draft-ietf-mboned-iana-ipv4-mcast-guidelines-04.txt   rfc3171.txt 
Network Working Group Zaid Albanna
INTERNET DRAFT Juniper Networks Network Working Group Z. Albanna
Kevin Almeroth Request for Comments: 3171 Juniper Networks
UCSB BCP: 51 K. Almeroth
David Meyer Category: Best Current Practice UCSB
Sprint D. Meyer
Michelle Schipper Sprint
IANA M. Schipper
Category Best Current Practices IANA
July, 2001 August 2001
IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments
<draft-ietf-mboned-iana-ipv4-mcast-guidelines-04.txt>
1. Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with Copyright Notice
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
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.
2. Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
3. Abstract Abstract
This memo provides guidance for the IANA in assigning IPv4 multicast This memo provides guidance for the Internet Assigned Numbers
addresses. Authority (IANA) in assigning IPv4 multicast addresses.
4. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (www.iana.org) is The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (www.iana.org) is
charged with allocating parameter values for fields in protocols charged with allocating parameter values for fields in protocols
which have been designed, created or are maintained by the Internet which have been designed, created or are maintained by the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF). RFC 2780 [RFC2780] provides the IANA Engineering Task Force (IETF). RFC 2780 [RFC2780] provides the IANA
guidance in the assignment of parameters for fields in newly guidance in the assignment of parameters for fields in newly
developed protocols. This memo expands on section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 developed protocols. This memo expands on section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780
and attempts to codify existing IANA practice used in the assignment and attempts to codify existing IANA practice used in the assignment
IPv4 multicast addresses. IPv4 multicast addresses.
The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval", The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval",
"IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to "IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to
refer to the processes described in [RFC2434]. The keywords MUST, refer to the processes described in [RFC2434]. The keywords MUST,
MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, SHALL, SHALL NOT,
SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined in RFC 2119 SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined in RFC 2119
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
In general, due to the relatively small size of the IPv4 multicast In general, due to the relatively small size of the IPv4 multicast
addresses space, further assignment of IPv4 multicast address space addresses space, further assignment of IPv4 multicast address space
is recommended only in limited circumstances. Specifically, the IANA is recommended only in limited circumstances. Specifically, the IANA
should only assign addresses in those cases where the dynamic should only assign addresses in those cases where the dynamic
selection (SDP/SAP), GLOP, SSM or Administratively Scoped address selection (SDP/SAP), GLOP, SSM or Administratively Scoped address
spaces cannot be used. The guidelines described below are reflected spaces cannot be used. The guidelines described below are reflected
in http://www.iana.org/numbers.html. in http://www.iana.org/numbers.html.
5. Definition of Current Assignment Practice 2. Definition of Current Assignment Practice
Unlike IPv4 unicast address assignment, where blocks of addresses are Unlike IPv4 unicast address assignment, where blocks of addresses are
delegated to regional registries, IPv4 multicast addresses are delegated to regional registries, IPv4 multicast addresses are
assigned directly by the IANA. Current assignments appear as follows assigned directly by the IANA. Current assignments appear as follows
[IANA]: [IANA]:
224.0.0.0 - 224.0.0.255 (224.0.0/24) Local Network Control Block 224.0.0.0 - 224.0.0.255 (224.0.0/24) Local Network Control Block
224.0.1.0 - 224.0.1.255 (224.0.1/24) Internetwork Control Block 224.0.1.0 - 224.0.1.255 (224.0.1/24) Internetwork Control Block
224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.0 AD-HOC Block 224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.0 AD-HOC Block
224.1.0.0 - 224.1.255.255 (224.1/16) ST Multicast Groups 224.1.0.0 - 224.1.255.255 (224.1/16) ST Multicast Groups
224.2.0.0 - 224.2.255.255 (224.2/16) SDP/SAP Block 224.2.0.0 - 224.2.255.255 (224.2/16) SDP/SAP Block
224.252.0.0 - 224.255.255.255 DIS Transient Block 224.252.0.0 - 224.255.255.255 DIS Transient Block
225.0.0.0 - 231.255.255.255 RESERVED 225.0.0.0 - 231.255.255.255 RESERVED
232.0.0.0 - 232.255.255.255 (232/8) Source Specific Multicast Block 232.0.0.0 - 232.255.255.255 (232/8) Source Specific Multicast
Block
233.0.0.0 - 233.255.255.255 (233/8) GLOP Block 233.0.0.0 - 233.255.255.255 (233/8) GLOP Block
234.0.0.0 - 238.255.255.255 RESERVED 234.0.0.0 - 238.255.255.255 RESERVED
239.0.0.0 - 239.255.255.255 (239/8) Administratively Scoped Block 239.0.0.0 - 239.255.255.255 (239/8) Administratively Scoped
Block
The IANA generally assigns addresses from the Local Network Control, The IANA generally assigns addresses from the Local Network Control,
Internetwork Control, and AD-HOC blocks. Assignment guidelines for Internetwork Control, and AD-HOC blocks. Assignment guidelines for
each of these blocks, as well as for the Source Specific Multicast, each of these blocks, as well as for the Source Specific Multicast,
GLOP and Administratively Scoped Blocks, are described below. GLOP and Administratively Scoped Blocks, are described below.
6. Local Network Control Block (224.0.0/24) 3. Local Network Control Block (224.0.0/24)
Addresses in the Local Network Control block are used for protocol Addresses in the Local Network Control block are used for protocol
control traffic that is not forwarded off link. Examples of this type control traffic that is not forwarded off link. Examples of this
of use include OSPFIGP All Routers (224.0.0.5) [RFC2328]. type of use include OSPFIGP All Routers (224.0.0.5) [RFC2328].
6.1. Assignment Guidelines 3.1. Assignment Guidelines
Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the
Local Network Control block follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Local Network Control block follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or
Standards Action process. See [IANA] for the current set of Standards Action process. See [IANA] for the current set of
assignments. assignments.
7. Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1/24) 4. Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1/24)
Addresses in the Internetwork Control block are used for protocol Addresses in the Internetwork Control block are used for protocol
control that must be forwarded through the Internet. Examples include control that must be forwarded through the Internet. Examples
224.0.1.1 (NTP [RFC2030]) and 224.0.1.68 (mdhcpdisover [RFC2730]). include 224.0.1.1 (NTP [RFC2030]) and 224.0.1.68 (mdhcpdiscover
[RFC2730]).
7.1. Assignment Guidelines 4.1. Assignment Guidelines
Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the
Internetwork Control block follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Internetwork Control block follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or
Standards Action process. See [IANA] for the current set of Standards Action process. See [IANA] for the current set of
assignments. assignments.
8. AD-HOC Block (224.0.2.0/24 - 224.0.255.0/24) 5. AD-HOC Block (224.0.2.0/24 - 224.0.255.0/24)
Addresses in the AD-HOC block have traditionally been assigned for Addresses in the AD-HOC block have traditionally been assigned for
those applications that don't fit in either the Local or Internetwork those applications that don't fit in either the Local or Internetwork
Control blocks. These addresses are globally routed and are typically Control blocks. These addresses are globally routed and are
used by applications that require small blocks of addressing (e.g., typically used by applications that require small blocks of
less than a /24). addressing (e.g., less than a /24).
8.1. Assignment Guidelines 5.1. Assignment Guidelines
In general, the IANA SHOULD NOT assign addressing in the AD-HOC In general, the IANA SHOULD NOT assign addressing in the AD-HOC
Block. However, the IANA may under special special circumstances, Block. However, the IANA may under special special circumstances,
assign addressing from this block. Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC assign addressing from this block. Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC
2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the AD-HOC block follow an Expert 2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the AD-HOC block follow an Expert
Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. See [IANA] for the Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. See [IANA] for
current set of assignments. the current set of assignments.
9. SDP/SAP Block (224.2/16) 6. SDP/SAP Block (224.2/16)
Addresses in the SDP/SAP block are used by applications that receive Addresses in the SDP/SAP block are used by applications that receive
addresses through the Session Announcement Protocol [RFC2974] for use addresses through the Session Announcement Protocol [RFC2974] for use
via applications like the session directory tool (such as SDR [SDR]). via applications like the session directory tool (such as SDR [SDR]).
9.1. Assignment Guidelines 6.1. Assignment Guidelines
Since addresses in the SDP/SAP block are chosen randomly from the Since addresses in the SDP/SAP block are chosen randomly from the
range of addresses not already in use [RFC2974], no IANA assignment range of addresses not already in use [RFC2974], no IANA assignment
policy is required. Note that while no additional IANA assignment is policy is required. Note that while no additional IANA assignment is
required, addresses in the SDP/SAP block are explicitly for use by required, addresses in the SDP/SAP block are explicitly for use by
SDP/SAP and MUST NOT be used for other purposes. SDP/SAP and MUST NOT be used for other purposes.
10. Source Specific Multicast Block (232/8) 7. Source Specific Multicast Block (232/8)
The Source Specific Multicast (SSM) is an extension of IP Multicast The Source Specific Multicast (SSM) is an extension of IP Multicast
in which traffic is forwarded to receivers from only those multicast in which traffic is forwarded to receivers from only those multicast
sources for which the receivers have explicitly expressed interest, sources for which the receivers have explicitly expressed interest,
and is primarily targeted at one-to-many (broadcast) applications. and is primarily targeted at one-to-many (broadcast) applications.
Note that this block as initially assigned to the VMTP transient Note that this block as initially assigned to the VMTP transient
groups [IANA]. groups [IANA].
10.1. Assignment Guidelines 7.1. Assignment Guidelines
Because the SSM model essentially makes the entire multicast address Because the SSM model essentially makes the entire multicast address
space local to the host, no IANA assignment policy is required. Note, space local to the host, no IANA assignment policy is required.
however, that while no additional IANA assignment is required, Note, however, that while no additional IANA assignment is required,
addresses in the SSM block are explicitly for use by SSM and MUST NOT addresses in the SSM block are explicitly for use by SSM and MUST NOT
be used for other purposes. be used for other purposes.
11. GLOP Block (233/8) 8. GLOP Block (233/8)
Addresses in the GLOP block are globally scoped statically assigned Addresses in the GLOP block are globally scoped statically assigned
addresses. The assignment is made by mapping a domain's autonomous addresses. The assignment is made by mapping a domain's autonomous
system number into the middle two octets of 233.X.Y.0/24. The mapping system number into the middle two octets of 233.X.Y.0/24. The
and assignment is defined in [RFC2770]. mapping and assignment is defined in [RFC2770].
11.1. Assignment Guidelines 8.1. Assignment Guidelines
Because addresses in the GLOP block are algorithmically pre-assigned, Because addresses in the GLOP block are algorithmically pre-assigned,
no IANA assignment policy is required. In addition, RFC 3138 no IANA assignment policy is required. In addition, RFC 3138
[RFC3138] delegates assignment of the GLOP sub-block mapped by the [RFC3138] delegates assignment of the GLOP sub-block mapped by the
RFC 1930 [RFC1930] private AS space (233.252.0.0 - 233.255.255.255) RFC 1930 [RFC1930] private AS space (233.252.0.0 - 233.255.255.255)
to the Internet Routing Registries. Note that while no additional to the Internet Routing Registries. Note that while no additional
IANA assignment is required, addresses in the GLOP block are IANA assignment is required, addresses in the GLOP block are
assigned for use as defined in RFC 2770 and MUST NOT be used for assigned for use as defined in RFC 2770 and MUST NOT be used for
other purposes. other purposes.
12. Administratively Scoped Address Block (239/8) 9. Administratively Scoped Address Block (239/8)
Addresses in the Administratively Scoped Address block are for local Addresses in the Administratively Scoped Address block are for local
use within a domain and are described in [RFC2365]. use within a domain and are described in [RFC2365].
12.1. Assignment Guidelines 9.1. Assignment Guidelines
Since addresses in this block are local to a domain, no IANA Since addresses in this block are local to a domain, no IANA
assignment policy is required. assignment policy is required.
12.1.1. Relative Offsets 9.1.1. Relative Offsets
The relative offsets [RFC2365] are used to ensure that a service can The relative offsets [RFC2365] are used to ensure that a service can
be located independent of the extent of the enclosing scope (see RFC be located independent of the extent of the enclosing scope (see RFC
2770 for details). Since there are only 256 such offsets, the IANA 2770 for details). Since there are only 256 such offsets, the IANA
should only assign a relative offset to a protocol that provides an should only assign a relative offset to a protocol that provides an
infra-structure supporting service. Examples of such services include infrastructure supporting service. Examples of such services include
the Session Announcement Protocol [RFC2974]. Pursuant to section the Session Announcement Protocol [RFC2974]. Pursuant to section
4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments of Relative Offsets follow 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments of Relative Offsets follow
an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. See an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. See
[IANA] for the current set of assignments. [IANA] for the current set of assignments.
13. Annual Review 10. Annual Review
Given the dynamic nature of IPv4 multicast and its associated infra- Given the dynamic nature of IPv4 multicast and its associated infra-
structure, and the previously undocumented IPv4 multicast address structure, and the previously undocumented IPv4 multicast address
assignment guidelines, the IANA should conduct an annual review of assignment guidelines, the IANA should conduct an annual review of
currently assigned addresses. currently assigned addresses.
13.1. Address Reclamation 10.1. Address Reclamation
During the review described above, addresses that were mis-assigned During the review described above, addresses that were mis-assigned
should, where possible, be reclaimed or reassigned. should, where possible, be reclaimed or reassigned.
The IANA should also review assignments in the AD-HOC, DIS Transient The IANA should also review assignments in the AD-HOC, DIS Transient
Groups, and ST Multicast Groups blocks and reclaim those addresses Groups, and ST Multicast Groups blocks and reclaim those addresses
that are not in use on the global Internet (i.e, those applications that are not in use on the global Internet (i.e, those applications
which can use SSM, GLOP, or Administratively Scoped addressing, or which can use SSM, GLOP, or Administratively Scoped addressing, or
are not globally routed). are not globally routed).
14. Use of IANA Reserved Addresses 11. Use of IANA Reserved Addresses
Applications MUST NOT use addressing in the IANA reserved blocks. Applications MUST NOT use addressing in the IANA reserved blocks.
15. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
The assignment guidelines described in this document do not alter the The assignment guidelines described in this document do not alter the
security properties of either the Any Source or Source Specific security properties of either the Any Source or Source Specific
multicast service models. multicast service models.
16. Acknowledgments 13. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Joe St. Sauver, John Meylor, Randy The authors would like to thank Joe St. Sauver, John Meylor, Randy
Bush, and Thomas Narten for their constructive feedback and comments. Bush, and Thomas Narten for their constructive feedback and comments.
17. Author's Address: 14. Authors' Addresses
Zaid Albanna Zaid Albanna
1149 N. Mathilda Ave 1149 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA. 94089 Sunnyvale, CA. 94089
zaid@juniper.net
EMail: zaid@juniper.net
Kevin Almeroth Kevin Almeroth
UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA. Santa Barbara, CA.
Email: almeroth@cs.ucsb.edu
EMail: almeroth@cs.ucsb.edu
David Meyer David Meyer
Sprint E|Solutions Sprint E|Solutions
Email: dmm@sprint.net
EMail: dmm@sprint.net
Michelle Schipper Michelle Schipper
IANA Administrator IANA Administrator
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Marina del Rey, CA 90292
iana@iana.org
18. References EMail: iana@iana.org
[IANA] http://www.iana.org/numbers.html 15. References
[RFC1190] C. Topolcic, "Experimental Internet Stream [IANA] http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
Protocol, Version 2 (ST-II)", RFC 1190, October,
1990.
[RFC1930] J. Hawkinson and T. Bates, "Guidelines for [RFC1190] Topolcic, C., "Experimental Internet Stream Protocol,
creation, selection, and registration of an Version 2 (ST-II)", RFC 1190, October 1990.
Autonomous System (AS)", RFC 1930, March 1996.
[RFC2026] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- [RFC1930] Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation,
Revision 3", RFC2026, October 1996. selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)",
RFC 1930, March 1996.
[RFC2030] Mills, D., Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI", D. Mills, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to [RFC2030] Mills, D., "Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4
Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI", RFC 2030, October 1996.
1997.
[RFC2328] J. Moy,"OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April, 1998. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2365] D. Meyer,"Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
2365, July, 1998.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for [RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23,
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2365, July 1998.
BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[RFC2730] Hanna, S., Patel, B. and M. Shah, "Multicast Address [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP), December IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
1999. October 1998.
[RFC2770] D. Meyer, and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", [RFC2730] Hanna, S., Patel, B. and M. Shah, "Multicast Address
RFC 2770, February, 2000 Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP), RFC 2730,
December 1999.
[RFC2780] S. Bradner and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines [RFC2770] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", RFC
For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related 2770, February 2000.
Headers", RFC2780, March, 2000
[RFC2908] D. Thaler, M. Handley, D.Estrin, "The Internet Multicast [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
Address Allocation Architecture", RFC 2908, September 2000. Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP
37, RFC 2780, March 2000.
[RFC2909] D. Thaler, M. Handley, D.Estrin, "The Multicast [RFC2908] Thaler, D., Handley, M. and D.Estrin, "The Internet
Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol, RFC 2909, Multicast Address Allocation Architecture", RFC 2908,
September 2000. September 2000.
[RFC2974] M. Handley, C. Perkins, E. Whelan, "Session [RFC2909] Thaler, D., Handley, M. and D. Estrin, "The Multicast
Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000. Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol", RFC 2909, September
2000.
[RFC3818] D. Meyer, "Extended Assignments in 233/8", RFC [RFC2974] Handley, M., Perkins, C. and E. Whelan, "Session
3818, June, 2001. Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.
[SDR] http://www.aciri.org/sdr/ [RFC3138] Meyer, D., "Extended Assignments in 233/8", RFC 3138, June
2001.
19. Full Copyright Statement [SDR] http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/software/
16. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
skipping to change at line 352 skipping to change at page 8, line 32
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 75 change blocks. 
132 lines changed or deleted 119 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/