Internet DRAFT - draft-wan-mip6-nemo-dsanalysis
draft-wan-mip6-nemo-dsanalysis
Network Working Group C. Wan
Internet-Draft C. Ye
Expires: December 17, 2006 X. Qin
Huawei Technologies
June 15, 2006
Scenario analysis and problem statement of the dual-stack mobile entity
roaming in the ipv4 and ipv6 network
draft-wan-mip6-nemo-dsanalysis-00.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 December 17, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to investigate the motivations for
mobile entities using dual stacks and the scenarios of mobile
entities with dual-stacks roaming in the ipv4 or ipv6 network. This
document also discusses the problems to be solved during these
scenarios.
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Analysis of these scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. New functions needed in the network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Associated problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
1. Introduction
The primary requirement of the mobile ip technology is to maintain
the mobile entity's ip address during its movement. This is a
network layer solution. Currently, there are two kinds of network
layer technology (ipv4 and ipv6). Accordingly there are two
protocols for mobile ip solution: mip4 and mip6. For a long time,
ipv4 and ipv6 will exist simultaneously, so the mobile entity may
roam into the ipv4 or ipv6 network during its movement. However mip4
protocol can only solve roaming problems in the ipv4-only network,
and mip6 protocol can only solve roaming problems in the pure ipv6
network. To maintain communication in both ipv4 network and ipv6
network, analysis of dual-stack scenarios and problems is needed.
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
2. Terminology
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 BCP 14 [RFC2119].
Mobility related terminology is defined in [RFC3753].
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
3. Scenarios
Scenarios of mobile entity roaming in both ipv4 and ipv6 [RFC2460]
network are comprised of entities and their attributes. Movement of
a mobile entity in both ipv4 and ipv6 network relates to several
network entities: Mobile entity (ME), Home agent (HA), Access router
(AR), Correspondent node.
Mobile entity (ME):
the mobile entity may be a mobile node or a mobile router[RFC3963].
Its attributes are listed below: The attribute ipv4 stack means
whether the mobile entity supports mip4 protocol[RFC3344]. The
attribute ipv6 stack means whether the mobile entity supports mip6
protocol[RFC3775]. The attribute ipv4 home address means whether the
mobile entity has ipv4 home address. The attribute ipv6 home address
means whether the mobile entity has ipv6 home address. The attribute
care-of address means the mobile entity's COA type, in ipv6 network
the mobile entity can get a COA by configuration and in ipv4 network
the mobile entity can get a co-COA or configured COA. To roam within
heterogeneous networks, the mobile entity must have an ipv4 stack and
an ipv6 stack and it must support both mip4 and mip6 protocols. If
the mobile entity has only an ipv4 stack, then it can only roam in
the ipv4 network, and it acts as a normal mip4 entity. If the mobile
entity has only an ipv6 stack, then it can only roam in the ipv6
network, and it acts as a normal mip6 entity. Current protocol has
solved the single stack problem, so in this paper, we assume that the
mobile entity has both ipv4 and ipv6 stacks and supports both mip4
and mip6 protocols. After the mobile entity is booted up, it should
have at least an ipv4 address or an ipv6 address. The mobile entity
will get a care-of address, when it roams into a new network. If the
new network is an ipv4 network, the care-of address may be a co-COA,
and the access router will be a foreign agent to the mobile entity.
Home agent (HA):
in the mip6/mip4 protocol, the home agent will relay packets to the
mobile node. Its attributes are listed below: The attribute ipv4
stack means whether the HA has ipv4 stack and supports mip4 protocol.
The attribute ipv6 stack means whether the HA has ipv6 stack and
supports mip6 protocol. The attribute ipv4 address means whether the
HA has ipv4 address. The attribute ipv6 address means whether the HA
has ipv6 address. The attribute IPv4 address pool means whether the
HA support the assignment of IPv4 address for the mobile entity. The
attribute IPv6 address pool means whether the HA support the
assignment of IPv6 address for the mobile node. The home agent must
have at least an ipv4 stack or an ipv6 stack, and must have at least
an ipv4 service address or an ipv6 service address. The home agent
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
may have an ipv4 address pool or an ipv6 address pool.
Access router (AR):
the mobile entity will access the network through the access router,
and the access router may help the mobile entity in communication.
The access router may be a foreign agent in the mip4 or a router of
any kind. Its attributes are listed below: The attribute ipv4 stack
means whether the access router has ipv4 stack and supports mip4
protocol. The attribute ipv6 stack means whether the access router
has ipv6 stack and supports mip6 protocol. The attribute ipv4
address means whether the access router has ipv4 address. The
attribute ipv6 address means whether the access router has ipv6
address. The access router should have at least a ipv4 or ipv6
stack, thus it should have an ipv4 or ipv6 address, if it is an ipv4
access router, it may give the mobile entity a co-COA.
Correspondent node (CN):
a node that communicates with the mobile entity. If the mobile
entity communicates with the CN with its ipv4 address, then the CN's
address must be an ipv4 address from mobile entity's perspective. If
the mobile entity communicates with the CN with its ipv6 address,
then the CN's address must be an ipv6 address from mobile entity's
perspective. Usually, the dual-stack scenario will not affect the
correspondent node, if the mobile entity uses the route optimization
method while communicating with the correspondent node, the
correspondent may act as the home agent during BU.
With the analysis of entities and their attributes, we can define the
dual-stack scenarios. We assume that the mobile entity has dual-
stacks and supports both mip4 and mip6 protocols. If the
correspondent node supports route optimization method, the attribute
requirements of CN are similar to home agent. So we don't consider
the correspondent node in these scenarios.
Scenario 1: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 home
address, its home agent has only an ipv6 address, the access router
has only ipv4 stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has an ipv4
co-COA.
Scenario 2: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 address,
its home agent has only an ipv6 address, the access router has only
ipv4 stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a configured COA.
Scenario 3: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 address,
its home agent has only an ipv6 address, the access router has only
ipv6 stack and ipv6 address. This scenario can be solved by current
mip6 protocol.
Scenario 4: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 address,
its home agent has only an ipv6 address, the access router has ipv6/
ipv4 stack and ipv6/ipv4 address. Current mip6 protocol can solve
this problem.
Scenario 5: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 address,
its home agent has both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access
router has only ipv4 stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a
co-COA.
Scenario 6: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 address,
its home agent has both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access
router has only ipv4 stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a
configured COA.
Scenario 7: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 address,
its home agent has both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access
router has only ipv6 stack and ipv6 address. This scenario can be
solved by current mip6 protocol.
Scenario 8: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 address,
its home agent has both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access
router has ipv6/ipv4 stack and ipv6/ipv4 address. This scenario can
be solved by current mip6 protocol.
Scenario 9: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 address,
its home agent has only ipv4 address, the access router has only ipv4
stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a co-COA. This
scenario will not exist.
Scenario 10: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 address,
its home agent has only ipv4 address, the access router has only ipv4
stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a configured COA.
This scenario will not exist.
Scenario 11: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 address,
its home agent has only ipv4 address, the access router has only ipv6
stack and ipv6 address. Currently, we do not consider this scenario
because this scenario will not exist.
Scenario 12: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv6 home address, but it has no ipv4 address,
its home agent has only ipv4 address, the access router has ipv6/ipv4
stack and ipv6/ipv4 address. Currently, we do not consider this
scenario because this scenario will not exist.
Scenario 13: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has only an ipv6 address, the access router has only
ipv4 stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a co-COA.
Currently, we do not consider this scenario because this scenario
will not exist.
Scenario 14: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has only an ipv6 address, the access router has only
ipv4 stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a configured COA.
Currently, we do not consider this scenario because this scenario
will not exist.
Scenario 15: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has only an ipv6 address, the access router has only
ipv6 stack and ipv6 address. Currently, we do not consider this
scenario because this scenario will not exist.
Scenario 16: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has only an ipv6 address, the access router has ipv6/
ipv4 stack and ipv6/ipv4 address. Currently, we do not consider this
scenario because this scenario will not exist.
Scenario 17: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access
router has only ipv4 stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a
co-COA. This scenario can be solved by mip4 protocol.
Scenario 18: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access
router has only ipv4 stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a
configured COA. This scenario can be solved by mip4 protocol.
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
Scenario 19: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access
router has only ipv6 stack and ipv6 address.
Scenario 20: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access
router has ipv6/ipv4 stack and ipv6/ipv4 address. This scenario can
be solved by current mip4 protocol.
Scenario 21: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has only ipv4 address, the access router has only ipv4
stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a co-COA. This
scenario can be solved by current mip4 protocol.
Scenario 22: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has only ipv4 address, the access router has only ipv4
stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a configured COA.
This scenario can be solved by current mip4 protocol.
Scenario 23: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has only ipv4 address, the access router has only ipv6
stack and ipv6 address.
Scenario 24: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has an ipv4 home address, but it has no ipv6 address,
its home agent has only ipv4 address, the access router has ipv6/ipv4
stack and ipv6/ipv4 address. This scenario can be solved by current
mip4 protocol.
Scenario 25: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home address, its home agent has
only an ipv6 address, the access router has only ipv4 stack and ipv4
address. The mobile entity has a co-COA. This scenario will not
exist, so we do not consider it.
Scenario 26: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home address, its home agent has
only an ipv6 address, the access router has only ipv4 stack and ipv4
address. The mobile entity has a configured COA. This scenario will
not exist, so we do not consider it.
Scenario 27: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home address, its home agent has
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
only an ipv6 address, the access router has only ipv6 stack and ipv6
address. This scenario will not exist, so we do not consider it.
Scenario 28: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home address, its home agent has
only an ipv6 address, the access router has ipv6/ipv4 stack and ipv6/
ipv4 address. This scenario will not exist, so we do not consider
it.
Scenario 29: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home address, its home agent has
both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access router has only ipv4
stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a co-COA.
Scenario 30: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home address, its home agent has
both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access router has only ipv4
stack and ipv4 address. The mobile entity has a configured COA.
Scenario 31: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home addresses, its home agent
has both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access router has only
ipv6 stack and ipv6 address.
Scenario 32: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home address, its home agent has
both ipv6 address and ipv4 address, the access router has ipv6/ipv4
stack and ipv6/ipv4 address.
Scenario 33: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home address, its home agent has
only ipv4 address, the access router has only ipv4 stack and ipv4
address. The mobile entity has a co-COA. This scenario will not
exist, so we do not consider it.
Scenario 34: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home address, its home agent has
only ipv4 address, the access router has only ipv4 stack and ipv4
address. The mobile entity has a configured COA. This scenario will
not exist, so we do not consider it.
Scenario 35: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home address, its home agent has
only ipv4 address, the access router has only ipv6 stack and ipv6
address. This scenario will not exist, so we do not consider it.
Scenario 36: The mobile entity has dual-stack and supports both mip4
and mip6, it has both ipv4 and ipv6 home address, its home agent has
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
only ipv4 address, the access router has ipv6/ipv4 stack and ipv6/
ipv4 address. This scenario will not exist, so we do not consider
it.
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
4. Analysis of these scenarios
If the visited network is an ipv4/ipv6 mixed network, current mip4
and mip6 protocols are enough to solve the problems, so we assume
that the visited network is an ipv4 or ipv6 only network. Based on
this assumption, these scenarios can be divided into three categories
In the first category, the home network is an ipv4/ipv6 mixed
network[DSMIP]. The dual-stack mobile entity with at least an ipv6
address roams in the ipv4 or ipv6 network.
In the second category, the dual-stack mobile entity with an ipv6
home address roams in the ipv4 network. The home network is an ipv6
only network.
In the third category, the dual-stack mobile entity with an ipv4 home
address roams in the ipv6 network. The home network is an ipv4 only
network
As the ipv4 and ipv6 protocol will exist simultaneously for a long
time, the three categories of scenarios are all reasonable.
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
5. New functions needed in the network
In the first category, the mobile entity can communicate with the
home agent by ipv4 or ipv6 protocol, no new facility is needed.
In the second category, the mobile entity needs to send its ipv6
binding update to the home agent or the correspondent node from an
ipv4 only network.
In the third category, the mobile entity needs to send its ipv4
binding update to the home agent from an ipv6 only network.
In these scenarios, mobile entity can not communicate with its home
agent directly. The communication between mobile entity and its home
agent depends on other network facility. Currently, there are two
kinds of technologies in the ipv6/ipv4 interconnection field: NAT/PT
and tunnel. There are many tunneling technologies for communicating
between ipv4 and ipv6 network. Surely, we can use these technologies
to deal with these scenarios. There are some other solutions that
rely on mip4 and mip6 protocols. Some of these solutions may need
new facility in the network. For example, to solve the problems
involved in the second and third category scenarios, a network
facility that supports both mip4 and mip6 protocol is needed and a
solution based on current mip4 and mip6 protocols is needed.
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
6. Associated problems
When the mobile entity with an ipv6-only home network roams into a
visited network which runs ipv4-only protocol, it can not use mip6
protocol without tunneling or other support, and it may need new
facility to tunnel packet from ipv4 network into ipv6 network. When
the mobile entity with an ipv4-only home network roams into the ipv6-
only network, it can not use mip4 protocol without tunneling or other
support, and it may need new facility to tunnel packet from ipv6
network into ipv4 network too. In these scenarios, facility
discovery, routing mechanism, and binding update mechanism are all
needed.
If the mobile entity boots up in the visited network which runs a
different ip protocol with its home network, current bootstrapping
technology does not work any more[BOOT]. New protocol is needed.
When the mobile entity roams from one network into another network
which runs a different ip protocol, hand over perfermance is very
important. And the Fmip6 protocol needs to be extended. To improve
hand over perfermance, MIH system may need to consider these
scenarios.
As the home network and visited network maybe run different AAA
protocols, it is a problem of mobile entity to get access service.
At the same time, the access security may be different from the home
network. How to ensure the access security is a problem too. These
problems are noncommittal now.
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
7. Security considerations
The security consideration is mentioned in the section associated
problems.
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
8. IANA considerations
The document requires nothing from IANA.
9. Normative References
[BOOT] "Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping in split scenario", ,
June 2005.
[DSMIP] "Mobile IPv6 support for dual stack Hosts and Routers
(DSMIPv6)", , March 2006.
[RFC2119] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, October 1997.
[RFC2460] "Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) specification",
RFC 2460.
[RFC3344] "Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344.
[RFC3753] "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC 3753, June 2004.
[RFC3775] "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC3963] "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support protocol",
RFC 3963, January 2005.
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
Authors' Addresses
Changsheng Wan
Huawei Technologies
Site A,Floor 10,HuiHong Mansion,No.91 BaiXia Rd.
Nanjing, China 210001
Phone: +86-25-84565415
Email: wanchangsheng@huawei.com
Chengping Ye
Huawei Technologies
Site A,Floor 10,HuiHong Mansion,No.91 BaiXia Rd.
Nanjing, China 210001
Phone: +86-25-84565414
Email: yechengping@huawei.com
Xia Qin
Huawei Technologies
Site A,Floor 10,HuiHong Mansion,No.91 BaiXia Rd.
Nanjing, China 210001
Phone: +86-25-84565414
Email: alice.Q@huawei.com
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft dual stack analysis June 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Wan, et al. Expires December 17, 2006 [Page 18]
