💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc4222.txt captured on 2023-11-04 at 13:52:21.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group G. Choudhury, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4222 AT&T
BCP: 112 October 2005
Category: Best Current Practice
Prioritized Treatment of Specific OSPF Version 2
Packets and Congestion Avoidance
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document recommends methods that are intended to improve the
scalability and stability of large networks using Open Shortest Path
First (OSPF) Version 2 protocol. The methods include processing OSPF
Hellos and Link State Advertisement (LSA) Acknowledgments at a higher
priority compared to other OSPF packets, and other congestion
avoidance procedures.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Recommendations................................................3
3. Security Considerations........................................6
4. Acknowledgments................................................6
5. Normative References...........................................6
6. Informative References.........................................7
Appendix A. LSA Storm: Causes and Impact..........................8
Appendix B. List of Variables and Values.........................10
Appendix C. Other Recommendations and Suggestions................11
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
1. Introduction
In this document, OSPF refers to OSPFv2 [Ref1]. The scalability and
stability improvement techniques described here may also apply to
OSPFv3 [Ref2], but that will require further study and operational
experience.
A large network running OSPF protocol may occasionally experience the
simultaneous or near-simultaneous update of a large number of link
state advertisements, or LSAs. This is particularly true if OSPF
traffic engineering extension [Ref3] is used that may significantly
increase the number of LSAs in the network. We call this event an
LSA storm and it may be initiated by an unscheduled failure or a
scheduled maintenance event. The failure may be hardware, software,
or procedural in nature.
The LSA storm causes high CPU and memory utilization at the router
causing incoming packets to be delayed or dropped. Delayed
acknowledgments (beyond the retransmission timer value) result in
retransmissions, and delayed Hello packets (beyond the router-dead
interval) result in neighbor adjacencies being declared down. The
retransmissions and additional LSA originations result in further CPU
and memory usage, essentially causing a positive feedback loop,
which, in the extreme case, may drive the network to an unstable
state.
The default value of the retransmission timer is 5 seconds and that
of the router-dead interval is 40 seconds. However, recently there
has been a lot of interest in significantly reducing OSPF convergence
time. As part of that plan, much shorter (sub-second) Hello and
router-dead intervals have been proposed [Ref4]. In such a scenario,
it will be more likely for Hello packets to be delayed beyond the
router-dead interval during network congestion caused by an LSA
storm.
In order to improve the scalability and stability of networks, we
recommend steps for prioritizing critical OSPF packets and avoiding
congestion. The details of the recommendations are given in Section
2. A simulation study is reported in [Ref13] that quantifies the
congestion phenomenon and its impact. It also studies several of the
recommendations and shows that they indeed improve the scalability
and stability of networks using OSPF protocol. [Ref13] is available
on request by contacting the editor or one of the authors.
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
Appendix A explains in more detail LSA storm scenarios, their impact,
and points out a few real-life examples of control-message storms.
Appendix B provides a list of variables used in the recommendations
and their example values. Appendix C provides some further
recommendations and suggestions with similar goals.
2. Recommendations
The recommendations below are intended to improve the scalability and
stability of large networks using OSPF protocol. During periods of
network congestion, they would reduce retransmissions, avoid an
adjacency to be declared down due to Hello packets being delayed
beyond the RouterDeadInterval, and take other congestion avoidance
steps. The recommendations are unordered except that Recommendation
2 is to be implemented only if Recommendation 1 is not implemented.
(1) Classify all OSPF packets in two classes: a "high priority" class
comprising OSPF Hello packets and Link State Acknowledgement
packets, and a "low priority" class comprising all other packets.
The classification is accomplished by examining the OSPF packet
header. While receiving a packet from a neighbor and while
transmitting a packet to a neighbor, try to process a "high
priority" packet ahead of a "low priority" packet.
The prioritized processing while transmitting may cause OSPF
packets from a neighbor to be received out of sequence. If
Cryptographic Authentication (AuType = 2) is used (as specified
in [Ref1]), then successive received valid OSPF packets from a
neighbor need to have a non-decreasing "Cryptographic sequence
number". To comply with this requirement, we recommend that in
case Cryptographic Authentication (AuType = 2) is used [Ref1],
prioritized processing not be done at the transmitter. This will
avoid packets arriving at the receiver out of sequence. However,
after security processing at the receiver (including sequence
number checking) is complete, the OSPF packets may be kept in a
"high priority" queue or a "low priority" queue based on their
class and processed accordingly. The benefit of prioritized
processing is clearly higher in the absence of Cryptographic
Authentication since in that case prioritization can be
implemented both at the transmitter and at the receiver.
However, even with Cryptographic Authentication it will be
beneficial to have prioritization only at the receiver (following
security processing).
(2) If Recommendation 1 cannot be implemented, then reset the
inactivity timer for an adjacency whenever any OSPF unicast
packet or any OSPF packet sent to AllSPFRouters over a point-to-
point link is received over that adjacency instead of resetting
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
the inactivity timer only on receipt of the Hello packet. So
OSPF would declare the adjacency to be down only if no OSPF
unicast packets or no OSPF packets sent to AllSPFRouters over a
point-to-point link are received over that adjacency for a period
equaling or exceeding the RouterDeadInterval. The reason for not
recommending this proposal in conjunction with Recommendation 1
is to avoid potential undesirable side effects. One such effect
is the delay in discovering the down status of an adjacency in a
case where no high priority Hello packets are being received but
the inactivity timer is being reset by other stale packets in the
low priority queue.
(3) Use an exponential backoff algorithm for determining the value of
the LSA retransmission interval (RxmtInterval). Let R(i)
represent the RxmtInterval value used during the i-th
retransmission of an LSA. Use the following algorithm to compute
R(i).
R(1) = Rmin
R(i+1) = Min(KR(i),Rmax) for i>=1
where K, Rmin, and Rmax are constants and the function Min(.,.)
represents the minimum value of its two arguments. Example
values for K, Rmin, and Rmax may be 2, 5, and 40 seconds,
respectively. Note that the example value for Rmin, the initial
retransmission interval, is the same as the sample value of
RxmtInterval in [Ref1].
This recommendation is motivated by the observation that during a
network congestion event caused by control messages, a major
source for sustaining the congestion is the repeated
retransmission of LSAs. The use of an exponential backoff
algorithm for the LSA retransmission interval reduces the rate of
LSA retransmissions while the network experiences congestion
(during which it is more likely that multiple retransmissions of
the same LSA would happen). This in turn helps the network get
out of the congested state.
(4) Implicit Congestion Detection and Action Based on That: If there
is control message congestion at a router, its neighbors do not
know about that explicitly. However, they can implicitly detect
it based on the number of unacknowledged LSAs to this router. If
this number exceeds a certain "high-water mark", then the rate at
which LSAs are sent to this router should be reduced
progressively using an exponential backoff mechanism but not
below a certain minimum rate. At a future time, if the number of
unacknowledged LSAs to this router falls below a certain "low-
water mark", then the rate of sending LSAs to this router should
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
be increased progressively, again using an exponential backoff
mechanism but not above a certain maximum rate. The whole
algorithm is given below. Note that this algorithm is to be
applied independently to each neighbor and only for unicast LSAs
sent to a neighbor or LSAs sent to AllSPFRouters over a point-
to-point link.
Let,
U(t) = Number of unacknowledged LSAs to neighbor at time t.
H = A high-water mark (in units of number of unacknowledged
LSAs).
L = A low-water mark (in units of number of unacknowledged LSAs).
G(t) = Gap between sending successive LSAs to neighbor at time t.
F = The factor by which the above gap is to be increased during
congestion and decreased after coming out of congestion.
T = Minimum time that has to elapse before the existing gap
is considered for change.
Gmin = Minimum allowed value of gap.
Gmax = Maximum allowed value of gap.
The equation below shows how the gap is to be changed after a
time T has elapsed since the last change:
_
|
| Min(FG(t),Gmax) if U(t+T) > H
G(t+T) = | G(t) if H >= U(t+T) >= L
| Max(G(t)/F,Gmin) if U(t+T) < L
|_
Min(.,.) and Max(.,.) represent the minimum and maximum values of
the two arguments, respectively.
Example values for the various parameters of the algorithm are as
follows: H = 20, L = 10, F = 2, T = 1 second, Gmin = 20 ms, Gmax
= 1 second.
Recommendations 3 and 4 both slow down LSAs to congested
neighbors based on implicitly detecting the congestion, but they
have important differences. Recommendation 3 progressively slows
down successive retransmissions of the same LSA, whereas
Recommendation 4 progressively slows down all LSAs (new or
retransmission) to a congested neighbor.
(5) Throttling Adjacencies to Be Brought Up Simultaneously: If a
router tries to bring up a large number of adjacencies to its
neighbors simultaneously, then that may cause severe congestion
due to database synchronization and LSA flooding activities. It
is recommended that during such a situation no more than "n"
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
adjacencies should be brought up simultaneously. Once a subset
of adjacencies has been brought up successfully, newer
adjacencies may be brought up as long as the number of
simultaneous adjacencies being brought up does not exceed "n".
The appropriate value of "n" would depend on the router
processing power, total bandwidth available for control plane
traffic, and propagation delay. The value of "n" should be
configurable.
In the presence of throttling, an important issue is the order in
which adjacencies are to be formed. We recommend a First Come
First Served (FCFS) policy based on the order in which the
request for adjacency formation arrives. Requests may either be
from neighbors or self-generated. Among the self-generated
requests, a priority list may be used to decide the order in
which the requests are to be made. However, once an adjacency
formation process starts it is not to be preempted except for
unusual circumstances such as errors or time-outs.
In some of the recommendations above, we refer to point-to-point
links. Those references should also include cases where a broadcast
network is to be treated as a point-to-point connection from the
standpoint of IP routing [Ref5]
3. Security Considerations
This memo does not create any new security issues for the OSPF
protocol.
4. Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the support and helpful comments from
OSPF WG chairs Rohit Dube, Acee Lindem, and John Moy; Routing Area
directors Alex Zinin and Bill Fenner; and IESG reviewers. We
acknowledge Vivek Dube, Mitchell Erblich, Mike Fox, Tony Przygienda,
and Krishna Rao for comments on previous versions of the document.
We also acknowledge Margaret Chiosi, Elie Francis, Jeff Han, Beth
Munson, Roshan Rao, Moshe Segal, Mike Wardlow, and Pat Wirth for
collaboration and encouragement in our scalability improvement
efforts for Link State Protocol-based networks.
5. Normative References
[Ref1] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[Ref2] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC
2740, December 1999.
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
6. Informative References
[Ref3] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[Ref4] C. Alaettinoglu, V. Jacobson and H. Yu, "Towards Millisecond
IGP Convergence", Work in Progress.
[Ref5] N. Shen, A. Lindem, J. Yuan, A. Zinin, R. White and S.
Previdi, "Point-to-point operation over LAN in link-state
routing protocols", Work in Progress.
[Ref6] Pappalardo, D., "AT&T, customers grapple with ATM net
outage", Network World, February 26, 2001.
[Ref7] "AT&T announces cause of frame-relay network outage," AT&T
Press Release, April 22, 1998.
[Ref8] Cholewka, K., "MCI Outage Has Domino Effect", Inter@ctive
Week, August 20, 1999.
[Ref9] Jander, M., "In Qwest Outage, ATM Takes Some Heat", Light
Reading, April 6, 2001.
[Ref10] A. Zinin and M. Shand, "Flooding Optimizations in Link-State
Routing Protocols", Work in Progress.
[Ref11] Pillay-Esnault, P., "OSPF Refresh and Flooding Reduction in
Stable Topologies", RFC 4136, July 2005.
[Ref12] G. Ash, G. Choudhury, V. Sapozhnikova, M. Sherif, A. Maunder,
V. Manral, "Congestion Avoidance & Control for OSPF
Networks", Work in Progress.
[Ref13] G. Choudhury, G. Ash, V. Manral, A. Maunder and V.
Sapozhnikova, "Prioritized Treatment of Specific OSPF Packets
and Congestion Avoidance: Algorithms and Simulations", AT&T
Technical Report, August 2003.
[Ref14] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition
of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4
and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
Appendix A. LSA Storm: Causes and Impact
An LSA storm may be initiated due to many reasons. Here are some
examples:
(a) one or more link failures due to fiber cuts,
(b) one or more router failures for some reason, e.g., software crash
or some type of disaster (including power outage) in an office
complex hosting many routers,
(c) link/router flapping,
(d) requirement of taking down and later bringing back many routers
during a software/hardware upgrade,
(e) near synchronization of the periodic 1800-second LSA refreshes of
a subset of LSAs,
(f) refresh of all LSAs in the system during a change in software
version,
(g) injecting a large number of external routes to OSPF due to a
procedural error,
(h) Router ID changes causing a large number of LSA re-originations
(possibly LSA purges as well depending on the implementation).
In addition to the LSAs originated as a direct result of link/router
failures, there may be other indirect LSAs as well. One example in
MPLS networks is traffic engineering LSAs [Ref3] originated at other
links as a result of significant changes in reserved bandwidth.
These result from rerouting of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that went
down during the link/router failure. The LSA storm causes high CPU
and memory utilization at the router processor causing incoming
packets to be delayed or dropped. Delayed acknowledgments (beyond
the retransmission timer value) results in retransmissions, and
delayed Hello packets (beyond the Router-Dead interval) results in
links being declared down. A trunk-down event causes router LSA
origination by its end-point routers. If traffic engineering LSAs
are used for each link, then that type of LSA would also be
originated by the end-point routers and potentially elsewhere as well
due to significant changes in reserved bandwidths at other links
caused by the failure and reroute of LSPs originally using the failed
trunk. Eventually, when the link recovers that would also trigger
additional router LSAs and traffic engineering LSAs.
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
The retransmissions and additional LSA originations result in further
CPU and memory usage, essentially causing a positive feedback loop.
We define the LSA storm size as the number of LSAs in the original
storm, not counting any additional LSAs resulting from the feedback
loop described above. If the LSA storm is too large, then the
positive feedback loop mentioned above may be large enough to
indefinitely sustain a large CPU and memory utilization at many
routers in the network, thereby driving the network to an unstable
state. In the past, network outage events have been reported in IP
and ATM networks using link-state protocols such as OSPF,
Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS), Private Network-
Network Interface (PNNI), or some proprietary variants. See for
example [Ref6-Ref9]. In many of these examples, large-scale flooding
of LSAs or other similar control messages (either naturally or
triggered by some bug or inappropriate procedure) have been partly or
fully responsible for network instability and outage.
In [Ref13], a simulation model is used to show that there is a
certain LSA storm size threshold above which the network may show
unstable behavior caused by a large number of retransmissions, link
failures due to missed Hello packets, and subsequent link recoveries.
It is also shown that the LSA storm size causing instability may be
substantially increased by providing prioritized treatment to Hello
and LSA Acknowledgment packets and by using an exponential backoff
algorithm for determining the LSA retransmission interval. If it is
not possible to prioritize Hello packets, then resetting the
inactivity timer on receiving any valid OSPF packets can also provide
the same benefit. Furthermore, if we prioritize Hello packets, then
even when the network operates somewhat above the stability
threshold, links are not declared down due to missed Hellos. This
implies that even though there is control plane congestion due to
many retransmissions, the data plane stays up and no new LSAs are
originated (besides the ones in the original storm and the
refreshes). These observations support the first three
recommendations in Section 2. The authors of this document have also
done simulations to verify that the other recommendations in Section
2 help avoid congestion and allow a graceful exit from a congested
state.
One might argue that the scalability issue of large networks should
be solved solely by dividing the network hierarchically into multiple
areas so that flooding of LSAs remains localized within areas.
However, this approach increases the network management and design
complexity and may result in less optimal routing between areas.
Also, Autonomous System External (ASE) LSAs are flooded throughout
the AS, and it may be a problem if there are large numbers of them.
Furthermore, a large number of summary LSAs may need to be flooded
across areas, and their numbers would increase significantly if
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
multiple Area Border Routers are employed for the purpose of
reliability. Thus, it is important to allow the network to grow
towards as large a size as possible under a single area.
The recommendations in the document are synergistic with a broader
set of scalability and stability improvement proposals. [Ref10]
proposes flooding overhead reduction in case more than one interface
goes to the same neighbor. [Ref11] proposes a mechanism for greatly
reducing LSA refreshes in stable topologies.
[Ref12] proposes a wide range of congestion control and failure
recovery mechanisms (some of those ideas are covered in this
document, but [Ref12] has other ideas not covered here).
Appendix B. List of Variables and Values
F = The factor by which the gap between sending successive LSAs to
a neighbor is to be increased during congestion and decreased
after coming out of congestion (used in Recommendation 4).
Example value is 2.
G(t) = Gap between sending successive LSAs to a neighbor at time t
(used in Recommendation 4).
Gmax = Maximum allowed value of gap between sending successive LSAs
to a neighbor (used in Recommendation 4). Example value is 1
second.
Gmin = Minimum allowed value of gap between sending successive LSAs
to a neighbor (used in Recommendation 4). Example value is 20
ms.
H = A high-water mark (in units of number of unacknowledged LSAs).
Exceeding this mark would trigger a potential increase in the
gap between sending successive LSAs to a neighbor. (used in
Recommendation 4). Example value is 20.
K = A multiplicative constant used in increasing the RxmtInterval
value used during successive retransmissions of the same LSA
(used in Recommendation 3). Example value is 2.
L = A low-water mark (in units of number of unacknowledged LSAs)
Dropping below this mark would trigger a potential decrease in
the gap between sending successive LSAs to a neighbor. (used
in Recommendation 4). Example value is 10.
n = Upper limit on the number of adjacencies to be brought up
simultaneously (used in Recommendation 5).
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 10]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
R(i) = RxmtInterval value used during the i-th retransmission of an
LSA (used in Recommendation 3).
Rmax = The maximum allowed value of RxmtInterval (used in
Recommendation 3). Example value is 40 seconds.
Rmin = The minimum allowed value of RxmtInterval (used in
Recommendation 3). Example value is 5 seconds.
T = Minimum time that has to elapse before the existing gap
between sending successive LSAs to a neighbor is considered
for change (used in Recommendation 4). Example value is 1
second.
U(t) = Number of unacknowledged LSAs to a neighbor at time t (used in
Recommendation 4).
Appendix C. Other Recommendations and Suggestions
(1) Explicit Marking: In Section 2, we recommended that OSPF packets
be classified to "high" and "low" priority classes based on
examining the OSPF packet header. In some cases (particularly in
the receiver), this examination may be computationally costly.
An alternative would be the use of different TOS/Precedence field
settings for the two priority classes. [Ref1] recommends setting
the TOS field to 0 and the Precedence field to 6 for all OSPF
packets. We recommend this same setting for the "low" priority
OSPF packets and a different setting for the "high" priority OSPF
packets in order to be able to classify them separately without
having to examine the OSPF packet header. Two examples are given
below:
Example 1: For "low" priority packets, set TOS field to 0 and
Precedence field to 6, and for "high" priority packets
set TOS field to 4 and Precedence field to 6.
Example 2: For "low" priority packets, set TOS field to 0 and
Precedence field to 6, and for "high" priority packets
set TOS field to 0 and Precedence field to 7.
Note that the TOS/Precedence bits have been redefined by Diffserv
(RFC 2474, [Ref14]). Also note that the different TOS/Precedence
field settings suggested above only need to be agreed among the
systems on the link. This recommendation is not needed to be
followed if it is easy to examine the OSPF packet header and
thereby separately classify "high" and "low" priority packets.
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 11]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
(2) Further Prioritization of OSPF Packets: Besides the packets
designated as "high" priority in Recommendation 1 of Section 2,
there may be a need for further priority separation among the
"low" priority OSPF packets. We recommend the use of three
priority classes: "high", "medium" and "low". While receiving a
packet from a neighbor and while transmitting a packet to a
neighbor, try to process a "high priority" packet ahead of
"medium" and "low" priority packets and a "medium" priority
packet ahead of "low priority" packets. The "high" priority
packets are as designated in Recommendation 1 of Section 2. We
provide below two candidate examples for "medium" priority
packets. All OSPF packets not designated as "high" or "medium"
priority are "low" priority. If Cryptographic Authentication
(AuType = 2) is used (as specified in [Ref1]), then prioritized
treatment is to be provided only at the receiver and after
security processing, but not at the transmitter since that may
cause packets to arrive out of sequence and violate the
requirements of "Autype = 2".
One example of "medium" priority packet is the Database
Description (DBD) packet from a slave (during the database
synchronization process) that is used as an acknowledgment.
A second example is an LSA carrying intra-area topology change
information (this may trigger SPF calculation and rerouting of
Label Switched Paths, so fast processing of this packet may
improve OSPF/Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) convergence
times). However, if the processing cost of identifying and
separately queueing the LSA in this example is deemed to be high,
then the implementer may decide not to do it.
(3) Processing a Large Number of LSA Purges: Occasionally, some
events in the network, such as router ID changes, may result in a
large number of LSA re-originations and LSA purges. In such a
scenario, one may consider processing LSAs in different order,
e.g., processing LSA purges ahead of LSA originations. We,
however, do not recommend out-of-order LSA processing for several
reasons. First, detecting the LSA type ahead of queueing may be
computationally expensive. Out-of-order processing may also
cause subtle bugs. We do not want to recommend a major change in
the LSA processing paradigm for a relatively rare event such as
router ID change. However, a router with a changing ID may flush
the old LSAs gradually without causing a storm.
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 12]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
Contributing Authors and Their Addresses
In addition to the editor, several people contributed to this
document. The names and contact information of all authors are given
below.
Anurag S. Maunder
Erlang Technology
2880 Scott Boulevard
Santa Clara, CA 95052
USA
Phone: (408) 420-7617
EMail: anuragm@erlangtech.com
Gerald R. Ash
AT&T
Room D5-2A01
200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ, 07748
USA
Phone: (732) 420-4578
EMail: gash@att.com
Vishwas Manral
Sinett Corp,
2/1 Embassy Icon Annex,
Infantry Road,
Bangalore 560 001
India
Phone: +91-(805)-137-7023
EMail: vishwas@sinett.com
Vera D. Sapozhnikova
AT&T
Room C5-2C29
200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ, 07748
USA
Phone: (732) 420-2653
EMail: sapozhnikova@att.com
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 13]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
Editor's Address
Gagan L. Choudhury
AT&T
Room D5-3C21
200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ, 07748
USA
Phone: (732) 420-3721
EMail: gchoudhury@att.com
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 14]
RFC 4222 Prioritized Treatment October 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Choudhury, Ed. Best Current Practice [Page 15]