Individual Submission G. Huston
Internet-Draft Telstra
Expires: February 26, 2004 August 28, 2003
Commentary on Distribution Mechanisms for Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses
draft-huston-ipv6-local-use-comments-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 26, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memorandum examines the characteristics of Unique Local IPv6
Unicast addresses, as well as the requirements for address
distribution mechanisms for this class of addresses. It is intended
as a commentary on an Internet Draft currently under consideration in
the IPv6 Working Group of the IETF.
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Characteristics of Local Use Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Locally Assigned Global IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Centrally Assigned Global IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Local Use Address Distribution Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1 Allocation Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2 Allocation Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3 Choice in Service Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4 Recording Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.5 Reverse Mapping Local Use Addresses in ip6.arpa . . . . . . . 9
6. Management Requirements for Local Use Addresses . . . . . . . 10
7. Distribution Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Relationship with Existing Address Distribution Mechanisms . . 12
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 16
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
1. Introduction
Current work within the IETF IPv6 working includes the drafting of a
proposal to define part of the IPv6 unicast address space for local
use. This is currently IETF work in progress being considered by the
IPv6 Working Group, documented in an Internet draft,
"draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-00.txt" [1]. These addresses are
intended for various forms of local communications and are not
expected to be routable on the global Internet. The proposal refers
to such addresses as "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses".
There are a number of characteristics of such addresses that have
been proposed in order to ensure that they can fulfill the role of a
local-use address, and there are also a number of considerations
relating to the distribution mechanisms for these addresses that
distinguish them from globally routable unicast addresses. This
document explores these intended characteristics in further detail as
well as the associated distribution mechanisms.
2. Characteristics of Local Use Addresses
The characteristics listed in the draft proposal for such addresses
are:
1. Globally unique prefix.
2. Well known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site
boundaries.
3. Allows sites to be combined or privately interconnected
without creating any address conflicts or require renumbering
of interfaces using these prefixes.
4. Internet Service Provider independent and can be used for
communications inside of a site without having any permanent
or intermittent Internet connectivity.
5. If accidentally leaked outside of a site via routing or DNS,
there is no conflict with any other addresses.
6. In practice, applications may treat these address like global
scoped addresses.
It could be argued that, strictly, the third and fifth
characteristics are a consequence of the first, as they can be all
grouped under the overall characteristic of "use of a common unique
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
prefix". The second, forth and sixth characteristics commonly refer
to unique use of a local address block drawn from the global unicast
address pool.
Restating this list of characteristics gives:
1. Exclusive use of a common prefix drawn from the global unicast
address space for all local use addresses.
2. Unique assignment of local use address blocks from within the
pool of addresses defined by this prefix.
Section 3.1 of the Internet Draft proposal further refines the set of
characteristics, by describing the address as a four part object:
| 7 bits | 41 bits | 16 bits | 64 bits |
+--------+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+
| prefix | global ID | subnet ID | interface ID |
+--------+------------+-----------+-----------------------------+
where:
prefix: prefix to identify Local IPv6 unicast addresses.
(FC00::/7)
global ID: global identifier used to create a globally unique
prefix.
subnet ID: 16-bit subnet ID is an identifier of a subnet within
the site.
interface ID: 64-bit Interface ID.
The length of the prefix + global ID part is 48 bits in length,
allowing 16 bits for local assignation of subnet IDs and 64 bits for
the interface ID. This allows for 2,199,023,255,552 assignable local
use address blocks.
There is a further characteristic of the address block defined in
this section of the draft, namely:
3. There is no internal structure within the global ID, and these
global IDs cannot be aggregated in a routing context.
The proposal splits this address pool into two halves: locally and
centrally assigned prefixes. These will be considered in the
following sections.
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
3. Locally Assigned Global IDs
One half of the Local Use address space, using the common prefix
FD00::/8, is described as being "locally assigned". The proposal
indicates that such locally assigned global IDs must be generated
with a pseudo-random algorithm. The proposal notes that there is a
very low probability that the prefix will conflict with another
locally generated prefix (section 11.2 of the draft proposal).
Analysis of the probability involved here indicates that the
probability of a collision in the space using a random draw function
exceeds 0.5 after 1.24 million random draws. The general solution of
the probability of a collision after d draws from n possible values
is given by:
P = 1 - ((n!) / ((n**d)((n-d)!)))
Given that the value for n is 2.199,023,255,552, then the objective
is to find the lowest value of d for which P is greater than or equal
to 0.5. In this case the value for d is some 1.24 million. This
value is likely to be too small a value for any assured level of
uniqueness, particularly if there is some consideration that no
address conflicts would arise as a result of private interconnection.
While the draft proposal asserts that collisions of locally assigned
Global IDs "can be ignored for all practical purposes" (section
11.2), the actual probability of a clash is one where there will a
probable clash after 1.24 mission random draws. If this approach is
used on a widespread basis then the risk of clashing Global IDs is
far greater that the "theoretical" risk described in the proposal.
Some further consideration should be given to this part of the
proposal.
It is observed that this 'random draw' is an inadequate response to
item 2 of the required characteristics for Local Use addresses. A
probability of uniqueness is tangibly different to the property of
assured uniqueness. If assurred uniqueness is an essential
characteristic of all elements of this address space, then it is
necessary to drop the random self-selection mechanism from the draft
proposal, and that all Local-Use addresses be distributed in such a
manner that uniqueness is assured in every case.
4. Centrally Assigned Global IDs
The other half of the local use space is proposed in the draft to be
"centrally assigned" using fixed size /48 blocks. This refines the
second characteristic to read:
2. Unique assignment of fixed size local use address blocks from
within the pool of addresses defined by this prefix, using a
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
Global ID as the block prefix.
The proposal notes that these assignments can be escrowed to resolve
any disputes regarding duplicate assignments. It is noted that escrow
is a specific solution to a more general characteristic, and the
desired characteristic being defined here is:
4. The assignment information must be recorded and stored in a
reliable manner.
The assignment function is described in the proposal as one that
treats sequential allocations in a random fashion, and explicitly
notes that they should not be assigned accordingly to any particular
structure, and therefore they cannot be aggregated in a routing
environment.
5. Local Use Addresses are not intended to be passed within the
global routing environment
The complete list of characteristics of this Centrally Assigned Local
Use IPv6 Unicast address space is:
1. Exclusive use of a common prefix drawn from the global unicast
address space for all local use addresses.
2. Unique assignment of fixed size local use address blocks from
within the pool of addresses defined by this prefix, using a
Global ID as the block prefix.
3. There is no internal structure within the global ID, and these
global IDs cannot be aggregated in a routing context.
4. The assignment information must be recorded and stored in a
reliable manner.
5. Local Use Addresses are not intended to be passed within the
global routing environment
The potential for use of this address in end-to-end solutions
relating to multi-homing is limited to the extent that this identity
space is unstructured, so it cannot be used as a lookup key in any
mapping system that maps identities into locators. If the intended
use is through a sequence of mappings from domain name to identifier
to current locator, then the last mapping (from identifier to
locator) is not feasible in an unstructured identifier space. In this
sense the role of such an address is limited to an assertion of a
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
fixed, globally unique label that can be used in conjunction with
dynamic change of location-based address to provide some form of
transport session resiliency in a multi-homed environment.
5. Local Use Address Distribution Mechanisms
The proposal notes that:
The requirements for centrally assigned global ID allocations are:
* Available to anyone in an unbiased manner.
* Permanent with no periodic fees.
* One time non-refundable allocation fee in the order of 10 Euros
per allocation.
* The ownership of each individual allocation should be private,
but should be escrowed.
The unstated implication from the first requirement is that this is
undertaken without consideration of the current or intended level of
use of the address block, so that there are no qualifications
regarding assignment of a Local Use Address block. The proposal also
notes that such availability should include non-Internet access
mechanisms as a desired additional mechanism.
The second and third aspects of this proposed distribution mechanism
describe the use of a one-time fee for a one-time service transaction
that has enduring consequences.
5.1 Allocation Fees
The first aspect here is the consideration of the allocation fee. The
draft motivates this payment as a means of prevention of hoarding of
blocks from within this pool by imposing a financial impost. While
there are many forms of control over a distribution mechanism to
prevent distortions such as hoarding, this pricing approach is seen
as a lightweight and effective mechanism that has the potential to
address the identified problem. However, there are some consequences
of this aspect of the draft proposal that should be examined in
further detail. The imposition of a charge without relation to
service cost is seen in many regulatory regimes as an imposition that
is likened to a monopoly rental or a form of taxation. Such forms of
charges have no valid role, and should be avoided. It is more
reasonable to allow the operator(s) of this distribution mechanism to
be able to account for their costs in operating this service, and
allow the operator to determine a service fee that is based on these
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
costs.
The operator needs to consider that if this is to be a one-time fee
for an unbounded service (so called 'cemetery plot' fees), the fee
should cover both the processing component and the subsequent record
maintenance component of the service.
5.2 Allocation Period
The proposal explicitly indicates that the allocation should be
'permanent'. This implies that there is no concept of return of a
Local Use prefix once it has been allocated from the central
registry, and that there is no concept of a registry-recorded
transfer of an allocation. The implication of this service model is
that there is no form of reuse of blocks from this address space. The
implicit assumption here is that for the entire useful lifetime of
the technology, under all conceivable allocation demand scenarios,
that there will be adequate available address space to continue to
meet demand from the Local Use address pool. Without any form of
periodic renewal or similar opportunity to alter the terms of use of
this address space then, if exhaustion of the space is considered to
be a potential risk, the observations made in 1994 regarding the
possible outcomes of the (then) IPv4 address allocation practices
are once more relevant here:
"It is perhaps a sad reflection of the conflict of short term
objectives and longer term considerations that the evident short
term motivations of ready and equitable access to the IPv4 address
(which were the motivational factors in determining the current
Internet address allocation policies) run the consequent risk of
monopoly- based restrictive trade and barrier-based pricing as a
longer term outcome of unallocated address space exhaustion." [2]
Of course if there is a high degree of confidence that exhaustion of
the Local Use address pool is not a remotely possible eventuality,
then such address prefixes can be considered in the same terms as a
single-use disposable facility, and these considerations are not
directly relevant.
5.3 Choice in Service Models
It is possible that clients of this allocation service want the
choice between a single one-time permanent allocation (and a one-time
service fee) and a defined period renewable service, where, at the
end of the defined period the client has the choice of renewing the
allocation or allowing it to lapse back to the pool. Given the
central nature of the described distribution mechanism, allowing the
client some choice in the form of service, rather than imposing a
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
single service model is seen as a reasonable measure.
The model also proposes a single layer of distribution, where end
clients interact with a proposed single central registry. Again this
is an area where a different structure used for the distribution of
many other forms of goods or resources, typically using some form of
hierarchy in distribution with wholesale and retail roles. Such
hierarchies often allow for a more efficient form of overall
distribution than a single entity attempting to service a global
consumer base. Current regulatory environments also look to
competition as a means of ensuring that service regimes operate
efficiently and that no single player can distort the price of the
service through the imposition of monopoly rentals, artificial
scarcity or selective servicing.
5.4 Recording Allocations
The proposal indicates that information relating to the 'ownership'
of each individual allocation be private. This is not an easily
achieved outcome, given that 'ownership' is a public claim to the
unique ability to access and exploit the resource. Furthermore, this
implies that the resource itself is a form of property, and that
property can be traded, swapped or otherwise disposed of at the
discretion of the owner, inferring that the address block, is in some
form, an asset of the holder. It is unclear that this interpretation
of the status of an address is the actual intent of the proponents of
this approach, and that other forms of expression of unique and
enduring interest in the address resource may be more appropriate for
this resource. This observation is made in the context of the
characterization of the larger protocol address space as a public
good that is distinguished from concepts of ownership or the
inferring of aspects of property and asset into this resource.
5.5 Reverse Mapping Local Use Addresses in ip6.arpa
It is unclear from the proposal whether Local Use Addresses could or
should be entered into the ip6.arpa reverse mapping domain space. as
a delegated domain.
Locally assigned prefixes cannot be entered into this domain space
because of the lack of a condition of assured uniqueness.
The situation with respect to centrally assigned prefixes is not so
clear. The considerations include:
o The potential size of the domain zone. Because of the lack of any
structure beyond the 8th bit of the prefix, there is no ability to
impose a hierarchy of zone files, and the reverse zone would need
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
to list all assigned local use prefixes and their delegation
points. There are obvious implications in terms of the potential
size of this zone file. and some consideration as to the
efficiency of operation of a zone of such a potential size.
o The desired characteristic of Local Use prefixes where the
"ownership" of the prefix is not public information. If the domain
zone operator was distinct from the central registry operator,
then the privacy of the address allocation information could
preclude the domain operator from validating a delegation request
for a Local Use address block.
o The potential use of these addresses in some classes of end-point
identification may imply the need for an external entity, using
the global DNS to be map from the local use identifier to a global
use address, and one way to perform this mapping in the DNS is to
use the reverse domain to map from the end point local use address
to a global DNS name, and then map forward from this name to a
global address. Precluding local use addresses from the global DNS
would preclude this form of mapping.
For local use, a so called "two-faced" DNS can be configured to
provide a local reverse mapping service for the local site.
6. Management Requirements for Local Use Addresses
In summary, the characteristics of the management of this space is
where:
1. Every applicant may obtain an address block in this prefix space
without providing any form of justification to the registry
operator.
2. Every assigned Local-Use block is of the same size, namely a /
48.
3. Each block is uniquely assigned to the applicant.
4. Each assignment is a randomly selected block from the entire
remaining pool.
5. Each applicant may obtain an enduring assignment without further
need to contact the registry or to pay further service fees
(one-off service).
6. Any service fee, if used, should be high enough to make massive
seizure financially undesirable, yet low enough to make it
readily accessible to individuals as well as corporate entities
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
on a global scale.
7. Any service fee, if used, should be clearly attributable to the
costs associated with the provision of the service function for
the lifetime of the provided service.
8. The service model is not restricted to a one-off assignment
model, with the proviso that any other associated service models
must have similar attributes of ease of accessibility.
9. The association of the assigned space and the identity of the
applicant is not to be made public.
10. The assignment information is to be held in a way that is
reliable and enduring.
7. Distribution Mechanisms
Under the current arrangements, IANA is the IETF-selected registry
for IPv4 global unicast and IPv6 global unicast address space, and
the RIRs undertake the associated distribution function, using
policies that have been developed by an open process within each
region.
A complete consideration of the various regulatory and logistical
considerations is considered to be well beyond the appropriate scope
of the Internet Engineering Task Force to undertake within the
defined scope and mission, and a more general statement of intent
would be more fitting in this context.
An enumeration of the desired attributes of a distribution system is:
The adopted distribution mechanism should be:
* efficient,
* fair,
* generally accessible and imposing no barrier to access,
* undertaken in a manner that preserves the desired
characteristics of the Local Use address space,
* one that uses a fee structure that fairly reflects the costs of
efficient service delivery mechanisms,
* one that allows a choice of service models where feasible,
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
* one that prevents distortions of the distribution function
through behaviours such as hoarding or selective reselling,
* one that does not place the operator(s) in contravention to
various regulatory frameworks, and
* attuned to the long-term stable use of specific instances of
this resource by consumers
8. IANA Considerations
The Local Use Address draft proposes that:
The IANA is instructed to allocate the FC00::/7 prefix for Unique
Local IPv6 unicast addresses.
The IANA is instructed to delegate, within a reasonable time, the
prefix FC00::/8 to an allocation authority for Unique Local IPv6
Unicast prefixes of length /48. This allocation authority shall
comply with the requirements described in section 3.2 of this
document, including in particular the charging of a modest
one-time fee, with any profit being used for the public good in
connection with the Internet.
It is noted that there are significant problems with this proposed
approach to directions to IANA, particularly with the noted concept
that this is a for-profit activity and IANA is, in effect, being
directed to be in the position of selecting a global monopoly
operator. The indeterminate nature of a fair, open and reasonable
definition of "the public good" is also a problem in the context of
these instructions to IANA. Some of the lessons learned from DNS
administration over the past decade would indicate that this is not a
sensible directive to pass to IANA, as it is unlikely to be
reasonably implemented in this precise form.
9. Relationship with Existing Address Distribution Mechanisms
The Local Use proposal's desire to operate the address space without
any form of discernable structure by having all block assignments be
drawn from a random selection from across the entire managed space
precludes the reuse of the current distribution mechanism of an IANA
allocation to each of the RIRs to service their particular region. In
the context of assuming that the RIRs undertake this function, the
proposed mechanism would see FD00::/8 allocated to the RIRs and
managed via a single registry maintained by the RIRs working
together. Each RIR would lodge a "draw request" for a block from this
registry in response to individual customer requests, and the
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
registry would respond with the selected block, using a random draw
function.
The potential areas of difference between the current RIR practice
and the requirements here are:
o the absence of any form of justification for the allocation,
o a fixed size of allocation,
o the potential to make extensive use of automated mechanisms in the
registry allocation function
o public reporting of allocations from this space only in summary
form (no detailed reports, such as currently published via Whois
servers)
o consideration of adoption of a service model or models relating to
the terms of the assignment.
o consideration of various forms of renewable allocations and the
issue of whether permanent allocations are suitable for this
intended role.
o determining a fee schedule where the registry service is operated
in a manner that is cost neutral to the membership.
o adoption of a transaction-based fee-for service model (as distinct
from a membership service model)
o specific consideration relating to long term reliable storage of
individual allocation information
In this context, if the RIRs were to develop this as a supported
process, then the areas of RIR liaison with the IETF would appear to
be in understanding the role of coordinated RIR policies in this
area, and the role of the IETF. As an example, the nomination of a
fee schedule and a service model in the draft proposal would normally
seen as prescribing matters that would normally be determined by the
RIRs through the adoption of policy proposals rather than a matter
for the IETF to determine, while the consideration of permanent
allocations would be a matter that would entail some substantive
consideration by the IETF.
On a purely pragmatic level there is no practical way that the IETF
or the adopted distribution mechanism can totally prevent these
address prefixes from leaking into the IPv6 global routing space.
What is, or is not, carried in the routing space is largely a matter
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
of convention from within the operator community. If the decision is
taken not to publish the details of individual Local Use unique
allocations, then this would be a factor in determining whether or
not blocks drawn from this space may be carried in the global routing
system, but it would not absolutely prevent such use.
The service model is again a relatively challenging concept. The
original IPv4 address allocation system worked on a similar basis of
enduring allocations, and this has proved to be problematic in terms
of recovery of unused space in more recent times. While the draft
proposal is explicit about attempting to prevent short term
distortions such as hoarding, there is little doubt that any form of
finite unmanaged resource will be placed under consumption pressures
eventually. Attempting to set a global price that makes the resource
generally accessible, while still attempting to make the price a
deterrent to hoarding is not a completely reasonable exercise in
global terms. What would be regarded as a trivially small fee within
some economies would be seen as a prohibitively expensive price in
other economies. More worryingly, the concept of an enduring
assignment is that there is no opportunity to make any form of
correction in later times to the extant assignments, and, as in IPv4,
there is the distinct risk of giving early adopters a long term
advantage that may not be enjoyed by later players who may be working
under more restrictive allocation polices. A shorter term lease
arrangement (such as 2 - 5 years) allows for regular renewal of the
relationship with the registrar, allowing for assignment information
to be updated to reflect the current state of the assignee, but would
entail greater levels of registry activity. As this entire operation
is intended to be sufficiently low in cost that it is generally
accessible, and that the value here is not in routeable address
space, but in the attribute of assurred uniqueness for the address
space, the consideration of the level of registry activity is a
critical one. It may be that the distribution mechanism adopts both
service models, allowing an enduring application to be undertaken at
any time at one fee level, and a shorter identity-validated
application and renewal to be undertaken on a biannual basis at a
lower fee, This is obviously a matter for further consideration.
10. Security Considerations
The considerations listed in the draft proposal are:
Local IPv6 addresses do not provide any inherent security to the
nodes that use them. They may be used with filters at site
boundaries to keep Local IPv6 traffic inside of the site, but this
is no more or less secure than filtering any other type of global
IPv6 unicast addresses.
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
Local IPv6 addresses do allow for address-based security
mechanisms, including IPSEC, across end to end VPN connections.
It is noted that in the latter case, where end to end VPN connections
are being used, across local use address blocks there is a strong
requirement for uniqueness of the Local Use address prefix.
11. Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the helpful comments of Alain Durand, Paul
Wilson, Anne Lord and George Michaelson in preparing this memo.
References
[1] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", Internet-Drafts
draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-00.txt, August 2003, <http://
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-00.txt>.
[2] Huston, G., "Observations on the Management of the Internet
Address Space", RFC 1744, December 1994.
Author's Address
Geoff Huston
Telstra
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
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
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
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Commentary on Local Use August 2003
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Huston Expires February 26, 2004 [Page 17]