💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc4045.txt captured on 2024-03-21 at 18:24:28.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group G. Bourdon
Request for Comments: 4045 France Telecom
Category: Experimental April 2005
Extensions to Support Efficient Carrying of
Multicast Traffic in Layer-2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)
Status of This Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
The Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) provides a method for
tunneling PPP packets. This document describes an extension to L2TP,
to make efficient use of L2TP tunnels within the context of deploying
multicast services whose data will have to be conveyed by these
tunnels.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................. 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document....................... 3
1.2. Terminology............................................. 3
2. Motivation for a Session-Based Solution....................... 4
3. Control Connection Establishment.............................. 5
3.1. Negotiation Phase....................................... 5
3.2. Multicast Capability AVP (SCCRQ, SCCRP)................. 5
4. L2TP Multicast Session Establishment Decision................. 6
4.1. Multicast States in LNS................................. 6
4.2. Group State Determination............................... 8
4.3. Triggering.............................................. 9
4.4. Multicast Traffic Sent from Group Members............... 10
5. L2TP Multicast Session Opening Process........................ 11
5.1. Multicast-Session-Request (MSRQ)........................ 11
5.2. Multicast-Session-Response (MSRP)....................... 12
5.3. Multicast-Session-Establishment (MSE)................... 12
6. Session Maintenance and Management............................ 13
6.1. Multicast-Session-Information (MSI)..................... 13
6.2. Outgoing Sessions List Updates.......................... 14
Bourdon Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
6.2.1. New Outgoing Sessions AVP (MSI)................. 15
6.2.2. New Outgoing Sessions Acknowledgement AVP (MSI). 15
6.2.3. Withdraw Outgoing Sessions AVP (MSI)............ 17
6.3. Multicast Packets Priority AVP (MSI).................... 17
6.3.1. Global Configuration............................ 18
6.3.2. Individual Configuration........................ 19
6.3.3. Priority........................................ 19
7. Multicast Session Teardown.................................... 19
7.1. Operations.............................................. 20
7.2. Multicast-Session-End-Notify (MSEN)..................... 20
7.3. Result Codes............................................ 21
8. Traffic Merging............................................... 22
9. IANA Considerations........................................... 22
10. Security Considerations....................................... 23
11. References.................................................... 23
11.1. Normative References.................................... 23
11.2. Informative References.................................. 24
12. Acknowledgements.............................................. 24
Appendix A. Examples of Group States Determination............... 25
Author's Address.................................................. 27
Full Copyright Statement.......................................... 28
1. Introduction
The deployment of IP multicast-based services may have to deal with
L2TP tunnel engineering. The forwarding of multicast data within
L2TP sessions may impact the throughput of L2TP tunnels because the
same traffic may be sent multiple times within the same L2TP tunnel,
but in different sessions. This proposal aims to reduce the impact
by applying the replication mechanism of multicast traffic only when
necessary.
The solution described herein provides a mechanism for transmitting
multicast data only once for all the L2TP sessions that have been
established in a tunnel, each multicast flow having a dedicated L2TP
session.
Within the context of deploying IP multicast-based services, it is
assumed that the routers of the IP network that embed a L2TP Network
Server (LNS) capability may be involved in the forwarding of
multicast data, toward users who access the network through an L2TP
tunnel. The LNS is in charge of replicating the multicast data for
each L2TP session that a receiver who has requested a multicast flow
uses. In the solution described here, an LNS is able to send
multicast data only once and to let the L2TP Access Concentrator
(LAC) perform the traffic replication. By doing so, it is expected
to spare transmission resources in the core network that supports
Bourdon Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
L2TP tunnels. This multicast extension to L2TP is designed so that
it does not affect the behavior of L2TP equipment under normal
conditions.
A solution whereby multicast data is carried only once in a L2TP
tunnel is of interest to service providers, as edge devices are
aggregating more and more users. This is particularly true for
operators who are deploying xDSL (Digital Subscriber Line) services
and cable infrastructures. Therefore, L2TP tunnels that may be
supported by the network will have to carry multiple redundant
multicast data more often. The solution described in this document
applies to downstream traffic exclusively; i.e., data coming from the
LNS toward end-users connected to the LAC. This downstream multicast
traffic is not framed by the LNS but by the LAC, thus ensuring
compatibility for all users in a common tunnel, whatever the framing
scheme.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.2. Terminology
Unicast session
This term refers to the definition of "Session" as it is described
in the terminology section of [RFC2661].
Multicast session
This term refers to a connection between the LAC and the LNS.
Additional Control Messages and Attribute-Value-Pairs (AVPs) are
defined in this document to open and maintain this connection for
the particular purpose of multicast traffic transportation. This
connection between the LAC and the LNS is intended to convey
multicast traffic only.
Session
This term is used when there is no need to dissociate multicast
from unicast sessions, and thus it designates both.
Bourdon Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
M-IGP
Designates a Multicast Interior Gateway Protocol.
Multicast flow
Designates datagrams sent to a group from a set of sources for
which multicast reception is desired.
GMP
Group Management Protocol, such as:
- IGMPv1 ([RFC1112])
- IGMPv2 ([RFC2236])
- MLD ([RFC2710], [RFC3590])
SFGMP
Source Filtering Group Management Protocol, such as:
- IGMPv3 ([RFC3376])
- MLDv2 ([RFC3810])
2. Motivation for a Session-Based Solution
Multicast data have to be seen as a singular flow that may be
conveyed into all the L2TP sessions that have been established in a
tunnel. This means that a given L2TP session can be dedicated for
the forwarding of a multicast flow that will be forwarded to multiple
receivers, including those that can be reached by one or several of
these L2TP sessions. A session carrying IP multicast data is
independent from the underlying framing scheme and is therefore
compatible with any new framing scheme that may be supported by the
L2TP protocol.
Using a single L2TP session per multicast flow is motivated by the
following arguments:
- The administrator of the LNS is presumably in charge of the IP
multicast-based services and the related engineering aspects. As
such, he must be capable of filtering multicast traffic on a
multicast source basis, on a multicast group basis, and on a user
basis (users who access the network using an L2TP session that
terminates in this LNS).
Bourdon Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
- Having an L2TP session dedicated for a multicast flow makes it
possible to enforce specific policies for multicast traffic. For
instance, it is possible to change the priority treatment for
multicast packets against unicast packets.
- It is not always acceptable or possible to have multicast
forwarding performed within the network between the LAC and the
LNS. Having the multicast traffic conveyed within an L2TP tunnel
ensures a multicast service between the LNS and end-users,
alleviating the need for activating multicast capabilities in the
underlying network.
3. Control Connection Establishment
3.1. Negotiation Phase
The multicast extension capability is negotiated between the LAC and
the LNS during the control connection establishment phase. However,
establishment procedures defined in [RFC2661] remain unchanged. An
LAC indicates its multicast extension capability by using a new AVP,
the "Multicast Capability" AVP. There is no explicit acknowledgement
sent by the LNS during the control connection establishment phase.
Instead, the LNS is allowed to use multicast extension messages to
open and maintain multicast sessions (see Section 5).
3.2. Multicast Capability AVP (SCCRQ, SCCRP)
In order to inform the LNS that an LAC has the ability to handle
multicast sessions, the LAC sends a Multicast Capability AVP during
the control connection establishment phase. This AVP is either sent
in a SCCRQ or a SCCRP control message by the LAC towards the LNS.
Upon receipt of the Multicast Capability AVP, a LNS may adopt two
distinct behaviors:
1) The LNS does not implement the L2TP multicast extension: any
multicast-related information (including the Multicast Capability
AVP) will be silently ignored by the LNS.
2) The LNS implements L2TP multicast extensions and therefore
supports the Multicast Capability AVP: the LNS is allowed to send
L2TP specific commands for conveying multicast traffic toward the
LAC.
The multicast capability exclusively refers to the tunnel for which
the AVP has been received during the control connection establishment
phase. It SHOULD be possible for an LNS administrator to shut down
Bourdon Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
L2TP multicast extension features towards one or a set of LAC(s). In
this case, the LNS behavior is similar to that in 1).
The AVP has the following format:
Vendor ID = 0
Attribute = 80 (16 bits)
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|H|0|0|0|0| Length | Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 80 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The M-bit MUST be set to 0, the AVP MAY be hidden (H-bit set to 0 or
1).
The length of this AVP is 6 octets.
4. L2TP Multicast Session Establishment Decision
4.1. Multicast States in LNS
The router that embeds the LNS feature MUST support at least one
Group Management Protocol (GMP), such as:
- IGMPv1
- IGMPv2
- MLD
or a Source Filtering Group Management Protocol (SFGMP), such as:
- IGMPv3
- MLDv2
The LAC does not have any group management activity: GMP or SFGMP
processing is performed by the LNS. The LAC is a layer-2 equipment,
and is not supposed to track GMP or SFGMP messages between the
receivers and the LNS in this context. The LNS MUST always be at the
origin of the creation of a multicast L2TP session dedicated for the
forwarding of IP multicast datagrams destined to a multicast group.
The LNS acts as a GMP or SFGMP Querier for every logical interface
associated to an L2TP session.
Bourdon Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
As a multicast router, the equipment that embeds the LNS function
will keep state per group per attached network (i.e., per L2TP
session). The LNS-capable equipment activating multicast extensions
for L2TP will have to classify and analyze GMP and SFGMP states in
order to create L2TP multicast sessions within the appropriate L2TP
tunnels. This is performed in three steps:
1) The LNS has to compute group states for each L2TP tunnel, by using
group states recorded for each L2TP session of the tunnel. Group
state determination for L2TP tunnels is discussed in Section 4.2.
For each L2TP tunnel, the result of this computation will issue a
list of states of the form (group, filter-mode, source-list):
- group: Denotes the multicast group.
- filter-mode: Either INCLUDE or EXCLUDE, as defined in
[RFC3376].
- source-list: List of IP unicast addresses from which multicast
reception is desired or not, depending on the filter-mode.
2) According to each group state, the LNS will create one or multiple
replication contexts, depending on the filter-mode for the
considered group and the local policy configured in the LNS.
For groups in INCLUDE mode, the LNS SHOULD implement two different
policies:
- One session per (source, group) pair: the LNS creates one
replication context per (source, group) pair.
or
- One session per group: the LNS creates one replication context
per (source-list, group) pair.
For groups in EXCLUDE mode, the LNS will create one replication
context per (list of sources excluded by *all* the receivers,
group). The list of sources represents the intersection of the
sets, not the union.
3) For each replication context, the LNS will create one L2TP
multicast session (if threshold conditions are met; see Section
4.3) and its associated Outgoing Session List (OSL). The OSL
lists L2TP sessions that requested the multicast flow
corresponding to the group and the associated source-filtering
properties. There is one OSL per replication context; i.e., per
L2TP multicast session.
For a group member running an SFGMP, it is therefore possible to
receive multicast traffic from sources that have been explicitly
excluded in its SFGMP membership report if other group members in the
Bourdon Experimental [Page 7]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
same L2TP tunnel wish to receive packets from these sources. This
behavior is comparable to the case where group members are connected
to the same multi-access network. When a group is in EXCLUDE mode or
in INCLUDE mode with a policy allowing one session per (group,
source-list), sharing the same L2TP tunnel is equivalent to being
connected to the same multi-access network in terms of multicast
traffic received. For groups in INCLUDE mode with a policy allowing
one L2TP multicast session per (source, group), the behavior is
slightly improved because it prevents group members from receiving
traffic from non-requested sources. On the other hand, this policy
potentially increases the number of L2TP multicast sessions to
establish and maintain. Examples are provided in Appendix A.
In order for the LAC to forward the multicast traffic received
through the L2TP multicast session to group members, the LNS sends
the OSL to the LAC for the related multicast session (see Section 6).
4.2. Group State Determination
Source Filtering Group Management Protocols require querier routers
to keep a filter-mode per group per attached network, to condense the
total desired reception state of a group to a minimum set so that all
systems' memberships are satisfied.
Within the context of L2TP, each L2TP session has to be considered an
attached network by GMP and SFGMP protocols. When the L2TP multicast
extension is activated, each L2TP Control Connection has to be
considered a pseudo attached network, as well, in order to condense
group membership reports for every L2TP session in the tunnel.
Therefore, a list of group states is maintained for each L2TP Control
Connection into which the membership information of each of its L2TP
sessions is merged. This list of group states is a set of membership
records of the form (group, filter-mode, source-list).
Each group state represents the result of a merging process applied
to subscriptions on L2TP sessions of a Control Connection for a
considered group. This merging process is performed in three steps:
1) Conversion of any GMP subscription into SFGMP subscription
(IGMPv1/v2 to IGMPv3, MLDv1 to MLDv2);
2) Removal of subscription timers and, if filter-mode is EXCLUDE,
sources with source timer > 0;
3) Then, resulting subscriptions are merged by using merging rules
described in SFGMP specifications ([RFC3376], Section 3.2,
[RFC3810], Section 4.2).
Bourdon Experimental [Page 8]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
This process is also described in [PROXY]. Examples of group state
determination are provided in Appendix A.
4.3. Triggering
The rules to be enforced by the LNS whereby it is decided when to
open a dedicated L2TP multicast session for a multicast group SHOULD
be configurable by the LNS administrator. This would typically
happen whenever a threshold of MULTICAST_SESSION_THRESHOLD
receivers/sessions referenced in a replication context is reached.
This threshold value SHOULD be valued at 2 by default, as it is worth
opening a dedicated L2TP multicast session for two group members
sharing the same desired reception state (which means that two L2TP
unicast sessions are concerned). In this case, the OSL will
reference two distinct L2TP sessions.
The actual receipt by the LNS of multicast traffic requested by end-
users can also be taken into account to decide whether the associated
L2TP multicast session has to be opened.
Whenever an OSL gets empty, the LNS MUST stop sending multicast
traffic over the corresponding L2TP multicast session. Then the L2TP
multicast session MUST be torn down as described in Section 7.
Filter-mode changes for a group can also trigger the opening or the
termination of L2TP multicast sessions in the following ways:
a) From INCLUDE Mode to EXCLUDE Mode
When a group state filter-mode switches from INCLUDE to EXCLUDE, only
one replication context (and its associated L2TP multicast session)
issued from this group state can exist (see Section 4.1). The LNS
SHOULD keep one replication context previously created for this group
state and it has to update it with:
- a new source-list that has to be excluded from forwarding
- a new OSL
The LNS MUST send an OSL update to the LAC to reflect L2TP session
list changes (section 6.2), whenever appropriate. The unused L2TP
multicast sessions that correspond to previously created replication
contexts for the group SHOULD be terminated, either actively or
passively by emptying their corresponding OSLs.
The remaining L2TP multicast session MAY also be terminated if the
number of receivers is below a predefined threshold (see Section 7).
To limit the duration of temporary packet loss or duplicates to
receivers, the LNS has to minimize delay between OSL updates messages
Bourdon Experimental [Page 9]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
sent to the LAC. Therefore, one can assume that terminating a
multicast session passively gives the smoothest transition.
b) From EXCLUDE Mode to INCLUDE Mode
When a group state filter-mode switches from EXCLUDE to INCLUDE,
multiple replication contexts issued by this group state may be
created (see Section 4.1). The LNS SHOULD keep the replication
context previously created for this group state and it has to update
it accordingly with the following information:
- a new list of sources that has to be forwarded. This list has
only one record if there is one replication context per (group,
source)
- a new OSL
The LNS MUST send an OSL update to the LAC to reflect L2TP session
list changes, whenever appropriate. If the LNS is configured to
create one replication context per (group, source), L2TP multicast
sessions will be opened in addition to the existing one, depending on
the number of sources for the group.
If new L2TP multicast sessions have to be opened, the LNS SHOULD wait
until these multicast sessions are established before updating the
OSL of the original multicast session. To limit the duration of
temporary packet loss or duplicates to receivers, the LNS has to
minimize delay between OSL updates messages sent to the LAC.
4.4. Multicast Traffic Sent from Group Members
The present document proposes a solution to enhance the forwarding of
downstream multicast traffic exclusively; i.e., data coming from the
LNS toward end-users connected to the LAC. If a group member that
uses an L2TP session is also a multicast source for traffic conveyed
in a multicast session, datagrams may be sent back to the source. To
prevent this behavior, two options can be used in the LNS:
1) Disable the multicast packets' forwarding capability, for those
multicast datagrams sent by users connected to the network by
means of an L2TP tunnel. Protocols using well-known multicast
addresses MUST NOT be impacted.
2) Exclude from the OSL the L2TP session used by a group member
that sends packets matching the replication context of this
OSL. Therefore, the corresponding multicast flow is sent by
the LNS over the user L2TP unicast session, using standard
multicast forwarding rules.
Bourdon Experimental [Page 10]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
5. L2TP Multicast Session Opening Process
The opening of an L2TP multicast session is initiated by the LNS. A
three-message exchange is used to set up the session. The following
is a typical sequence of events:
LAC LNS
--- ---
(multicast session
triggering)
<- MSRQ
MSRP ->
(Ready to
replicate)
MSE ->
<- ZLB ACK
The ZLB ACK is sent if there are no further messages waiting in the
queue for that peer.
5.1. Multicast-Session-Request (MSRQ)
Multicast-Session-Request (MSRQ) is a control message sent by the LNS
to the LAC to indicate that a multicast session can be created. The
LNS initiates this message according to the rules in Section 4.3. It
is the first in a three-message exchange used for establishing a
multicast session within an L2TP tunnel.
A LNS MUST NOT send a MSRQ control message if the remote LAC did not
open the L2TP tunnel with the Multicast Capability AVP. The LAC MUST
ignore MSRQ control messages sent in an L2TP tunnel, if the L2TP
tunnel was not opened with control messages including a Multicast
Capability AVP.
The following AVPs MUST be present in MSRQ:
Message Type
Assigned Session ID
The following AVPs MAY be present in MSRQ:
Random Vector
Maximum BPS
Bourdon Experimental [Page 11]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
The Maximum BPS value is set by the LNS administrator. However, this
value should be chosen in accordance with the line capabilities of
the end-users. The Maximum BPS value SHOULD NOT be higher than the
highest speed connection for all end-users within the L2TP tunnel.
The associated Message Type AVP is encoded with the following values:
Vendor ID = 0
Attribute Type = 0
Attribute Value = 23 (16 bits)
The M-bit MUST be set to 0, and the H-bit MUST be set to 0.
5.2. Multicast-Session-Response (MSRP)
Multicast-Session-Response (MSRP) is a control message sent by the
LAC to the LNS in response to a received MSRQ message. It is the
second in a three-message exchange used for establishing a multicast
session within an L2TP tunnel.
MSRP is used to indicate that the MSRQ was successful and that the
LAC will attempt to reserve appropriate resources to perform
multicast replication for unicast sessions managed in the pertaining
control connection.
The following AVPs MUST be present in MSRP:
Message Type
Assigned Session ID
The following AVP MAY be present in MSRP:
Random Vector
The associated Message Type AVP is encoded with the following values:
Vendor ID = 0
Attribute Type = 0
Attribute Value = 24 (16 bits)
The M-bit MUST be set to 0, and the H-bit MUST be set to 0.
5.3. Multicast-Session-Establishment (MSE)
Multicast-Session-Establishment (MSE) is a control message sent by
the LAC to the LNS to indicate that the LAC is ready to receive
necessary multicast information (Section 6) for the group using the
Bourdon Experimental [Page 12]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
newly created multicast session. It is the third message in the
three-message sequence used for establishing a multicast session
within an L2TP tunnel.
The following AVP MUST be present in MSE:
Message Type
The following AVP MAY be present in MSE:
Sequencing Required
Sequencing will occur only from the LNS to the LAC, as a multicast
session is only used to forward multicast traffic downstream.
The associated Message Type AVP is encoded with the following values:
Vendor ID = 0
Attribute Type = 0
Attribute Value = 25 (16 bits)
The M-bit MUST be set to 0, and the H-bit MUST be set to 0.
6. Session Maintenance and Management
Once the multicast session is established, the LAC has to be informed
of the L2TP unicast sessions interested in receiving the traffic from
the newly created multicast session, and a related optional priority
parameter, defined in Section 6.3. To achieve this, a new control
message type is defined: Multicast-Session-Information (MSI).
6.1. Multicast-Session-Information (MSI)
Multicast-Session-Information (MSI) control messages carry AVPs to
keep the OSL synchronized between the LNS and the LAC, and to set the
optional priority parameter for multicast traffic versus unicast
traffic. MSI may be extended to update the multicast session with
additional parameters, as needed.
Each MSI message is specific to a particular multicast session.
Therefore, the control message MUST use the assigned session ID
associated with the multicast session (assigned by the LAC), except
for the case mentioned in 6.3.2.
Bourdon Experimental [Page 13]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
The associated Message Type AVP is encoded with the following values:
Vendor ID = 0
Attribute Type = 0
Attribute Value = 26 (16 bits)
The M-bit MUST be set to 0, and the H-bit MUST be set to 0.
The following AVP MUST be present in MSI:
Message Type
The following AVPs MAY be present in MSI:
Random Vector
New Outgoing Sessions
New Outgoing Sessions Acknowledgement
Withdraw Outgoing Sessions
Multicast Packets Priority
New Outgoing Sessions, New Outgoing Sessions Acknowledgement,
Withdraw Outgoing Sessions, and Multicast Packets Priority are new
AVPs defined in sections 6.2 and 6.3.
6.2. Outgoing Sessions List Updates
Whenever a change occurs in the Outgoing Sessions List, the LNS MUST
inform the LAC of that change. The OSL is built upon subscription
reports recorded by GMP or SFGMP processes running in the LNS
(Section 4.1).
The LAC maintains an OSL as a local table transmitted by the LNS. As
for the LNS, the LAC has to maintain an OSL for each L2TP multicast
session within an L2TP tunnel. To update the LAC OSL, the LNS sends
a New Outgoing Sessions AVP for additional sessions, or sends a
Withdraw Outgoing Sessions AVP to remove sessions. All sessions
mentioned in these AVPs MUST be added or removed by the LAC from the
relevant OSL. The Outgoing Sessions List is identified by the tunnel
ID and the multicast session ID to which the updating AVP refers. To
update the OSL, the following AVPs are used:
Additional session(s): New Outgoing Sessions AVP
Session(s) removal: Withdraw Outgoing Sessions AVP
These new AVPs MUST be sent in an MSI message.
Bourdon Experimental [Page 14]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
6.2.1. New Outgoing Sessions AVP (MSI)
The New Outgoing Sessions AVP can only be carried within an MSI
message type. This AVP piggybacks every Session ID to which the
multicast traffic has to be forwarded.
The AVP has the following format:
Vendor ID = 0
Attribute = 81 (16 bits)
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|H|0|0|0|0| Length | Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 81 | Session ID 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | Session ID N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
There can be from 1 to N Session IDs present in the New Outgoing
Sessions AVP (considering the maximum value of the Length field).
This AVP must be placed in an MSI message and sent after the
establishment of the multicast session to indicate the initial
outgoing sessions to the LAC, and must be sent at any time when one
or more outgoing sessions appear during the multicast session
lifetime. Upon receipt of this AVP, the LAC sends a New Outgoing
Sessions Acknowledgment AVP to the LNS to notify that the LAC is
ready to replicate the multicast traffic toward the indicated
sessions.
Usage of this AVP is incremental; only new outgoing sessions have to
be listed in the AVP.
The M-bit MUST be set to 1, and the AVP MAY be hidden (H-bit set to 0
or 1).
6.2.2. New Outgoing Sessions Acknowledgement AVP (MSI)
The New Outgoing Sessions Acknowledgement AVP can only be carried
within an MSI message type. This AVP informs the LNS that the LAC is
ready to replicate traffic for every Session ID listed in the AVP.
Bourdon Experimental [Page 15]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
The AVP has the following format:
Vendor ID = 0
Attribute = 82 (16 bits)
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|H|0|0|0|0| Length | Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 82 | Session ID 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | Session ID N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This AVP must be placed in an MSI message and sent by the LAC toward
the LNS to acknowledge the receipt of a New Outgoing Sessions list
received in a New Outgoing Sessions AVP from the LNS.
An LNS is allowed to send multicast traffic within the L2TP multicast
session as soon as a New Outgoing Sessions Acknowledgement AVP is
received for the corresponding L2TP multicast session.
An LNS is allowed to stop sending packets of the corresponding
multicast flow within L2TP unicast sessions only if it receives an
MSI message with the New Outgoing Session Acknowledgement AVP, and
only for the unicast Session IDs mentioned in this AVP. The
multicast traffic can then be conveyed in L2TP unicast sessions when
the L2TP multicast session goes down. From this standpoint, packets
related to this multicast flow SHOULD NOT be conveyed within the L2TP
unicast sessions mentioned in the AVP in order to avoid the
duplication of multicast packets.
There can be from 1 to N Session IDs present in the New Outgoing
Sessions Acknowledgement AVP (considering the maximum value of the
Length field). Session IDs mentioned in this AVP that have not been
listed in a previous New Outgoing Sessions AVP should be ignored.
Non-acknowledged Session IDs MAY be listed in forthcoming New
Outgoing Sessions AVPs, but multicast traffic MUST be sent to logical
interfaces associated to these Session IDs as long as these Session
IDs are not acknowledged for replication by the LAC.
The M-bit MUST be set to 1, and the AVP MAY be hidden (H-bit set to 0
or 1).
Bourdon Experimental [Page 16]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
6.2.3. Withdraw Outgoing Sessions AVP (MSI)
The Withdraw Outgoing Sessions AVP is sent whenever there is one or
more withdrawn subscriptions for the corresponding multicast flow
(designated by the session ID on which the MSI is sent).
The LAC can stop forwarding packets to Session IDs mentioned in the
AVP for the corresponding multicast flow as soon as it receives the
MSI message embedding this Withdraw Target Session AVP.
The AVP has the following format:
Vendor ID = 0
Attribute = 83 (16 bits)
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|H|0|0|0|0| Length | Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 83 | Session ID 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | Session ID N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
There can be from 1 to N Session IDs present in the Withdraw Outgoing
Sessions AVP (considering the value of the Length field). The M-bit
MUST be set to 1, and the AVP MAY be hidden (H-bit set to 0 or 1).
6.3. Multicast Packets Priority AVP (MSI)
The Multicast Packets Priority AVP is an optional AVP intended to
indicate to the LAC how to process multicast traffic against unicast
traffic. Even though the LAC behavior is partially described here,
the nature of the traffic (layer-2 frames for unicast traffic and
pure IP packets for multicast traffic) is not a criteria for
enforcing a traffic prioritization policy. Traffic processing for
the provisioning of a uniformly framed traffic for the final user is
described is section 8.
Three different behaviors can be adopted:
1) Best effort: the traffic is forwarded from the LAC to the end-user
in the order in which it comes from the LNS, whatever the type of
traffic.
Bourdon Experimental [Page 17]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
2) Unicast traffic priority: traffic coming down the L2TP unicast
session has priority over traffic coming down the L2TP multicast
session.
3) Multicast traffic priority: traffic coming down the L2TP multicast
session has priority over traffic coming down the L2TP unicast
session.
The priority is encoded as a 16-bit quantity, which can take the
following values:
0: Best effort (default)
1: Unicast traffic priority
2: Multicast traffic priority
The AVP has the following format:
Vendor ID = 0
Attribute = 84 (16 bits)
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|H|0|0|0|0| Length | Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 84 | Priority Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note that the multicast traffic rate can reach up to Maximum BPS (as
indicated in MSRQ). This rate can exceed the maximum rate allowed
for a particular end-user. This means that even with a priority
value of 0, the end-user may receive multicast traffic only; unicast
packets might be dropped because the multicast flow overwhelms the
LAC forwarding buffer(s).
The default Priority Value is 0. The M-bit MUST be set to 0, and the
AVP MAY be hidden (H-bit set to 0 or 1).
There are two ways of using this AVP: global configuration and
individual configuration.
6.3.1. Global Configuration
The Multicast Priority Packet AVP is sent for all L2TP unicast
sessions concerned with a specific multicast flow represented by an
L2TP multicast session. In this case, the AVP is sent in an L2TP MSI
control message for the corresponding multicast session ID (Session
ID = L2TP session for the corresponding multicast group). The
Bourdon Experimental [Page 18]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
priority value applies to all L2TP unicast sessions to which the
multicast group designated by the L2TP multicast session is intended,
as soon as this AVP is received.
6.3.2. Individual Configuration
The Multicast Priority Packet AVP is sent for a specific L2TP unicast
session that SHALL adopt a specific behavior for both unicast and
multicast traffics. In this case, the AVP is sent in an L2TP MSI
control message for the L2TP unicast session (Session ID = L2TP
session for the concerned user). The priority value applies to the
targeted session only and does not affect the other sessions. Note
that in this case, all multicast packets carried in L2TP multicast
sessions are treated the same way by the LAC for the concerned user.
This is the only case in which an MSI control message can be sent for
an L2TP unicast session.
6.3.3. Priority
It is the responsibility of the network administrator to decide which
behavior to adopt between global or individual configurations, if the
AVP is sent twice (one for a multicast group and one for a specific
end-user). By default, only the individual configurations SHOULD be
taken into consideration in that case.
Support of the Multicast Packets Priority AVP is optional and SHOULD
be configurable by the LAC administrator, if it is relevant.
7. Multicast Session Teardown
An L2TP multicast session should be torn down whenever there are no
longer any users interested in receiving the corresponding multicast
traffic. A multicast session becomes useless once the related OSL
has fewer than a predefined number of entries, this number being
defined by a threshold.
Multicast session flapping may occur when the number of OSL entries
oscillates around the threshold, if the same value is used to trigger
the creation or deletion of an L2TP multicast session. To avoid this
behavior, two methods can be used:
- The threshold value that is used to determine whether the L2TP
multicast session has to be torn down is lower than the
MULTICAST_SESSION_THRESHOLD value;
Bourdon Experimental [Page 19]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
- The MULTICAST_SESSION_THRESHOLD value is used to determine whether
the L2TP multicast session has to be torn down. A multicast
session SHOULD be killed after a period of
MULTICAST_SESSION_HOLDTIME seconds if the corresponding OSL
maintains fewer than a MULTICAST_SESSION_THRESHOLD number of
entries. The MULTICAST_SESSION_HOLDTIME value is 10 seconds by
default and SHOULD be configurable by either the LAC or the LNS
administrator.
The multicast session can be torn down for multiple reasons,
including specific criteria not described here (which can be vendor
specific).
A multicast session teardown can be initiated by either the LAC or
the LNS. However, multicast session teardown MUST be initiated by
the LNS if the termination decision is motivated by the number of
users interested in receiving the traffic corresponding to a
multicast flow.
7.1. Operations
The actual termination of a multicast session is initiated with a new
Multicast-Session-End-Notify (MSEN) control message, sent either by
the LAC or by the LNS.
The following is an example of a control message exchange that
terminates a multicast session:
LAC or LNS LAC or LNS
---------- ----------
(multicast session
termination)
<- MSEN
(Clean up)
ZLB ACK ->
(Clean up)
7.2. Multicast-Session-End-Notify (MSEN)
The Multicast-Session-End-Notify (MSEN) is an L2TP control message
sent by either the LAC or the LNS to request the termination of a
specific multicast session within the tunnel. Its purpose is to give
the peer the relevant termination information, including the reason
why the termination occurred. The peer MUST clean up any associated
resources and does not acknowledge the MSEN message.
Bourdon Experimental [Page 20]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
As defined in [RFC2661], termination of a control connection will
terminate all sessions managed within, including multicast sessions
if there are any.
The MSEN message carries a Result Code AVP with an optional Error
Code.
The following AVPs MUST be present in an MSEN message:
Message Type
Result Code
Assigned Session ID
The associated Message Type AVP is encoded with the following values:
Vendor ID = 0
Attribute Type = 0
Attribute Value = 27 (16 bits)
The M-bit MUST be set to 0, and the H-bit MUST be set to 0.
7.3. Result Codes
The following values are the defined result codes for MSEN control
messages:
1 (16 bits) - No multicast traffic for the group
2 (16 bits) - Session terminated for the reason indicated in
the error code
3 (16 bits) - No more receivers
4 (16 bits) - No more receivers (filter-mode change)
o The code 1 MAY be used when the LAC detects that no traffic is
coming down the multicast session, or when the LNS doesn't
receive multicast traffic to be conveyed over the L2TP
multicast session during a certain period of time.
o The code 2 refers to General Error Codes maintained by the IANA
for L2TP.
o The code 3 MAY be used by the LAC or the LNS when the OSL is
empty.
o The code 4 MAY be used by the LNS when a multicast session is
torn down because of a filter-mode change. This result code
SHOULD also be used when the OSL becomes empty after a filter-
mode change (passive termination when filter-mode changes from
INCLUDE to EXCLUDE; see Section 4.3).
Bourdon Experimental [Page 21]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
8. Traffic Merging
Both unicast and multicast traffics have to be merged by the LAC in
order to forward properly framed data to the end-user. Multicast
packets are framed by the LAC and transmitted toward the proper end-
user. Methods used to achieve this function are not described here,
since it is an implementation-specific issue.
All frames conveyed from the LAC to the end-users have to follow the
framing scheme applied for the considered peer to which the traffic
is destined (e.g., the LAC is always aware of the PPP [RFC1661] link
parameters, as described in [RFC2661], Section 6.14). Note that
using L2TP Multicast Extension features is not appropriate for end-
users who have negotiated a sequenced layer-2 connection with the
LNS. While inserting PPP-encapsulated multicast packets in a
session, the LAC cannot modify PPP sequencing performed by the LNS
for each PPP session.
9. IANA Considerations
This document defines:
- 5 new Message Type (Attribute Type 0) Values:
o Multicast-Session-Request (MSRQ) : 23
o Multicast-Session-Response (MSRP) : 24
o Multicast-Session-Establishment (MSE) : 25
o Multicast-Session-Information (MSI) : 26
o Multicast-Session-End-Notify (MSEN) : 27
- 5 new Control Message Attribute Value Pairs:
o Multicast Capability : 80
o New Outgoing Sessions : 81
o New Outgoing Sessions Acknowledgement : 82
o Withdraw Outgoing Sessions : 83
o Multicast Packets Priority : 84
- 4 Result Codes for the MSEN message:
o No multicast traffic for the group : 1
o Session terminated for the reason indicated in the
error code : 2
o No more receivers : 3
o No more receivers (filter-mode change): 4
Bourdon Experimental [Page 22]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
10. Security Considerations
It is possible for one receiver to make additional multicast traffic
that has not been requested go down the link of another receiver.
This can happen if a single replication context per group is used in
INCLUDE mode with receivers having divergent source lists, and in
EXCLUDE mode if a receiver has a source list not shared by another.
This behavior can be encountered every time receivers are connected
to a common multi-access network.
The extension described in this document does not introduce any
additional security issues as far as the activation of the L2TP
protocol is concerned.
Injecting appropriate control packets in the tunnel toward the LAC to
modify Outgoing Session List and to flood end-users with unwanted
multicast traffic is only possible if the control connection is
hacked. As for any reception of illegitimate L2TP control messages,
the following apply:
- If the spoofed control message embeds consistent sequence
numbers, next messages will appear out of synch, yielding the
control connection to terminate.
- If sequence numbers are inconsistent with current control
connection states, the spoofed control message will be queued
or discarded, as described in [RFC2661], Section 5.8.
The activation of the L2TP multicast capability on the LAC could make
the equipment more sensitive to Denial of Service attacks if the
control connection or the related LNS is hacked. The LAC might also
be sensitive to the burden generated by the additional replication
work.
As mentioned in [RFC2661], Section 9.2, securing L2TP requires that
the underlying transport make encryption, integrity, and
authentication services available for all L2TP traffic, including
L2TP multicast traffic (control and data).
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, August 1989.
[RFC1661] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51,
RFC 1661, July 1994.
Bourdon Experimental [Page 23]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, November 1997.
[RFC2661] Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn, G.,
and B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"", RFC
2661, August 1999.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC3438] Townsley, W., "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations Update",
BCP 68, RFC 3438, December 2002.
[RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, September
2003.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
11.2. Informative References
[PROXY] Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., Sandick, H., "IGMP/MLD-
based Multicast Forwarding ("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", Work in
Progress.
12. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Christian Jacquenet for all the corrections done on this
document and his precious advice, to Pierre Levis for his
contribution about IGMP, to Francis Houllier for PPP considerations,
and to Xavier Vinet for his input about thresholds. Many thanks to
W. Mark Townsley, Isidor Kouvelas, and Brian Haberman for their
highly valuable input on protocol definition.
Bourdon Experimental [Page 24]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
Appendix A. Examples of Group States Determination
*Example 1:
All users are managed in the same control connection.
Users {1, 2, 3} subscribe to (Group G1, EXCLUDE {})
Users {3, 4, 5} subscribe to (Group G2, EXCLUDE {})
Group states for this L2TP tunnel will be:
(G1, EXCLUDE, {})
(G2, EXCLUDE, {})
Therefore, two replication contexts will be created:
-RC1:
(*, G1) packets, Multicast Session MS1, OSL = 1, 2, 3
-RC2:
(*, G2) packets, Multicast Session MS2, OSL = 3, 4, 5
*Example 2:
All users are managed in the same control connection.
Users {1, 2, 3} subscribe to (Group G1, INCLUDE {S1})
Users {4, 5, 6} subscribe to (Group G1, INCLUDE {S1,S2})
Users {7, 8, 9} subscribe to (Group G1, INCLUDE {S2})
The group state for this L2TP tunnel will be:
(G1, INCLUDE, {S1, S2)})
If the LNS policy allows one replication context per (group, source),
two replication contexts will be created:
-RC1:
(S1, G1) packets, Multicast Session MS1, OSL = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
-RC2:
(S2, G1) packets, Multicast Session MS2, OSL = 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
If the LNS policy allows one replication context per (group, source-
list), one replication context will be created:
-RC1:
({S1, S2}, G1) packets, Multicast Session MS1, OSL = [1..9]
Bourdon Experimental [Page 25]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
*Example 3:
All users are managed in the same control connection.
Users {1, 2} subscribe to (Group G1, EXCLUDE {S1})
User {3} subscribes to (Group G1, EXCLUDE {S1, S2})
The group state for this L2TP tunnel will be:
(G1, EXCLUDE, {S1})
Therefore, one replication context will be created:
-RC1:
(*-{S1}, G1) packets, Multicast Session MS1, OSL = 1, 2, 3
Next, user {4} subscribes to (Group G1, INCLUDE {S1}). The group
state for the L2TP tunnel is changed to:
(G1, EXCLUDE, {})
The replication context RC1 is changed to:
-RC1: (*, G1) packets, Multicast Session MS1, OSL = 1, 2, 3, 4
*Example 4:
All users are managed in the same control connection. The LNS policy
allows one replication context per (group, source).
Users {1, 2, 3} subscribe to (Group G1, INCLUDE {S1, S2})
The group state for this L2TP tunnel will be:
(G1, INCLUDE, {S1, S2)})
Therefore, two replication contexts will be created:
-RC1:
(S1, G1) packets, Multicast Session MS1, OSL = 1, 2, 3
-RC2:
(S2, G1) packets, Multicast Session MS2, OSL = 1, 2, 3
Bourdon Experimental [Page 26]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 2005
Next, user {4} subscribes to (Group G1, EXCLUDE {}), equivalent to an
IGMPv2 membership report. The group state for the L2TP tunnel is
changed to:
(G1, EXCLUDE, {})
The replication context RC1 is changed to:
-RC1: (*, G1) packets, Multicast Session MS1, OSL = 1, 2, 3, 4
The replication context RC2 is changed to:
-RC2: no packets to forward, Multicast Session MS2, OSL = {}
(Multicast Session MS2 will be deleted)
When user {4} leaves G1, the group state for the L2TP tunnel goes
back to:
(G1, INCLUDE, {S1, S2})
Replication contexts become:
-RC1:
(S1, G1) packets, Multicast Session MS1, OSL = 1, 2, 3
-RC2:
(S2, G1) packets, Multicast Session MS2, OSL = 1, 2, 3
(Multicast Session MS2 is re-established)
Author's Address
Gilles Bourdon
France Telecom
38-40, rue du General Leclerc
92794 Issy les Moulineaux Cedex 9 - FRANCE
Phone: +33 1 4529-4645
EMail: gilles.bourdon@francetelecom.com
Bourdon Experimental [Page 27]
RFC 4045 Efficient Multicast Traffic in L2TP April 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.
Bourdon Experimental [Page 28]