rfc9805.original   rfc9805.txt 
6man R. Bonica Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Bonica
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Request for Comments: 9805 Juniper Networks
Updates: 2711 (if approved) 29 April 2025 Updates: 2711 June 2025
Intended status: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expires: 31 October 2025 ISSN: 2070-1721
Deprecation Of The IPv6 Router Alert Option For New Protocols Deprecation of the IPv6 Router Alert Option for New Protocols
draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert-13
Abstract Abstract
This document deprecates the IPv6 Router Alert Option. Protocols This document deprecates the IPv6 Router Alert Option. Protocols
that use the Router Alert Option may continue to do so, even in that use the Router Alert Option may continue to do so, even in
future versions. However, new protocols that are standardized in the future versions. However, new protocols that are standardized in the
future must not use the Router Alert Option. future must not use the Router Alert Option.
This document updates RFC 2711. This document updates RFC 2711.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 31 October 2025. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9805.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language
3. Issues Associated With The IPv6 Router Alert Option . . . . . 3 3. Issues Associated with the IPv6 Router Alert Option
4. Deprecate The IPv6 Router Alert Option . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Deprecation of the IPv6 Router Alert Option
5. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Future Work
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. IANA Considerations
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. References
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.1. Normative References
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.2. Informative References
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A. Protocols That Use the Router Alert Option
Appendix A. Protocols That Use The Router Alert Option . . . . . 7 Acknowledgements
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Author's Address
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In IPv6 [RFC8200], optional internet-layer information is encoded in In IPv6 [RFC8200], optional internet-layer information is encoded in
separate headers that may be placed between the IPv6 header and the separate headers that may be placed between the IPv6 header and the
upper-layer header in a packet. There is a small number of such upper-layer header in a packet. There is a small number of such
extension headers, each one identified by a distinct Next Header extension headers, each one identified by a distinct Next Header
value. value.
One of these extension headers is called the Hop-by-Hop Options One of these extension headers is called the Hop-by-Hop Options
header. The Hop-by-Hop Options header is used to carry optional header. The Hop-by-Hop Options header is used to carry optional
information that may be examined and processed by every node along a information that may be examined and processed by every node along a
packet's delivery path. packet's delivery path.
The Hop-by-Hop Options header can carry one or more options. Among The Hop-by-Hop Options header can carry one or more options. Among
these is the Router Alert Option [RFC2711]. these is the Router Alert Option [RFC2711].
The Router Alert Option provides a mechanism whereby routers can know The Router Alert Option provides a mechanism whereby routers can know
when to intercept datagrams not addressed to them without having to when to intercept datagrams not addressed to them without having to
extensively examine every datagram. The semantic of the Router Alert extensively examine every datagram. The semantic of the Router Alert
Option is, "routers should examine this datagram more closely". Option is that "routers should examine this datagram more closely".
Excluding this option tells the router that there is no need to Excluding this option tells the router that there is no need to
examine this datagram more closely. examine this datagram more closely.
As explained below, the Router Alert Option introduces many issues. As explained below, the Router Alert Option introduces many issues.
This document updates [RFC2711]. This document updates [RFC2711]. Implementers of protocols that
continue to use the Router Alert Option can continue to reference
Implementers of protocols that continue to use the Router Option can [RFC2711] for Router Alert Option details.
continue to reference [RFC2711] for Router Alert Option details.
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Issues Associated With The IPv6 Router Alert Option 3. Issues Associated with the IPv6 Router Alert Option
[RFC6398] identifies security considerations associated with the [RFC6398] identifies security considerations associated with the
Router Alert Option. In a nutshell, the IP Router Alert Option does Router Alert Option. In a nutshell, the IP Router Alert Option does
not provide a universal mechanism to accurately and reliably not provide a universal mechanism to accurately and reliably
distinguish between IP Router Alert packets of interest and unwanted distinguish between IP Router Alert packets of interest and unwanted
IP Router Alerts. This creates a security concern, because, short of IP Router Alerts. This creates a security concern because, short of
appropriate router-implementation-specific mechanisms, the router's appropriate router-implementation-specific mechanisms, the router's
control plane is at risk of being flooded by unwanted traffic. control plane is at risk of being flooded by unwanted traffic.
NOTE: Many routers maintain separation between forwarding and control | NOTE: Many routers maintain separation between forwarding and
plane hardware. The forwarding plane is implemented on high- | control plane hardware. The forwarding plane is implemented on
performance Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC) and | high-performance Application-Specific Integrated Circuits
Network Processors (NP), while the control plane is implemented on | (ASICs) and Network Processors (NPs), while the control plane
general-purpose processors. Given this difference, the control plane | is implemented on general-purpose processors. Given this
is more susceptible to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack than the | difference, the control plane is more susceptible to a Denial-
forwarding plane. | of-Service (DoS) attack than the forwarding plane.
[RFC6192] demonstrates how a network operator can deploy Access [RFC6192] demonstrates how a network operator can deploy Access
Control Lists (ACL) that protect the control plane from DoS attack. Control Lists (ACLs) that protect the control plane from DoS attacks.
These ACLs are effective and efficient when they select packets based These ACLs are effective and efficient when they select packets based
upon information that can be found in a fixed position. However, upon information that can be found in a fixed position. However,
they become less effective and less efficient when they must parse an they become less effective and less efficient when they must parse a
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header, searching for the Router Alert Hop-by-Hop Options header, searching for the Router Alert Option.
Option.
So, network operators can address the security considerations raised Network operators can address the security considerations raised in
in [RFC6398] by: [RFC6398] by:
* Deploying the operationally complex and computationally expensive * Deploying the operationally complex and computationally expensive
ACLs described in [RFC6192]. ACLs described in [RFC6192].
* Configuring their routers to ignore the Router Alert Option. * Configuring their routers to ignore the Router Alert Option.
* Dropping or severely rate limiting packets that contain the IPv6 * Dropping or severely rate limiting packets that contain the Hop-
Hop-by-hop Options header at the network edge. by-Hop Options header at the network edge.
These options become less viable as protocol designers continue to These options become less viable as protocol designers continue to
design protocols that use the Router Alert Option. design protocols that use the Router Alert Option.
[RFC9673] seeks to eliminate Hop-by-Hop processing on the control [RFC9673] seeks to eliminate hop-by-hop processing on the control
plane. However, because of its unique function, the Router Alert plane. However, because of its unique function, the Router Alert
option is granted an exception to this rule. One approach would be option is granted an exception to this rule. One approach would be
to deprecate the Router Alert option, because current usage beyond to deprecate the Router Alert option, because current usage beyond
the local network appears to be limited, and packets containing Hop- the local network appears to be limited and packets containing Hop-
by-Hop options are frequently dropped. Deprecation would allow by-Hop options are frequently dropped. Deprecation would allow
current implementations to continue using it, but its use could be current implementations to continue using it, but its use could be
phased out over time. phased out over time.
4. Deprecate The IPv6 Router Alert Option 4. Deprecation of the IPv6 Router Alert Option
This document deprecates the IPv6 Router Alert Option. Protocols This document deprecates the IPv6 Router Alert Option. Protocols
that use the Router Alert Option MAY continue to do so, even in that use the Router Alert Option MAY continue to do so, even in
future versions. However, new protocols that are standardized in the future versions. However, new protocols that are standardized in the
future MUST NOT use the Router Alert Option. Appendix A contains an future MUST NOT use the Router Alert Option. Appendix A contains an
exhaustive list of protocols that may continue to use the Router exhaustive list of protocols that MAY continue to use the Router
Alert Option. Alert Option.
This document updates [RFC2711]. This document updates [RFC2711].
5. Future Work 5. Future Work
As listed in Appendix A, there are a number of protocols that use the A number of protocols use the Router Alert option; these are listed
Router Alert option. The only protocols in the Appendix that have in Appendix A. The only protocols in Appendix A that have widespread
wide spread deployment are Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 deployment are Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2)
(MLDv2) [RFC3810] and Multicast Router Discovery (MRD) [RFC4286]. [RFC9777] and Multicast Router Discovery (MRD) [RFC4286]. The other
The other protocols have either limited deployment, are Experimental, protocols either have limited deployment, are experimental, or have
or have no known implementation. no known implementation.
It is left for future work to develop new versions of MLDv2 and MRD It is left for future work to develop new versions of MLDv2 and MRD
that do not rely on the Router Alert option. That task is out of that do not rely on the Router Alert option. That task is out of
scope for this document. scope for this document.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document mitigates all security considerations associated with This document mitigates all security considerations associated with
the IPv6 Router Alert Option. These security considerations can be the IPv6 Router Alert Option. These security considerations can be
found in [RFC2711], [RFC6192] and [RFC6398]. found in [RFC2711], [RFC6192], and [RFC6398].
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to mark the Router Alert Option as "Deprecated for IANA has marked the Router Alert Option as "DEPRECATED for New
New Protocols" in the Destination Options and Hop-by-hop Options Protocols" in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options"
Registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters> and added
ipv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2) and add a pointer to this this document as a reference.
document.
IANA is also requested to make a note in the IPv6 Router Alert Option
Values Registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-
values/ipv6-routeralert-values.xhtml?) stating that this registry is
closed for allocations along with a reference to this document.
Please change all experimental codepoints in this registry as
"reserved" (i.e., they are no longer available for experimentation).
8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Zafar Ali, Brian Carpenter, Toerless Eckert, David Farmer, IANA has also made a note in the "IPv6 Router Alert Option Values"
Adrian Farrel, Bob Hinden and Jen Linkova for their reviews of this registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-values>
document. stating that the registry is closed for allocations and added a
reference to this document. The experimental codepoints in this
registry have been changed to "Reserved" (i.e., they are no longer
available for experimentation).
9. References 8. References
9.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", [RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC2711, October 1999, RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC2711, October 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>.
skipping to change at page 6, line 9 skipping to change at line 223
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC9673] Hinden, R. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options [RFC9673] Hinden, R. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options
Processing Procedures", RFC 9673, DOI 10.17487/RFC9673, Processing Procedures", RFC 9673, DOI 10.17487/RFC9673,
October 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9673>. October 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9673>.
9.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC1633] Braden, R., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated [RFC1633] Braden, R., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated
Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview", Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview",
RFC 1633, DOI 10.17487/RFC1633, June 1994, RFC 1633, DOI 10.17487/RFC1633, June 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1633>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1633>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
skipping to change at page 6, line 33 skipping to change at line 247
RFC 3175, DOI 10.17487/RFC3175, September 2001, RFC 3175, DOI 10.17487/RFC3175, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3175>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3175>.
[RFC3208] Speakman, T., Crowcroft, J., Gemmell, J., Farinacci, D., [RFC3208] Speakman, T., Crowcroft, J., Gemmell, J., Farinacci, D.,
Lin, S., Leshchiner, D., Luby, M., Montgomery, T., Rizzo, Lin, S., Leshchiner, D., Luby, M., Montgomery, T., Rizzo,
L., Tweedly, A., Bhaskar, N., Edmonstone, R., L., Tweedly, A., Bhaskar, N., Edmonstone, R.,
Sumanasekera, R., and L. Vicisano, "PGM Reliable Transport Sumanasekera, R., and L. Vicisano, "PGM Reliable Transport
Protocol Specification", RFC 3208, DOI 10.17487/RFC3208, Protocol Specification", RFC 3208, DOI 10.17487/RFC3208,
December 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3208>. December 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3208>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC4080] Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J., and S. Van den [RFC4080] Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J., and S. Van den
Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework", Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework",
RFC 4080, DOI 10.17487/RFC4080, June 2005, RFC 4080, DOI 10.17487/RFC4080, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4080>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4080>.
[RFC4286] Haberman, B. and J. Martin, "Multicast Router Discovery", [RFC4286] Haberman, B. and J. Martin, "Multicast Router Discovery",
RFC 4286, DOI 10.17487/RFC4286, December 2005, RFC 4286, DOI 10.17487/RFC4286, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4286>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4286>.
[RFC5946] Le Faucheur, F., Manner, J., Narayanan, A., Guillou, A., [RFC5946] Le Faucheur, F., Manner, J., Narayanan, A., Guillou, A.,
skipping to change at page 7, line 44 skipping to change at line 301
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC9570] Kompella, K., Bonica, R., and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Deprecating [RFC9570] Kompella, K., Bonica, R., and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Deprecating
the Use of Router Alert in LSP Ping", RFC 9570, the Use of Router Alert in LSP Ping", RFC 9570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9570, May 2024, DOI 10.17487/RFC9570, May 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9570>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9570>.
Appendix A. Protocols That Use The Router Alert Option [RFC9777] Haberman, B., Ed., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
(MLDv2) for IPv6", STD 101, RFC 9777,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9777, March 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9777>.
Appendix A. Protocols That Use the Router Alert Option
Table 1 contains an exhaustive list of protocols that use the IPv6 Table 1 contains an exhaustive list of protocols that use the IPv6
Router Alert Option. There are no known IPv6 implementations of MPLS Router Alert Option. There are no known IPv6 implementations of MPLS
PING. Neither INTSERV nor NSIS are widely deployed. All NSIS Ping. Neither Integrated Services (Intserv) nor Next Steps in
protocols are EXPERIMENTAL. Pragmatic Generic Multicast (PGM) is Signaling (NSIS) are widely deployed. All NSIS protocols are
EXPERIMENTAL and there are no known IPv6 implementations. experimental. Pragmatic Generic Multicast (PGM) is experimental, and
there are no known IPv6 implementations.
+=================+=============================+==================+ +=================+=============================+==================+
| Protocol | References | Application | | Protocol | References | Application |
+=================+=============================+==================+ +=================+=============================+==================+
| Multicast | [RFC3810] | IPv6 Multicast | | Multicast | [RFC9777] | IPv6 Multicast |
| Listener | | | | Listener | | |
| Discovery | | | | Discovery | | |
| Version 2 | | | | Version 2 | | |
| (MLDv2) | | | | (MLDv2) | | |
+-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+ +-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+
+-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+
| Multicast | [RFC4286] | IPv6 Multicast | | Multicast | [RFC4286] | IPv6 Multicast |
| Router | | | | Router | | |
| Discovery (MRD) | | | | Discovery (MRD) | | |
+-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+ +-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+
+-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+
| Pragmatic | [RFC3208] | IPv6 Multicast | | Pragmatic | [RFC3208] | IPv6 Multicast |
| General | | | | General | | |
| Multicast (PGM) | | | | Multicast (PGM) | | |
+-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+ +-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+
+-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+ | MPLS Ping (Use | [RFC7506][RFC8029][RFC9570] | MPLS Operations, |
| MPLS PING (Use | [RFC7506][RFC8029][RFC9570] | MPLS OAM | | of the Router | | Administration, |
| of router alert | | | | Alert Option is | | and Maintenance |
| deprecated) | | | | deprecated) | | (OAM) |
+-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+
+-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+ +-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+
| Resource | [RFC3175] [RFC5946] | Integrated | | Resource | [RFC3175] [RFC5946] | Integrated |
| Reservation | [RFC6016] [RFC6401] | Services | | Reservation | [RFC6016] [RFC6401] | Services |
| Protocol | | (INTSERV) | | Protocol | | (Intserv) |
| (RSVP): Both | | [RFC1633] and | | (RSVP): Both | | [RFC1633] and |
| IPv4 and IPv6 | | Multiprotocol | | IPv4 and IPv6 | | Multiprotocol |
| implementations | | Label Switching | | implementations | | Label Switching |
| | | (MPLS) [RFC3031] | | | | (MPLS) [RFC3031] |
+-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+ +-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+
+-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+ | Next Steps in | [RFC5979] [RFC5971] | NSIS [RFC4080] |
| Next Steps In | [RFC5979] [RFC5971] | NSIS [RFC4080] |
| Signaling | | | | Signaling | | |
| (NSIS) | | | | (NSIS) | | |
+-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+ +-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------+
Table 1: Protocols That Use The IPv6 Router Alert Option Table 1: Protocols That Use the IPv6 Router Alert Option
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Zafar Ali, Brian Carpenter, Toerless Eckert, David Farmer,
Adrian Farrel, Bob Hinden, and Jen Linkova for their reviews of this
document.
Author's Address Author's Address
Ron Bonica Ron Bonica
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
United States of America United States of America
Email: rbonica@juniper.net Email: rbonica@juniper.net
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
115 lines changed or deleted 106 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.