphy, P., "OSPF Floodgates," work in progress.

   [pappalardo1] Pappalardo, D., "Can one rogue switch buckle AT&T's
   network?," Network World Fusion, February 23, 2001.

   [pappalardo2]  Pappalardo, D., "AT&T, customers grapple with ATM net
   outage," Network World, February 26, 2001.

   [Q.764]  "Signalling System No. 7 - ISDN user part signalling
   procedures," December 1999.

   [whitehead]  Whitehead, Martin, "A class of overload controls based
   on controlling call reject rates," ITU-T contribution D.19, Feburary
   2001.

   [zinin]  Zinin, A., et. al., "OSPF Restart Signaling,"  work in 
   progress.

7. Authors' Addresses

   Jerry Ash
   AT&T
   Room MT D5-2A01
   200 Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
   Phone: +1-(732)-420-4578
   Fax:   +1-(732)-368-8659
   Email: gash@att.com

   Luyuan Fang
   AT&T
   Room C2-3B35
   200 S.Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ 07748
   Phone: + 1 732 420 1921
   Email: luyuanfang@att.com

   Wai Sum Lai
   AT&T
   Room D5-3D18
   200 S. Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ 07748
   Phone: +1 732 420-3712
   Fax:+1 732 368-1919
   Email: wlai@att.com

Full Copyright Statement

   "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). 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 implmentation 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.