mboned Working Group P. Savola Internet Draft CSC/FUNET Expiration Date: April 2004 B. Haberman Caspian Networks October 2003 Embedding the Address of RP in IPv6 Multicast Address draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to 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. To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract There exists a huge deployment problem with global, interdomain IPv6 multicast: Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Rendezvous Points (RPs) have no way of communicating the information about multicast sources to other multicast domains, as there is no Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP), and the whole interdomain Any Source Multicast (ASM) model is rendered unusable; Source Specific Multicast (SSM) avoids these problems but is not considered readily deployable at the moment. This memo defines a PIM-SM group- to-RP mapping which encodes the address of the RP in the IPv6 multicast address. In consequence, there would be no need for interdomain MSDP, and even intra-domain RP configuration could be simplified. This memo updates RFC 3306. Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 1] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................... 2 2. Unicast-Prefix-based Address Format ........................ 4 3. Modified Unicast-Prefix-based Address Format ............... 4 4. Embedding the Address of the RP in the Multicast Address ... 5 5. Examples ................................................... 6 5.1. Example 1 .............................................. 6 5.2. Example 2 .............................................. 6 5.3. Example 3 .............................................. 6 5.4. Example 4 .............................................. 7 6. Operational Requirements ................................... 7 6.1. Anycast-RP ............................................. 7 6.2. Guidelines for Assigning IPv6 Addresses to RPs ......... 7 7. Required PIM-SM Modifications .............................. 7 7.1. Overview of the Model .................................. 9 8. Scalability/Usability Analysis ............................. 9 9. Acknowledgements ........................................... 11 10. Security Considerations ................................... 11 11. References ................................................ 12 11.1. Normative References .................................. 12 11.2. Informative References ................................ 12 Authors' Addresses ............................................. 13 A. Discussion about Design Tradeoffs .......................... 13 Intellectual Property Statement ................................ 14 Full Copyright Statement ....................................... 15 1. Introduction As has been noticed [V6MISSUES], there exists a huge deployment problem with global, interdomain IPv6 multicast: PIM-SM [PIM-SM] RPs have no way of communicating the information about multicast sources to other multicast domains, as there is no MSDP [MSDP], and the whole interdomain Any Source Multicast model is rendered unusable; SSM [SSM] avoids these problems. It has been noted that there are some problems with SSM deployment and support: it seems unlikely that SSM could be usable as the only interdomain multicast routing mechanism in the short term. This memo proposes a fix to interdomain multicast routing, and provides an additional method for the RP discovery with the intra-domain case. This document proposes a solution to the group-to-RP mapping problem which leverages and extends [RFC3306] by encoding the RP address of the IPv6 multicast group into the group address itself. Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 2] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 This mechanism not only provides a simple solution for IPv6 interdomain ASM but can be used as a simple solution for IPv6 intradomain ASM on scoped addresses, as well. The use as a substitute for Bootstrap Router protocol (BSR) [BSR] is also possible. The solution consists of two elements applicable to a subrange of [RFC3306] IPv6 multicast group addresses which are defined by setting one previously unused bit of the Flags field to "1": o A specification of the mapping by which such a group address encodes the RP address that is to be used with this group, and o A specification of optional and mandatory procedures to operate ASM with PIM-SM on these IPv6 multicast groups. Addresses in this subrange will be called embedded-RP addresses. If used in the interdomain, a mechanism similar to MSDP is not required for these addresses and RP configuration for these addresses can be as simple as zero configuration for routers supporting this specification. It is self-evident that a 128 bit RP address can in general not be embedded into a 128-bit group address with space left to carry a group identity itself. An appropriate form of encoding is thus defined, and it is assumed that the Interface-ID of RPs in the embedded-RP range can be assigned to be specific values. If these assumptions can't be followed, either operational procedures and configuration must be slightly changed or this mechanism can not be used. The assignment of multicast addresses is outside the scope of this document; however, the mechanisms are very probably similar to ones used with [RFC3306]. This memo updates the addressing format presented in RFC 3306. 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 [RFC2119]. Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 3] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 2. Unicast-Prefix-based Address Format As described in [RFC3306], the multicast address format is as follows: | 8 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 64 | 32 | +--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+ |11111111|flgs|scop|reserved| plen | network prefix | group ID | +--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+ Where flgs are "0011". (The first two bits are yet undefined and thus zero.) 3. Modified Unicast-Prefix-based Address Format This memo proposes a modification to the unicast-prefix-based address format: 1. If the second high-order bit in "flgs" is set to 1, the address of the RP is embedded in the multicast address, as described in this memo. 2. If the second high-order bit in "flgs" was set to 1, interpret the last low-order 4 bits of "reserved" field as signifying the RP interface ID, as described in this memo. In consequence, the address format becomes: | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 64 | 32 | +--------+----+----+----+----+--------+----------------+----------+ |11111111|flgs|scop|rsvd|RPad| plen | network prefix | group ID | +--------+----+----+----+----+--------+----------------+----------+ +-+-+-+-+ flgs is a set of 4 flags: |0|R|P|T| +-+-+-+-+ R = 1 indicates a multicast address that embeds the address of the PIM-SM RP. Then P MUST BE set to 1, and consequently T MUST be set to 1, as specified in [RFC3306]. In the case that R = 1, the last 4 bits of previously reserved field ("RPad") are interpreted as embedding the interface ID of the RP, as specified in this memo. R = 0 indicates a multicast address that does not embed the address of the PIM-SM RP and follows the semantics defined in [ADDRARCH] and [RFC3306]. In this context, the value of "RPad" has no meaning. Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 4] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 4. Embedding the Address of the RP in the Multicast Address The address of the RP can only be embedded in unicast-prefix -based ASM addresses. To identify whether an address is a multicast address as specified in this memo and to be processed any further, it must satisfy all of the below: o it MUST be a multicast address and have R, P, and T flag bits set to 1 (that is, be part of the prefix FF7::/12 or FFF::/12), o "plen" MUST NOT be 0 (ie. not SSM), and o "plen" MUST NOT be greater than 64. The address of the RP can be obtained from a multicast address satisfying the above criteria by taking the following steps: 1. take the last 96 bits of the multicast address add 32 zero bits at the end, 2. zero the last 128-"plen" bits, and 3. replace the last 4 bits with the contents of "RPad". One should note that there are several operational scenarios when [RFC3306] statement "all non-significant bits of the network prefix field SHOULD be zero" is ignored -- and why the second step, above, is necessary. This is to allow multicast address assignments to third parties which still use your RP; see example 2 below. "plen" higher than 64 MUST NOT be used as that would overlap with the upper bits of multicast group-id. The implementation MUST perform at least the same address validity checks to the calculated RP address as to one received via other means (like BSR [BSR] or MSDP for IPv4), to avoid e.g. the address being "::" or "::1". One should note that the 4 bits reserved for "RPad" set the upper bound for RPs per multicast group address; not the number of RPs in a subnet, PIM-SM domain or large-scale network. Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 5] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 5. Examples 5.1. Example 1 The network administrator of 3FFE:FFFF::/32 wants to set up an RP for the network and all of his customers. He chooses network prefix=3FFE:FFFF and plen=32, and wants to use this addressing mechanism. The multicast addresses he will be able to use are of the form: FF7x:y20:3FFE:FFFF:zzzz:zzzz: Where "x" is the multicast scope, "y" the interface ID of the RP address, and "zzzz:zzzz" will be freely assignable within the PIM-SM domain. In this case, the address of the PIM-SM RP would be: 3FFE:FFFF::y (and "y" could be anything from 0 to F); the address 3FFE:FFFF::y/128 is added as a Loopback address and injected to the routing system. 5.2. Example 2 As above, the network administrator can also allocate multicast addresses like "FF7x:y20:3FFE:FFFF:DEAD::/80" to some of his customers within the PIM-SM domain. In this case the RP address would still be "3FFE:FFFF::y". Note the second rule of deriving the RP address: the "plen" field in the multicast address, (hex)20 = 32, refers to the length of "network prefix" field considered when obtaining the RP address. In this case, only the first 32 bits of the network prefix field, "3FFE:FFFF" are preserved: the value of "plen" takes no stance on actual unicast/multicast prefix lengths allocated or used in the networks, here from 3FFE:FFFF:DEAD::/48. 5.3. Example 3 In the above network, the network admin sets up addresses as above, but an organization wants to have their own PIM-SM domain; that's reasonable. The organization can pick multicast addresses like "FF7x:y30:3FFE:FFFF:BEEF::/80", and then their RP address would be "3FFE:FFFF:BEEF::y". Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 6] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 5.4. Example 4 In the above networks, if the admin wants to specify the RP to be in a non-zero /64 subnet, he could always use something like "FF7x:y40:3FFE:FFFF:BEEF:FEED::/96", and then their RP address would be "3FFE:FFFF:BEEF:FEED::y". There are still 32 bits of multicast group-id's to assign to customers and self. 6. Operational Requirements 6.1. Anycast-RP One should note that MSDP is also used, in addition to interdomain connections between RPs, in anycast-RP [ANYCASTRP] -technique, for sharing the state information between different RPs in one PIM-SM domain. However, there are other propositions, like [ANYPIMRP]. Anycast-RP mechanism is incompatible with this addressing method unless MSDP is specified and implemented. Alternatively, another method for sharing state information could be used. Anycast-RP and other possible RP failover mechanisms are outside of the scope of this memo. 6.2. Guidelines for Assigning IPv6 Addresses to RPs With this mechanism, the RP can be given basically any network prefix up to /64. The interface identifier will have to be manually configured to match "RPad". RPad = 0 SHOULD NOT be used as using it would cause ambiguity with the Subnet-Router Anycast Address [ADDRARCH]. If an administrator wishes to use an RP address that does not conform to the addressing topology but is still from the network provider's prefix (e.g. an additional loopback address assigned on a router), that address can be injected into the routing system via a host route. 7. Required PIM-SM Modifications The use of multicast addresses with embedded RP addresses requires additional PIM-SM processing. Namely, a PIM-SM router will need to be able to recognize the encoding and derive the RP address from the address using the rules in section 4 and to be able to use the embedded RP, instead of its own for multicast addresses in this specified range. Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 7] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 The three key places where these modifications are used are the Designated Routers (DRs) on the receiver/sender networks, the backbone networks, and the RPs in the domain where the embdedded address has been derived from (see figure below). For the foreign DRs (rtrR1, rtrR23, and rtrR4), this means sending PIM-SM Join/Prune/Register messages towards the foreign RP (rtrRP_S). Naturally, PIM-SM Register-Stop and other messages must also be allowed from the foreign RP. DRs in the local PIM-SM domain (rtrS) do the same. For the RP (rtrRP_S), this means being able to recognize and validate PIM-SM messages which use RP-embedded addressing originated from any DR at all. For the other routers on the path (rtrBB), this means recognizing and validating that the Join/Prune PIM-SM messages using the embedded RP addressing are on the right path towards the RP they think is in charge of the particular address. nodeS - rtrS - rtrRP_S - rtrBB -----+--- rtrR1 - node1 | | | node2_S ---------+ | +-- rtrR23 - node2 | | | +---- node3 | +------------ rtrR4 - node4 In addition, the administration of the PIM-SM domains MAY have an option to manually override the RP selection for the embedded RP multicast addresses: the default policy SHOULD be to use the embedded RP. The extraction of the RP information from the multicast address should be done during forwarding state creation. That is, if no state exists for the multicast address, PIM-SM must take the embedded RP information into account when creating forwarding state. Unless otherwise dictated by the administrative policy, this would result in a receiver's DR initiating a PIM-SM Join towards the foreign RP or a source's DR sending PIM-SM Register messages towards the foreign RP. It should be noted that this approach removes the need to run inter- domain MSDP. Multicast distribution trees in foreign networks can be joined by issuing a PIM-SM Join/Prune/Register to the RP address encoded in the multicast address. Also, the addressing model described here could be used to replace or augment the intra-domain Bootstrap Router mechanism (BSR), as the RP- Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 8] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 mappings can be communicated by the multicast address assignment. 7.1. Overview of the Model The steps when a receiver wishes to join a group are: 1. A receiver finds out a group address from some means (e.g. SDR or a web page). 2. The receiver issues an MLD Report, joining the group. 3. The receiver's DR will initiate the PIM-SM Join process towards the RP embedded in the multicast address. The steps when a sender wishes to send to a group are: 1. A sender finds out a group address from some means, whether in an existing group (e.g. SDR, web page) or in a new group (e.g. a call to the administrator for group assignment, use of a multicast address assignment protocol). 2. The sender sends to the group. 3. The sender's DR will send the packets unicast-encapsulated in PIM-SM Register-messages to the RP address encoded in the multicast address (in the special case that DR is the RP, such sending is only conceptual). In both cases, the messages then go on as specified in [PIM-SM] and other specifications (e.g. Register-Stop and/or SPT Join); there is no difference in them except for the fact that the RP address is derived from the multicast address. Sometimes, some information, using conventional mechanisms, about another RP exists in the PIM-SM domain. The embedded RP SHOULD be used by default, but there MAY be an option to switch the preference. This is because especially when performing PIM-SM forwarding in the transit networks, the routers must have the same notion of the RP, or else the messages may be dropped. 8. Scalability/Usability Analysis Interdomain MSDP model for connecting PIM-SM domains is mostly hierarchical. The "embedded RP address" changes this to a mostly flat, sender-centered, full-mesh virtual topology. This may or may not cause some effects; it may or may not be desirable. At the very least, it makes many things much more robust as the number of third parties is minimized. A good scalability analysis is needed. Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 9] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 In some cases (especially if e.g. every home user is employing site- local multicast), some degree of hierarchy would be highly desirable, for scalability (e.g. to take the advantage of shared multicast state) and administrative point-of-view. Being able to join/send to remote RPs has security considerations that are considered below, but it has an advantage too: every group has a "home RP" which is able to control (to some extent) who are able to send to the group. One should note that the model presented here simplifies the PIM-SM multicast routing model slightly by removing the RP for senders and receivers in foreign domains. One scalability consideration should be noted: previously foreign sources sent the unicast-encapsulated data to their local RP, now they do so to the foreign RP responsible for the specific group. This is especially important with large multicast groups where there are a lot of heavy senders -- particularly if implementations do not handle unicast-decapsulation well. This model increases the amount of Internet-wide multicast state slightly: the backbone routers might end up with (*, G) and (S, G, rpt) state between receivers and the RP, in addition to (S, G) states between the receivers and senders. Certainly, the amount of inter- domain multicast traffic between sources and the embedded-RP will increase compared to the ASM model with MSDP; however, the domain responsible for the RP is expected to be able to handle this. As the address of the RP is tied to the multicast address, in the case of RP failure PIM-SM BSR mechanisms cannot pick a new RP; the failover mechanisms, if used, for backup RPs are different, and typically would depend on sharing one address. The failover techniques are outside of the scope of this memo. The PIM-SM specification states, "Any RP address configured or learned MUST be a domain-wide reachable address". What this means is not clear, even without embedded-RP. However, typically this statement cannot be proven especially with the foreign RPs (typically one can not even guarantee that the RP exists!). The bottom line is that while traditionally the configuration of RPs and DRs was typically a manual process, and e.g. configuring a non-existant RP was possible, but here the hosts and users which use multicast indirectly specify the RP. Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 10] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 9. Acknowledgements Jerome Durand commented on an early draft of this memo. Marshall Eubanks noted an issue regarding short plen values. Tom Pusateri noted problems with earlier SPT-join approach. Rami Lehtonen pointed out issues with the scope of SA-state and provided extensive commentary. Nidhi Bhaskar gave the draft a thorough review. The whole MboneD working group is also acknowledged for the continued support and comments. 10. Security Considerations The address of the PIM-SM RP is embedded in the multicast address. RPs may be a good target for Denial of Service attacks -- as they are a single point of failure (excluding failover techniques) for a group. In this way, the target would be clearly visible. However, it could be argued that if interdomain multicast was to be made work e.g. with MSDP, the address would have to be visible anyway (through via other channels, which may be more easily securable). As any RP will have to accept PIM-SM Join/Prune/Register messages from any DR, this might cause a potential DoS attack scenario. However, this can be mitigated by the fact that the RP can discard all such messages for all multicast addresses that do not embed the address of the RP, and if deemed important, the implementation could also allow manual configuration of which multicast addresses or prefixes embedding the RP could be used, so that only the pre-agreed sources could use the RP. In a similar fashion, when a receiver joins to an RP, the DRs must accept similar PIM-SM messages back RPs. One consequence of the usage model is that it allows Internet-wide multicast state creation (from receiver(s) in another domain to the RP in another domain) compared to the domain wide state creation in the MSDP model. One should observe that the embedded RP threat model is actually pretty similar to SSM; both mechanisms significantly reduce the threats at the sender side, but have new ones in the receiver side, as any receiver can try to join any non-existant group or channel, and the local DR or RP cannot readily reject such joins (based on MSDP information). RPs may become a bit more single points of failure as anycast-RP mechanism is not (at least immediately) available. This can be partially mitigated by the fact that some other forms of failover are still possible, and there should be less need to store state as with Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 11] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 MSDP. The implementation MUST perform at least the same address validity checks to the embedded RP address as to one received via other means (like BSR or MSDP), to avoid the address being e.g. "::" or "::1". 11. References 11.1. Normative References [ADDRARCH] Hinden, R., Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC3513, April 2003. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3306] Haberman, B., Thaler, D., "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 Multicast Addresses", RFC3306, August 2002. 11.2. Informative References [ANYCASTRP] Kim, D. et al, "Anycast RP mechanism using PIM and MSDP", RFC 3446, January 2003. [ANYPIMRP] Farinacci, D., Cai, Y., "Anycast-RP using PIM", work-in-progress, draft-farinacci-pim-anycast-rp-00.txt, January 2003. [BSR] Fenner, B., et al., "Bootstrap Router (BSR) Mechanism for PIM Sparse Mode", work-in-progress, draft-ietf-pim-sm- bsr-03.txt, February 2003. [MSDP] Meyer, D., Fenner, B, (Eds.), "Multicast Sourc Discovery Protocol (MSDP)", work-in-progress, draft-ietf-msdp-spec-20.txt, May 2003. [PIM-SM] Fenner, B. et al, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised), work-in-progress, draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-08.txt, October 2003. [SSM] Holbrook, H. et al, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", work-in-progress, draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03.txt, May 2003. [V6MISSUES] Savola, P., "IPv6 Multicast Deployment Issues", work-in-progress, draft-savola-v6ops-multicast- issues-02.txt, October 2003. Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 12] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 Authors' Addresses Pekka Savola CSC/FUNET Espoo, Finland EMail: psavola@funet.fi Brian Haberman Caspian Networks One Park Drive, Suite 300 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 EMail: brian@innovationslab.net Phone: +1-919-949-4828 A. Discussion about Design Tradeoffs The initial thought was to use only SPT join from local RP/DR to foreign RP, rather than a full PIM Join to foreign RP. However, this turned out to be problematic, as this kind of SPT joins where disregarded because the path had not been set up before sending them. A full join to foreign PIM domain is a much clearer approach. One could argue that there should be more RPs than the 4-bit "RPad" allows for, especially if anycast-RP cannot be used. In that light, extending "RPad" to take full advantage of whole 8 bits would seem reasonable. However, this would use up all of the reserved bits, and leave no room for future flexibility. In case of large number of RPs, an operational workaround could be to split the PIM domain: for example, using two /33's instead of one /32 would gain another 16 (or 15, if zero is not used) RP addresses. Note that the limit of 4 bits worth of RPs just depends on the prefix the RP address is derived from; one can use multiple prefixes in a domain, and the limit of 16 (or 15) RPs should never really be a problem. Some hierarchy (e.g. two-level, "ISP/customer") for RPs could possibly be added if necessary, but that would be torturing one 128 bits even more. One particular case, whether in the backbone or in the sender's domain, is where the regular PIM-SM RP would be X, and the embedded RP address would be Y. This could e.g. be a result of a default all- multicast-to-one-RP group mapping, or a local policy decision. The embedded RP SHOULD be used by default, but there MAY be an option to change this preference. Values 64 < "plen" < 96 would overlap with upper bits of the multicast group-id; due to this restriction, "plen" must not exceed 64 bits. This is in line with RFC 3306. Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 13] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 The embedded RP addressing could be used to convey other information (other than RP address) as well, for example, what should be the RPT threshold for PIM-SM. These could be encoded in the RP address somehow, or in the multicast group address. However, such modifications are beyond the scope of this memo. Some kind of rate-limiting functions, ICMP message responses, or similar could be defined for the case of when the RP embedded in the address is not willing to serve for the specific group (or doesn't even exist). Typically this would result in the datagrams getting blackholed or rejected with ICMP. In particular, a case for "rejection" or "source quench" -like messages would be in the case that a source keeps transmitting a huge amount of data, which is sent to a foreign RP using Register message but is discarded if the RP doesn't allow the source host to transmit: the RP should be able to indicate to the DR, "please limit the amount of Register messages", or "this source sending to my group is bogus". Note that such "kiss- of-death" packets have an authentication problem; spoofing them could result in an entirely different kind of Denial of Service, for legitimate sources. One possibility here would be to specify some form of "return routability" check for DRs and RPs; for example, if a DR receives packets from a host to group G G (resulting in RP address R), the DR would send only a limited amount of packets to R until it has heard back from R (a "positive acknowledgement"). It is not clear whether this needs to be considered or specified in more detail. Could this model work with bidir-PIM? Is it feasible? Not sure, not familiar enough with bidir-PIM. Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 14] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-00.txt October 2003 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist 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. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. 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. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Savola & Haberman [Expires April 2004] [Page 15]