💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc2917.txt captured on 2024-06-16 at 18:05:25.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group K. Muthukrishnan
Request for Comments: 2917 Lucent Technologies
Category: Informational A. Malis
Vivace Networks, Inc.
September 2000
A Core MPLS IP VPN Architecture
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo presents an approach for building core Virtual Private
Network (VPN) services in a service provider's MPLS backbone. This
approach uses Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) running in the
backbone to provide premium services in addition to best effort
services. The central vision is for the service provider to provide a
virtual router service to their customers. The keystones of this
architecture are ease of configuration, user security, network
security, dynamic neighbor discovery, scaling and the use of existing
routing protocols as they exist today without any modifications.
1. Acronyms
ARP Address Resolution Protocol
CE Customer Edge router
LSP Label Switched Path
PNA Private Network Administrator
SLA Service Level Agreement
SP Service Provider
SPED Service Provider Edge Device
SPNA SP Network Administrator
VMA VPN Multicast Address
VPNID VPN Identifier
VR Virtual Router
VRC Virtual Router Console
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
2. Introduction
This memo describes an approach for building IP VPN services out of
the backbone of the SP's network. Broadly speaking, two possible
approaches present themselves: the overlay model and the virtual
router approach. The overlay model is based on overloading some
semantic(s) of existing routing protocols to carry reachability
information. In this document, we focus on the virtual router
service.
The approach presented here does not depend on any modifications of
any existing routing protocols. Neighbor discovery is aided by the
use of an emulated LAN and is achieved by the use of ARP. This memo
makes a concerted effort to draw the line between the SP and the PNA:
the SP owns and manages layer 1 and layer 2 services while layer 3
services belong to and are manageable by the PNA. By the provisioning
of fully logically independent routing domains, the PNA has been
given the flexibility to use private and unregistered addresses. Due
to the use of private LSPs and the use of VPNID encapsulation using
label stacks over shared LSPs, data security is not an issue.
The approach espoused in this memo differs from that described in RFC
2547 [Rosen1] in that no specific routing protocol has been
overloaded to carry VPN routes. RFC 2547 specifies a way to modify
BGP to carry VPN unicast routes across the SP's backbone. To carry
multicast routes, further architectural work will be necessary.
3. Virtual Routers
A virtual router is a collection of threads, either static or
dynamic, in a routing device, that provides routing and forwarding
services much like physical routers. A virtual router need not be a
separate operating system process (although it could be); it simply
has to provide the illusion that a dedicated router is available to
satisfy the needs of the network(s) to which it is connected. A
virtual router, like its physical counterpart, is an element in a
routing domain. The other routers in this domain could be physical or
virtual routers themselves. Given that the virtual router connects to
a specific (logically discrete) routing domain and that a physical
router can support multiple virtual routers, it follows that a
physical router supports multiple (logically discreet) routing
domains.
From the user (VPN customer) standpoint, it is imperative that the
virtual router be as equivalent to a physical router as possible. In
other words, with very minor and very few exceptions, the virtual
router should appear for all purposes (configuration, management,
monitoring and troubleshooting) like a dedicated physical router. The
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
main motivation behind this requirement is to avoid upgrading or re-
configuring the large installed base of routers and to avoid
retraining of network administrators.
The aspects of a router that a virtual router needs to emulate are:
1. Configuration of any combination of routing protocols
2. Monitoring of the network
3. Troubleshooting.
Every VPN has a logically independent routing domain. This enhances
the SP's ability to offer a fully flexible virtual router service
that can fully serve the SP's customer without requiring physical
per-VPN routers. This means that the SP's "hardware" investments,
namely routers and links between them, can be re-used by multiple
customers.
4. Objectives
1. Easy, scalable configuration of VPN endpoints in the service
provider network. At most, one piece of configuration should be
necessary when a CE is added.
2. No use of SP resources that are globally unique and hard to get
such as IP addresses and subnets.
3. Dynamic discovery of VRs (Virtual Routers) in the SP's cloud. This
is an optional, but extremely valuable "keep it simple" goal.
4. Virtual Routers should be fully configurable and monitorable by
the VPN network administrator. This provides the PNA with the
flexibility to either configure the VPN themselves or outsource
configuration tasks to the SP.
5. Quality of data forwarding should be configurable on a VPN-by-VPN
basis. This should translate to continuous (but perhaps discrete)
grades of service. Some examples include best effort, dedicated
bandwidth, QOS, and policy based forwarding services.
6. Differentiated services should be configurable on a VPN-by-VPN
basis, perhaps based on LSPs set up for exclusive use for
forwarding data traffic in the VPN.
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
7. Security of internet routers extended to virtual routers. This
means that the virtual router's data forwarding and routing
functions should be as secure as a dedicated, private physical
router. There should be no unintended leak of information (user
data and reachability information) from one routing domain to
another.
8. Specific routing protocols should not be mandated between virtual
routers. This is critical to ensuring the VPN customer can setup
the network and policies as the customer sees fit. For example,
some protocols are strong in filtering, while others are strong in
traffic engineering. The VPN customer might want to exploit both
to achieve "best of breed" network quality.
9. No special extensions to existing routing protocols such as BGP,
RIP, OSPF, ISIS etc. This is critical to allowing the future
addition of other services such as NHRP and multicast. In
addition, as advances and addenda are made to existing protocols
(such as traffic engineering extensions to ISIS and OSPF), they
can be easily incorporated into the VPN implementation.
5. Architectural Requirements
The service provider network must run some form of multicast routing
to all nodes that will have VPN connections and to nodes that must
forward multicast datagrams for virtual router discovery. A specific
multicast routing protocol is not mandated. An SP may run MOSPF or
DVMRP or any other protocol.
6. Architectural Outline
1. Every VPN is assigned a VPNID which is unique within the SP's
network. This identifier unambiguously identifies the VPN with
which a packet or connection is associated. The VPNID of zero is
reserved; it is associated with and represents the public
internet. It is recommended, but not required that these VPN
identifiers will be compliant with RFC 2685 [Fox].
2. The VPN service is offered in the form of a Virtual Router
service. These VRs reside in the SPED and are as such confined
to the edge of the SP's cloud. The VRs will use the SP's network
for data and control packet forwarding but are otherwise
invisible outside the SPEDs.
3. The "size" of the VR contracted to the VPN in a given SPED is
expressed by the quantity of IP resources such as routing
interfaces, route filters, routing entries etc. This is entirely
under the control of the SP and provides the fine granularity
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
that the SP requires to offer virtually infinite grades of VR
service on a per-SPED level. [Example: one SPED may be the
aggregating point (say headquarters of the corporation) for a
given VPN and a number of other SPEDs may be access points
(branch offices). In this case, the SPED connected to the
headquarters may be contracted to provide a large VR while the
SPEDs connected to the branch offices may house small, perhaps
stub VRs]. This provision also allows the SP to design the
network with an end goal of distributing the load among the
routers in the network.
4. One indicator of the VPN size is the number of SPEDs in the SP's
network that have connections to CPE routers in that VPN. In
this respect, a VPN with many sites that need to be connected is
a "large" VPN whereas one with a few sites is a "small" VPN.
Also, it is conceivable that a VPN grows or shrinks in size over
time. VPNs may even merge due to corporate mergers, acquisitions
and partnering agreements. These changes are easy to accommodate
in this architecture, as globally unique IP resources do not have
to be dedicated or assigned to VPNs. The number of SPEDs is not
limited by any artificial configuration limits.
5. The SP owns and manages Layer 1 and Layer 2 entities. To be
specific, the SP controls physical switches or routers, physical
links, logical layer 2 connections (such as DLCI in Frame Relay
and VPI/VCI in ATM) and LSPs (and their assignment to specific
VPNs). In the context of VPNs, it is the SP's responsibility to
contract and assign layer 2 entities to specific VPNs.
6. Layer 3 entities belong to and are manageable by the PNA.
Examples of these entities include IP interfaces, choice of
dynamic routing protocols or static routes, and routing
interfaces. Note that although Layer 3 configuration logically
falls under the PNA's area of responsibility, it is not necessary
for the PNA to execute it. It is quite viable for the PNA to
outsource the IP administration of the virtual routers to the
Service Provider. Regardless of who assumes responsibility for
configuration and monitoring, this approach provides a full
routing domain view to the PNA and empowers the PNA to design the
network to achieve intranet, extranet and traffic engineering
goals.
7. The VPNs can be managed as if physical routers rather than VRs
were deployed. Therefore, management may be performed using SNMP
or other similar methods or directly at the VR console (VRC).
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
8. Industry-standard troubleshooting tools such as 'ping,'
'traceroute,' in a routing domain domain comprised exclusively of
dedicated physical routers. Therefore, monitoring and .bp
troubleshooting may be performed using SNMP or similar methods,
but may also include the use of these standard tools. Again, the
VRC may be used for these purposes just like any physical router.
9. Since the VRC is visible to the user, router specific security
checks need to be put in place to make sure the VPN user is
allowed access to Layer 3 resources in that VPN only and is
disallowed from accessing physical resources in the router. Most
routers achieve this through the use of database views.
10. The VRC is available to the SP as well. If configuration and
monitoring has been outsourced to the SP, the SP may use the VRC
to accomplish these tasks as if it were the PNA.
11. The VRs in the SPEDs form the VPN in the SP's network. Together,
they represent a virtual routing domain. They dynamically
discover each other by utilizing an emulated LAN resident in the
SP's network.
Each VPN in the SP's network is assigned one and only one multicast
address. This address is chosen from the administratively scoped
range (239.192/14) [Meyer] and the only requirement is that the
multicast address can be uniquely mapped to a specific VPN. This is
easily automated by routers by the use of a simple function to
unambiguously map a VPNid to the multicast address. Subscription to
this multicast address allows a VR to discover and be discovered by
other VRs. It is important to note that the multicast address does
not have to be configured.
12. Data forwarding may be done in one of several ways:
1. An LSP with best-effort characteristics that all VPNS can use.
2. An LSP dedicated to a VPN and traffic engineered by the VPN
customer.
3. A private LSP with differentiated characteristics.
4. Policy based forwarding on a dedicated L2 Virtual Circuit
The choice of the preferred method is negotiable between the SP and
the VPN customer, perhaps constituting part of the SLA between them.
This allows the SP to offer different grades of service to different
VPN customers.
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
Of course, hop-by-hop forwarding is also available to forward routing
packets and to forward user data packets during periods of LSP
establishment and failure.
13. This approach does not mandate that separate operating system
tasks for each of the routing protocols be run for each VR that
the SPED houses. Specific implementations may be tailored to the
particular SPED in use. Maintaining separate routing databases
and forwarding tables, one per VR, is one way to get the highest
performance for a given SPED.
7. Scalable Configuration
A typical VPN is expected to have 100s to 1000s of endpoints within
the SP cloud. Therefore, configuration should scale (at most)
linearly with the number of end points. To be specific, the
administrator should have to add a couple of configuration items when
a new customer site joins the set of VRs constituting a specific VPN.
Anything worse will make this task too daunting for the service
provider. In this architecture, all that the service provider needs
to allocate and configure is the ingress/egress physical link (e.g.
Frame Relay DLCI or ATM VPI/VCI) and the virtual connection between
the VR and the emulated LAN.
8. Dynamic Neighbor Discovery
The VRs in a given VPN reside in a number of SPEDs in the network.
These VRs need to learn about each other and be connected.
One way to do this is to require the manual configuration of
neighbors. As an example, when a new site is added to a VPN, this
would require the configuration of all the other VRs as neighbors.
This is obviously not scalable from a configuration and network
resource standpoint.
The need then arises to allow these VRs to dynamically discover each
other. Neighbor discovery is facilitated by providing each VPN with
a limited emulated LAN. This emulated LAN is used in several ways:
1. Address resolution uses this LAN to resolve next-hop (private) IP
addresses associated with the other VRs.
2. Routing protocols such as RIP and OSPF use this limited emulated
LAN for neighbor discovery and to send routing updates.
The per-VPN LAN is emulated using an IP multicast address. In the
interest of conserving public address space and because this
multicast address needs to be visible only in the SP network space,
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
we would use an address from the Organizationally scoped multicast
addresses (239.192/14) as described in [Meyer]. Each VPN is allocated
an address from this range. To completely eliminate configuration in
this regard, this address is computed from the VPNID.
9. VPN IP Domain Configuration
151.0.0.1
################
# #
# ROUTER 'A' #
# #
################
# #
# #
# #
# #
############# ###############
# # # #
# ROUTER 'B'# # ROUTER 'C' #
# # # #
# # # #
############# ###############
152.0.0.2 153.0.0.3
Figure 1 'Physical Routing Domain'
The physical domain in the SP's network is shown in the above figure.
In this network, physical routers A, B and C are connected together.
Each of the routers has a 'public' IP address assigned to it. These
addresses uniquely identify each of the routers in the SP's network.
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 8]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
172.150.0/18 172.150.128/18
----------------------- ---------------------------|
| | |
| | 172.150.128.1
| ROUTER 'A' (151.0.0.1) | |---------|
| ############# | |Parts DB |
| ---#-----------# | /---------/
| OSPF | # # ISIS | /----------/
------------|# VR - A #|--------------
#-------|---#-|
#############10.0.1/24
|----|------------#-#---------------|-----|
|10.0.0.2/24# # |10.0.0.3/24
|------|-------| # # ---------|-------|
| ############### # |############### |
| # VR - B |# # # VR - C # |
|#-------------# ROUTER 'B'##|------------#----
(152.0.0.2)############### ############### (153.0.0.3)
------------------------- ROUTER 'C' | Extranet
172.150.64/18 V
Vendors
Figure 2 'Virtual Routing Domain'
Each Virtual Router is configurable by the PNA as though it were a
private physical router. Of course, the SP limits the resources that
this Virtual Router may consume on a SPED-by-SPED basis. Each VPN has
a number of physical connections (to CPE routers) and a number of
logical connections (to the emulated LAN). Each connection is IP-
capable and can be configured to utilize any combination of the
standard routing protocols and routing policies to achieve specific
corporate network goals.
To illustrate, in Figure 1, 3 VRs reside on 3 SPEDs in VPN 1. Router
'A' houses VR-A, router 'B' houses VR-B and router 'C' houses VR-C.
VR-C and VR-B have a physical connection to CPE equipment, while VR-A
has 2 physical connections. Each of the VRs has a fully IP-capable
logical connection to the emulated LAN. VR-A has the (physical)
connections to the headquarters of the company and runs OSPF over
those connections. Therefore, it can route packets to 172.150.0/18
and 172.150.128/18. VR-B runs RIP in the branch office (over the
physical connection) and uses RIP (over the logical connection) to
export 172.150.64/18 to VR-A. VR-A advertises a default route to VR-B
over the logical connection. Vendors use VR-C as the extranet
connection to connect to the parts database at 172.150.128.1. Hence,
VR-C advertises a default route to VR-A over the logical connection.
VR-A exports only 175.150.128.1 to VR-C. This keeps the rest of the
corporate network from a security problem.
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 9]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
The network administrator will configure the following:
1. OSPF connections to the 172.150.0/18 and 172.150.128/18 network
in VR-A.
2. RIP connections to VR-B and VR-C on VR-A.
3. Route policies on VR-A to advertise only the default route to
VR-B.
4. Route policies on VR-A to advertise only 172.159.128.1 to VR-C.
5. RIP on VR-B to VR-A.
6. RIP on VR-C to advertise a default route to VR-A.
10. Neighbor Discovery Example
In Figure #1, the SPED that houses VR-A (SPED-A) uses a public
address of 150.0.0.1/24, SPED-B uses 150.0.0.2/24 and SPED-C uses
150.0.0.3/24. As noted, the connection between the VRs is via an
emulated LAN. For interface addresses on the emulated LAN
connection, VR-A uses 10.0.0.1/24, VR-B uses 10.0.0.2/24 and VR-C
uses 10.0.0.3/24.
Let's take the case of VR-A sending a packet to VR-B. To get VR-B's
address (SPED-B's address), VR-A sends an ARP request packet with the
address of VR-B (10.0.0.2) as the logical address. The source logical
address is 10.0.0.1 and the hardware address is 151.0.0.1. This ARP
request is encapsulated in this VPN's multicast address and sent out.
SPED B and SPED-C receive a copy of the packet. SPED-B recognizes
10.0.0.2 in the context of VPN 1 and responds with 152.0.0.2 as the
"hardware" address. This response is sent to the VPN multicast
address to promote the use of promiscuous ARP and the resulting
decrease in network traffic.
Manual configuration would be necessary if neighbor discovery were
not used. In this example, VR-A would be configured with a static ARP
entry for VR-B's logical address (10.0.0.1) with the "hardware"
address set to 152.0.0.2.
11. Forwarding
As mentioned in the architectural outline, data forwarding may be
done in one of several ways. In all techniques except the Hop-by-Hop
technique for forwarding routing/control packets, the actual method
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 10]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
is configurable. At the high end, policy based forwarding for quick
service and at the other end best effort forwarding using public LSP
is used. The order of forwarding preference is as follows:
1. Policy based forwarding.
2. Optionally configured private LSP.
3. Best-effort public LSP.
11.1 Private LSP
This LSP is optionally configured on a per-VPN basis. This LSP is
usually associated with non-zero bandwidth reservation and/or a
specific differentiated service or QOS class. If this LSP is
available, it is used for user data and for VPN private control data
forwarding.
11.2 Best Effort Public LSP
VPN data packets are forwarded using this LSP if a private LSP with
specified bandwidth and/or QOS characteristics is either not
configured or not presently available. The LSP used is the one
destined for the egress router in VPN 0. The VPNID in the shim header
is used to de-multiplex data packets from various VPNs at the egress
router.
12. Differentiated Services
Configuring private LSPs for VPNs allows the SP to offer
differentiated services to paying customers. These private LSPs could
be associated with any available L2 QOS class or Diff-Serv
codepoints. In a VPN, multiple private LSPs with different service
classes could be configured with flow profiles for sorting the
packets among the LSPs. This feature, together with the ability to
size the virtual routers, allows the SP to offer truly differentiated
services to the VPN customer.
13. Security Considerations
13.1 Routing Security
The use of standard routing protocols such as OSPF and BGP in their
unmodified form means that all the encryption and security methods
(such as MD5 authentication of neighbors) are fully available in VRs.
Making sure that routes are not accidentally leaked from one VPN to
another is an implementation issue. One way to achieve this is to
maintain separate routing and forwarding databases.
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 11]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
13.2 Data Security
This allows the SP to assure the VPN customer that data packets in
one VPN never have the opportunity to wander into another. From a
routing standpoint, this could be achieved by maintaining separate
routing databases for each virtual router. From a data forwarding
standpoint, the use of label stacks in the case of shared LSPs
[Rosen2] [Callon] or the use of private LSPs guarantees data privacy.
Packet filters may also be configured to help ease the problem.
13.3 Configuration Security
Virtual routers appear as physical routers to the PNA. This means
that they may be configured by the PNA to achieve connectivity
between offices of a corporation. Obviously, the SP has to guarantee
that the PNA and the PNA's designees are the only ones who have
access to the VRs on the SPEDs the private network has connections
to. Since the virtual router console is functionally equivalent to a
physical router, all of the authentication methods available on a
physical console such as password, RADIUS, etc. are available to the
PNA.
13.4 Physical Network Security
When a PNA logs in to a SPED to configure or monitor the VPN, the PNA
is logged into the VR for the VPN. The PNA has only layer 3
configuration and monitoring privileges for the VR. Specifically, the
PNA has no configuration privileges for the physical network. This
provides the guarantee to the SP that a VPN administrator will not be
able to inadvertently or otherwise adversely affect the SP's network.
14. Virtual Router Monitoring
All of the router monitoring features available on a physical router
are available on the virtual router. This includes utilities such as
"ping" and "traceroute". In addition, the ability to display private
routing tables, link state databases, etc. are available.
15. Performance Considerations
For the purposes of discussing performance and scaling issues,
today's routers can be split into two planes: the routing (control)
plane and the forwarding plane.
In looking at the routing plane, most modern-day routing protocols
use some form of optimized calculation methodologies to calculate the
shortest path(s) to end stations. For instance, OSPF and ISIS use the
Djikstra algorithm while BGP uses the "Decision Process". These
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 12]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
algorithms are based on parsing the routing database and computing
the best paths to end stations. The performance characteristics of
any of these algorithms is based on either topological
characteristics (ISIS and OSPF) or the number of ASs in the path to
the destinations (BGP). But it is important to note that the overhead
in setting up and beginning these calculations is very little for
most any modern day router. This is because, although we refer to
routing calculation input as "databases", these are memory resident
data structures.
Therefore, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Beginning a routing calculation for a routing domain is nothing
more than setting up some registers to point to the right database
objects.
2. Based on 1, the performance of a given algorithm is not
significantly worsened by the overhead required to set it up.
3. Based on 2, it follows that, when a number of routing calculations
for a number of virtual routers has to be performed by a physical
router, the complexity of the resulting routing calculation is
nothing more than the sum of the complexities of the routing
calculations of the individual virtual routers.
4. Based on 3, it follows that whether an overlay model is used or a
virtual routing model is employed, the performance characteristics
of a router are dependent purely on its hardware capabilities and
the choice of data structures and algorithms.
To illustrate, let's say a physical router houses N VPNs, all running
some routing protocol say RP. Let's also suppose that the average
performance of RP's routing calculation algorithm is f(X,Y) where x
and y are parameters that determine performance of the algorithm for
that routing protocol. As an example, for Djikstra algorithm users
such as OSPF, X could be the number of nodes in the area while Y
could be the number of links. The performance of an arbitrary VPN n
is f (Xn, Yn). The performance of the (physical) router is the sum of
f(Xi, Yi) for all values of i in 0 <= i <= N. This conclusion is
independent of the chosen VPN approach (virtual router or overlay
model).
In the usual case, the forwarding plane has two inputs: the
forwarding table and the packet header. The main performance
parameter is the lookup algorithm. The very best performance one can
get for a IP routing table lookup is by organizing the table as some
form of a tree and use binary search methods to do the actual lookup.
The performance of this algorithm is O(log n).
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 13]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
Hence, as long as the virtual routers' routing tables are distinct
from each other, the lookup cost is constant for finding the routing
table and O(log n) to find the entry. This is no worse or different
from any router and no different from a router that employs overlay
techniques to deliver VPN services. However, when the overlay router
utilizes integration of multiple VPNs' routing tables, the
performance is O(log m*n) where 'm' is the number of VPNs that the
routing table holds routes for.
16. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dave Ryan, Lucent Technologies for his
invaluable in-depth review of this version of this memo.
17. References
[Callon] Callon R., et al., "A Framework for Multiprotocol Label
Switching", Work in Progress.
[Fox] Fox, B. and B. Gleeson,"Virtual Private Networks
Identifier", RFC 2685, September 1999.
[Meyer] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC 2365,
July 1998.
[Rosen1] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547, March
1999.
[Rosen2] Rosen E., Viswanathan, A. and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", Work in Progress.
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 14]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
18. Authors' Addresses
Karthik Muthukrishnan
Lucent Technologies
1 Robbins Road
Westford, MA 01886
Phone: (978) 952-1368
EMail: mkarthik@lucent.com
Andrew Malis
Vivace Networks, Inc.
2730 Orchard Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: (408) 383-7223
EMail: Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 15]
RFC 2917 Core VPNs September 2000
19. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Muthukrishnan & Malis Informational [Page 16]