draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-01.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT G. Trotter INTERNET-DRAFT J. Dunn
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group Agilent Technologies Benchmarking Methodology Working Group C. Martin
Expires: August 2003 February 2003 Expires: May 2005 SI International
October 2004
Methodology for Forwarding Information Base (FIB) based Router Methodology for Forwarding Information Base (FIB) based Router Performance
Performance
<draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-01.txt> draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1]. or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be
disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in
accordance with RFC 3668."
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [IPROC].
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
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 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
The forwarding performance of an IP router may be dependent upon or The forwarding performance of an IP router is highly dependent on the
may be linked to the composition and size of the forwarding information in its forwarding information base. This document describes
information base installed within a router. This document describes
the methodology to be used to determine the IP packet forwarding the methodology to be used to determine the IP packet forwarding
performance of an IP router as a function of the forwarding performance of an IP router as a function of the routers ability to
information base installed within a router. properly form and optimize its forwarding information base.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction....................................................2
2. Terms Of Reference..............................................2
3. Overview........................................................2
4. Router Setup....................................................3
5. Test Setup......................................................3
6. Methodology Of Route Advertisements.............................3
7. Table Size......................................................4
8. Table Composition...............................................5
9. Offered Packet Load.............................................5
10. Packet Format/Size.............................................6
11. Determining The Maximum Fib Size...............................6
12. Methodology....................................................7
12.1 Baseline Measurements.........................................7
FIB-based Router Performance February, 2003
12.2 Maximum Fib Size Test.........................................7
12.3 Fib Size Impact On Packet Forwarding Performance..............8
13. Security Considerations........................................9
14. References.....................................................9
15. Acknowledgments................................................9
16. Author's Addresses.............................................9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document covers the measurement of the IP packet forwarding This document covers the measurement of the IP packet forwarding
performance of IP routers on the basis of the forwarding information performance of IP routers on the basis of the routers ability to
base (FIB) installed within a router. [2] describes the terminology properly form and optimize its forwarding information base (FIB). [FIB-
associated with this document. TERM] describes the terminology associated with this document.
The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology for This version of the document describes a more general approach to the
measuring the impact of a FIB of a particular size and composition determination of router performance than previous versions. As a
on the forwarding performance of a router. The objective is to result, it is the intent of the authors that this document serves as a
determine whether a router can maintain performance levels as FIBs catalyst for further discussions concerning the approach outline in this
continue to grow in size.
This document utilizes the methodology described in [3] for draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004
measuring the FIB-dependent throughput, FIB-dependent latency and
FIB-dependent frame loss rate of IP packets as they traverse the
router under test. The forwarding performance of a router should be
observed under different FIB sizes and compositions.
In this document, the FIB is modified only when traffic is not draft. The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology for
traversing the router. The effect of dynamic changes on the measuring the impact of FIB generation from a given routing information
forwarding performance of a router is outside the scope of this base (RIB) on the forwarding performance of a router. The objective is
document. to determine whether a router can maintain performance levels as the RIB
grows in size and complexity.
This document utilizes the methodology described in [METHOD] for
measuring the FIB-dependent throughput, FIB-dependent latency and FIB-
dependent frame loss rate of IP packets as they traverse the router
under test. The forwarding performance of a router should be observed
under different RIB sizes and compositions.
2. Terms Of Reference 2. Terms Of Reference
This document utilizes the methodologies for packet throughput, This document utilizes the methodologies for packet throughput, latency
latency and loss measurements described in [3]. and loss measurements described in [METHOD].
Definitions unique to this test methodology are covered in [2]. Definitions unique to this test methodology are covered in [FIB-TERM].
This document covers only IPv4 packets traversing an IP router. The application of methodologies described in this document is not
Applicability of this document to other packet types (such as MPLS- limited to IP forwarding; however, it is beyond the scope of this
prefixed packets or non-IP packets) is not appropriate. document to explicitly describe their application. In this document, use
of the term IP is protocol version independent. Traffic, RIB and FIB
may be IPv4, IPv6 or both.
3. Overview 3. Overview
This methodology takes into account two key features of a FIB - the The methodology described in this document is based on the precept that
FIB size and the FIB prefix distribution. the FIB is formed from information in the RIB and, possibly, other
configured variables. The methodology is independent of the particulars
This methodology does not specify a particular means of populating a associated with populating the RIB or setting these variables; however,
FIB - a routing protocol should be used, although a FIB could be this SHOULD be done using routing protocols, e.g., OSPF [OSPF]. RIB and
manually entered into a router. One implication of this is that FIB contents MAY be determined either through observing traffic
there needs to be protocol-independent means for determining when a forwarding or management information base (MIB) queries. For
router's FIB has been fully populated (described in 12.2). completeness, this determination SHOULD be made using both. Generation
of the FIB from the RIB based on three major components:
FIB-based Router Performance February, 2003
Once a FIB of a particular size and prefix distribution is entered
into the router, [3] style measurements are performed in order to
gauge the effect of the FIB on packet FIB-dependent throughput, FIB-
dependent latency and FIB-dependent frame loss rate.
4. Router Setup
This is an out-of-service methodology. The router should be
configured realistically. That is, it should be configured with
physical interface cards, switching fabrics, and route processors
providing the basis for realistic product comparisons.
5. Test Setup
The router is connected to test equipment capable of advertising
network prefixes into the router under test and generating IP
packets to these advertised networks. In the absence of test gear
capable of advertising network prefixes into the router under test,
the network prefixes could be manually entered into the router.
This methodology does not specify or require a particular physical
interface type: all measurements are performed exclusively on IP
packets.
6. Methodology Of Route Advertisements
It is recommended that routes be advertised into the router under
test by using a routing protocol to speed the advertisement of
routes. Routes may be entered into the FIB manually, but this is
both tedious, and makes the correlation between entered routes and
offered traffic awkward (see section 9).
Routes may be advertised into the router on a single interface, or
over multiple interfaces. This methodology does not distinguish
between either method.
6.1 Order of Route Advertisements
Routes can be advertised into the router in any order - a router may
organize its FIB to maximize its performance - the impact of order
of advertisement cannot be presupposed to have an impact on the
structure of the FIB.
6.2 Prevention of Route Aggregation
Routes should be advertised into the router in such a manner as to
prevent route aggregation. Routes may be aggregated as follows. If
100 routes are advertised on a single interface within a common
prefix of 192.47.0.0, and no other advertisements on any other
interface have a prefix of 192.47.0.0, then the router may enter a
single /16 entry into the FIB, directing all traffic with a
192.47.0.0 prefix to a particular interface. Care must be taken to
FIB-based Router Performance February, 2003
prevent this from occurring, as it will result in smaller than
intended FIBs being entered within the router under test.
As an example of a means of router advertisement designed to prevent
route aggregation, consider the advertisement of 16 /16 prefixes
into a 4-port router in the diagram below:
+---------------+
1.1,2.1,3.1,4.1 -----| |----- 1.3,2.3,3.3,4.3
| |
| |
| |
1.2,2.2,3.2,4.2 -----| |----- 1.4,2.4,3.4,4.4
+---------------+
In this example, the router will not be able to aggregate the
entries from 1.0, since an entry exists on every port - the same
applies for the entries from 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0. This method of route
advertisement into the router must be used.
6.3 Learning time
A router takes time to "learn" routes. The overhead associated with
learning a route may include processing the routing protocol message
containing a new FIB entry, placing the entry into the FIB, and
then, in some modern routers, distributing the updated FIB to each
interface in the router.
This methodology does not measure or dictate the time that a router
takes to build a complete FIB. However, it is vital to the
execution of this methodology to ensure that a router has completed
learning routes and building the forwarding information base before
tests proceed.
There are two methods that can be taken to ensure that a router has
learned all routes. For the first method, the router can be queried
via an attached console to reveal the current FIB size. If access
to the console is not available, then test packets can be sent
through the router at such rate that packet loss does not ordinarily
occur. Test packets should test each entry in the FIB. No packet
loss can indicate that the router has learned all routes, and is
forwarding packets to all advertised destinations. However, this
method is not foolproof - a router may instead have filled its FIB,
and lost packets may indicate that the FIB is full, and not that the
router is still learning routes.
7. Table Size
This methodology does not specify FIB sizes to be installed within
the router under test. However, it is expected that this
methodology will be used through to the maximum possible FIB size
purported to be supported by the router under test.
FIB-based Router Performance February, 2003
This methodology recommends starting with a small FIB size - a
single network per physical interface - in order to perform a basic
performance benchmark on the router under test. Subsequent tests
will increase the FIB by size 'N'. The FIB will be increased
through to the maximum size possible (see section 11 for a
discussion of determining the maximum possible FIB size).
8. Table Composition
The composition of a FIB consists of a number FIB entries, with each
FIB entry containing a network prefix. The network prefix length of
each FIB entry may vary. These network prefixes typically range, in
a typical Internet router's FIB, from 8 to 30 bits in length (/8 to
/30) (this document does not attempt to pre-suppose the composition
of a typical FIB within a router in the Internet, however).
Destination address matches within FIBs consisting entirely of 8-bit
network prefixes may be very rapid (few bits in each destination
address/network prefix need to be matched), whereas it can be
expected that destination address matches within a FIB populated
entirely with 30-bit network prefixes (highly unlikely) will be
slower.
9. Offered Packets
To gauge the impact of a FIB on the performance of a router, IP
packets must be delivered to the router such that the FIB is fully
exercised. That is, packets must be delivered into the router on
every interface directed to stations whose network prefix is
advertised on every other interface.
This method of traffic generation fairly exercises the FIB on the
router. Modern routers may maintain a cache of the most frequently
used routes on a per-interface (or, per-line card) basis, or they
may maintain a complete copy of the FIB on a per-interface (or per-
line card) basis. Generating packets from every interface to every
advertised network ensures that each copy of the FIB is stressed, as
well as ensuring that a router's FIB cannot be optimized (i.e. by
installing summary routes).
Consider the diagram below:
+---------------+
1.1,2.1,3.1,4.1 -----|A C|----- 1.3,2.3,3.3,4.3
| |
| |
| |
1.2,2.2,3.2,4.2 -----|B D|----- 1.4,2.4,3.4,4.4
+---------------+
In this diagram, packets sent into interface A must be directed to a
destination address present in each network advertised on ports B, C
and D. That is, the "transmit packet list" for packets sent into
port A must be:
FIB-based Router Performance February, 2003
1.2.0.1
1.3.0.1
1.4.0.1
2.2.0.1
2.3.0.1
2.4.0.1
3.2.0.1
3.3.0.1
3.4.0.1
4.2.0.1
4.3.0.1
4.4.0.1
and then repeated.
Note that packets are transmitted to destinations on each port in a
round-robin manner. That is, A transmits a packet to B, then a
packet to C and then a packet to D, and then repeats, using the next
destination advertised on port A, and so on. This method ensures
that all aspects of the router (switching fabric, interface cards,
route processor, etc.) are stressed equally.
Also note that packets are sent from all interfaces simultaneously,
again ensuring that all router components are stressed equally. See
section 16 in [3].
10. Packet Format/Size
See [3] for a discussion of packet formats and sizes.
11. Determining The Maximum Fib Size
In order to determine the maximum FIB size, a method similar to that
used to determine whether all routes have been learned (see section
6.3) will be used.
Without observing the exchange of the routing protocol, it is
necessary to ascertain the size of the FIB from observation of
packets sent from the router.
The most methodical way of discovering the maximum FIB size is to
advertise network prefixes to the FIB, test the addition of the
entry by sending packets to the new network, ensure receipt of this
packet and repeat until packets are no longer forwarded to the newly
added network. Care must be taken to ensure that packets continue
to be forwarded to all advertised networks, even while new networks
are added - a router may "age-out" old entries in order to ensure
that its FIB is filled with current entries.
The absence of packets received at a particular network is - Interface Identifier - Route Optimization - Routing Policies
indicative of entries not being present within the FIB, and thus
indicates that the FIB has filled.
FIB-based Router Performance February, 2003 The following three sub-sections describe these components and their
effect on FIB generation.
If the approximate FIB size is known in advance, a larger number of 3.1 Interface Identifier
routes can be advertised into the router, then the maximum table
size can be found incrementally from this point.
When using IP packets to discover the maximum sized FIB supported by The interface identifier entry in the FIB establishes the physical path
the DUT, IP packets should be sent in at a rate that is for datagram forwarding. If the interface not active or down, the path
significantly below that of the maximum measured throughput of the is no longer available and the entry SHOULD be removed from the FIB.
router discovered during baseline measurements (see section 12.1). Descriptions of interface identifiers are contained in [MIB-BGP] and
[MIB-OSPF]. 3.2 Route Optimization
12. Methodology Route optimization seeks to minimize the overall effort on the part of
This methodology makes use of the packet forwarding measurements draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004
described in RFC 2544.
12.1 Baseline Measurements the router to forward datagrams. Optimization has three basic
components:
Objective: The objective of the baseline measurement is to - Route Aggregation - Route Flap Damping - Route Metrics
determine the nominal packet forwarding performance of the router,
with a minimal sized FIB.
Procedure: A route to a single network should be advertised on each Route aggregation seeks to minimize the number of entries in the FIB
port of the router under test - a router with 64 ports would thus corresponding to a set of reachable address prefixes. These prefixes
have an installed FIB of 64 entries. could be contiguous or overlapping. Methods for route aggregation are
described in [IDR].
As described in section 9, packets should be offered to the router Route flap damping seeks to minimize unnecessary re-generation of the
in order to create a full mesh between all advertised networks. FIB based on unstable routing information. Methods for route flap
damping are described in [BGP-FLAP].
Using measurements described in [3] for the throughput, latency,and Route metrics assign a relative weight or merit to a particular routed
frame loss rates (as per sections 26.1, 26.2, 26.3 and 26.4 in [3]), path. Descriptions of these metrics are found in [MIB-BGP] and [MIB-
the FIB-dependent throughput, FIB-dependent latency and FIB- OSPF].
dependent frame loss rate should be measured and the results duly
noted.
Reporting Format: Results should be reported as per [3]. 3.3 Routing Policies
12.2 Maximum FIB Size Test Routing policies are administrative restrictions or requirements on the
FIB. The take two major forms:
Objective: The objective of this test is to determine the maximum - Access Control Lists - Route Filters
size of the FIB that can be accommodated within the DUT. Discovery
of the maximum limit of the size of the FIB is necessary for the
establishment of limits in subsequent tests.
Procedure: Initially, advertise a single network on every port as Access control lists can be used to explicitly allow or deny access to
per section 12.1. Establish a traffic mesh between all advertised physical interfaces of network prefixes. This can be done either on the
networks as per section 9. Transmit IP packets through the DUT to basis of individual protocol addresses or entire prefixes.
all advertised networks at a rate well below the maximum throughput
rate of the router, discovered in section 12.1. Ensure that packet
loss is zero (indicating that packets are being forwarded to all
advertised networks).
Repeatedly advertise additional networks into the DUT and add these Route filters are a set of protocol addresses or prefixes against which
networks into the traffic mesh established through the DUT to the a given route will be matched. The resulting action of a match will
FIB-based Router Performance February, 2003 depend on the use of the route filter.
advertised networks. Stop when packet loss is detected, or when an 4.0 Methodology
ICMP destination unreachable message with a code value of 0 (network
unreachable) or 6 (destination network unknown) is received. This
will indicate that the FIB has filled (or, that the DUT is unable to
add additional entries into the FIB). The test should continue in
order to establish increasing packet loss as a consequence of
increasing networks advertised into the DUT.
Reporting Format: The results should be reported as a single number The methodologies for determining the effects of the three components of
(the maximum FIB size). The results should be backed up with a FIB generation are still under investigation. The authors look to the
graph of the packet loss (on the y-axis) versus the networks BMWG for guidance, suggestions and constructive input.
advertised into the DUT (on the x-axis).
12.3 FIB Size Impact On Packet Forwarding Performance draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004
Objective: The objective of this test is to evaluate the impact of 5. Security Considerations
FIB size and composition upon the packet forwarding performance of
the DUT.
Procedure: This iterative test changes both the size and As this document is solely for the purpose of providing performance
composition of the FIB, and makes performance measurements for each methodologies and describes neither a protocol nor a protocol's
iteration. That is, the FIB is set to a certain size and implementation; therefore, there are no security considerations
composition, then performance measurements are made for packet associated with this document.
throughput, latency, and packet loss rate. The FIB is incremented,
then the tests are repeated, through to the maximum sized FIB
supported by the DUT.
The following code segment illustrates this methodology: 6. Informative References
set forward_table_compositions [List 16 22 24 realistic] [IPROC] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [FIB-TERM] Trotter, G., " Terminology
for Forwarding Information Base (FIB) based Router Performance", RFC
3222, December, 2001. [METHOD] Bradner, S., McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking
Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999
[OSPF] Moy, J, "OSPF Version 2," RFC 2328, April 1998. [MIB-BGP]
Willis, S., Burrus, J., Chu, J. "Definitions of Managed Objects for the
Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2," RFC
1657, July 1994. [MIB-OSPF] Baker, F., Colton, R., "OSPF Version 2
Management Information Base," RFC 1850, November 1995. [IDR] Chen, E.,
Stewart, J., "A Framework for Inter-Domain Route Aggregation," RFC 2519,
February 1999. [BGP-FLAP] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., Govindan, R.,
"BGP Route Flap Damping," RFC 2439, November 1998.
for (forwarding_table_size = num_physical_interfaces; 7. Acknowledgements
Forwarding_table_size <= maximum_forwarding_table_size;
Forwarding_table_size += increment)
{
foreach value forward_table_compositions_
{
set_forwarding_table_composition $value
measure_FIB-dependent_throughput;
measure_FIB-dependent_latency;
measure_FIB-dependent_packet loss rate;
measure_FIB-dependent_back-to-back frames;
}
}
Reporting Format: Results will be reported as a series of [3]-style The current authors would like to acknowledge Guy Trotter of Agilent
graphs, with a separate set of graphs for each individual FIB size / Technologies for his work on the first edition of this draft. His work
FIB composition test. Results could be overlaid onto a single set has spurred the current authors to consider a broader set of performance
of graphs. criteria for FIB generation.
It may be useful to create a set of graphs to aid in direct 8. Author's Addresses
interpretation of this test. One recommended graph would be, for a
particular frame size, a graph of the appropriate metric on the y-
FIB-based Router Performance February, 2003
axis (FIB-dependent throughput, FIB-dependent latency, FIB-dependent Jeffrey Dunn SI International 12012 Sunset Hills Road Suite 800 Reston,
packet loss) versus the FIB size, with overlaid lines for each FIB VA 20190-5869 USA Ph: +1 703 234 6959 e-mail: jeffrey.dunn@si-intl.com
composition.
13. Security Considerations Cynthia Martin SI International 12012 Sunset Hills Road Suite 800
Reston, VA 20190-5869 USA Ph: +1 703 234 6962 e-mail: Cynthia.martin@si-
intl.com
As this document is solely for the purpose of providing metric 9.0 Intellectual Property Considerations
methodology and describes neither a protocol nor a protocol's
implementation, there are no security considerations associated with
this document.
14. Informative References 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.
1 Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
9, RFC 2026, October 1996. assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt
2 Trotter, G., " Terminology for Forwarding Information Base (FIB) made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
based Router Performance", RFC 3222, December, 2001.
3 Bradner, S., McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999
15. Acknowledgements draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004
16. Author's Addresses 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.
Guy Trotter The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
Agilent Technologies (Canada) Inc. copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
#2500 4710 Kingsway that may cover technology that may be required to implement this
Burnaby, British Columbia standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
Canada ipr@ietf.org.
V5H 4M2
Phone: +1 604 454 3516
Email: Guy_Trotter@agilent.com
Full Copyright Statement 9.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent
or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of
which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 10. Full Copyright Statement
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.
FIB-based Router Performance February, 2003 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR
document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE Of THE
NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/