draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-03.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT J. Dunn Internet Draft
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group C. Martin Benchmarking Working Group J. Dunn
Expires: May 2005 SI International C. Martin
October 2004 SI International
Expires: August 2005 February 14, 2005
Methodology for Forwarding Information Base (FIB) based Router Performance
draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt Methodology for Forwarding Information Base (FIB) based Router
Performance
draft- -ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
"By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
accordance with RFC 3668." RFC 3668.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all This document may only be posted in an Internet-Draft.
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [IPROC].
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 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
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
The forwarding performance of an IP router is highly dependent on the The forwarding performance of an IP router is highly dependent on
information in its forwarding information base. This document describes the information in its forwarding information base. This document
the methodology to be used to determine the IP packet forwarding describes the methodology to be used to determine the IP packet
performance of an IP router as a function of the routers ability to forwarding performance of an IP router as a function of the routers
properly form and optimize its forwarding information base. ability to properly form and optimize its forwarding information base.
1. Introduction 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 Error! Reference
source not found..
This document covers the measurement of the IP packet forwarding Table of Contents
performance of IP routers on the basis of the routers ability to
properly form and optimize its forwarding information base (FIB). [FIB-
TERM] describes the terminology associated with this document.
This version of the document describes a more general approach to the Introduction......................................................3
determination of router performance than previous versions. As a Terms of Reference................................................3
result, it is the intent of the authors that this document serves as a 1. Overview.......................................................4
catalyst for further discussions concerning the approach outline in this 1.1. Interface Identifier......................................4
1.2. Route Optimization........................................4
1.3. Routing Policies..........................................5
2. Base Methodology...............................................5
2.1. Verdict Definitions.......................................6
2.2. Basic Test Types..........................................6
2.2.1. Route Addition.......................................6
2.2.2. Route Deletion.......................................7
2.2.3. Route Addition.......................................7
2.3. Baseline Tests............................................7
3. Test Suite Definition..........................................8
3.1. Control Plane Test Group..................................8
3.1.1. Interface Identifier Test Group......................8
3.1.2. Route Optimization Test Group........................8
3.1.2.1. Route Aggregation Test Sub-Group................8
3.1.2.2. Route Flap Damping Test Sub-Group...............8
3.1.2.3. Route Metrics Test Sub-Group....................8
3.1.3. Routing Policies Test Group..........................9
3.1.3.1. Access Control Lists Test Sub-Group.............9
3.1.3.2. Route Filters Test Sub-Group....................9
3.1.3.3. Static Routes Test Sub-Group....................9
3.2. Data Plane Test Group....................................10
3.2.1. Interface Identifier Test Group.....................10
3.2.2. Route Optimization Test Sub-Group...................10
3.2.2.1. Route Aggregation Test Sub-Group...............10
3.2.2.2. Route Flap Damping Test Sub-Group..............10
3.2.2.3. Route Metrics Test Sub-Group...................10
3.2.3. Routing Policies Test Group.........................10
3.2.3.1. Access Control Lists Test Sub-Group............10
3.2.3.2. Route Filters Test Sub-Group...................11
3.2.3.3. Static Routes Test Sub-Group...................11
4. Security Considerations.......................................11
5. Acknowledgments...............................................11
6. References....................................................11
6.1. Normative References.....................................11
7. Author's Addresses............................................12
Intellectual Property Statement..................................12
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................13
Copyright Statement..............................................13
Acknowledgment...................................................13
draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004 Introduction
draft. The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology for This document covers the measurement of the IP packet
measuring the impact of FIB generation from a given routing information forwarding performance of IP routers on the basis of the
base (RIB) on the forwarding performance of a router. The objective is routers ability to properly form and optimize its forwarding
to determine whether a router can maintain performance levels as the RIB information base (FIB). [FIB-TERM] describes the terminology
grows in size and complexity. associated with this document.
This document utilizes the methodology described in [METHOD] for This version of the document describes a more general approach to
measuring the FIB-dependent throughput, FIB-dependent latency and FIB- the determination of router performance than previous versions. As
dependent frame loss rate of IP packets as they traverse the router a result, it is the intent of the authors that this document serves
under test. The forwarding performance of a router should be observed as a catalyst for further discussions concerning the approach outline
under different RIB sizes and compositions. in this draft. The purpose of this document is to describe a
methodology for measuring the impact of FIB generation from a given
routing information base (RIB) on the forwarding performance of a
router. The objective is to determine whether a router can maintain
performance levels as the RIB grows in size and complexity.
2. Terms Of Reference 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.
This document utilizes the methodologies for packet throughput, latency Terms of Reference
and loss measurements described in [METHOD].
Definitions unique to this test methodology are covered in [FIB-TERM]. This document utilizes the methodologies for packet throughput,
latency and loss measurements described in [METHOD].
The application of methodologies described in this document is not Definitions unique to this test methodology are covered in [FIB-
limited to IP forwarding; however, it is beyond the scope of this TERM].
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 The application of methodologies described in this document
is not limited to IP forwarding; however, it is beyond the
scope of this 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.
The methodology described in this document is based on the precept that 1. Overview
the FIB is formed from information in the RIB and, possibly, other
configured variables. The methodology is independent of the particulars
associated with populating the RIB or setting these variables; however,
this SHOULD be done using routing protocols, e.g., OSPF [OSPF]. RIB and
FIB contents MAY be determined either through observing traffic
forwarding or management information base (MIB) queries. For
completeness, this determination SHOULD be made using both. Generation
of the FIB from the RIB based on three major components:
- Interface Identifier - Route Optimization - Routing Policies The methodology described in this document is based on the precept
that the FIB is formed from information in the RIB and, possibly,
other configured variables. The methodology is independent of the
particulars associated with populating the RIB or setting these
variables; however, this SHOULD be done using routing protocols,
e.g., OSPF [OSPF]. RIB and FIB contents MAY be determined either
through observing traffic forwarding or management information base
(MIB) queries. For completeness, this determination SHOULD be made
using both. Generation of the FIB from the RIB based on three major
components:
The following three sub-sections describe these components and their o Interface Identifier
effect on FIB generation.
3.1 Interface Identifier o Route Optimization
The interface identifier entry in the FIB establishes the physical path o Routing Policies
for datagram forwarding. If the interface not active or down, the path
is no longer available and the entry SHOULD be removed from the FIB.
Descriptions of interface identifiers are contained in [MIB-BGP] and
[MIB-OSPF]. 3.2 Route Optimization
Route optimization seeks to minimize the overall effort on the part of The following three sub-sections describe these components and
their effect on FIB generation.
draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004 1.1. Interface Identifier
the router to forward datagrams. Optimization has three basic The interface identifier entry in the FIB establishes the physical
components: path for datagram forwarding. If the interface not active or down,
the path is no longer available and the entry SHOULD be removed from
the FIB. Descriptions of interface identifiers are contained in
[MIB-BGP] and [MIB-OSPF].
- Route Aggregation - Route Flap Damping - Route Metrics 1.2. Route Optimization
Route aggregation seeks to minimize the number of entries in the FIB Route optimization seeks to minimize the overall effort on the
corresponding to a set of reachable address prefixes. These prefixes part of the router to forward datagrams. Optimization has
could be contiguous or overlapping. Methods for route aggregation are three basic components:
described in [IDR].
Route flap damping seeks to minimize unnecessary re-generation of the o Route Aggregation
FIB based on unstable routing information. Methods for route flap
damping are described in [BGP-FLAP].
Route metrics assign a relative weight or merit to a particular routed o Route Flap Damping
path. Descriptions of these metrics are found in [MIB-BGP] and [MIB-
OSPF].
3.3 Routing Policies o Route Metrics
Routing policies are administrative restrictions or requirements on the Route aggregation seeks to minimize the number of entries in
FIB. The take two major forms: the FIB corresponding to a set of reachable address prefixes. These
prefixes could be contiguous or overlapping. Methods for route
aggregation are described in [IDR].
- Access Control Lists - Route Filters Route flap damping seeks to minimize unnecessary re-generation
of the FIB based on unstable routing information. Methods for
route flap damping are described in [BGP-FLAP].
Access control lists can be used to explicitly allow or deny access to Route metrics assign a relative weight or merit to a particular
physical interfaces of network prefixes. This can be done either on the routed path. Descriptions of these metrics are found in [MIB-BGP]
basis of individual protocol addresses or entire prefixes. and [MIB-OSPF].
Route filters are a set of protocol addresses or prefixes against which 1.3. Routing Policies
a given route will be matched. The resulting action of a match will
depend on the use of the route filter.
4.0 Methodology Routing policies are administrative restrictions or requirements
on the FIB. The take three major forms:
The methodologies for determining the effects of the three components of o Access Control Lists
FIB generation are still under investigation. The authors look to the
BMWG for guidance, suggestions and constructive input.
draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004 o Route Filters
5. Security Considerations o Static Routes
As this document is solely for the purpose of providing performance Access control lists can be used to explicitly allow or deny
methodologies and describes neither a protocol nor a protocol's access to physical interfaces of network prefixes. This can be done
implementation; therefore, there are no security considerations either on the basis of individual protocol addresses or entire
associated with this document. prefixes.
6. Informative References Route filters are a set of protocol addresses or prefixes against
which a given route will be matched. The resulting action of a match
will depend on the use of the route filter; however, it is usually an
allow or deny action.
Static routes are lists of protocol addresses explicitly associated
with a given interface. All datagrams with protocol addresses in
these lists are automatically routed to the specified address.
2. Base Methodology
The test methodologies described in this document are grouped
according to a hierarchy based on the effects of routing updates.
This test hierarchy and nomenclature follow the ISO 9646 [ISO9646]
formalism. The basic test hierarchy is:
1. Control Plane Group
a. Interface Identifier Group
b. Route Optimization Group
c. Routing Policies Group
2. Data Plane Group
a. Interface Identifier Group
b. Route Optimization Group
c. Routing Policies Group
Each test group or case MUST contain a test purpose. Test cases MUST
specify the SUT state, series of stimuli to bring it to that state,
stimulating datagram and expected datagram. All required field in
all datagrams MUST be specified. Verdicts are PASS, FAIL and
INCONCLUSIVE. All verdicts MUST have the associated responses
explicitly specified. The entirety constitutes a test suite.
2.1. Verdict Definitions
o PASS ū The required datagram was detected within the required time
period.
o FAIL ū The required datagram was not detected within the required
time period.
o INCONCLUSIVE _ The SUT could not be brought into the specified
state.
2.2. Basic Test Types
This methodology employees three basic test types:
o Route Addition
o Route Deletion
o Route Change
2.2.1. Route Addition
A route addition test case involves advertising a route to the SIT
not contained in the RIB or FIB. The test case produces a PASS
verdict when the advertised route is reflected in the SUTĘs
processing of data and control plane datagrams.
2.2.2. Route Deletion
A route addition test case involves ceasing to advertise a route to
the SIT contained in the RIB or FIB. The test case produces a PASS
verdict when the deleted route is reflected in the SUTĘs processing
of data and control plane datagrams.
2.2.3. Route Addition
A route addition test case involves advertising a route to the SIT
contained in the RIB or FIB and associated with a different
interface. The test case produces a PASS verdict when the advertised
route is reflected in the SUTĘs processing of data and control plane
datagrams.
2.3. Baseline Tests
Given a FIB in a steady state and populated to a specified percentage
of its maximum size, a measure of the maximum throughput [RFC 1242]
constitutes a baseline for all additional measurements.
3. Test Suite Definition
Test Suite Purpose: Determine the effect of route advertisements on
the data and control plane responses of the SUT.
3.1. Control Plane Test Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates with the appropriate control plane messages.
3.1.1. Interface Identifier Test Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates with the appropriate control plane messages to the
appropriate interface.
3.1.2. Route Optimization Test Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates with the appropriate control plane messages indicating route
optimization.
3.1.2.1. Route Aggregation Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates with the appropriate control plane messages indicating route
aggregation has been applied to FIB.
3.1.2.2. Route Flap Damping Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates with the appropriate control plane messages indicating route
flap damping has been applied to FIB.
3.1.2.3. Route Metrics Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates with the appropriate control plane messages indicating route
metrics have been applied to FIB.
3.1.3. Routing Policies Test Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates with the appropriate control plane messages based on routing
policies.
3.1.3.1. Access Control Lists Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates with the appropriate control plane messages indicating access
control lists have been applied to FIB.
3.1.3.2. Route Filters Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates with the appropriate control plane messages indicating route
filters have been applied to FIB.
3.1.3.3. Static Routes Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates with the appropriate control plane messages static routes
have been applied to FIB.
3.2. Data Plane Test Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates by appropriately handling IP datagrams.
3.2.1. Interface Identifier Test Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates by routing data to the appropriate interface.
3.2.2. Route Optimization Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates by routing data to the appropriate interface after the
specified period of time.
3.2.2.1. Route Aggregation Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates by routing data to the aggregated appropriate interface.
3.2.2.2. Route Flap Damping Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates by routing data to the appropriate interface based on the
damping period.
3.2.2.3. Route Metrics Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates by routing data to the appropriate interface.
3.2.3. Routing Policies Test Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates by routing data to the appropriate interface based on routing
policies.
3.2.3.1. Access Control Lists Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates by routing data to the appropriate interface based on routing
policies.
3.2.3.2. Route Filters Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates by routing data to the appropriate interface based on routing
policies.
3.2.3.3. Static Routes Test Sub-Group
Test Group Purpose: Determine whether the SUT responds to route
updates by routing data to the appropriate interface based on routing
policies.
4. Security Considerations
As this document is solely for the purpose of providing
performance methodologies and describes neither a protocol nor
a protocol's implementation; therefore, there are no
security considerations associated with this document.
5. Acknowledgments
The current authors would like to acknowledge Guy Trotter of
Agilent Technologies for his work on the first edition of this draft.
His work has spurred the current authors to consider a broader set of
performance criteria for FIB generation.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[IPROC] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", [IPROC] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [FIB-TERM] Trotter, G., " Terminology BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
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.
7. Acknowledgements [FIB-TERM] Trotter, G., "Terminology for Forwarding Information Base
(FIB) based Router Performance", RFC 3222, December, 2001.
The current authors would like to acknowledge Guy Trotter of Agilent [METHOD] Bradner, S., McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
Technologies for his work on the first edition of this draft. His work Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999
has spurred the current authors to consider a broader set of performance
criteria for FIB generation.
8. Author's Addresses [OSPF] Moy, J, "OSPF Version 2," RFC 2328, April 1998.
Jeffrey Dunn SI International 12012 Sunset Hills Road Suite 800 Reston, [MIB-BGP] Willis, S., Burrus, J., Chu, J., "Definitions of Managed
VA 20190-5869 USA Ph: +1 703 234 6959 e-mail: jeffrey.dunn@si-intl.com Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)
using SMIv2," RFC 1657, July 1994.
Cynthia Martin SI International 12012 Sunset Hills Road Suite 800 [MIB-OSPF] Baker, F.,Colton, R., "OSPF Version 2 Management
Reston, VA 20190-5869 USA Ph: +1 703 234 6962 e-mail: Cynthia.martin@si- Information Base," RFC 1850, November 1995.
intl.com
9.0 Intellectual Property Considerations [IDR] Chen, E., Stewart, J., "A Framework for Inter-Domain Route
Aggregation," RFC 2519, February 1999.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any [BGP-FLAP] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., Govindan, R., "BGP Route
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Flap Damping," RFC 2439, November 1998.
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 [ISO9646] Conformance testing methodology and framework, ISO, 1994.
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
draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004 [RFC 1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices," RFC 1242, July 1991.
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification 7. Author's Addresses
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 Jeffrey Dunn
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights SI International
that may cover technology that may be required to implement this 12012 Sunset Hills Road
standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- Suite 800
ipr@ietf.org. Reston, VA 20190-5869 USA
9.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement Phone: _1 703 234 6959
Email: Jeffrey.Dunn@si-intl.com
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent Cynthia Martin
or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of SI International
which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 12012 Sunset Hills Road
Suite 800
Reston, VA 20190-5869 USA
10. Full Copyright Statement Phone: +1 703 234 6962
Email: Cynthia.Martin@si-intl.com
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to Intellectual Property Statement
the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 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. 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.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE Of THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 

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