| draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-00.txt | eapns.txt | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extensible Authentication Protocol J. Arkko | Extensible Authentication Protocol J. Arkko | |||
| Internet-Draft Ericsson | Internet-Draft Ericsson | |||
| Expires: July 10, 2004 B. Aboba, Eds. | Expires: January 15, 2005 B. Aboba, Eds. | |||
| Microsoft | Microsoft | |||
| January 10, 2004 | July 17, 2004 | |||
| Network Discovery and Selection Problem | Network Discovery and Selection Problem | |||
| draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-00 | draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-01 | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable | |||
| all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. | patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, | |||
| and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with | ||||
| RFC 3667. | ||||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other | |||
| other groups may also distribute working documents as | groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. | |||
| Internet-Drafts. | ||||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// | |||
| www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on July 10, 2004. | This Internet-Draft will expire on January 15, 2005. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| The so called network discovery and selection problem affects network | The so called network discovery and selection problem affects network | |||
| access, particularly in the presence of multiple available wireless | access, particularly in the presence of multiple available wireless | |||
| accesses and roaming. This problem has been the subject of | accesses and roaming. This problem has been the subject of | |||
| discussions in various standards bodies. This document summarizes | discussions in various standards bodies. This document summarizes the | |||
| the discussion held about this problem in the Extensible | discussion held about this problem in the Extensible Authentication | |||
| Authentication Protocol (EAP) working group at the IETF. The problem | Protocol (EAP) working group at the IETF. The problem is defined and | |||
| is defined and divided into subproblems, and some constraints for | divided into subproblems, and some constraints for possible solutions | |||
| possible solutions are outlined. The document presents also some | are outlined. The document presents also some existing mechanisms | |||
| existing mechanisms which help solve at least parts of the problem, | which help solve at least parts of the problem, and gives some | |||
| and gives some suggestions on how to proceed for the rest. | suggestions on how to proceed for the rest. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2. Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 2.1 Access Network Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.1 Access Network Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 2.1.1 Issues with Access Network Discovery . . . . . . 5 | 2.1.1 Issues with Access Network Discovery . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 2.2 Identity selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.2 Identity selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 2.3 AAA routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2.3 AAA routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 2.3.1 Issues with AAA Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 2.3.1 Issues with AAA Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 2.4 Payload Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 2.4 Payload Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 2.4.1 Issues with Payload Routing . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 2.4.1 Issues with Payload Routing . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 2.5 Discovery, Decision, and Selection . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 2.5 Discovery, Decision, and Selection . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 3. Design Constrains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 2.6 Type of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 4. Existing Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 3. Design Constrains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 4.1 IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4. Existing Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 4.2 IEEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 4.1 IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 4.3 3GPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 4.2 IEEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 4.4 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 4.3 3GPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 4.4 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
| 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
| Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 26 | A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| B. Modifications from Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | ||||
| Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 29 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| The so called network discovery and selection problem affects network | The so called network discovery and selection problem affects network | |||
| access and wireless access networks in particular. This problem | access and wireless access networks in particular. This problem comes | |||
| comes relevant when any of the following conditions are true: | relevant when any of the following conditions are true: | |||
| o There is more than one available network attachment point, and the | o There is more than one available network attachment point, and the | |||
| different points may have different characteristics. | different points may have different characteristics. | |||
| o The user has multiple sets of credentials. For instance, the user | o The user has multiple sets of credentials. For instance, the user | |||
| could have one set of credentials from a public service provider | could have one set of credentials from a public service provider | |||
| and another set from his company. | and another set from his company. | |||
| o There is more than one way to provide roaming between the access | o There is more than one way to provide roaming between the access | |||
| and home network, and service parameters or pricing differs | and home network, and service parameters or pricing differs | |||
| between them. For instance, the access network could have both a | between them. For instance, the access network could have both a | |||
| direct relationship with the home network and an indirect | direct relationship with the home network and an indirect | |||
| relationship through a roaming consortium. | relationship through a roaming consortium. | |||
| o The roaming relationships between access and home networks are so | o The roaming relationships between access and home networks are so | |||
| complicated that current AAA protocols can not route the requests | complicated that current AAA protocols can not route the requests | |||
| to the home network unaided, just based on the domain in the given | to the home network unaided, just based on the domain in the given | |||
| Network Access Identifier (NAI) [4]. | Network Access Identifier (NAI) [4, 14]. | |||
| o Payload packets get routed or tunneled differently, based on which | o Payload packets get routed or tunneled differently, based on which | |||
| particular roaming relationship variation is used. This may have | particular roaming relationship variation is used. This may have | |||
| an impact on the available services or their pricing. | an impact on the available services or their pricing. | |||
| o Providers share the same infrastructure, such as wireless access | o Providers share the same infrastructure, such as wireless access | |||
| points. | points. | |||
| The network discovery and selection problem spans multiple protocol | The network discovery and selection problem spans multiple protocol | |||
| layers and has been the subject of discussions in IETF, 3GPP, and | layers and has been the subject of discussions in IETF, 3GPP, and | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 37 | skipping to change at page 4, line 37 | |||
| and the selection components. The AAA routing problem, for instance, | and the selection components. The AAA routing problem, for instance, | |||
| involves all components: discovery (which mediating networks are | involves all components: discovery (which mediating networks are | |||
| available?), decision (choose the "best" one), and selection (this is | available?), decision (choose the "best" one), and selection (this is | |||
| the chosen network) components. | the chosen network) components. | |||
| 2.1 Access Network Discovery | 2.1 Access Network Discovery | |||
| The Access Network Discovery problem has been extensively studied, | The Access Network Discovery problem has been extensively studied, | |||
| see for instance the results of the IETF Seamoby WG, IEEE | see for instance the results of the IETF Seamoby WG, IEEE | |||
| specifications on 802.11 wireless LAN beaconing and probing process, | specifications on 802.11 wireless LAN beaconing and probing process, | |||
| studies (such as [29]) on the effectiveness of these mechanisms, and | studies (such as [38]) on the effectiveness of these mechanisms, and | |||
| so on. | so on. | |||
| Traditionally, the problem of discovering available networks has been | Traditionally, the problem of discovering available networks has been | |||
| handled as a part of the link layer attachment procedures, or through | handled as a part of the link layer attachment procedures, or through | |||
| out-of-band mechanisms. | out-of-band mechanisms. | |||
| RFC 2194 [3] describes the pre-provisioning of dialup roaming | RFC 2194 [3] describes the pre-provisioning of dialup roaming | |||
| clients, which typically included a list of potential phone numbers, | clients, which typically included a list of potential phone numbers, | |||
| updated by the provider(s) with which the client had a contractual | updated by the provider(s) with which the client had a contractual | |||
| relationship. RFC 3017 [8] describes the IETF Proposed Standard for | relationship. RFC 3017 [8] describes the IETF Proposed Standard for | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 17 | skipping to change at page 5, line 17 | |||
| as the capabilities of those APs. Among the Information Elements | as the capabilities of those APs. Among the Information Elements | |||
| (IEs) included within the Beacon and Probe Response is the SSID, a | (IEs) included within the Beacon and Probe Response is the SSID, a | |||
| non-unique identifier of the network to which an Access Point is | non-unique identifier of the network to which an Access Point is | |||
| attached. By combining network identification along with | attached. By combining network identification along with | |||
| capabilities discovery, the Beacon/Probe facility provides the | capabilities discovery, the Beacon/Probe facility provides the | |||
| information required for both network discovery and roaming decisions | information required for both network discovery and roaming decisions | |||
| within a single mechanism. | within a single mechanism. | |||
| 2.1.1 Issues with Access Network Discovery | 2.1.1 Issues with Access Network Discovery | |||
| As noted in [28], the IEEE 802.11 Beacon mechanism does not scale | As noted in [37], the IEEE 802.11 Beacon mechanism does not scale | |||
| well; with a Beacon interval of 100ms, and 10 APs in the vicinity, | well; with a Beacon interval of 100ms, and 10 APs in the vicinity, | |||
| approximately 32 percent of an 802.11b AP's capacity is used for | approximately 32 percent of an 802.11b AP's capacity is used for | |||
| beacon transmission. In addition, since Beacon/Probe Response frames | beacon transmission. In addition, since Beacon/Probe Response frames | |||
| are sent by each AP over the wireless medium, stations can only | are sent by each AP over the wireless medium, stations can only | |||
| discover APs within range, which implies substantial coverage overlap | discover APs within range, which implies substantial coverage overlap | |||
| for roaming to occur without interruption. | for roaming to occur without interruption. | |||
| A number of enhancements have been proposed to the Beacon/Probe | A number of enhancements have been proposed to the Beacon/Probe | |||
| Response mechanism in order to improve scalability and roaming | Response mechanism in order to improve scalability and roaming | |||
| performance. These include allowing APs to announce capabilities of | performance. These include allowing APs to announce capabilities of | |||
| neighbor APs as well as their own, as proposed in IEEE 802.11k; | neighbor APs as well as their own, as proposed in IEEE 802.11k; | |||
| propagation of discovery information over IP, as handled in the CARD | propagation of discovery information over IP, as handled in the CARD | |||
| protocol developed within the IETF SEAMOBY WG, etc. | protocol developed within the IETF SEAMOBY WG, etc. | |||
| Typically scalability enhancement mechanisms attempt to get around | Typically scalability enhancement mechanisms attempt to get around | |||
| Beacon/Probe Response restrictions by sending advertisements at the | Beacon/Probe Response restrictions by sending advertisements at the | |||
| higher rates which are enabled one the station has associated with an | higher rates which are enabled one the station has associated with an | |||
| AP. Since these mechanisms run over IP, they can utilize IP | AP. Since these mechanisms run over IP, they can utilize IP | |||
| facilities such as fragmentation, which the link layer mechanisms may | facilities such as fragmentation, which the link layer mechanisms may | |||
| not always be able to do. For instance, in IEEE 802.11, Beacon | not always be able to do. For instance, in IEEE 802.11, Beacon frames | |||
| frames cannot use fragmentation because they are multicast frames, | cannot use fragmentation because they are multicast frames, and | |||
| and multicast frames are not acknowledged in 802.11. | multicast frames are not acknowledged in 802.11. | |||
| 2.2 Identity selection | 2.2 Identity selection | |||
| As networks proliferate, it becomes more and more likely that a given | As networks proliferate, it becomes more and more likely that a given | |||
| EAP peer may have multiple identities and credential sets, available | EAP peer may have multiple identities and credential sets, available | |||
| for use in different situations. For example, the EAP peer may have | for use in different situations. For example, the EAP peer may have | |||
| an account with one or more Public WLAN providers; a corporate WLAN; | an account with one or more Public WLAN providers; a corporate WLAN; | |||
| one or more wireless WAN providers. As a result, the EAP peer has to | one or more wireless WAN providers. As a result, the EAP peer has to | |||
| decide which credential set to use when presented with a given set of | decide which credential set to use when presented with a given set of | |||
| potential EAP authenticators. | potential EAP authenticators. | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 38 | skipping to change at page 6, line 38 | |||
| Traditionally, hints useful in identity selection have also been | Traditionally, hints useful in identity selection have also been | |||
| provided out-of-band. For example, via the RFC 3017 XML DTD [8], a | provided out-of-band. For example, via the RFC 3017 XML DTD [8], a | |||
| client can select between potential POPs, and then based on | client can select between potential POPs, and then based on | |||
| information provided in the DTD, determine the appropriate NAI to use | information provided in the DTD, determine the appropriate NAI to use | |||
| with the selected POP. | with the selected POP. | |||
| Perhaps the most typical case is a link layer that provides some | Perhaps the most typical case is a link layer that provides some | |||
| information about the network before EAP is initiated. For instance, | information about the network before EAP is initiated. For instance, | |||
| in IEEE 802.11 provides the SSID, though in some cases the client may | in IEEE 802.11 provides the SSID, though in some cases the client may | |||
| not learn about all the SSIDs supported by the given access point. | not learn about all the SSIDs supported by the given access point. In | |||
| In IKEv2 [15], the identity of the responder (typically the security | IKEv2 [19], the identity of the responder (typically the security | |||
| gateway) is provided in the same packet as the EAP Identity Request | gateway) is provided in the same packet as the EAP Identity Request | |||
| is transported. In order to use this information in deciding the | is transported. In order to use this information in deciding the | |||
| right identity to use, the provided information has to either match | right identity to use, the provided information has to either match | |||
| with one of the client's home networks, or the client has to have | with one of the client's home networks, or the client has to have | |||
| some other knowledge that enables to link the advertised network and | some other knowledge that enables to link the advertised network and | |||
| the home network. For instance, the client may be aware that his | the home network. For instance, the client may be aware that his home | |||
| home network has a roaming contract with a given access network. | network has a roaming contract with a given access network. | |||
| It is also possible for hints to be embedded within credentials. In | It is also possible for hints to be embedded within credentials. In | |||
| [11], usage hints are provided within certificates used for wireless | [11], usage hints are provided within certificates used for wireless | |||
| authentication. This involves extending the client's certificate to | authentication. This involves extending the client's certificate to | |||
| include the SSIDs with which the certificate can be used. | include the SSIDs with which the certificate can be used. | |||
| Finally, some EAP implementations use the space after the NUL | Finally, some EAP implementations use the space after the NUL | |||
| character in an EAP Identity Request to communicate some parameters | character in an EAP Identity Request to communicate some parameters | |||
| relating to the network requesting EAP authentication. However, | relating to the network requesting EAP authentication. However, there | |||
| there is no standard interpretation of the field beyond the NUL | is no standard interpretation of the field beyond the NUL character. | |||
| character. | ||||
| 2.3 AAA routing | 2.3 AAA routing | |||
| Once the identity has been selected, it is necessary for the | Once the identity has been selected, it is necessary for the | |||
| authentication conversation to be routed back to the home realm. | authentication conversation to be routed back to the home realm. | |||
| This is typically done today through the use of the Network Access | This is typically done today through the use of the Network Access | |||
| Identifier (NAI), RFC 2486 [4], and the ability of the AAA network to | Identifier (NAI), RFC 2486 [4, 14], and the ability of the AAA | |||
| route requests to the domain indicated in the NAI. | network to route requests to the domain indicated in the NAI. | |||
| Within the IETF ROAMOPS WG, a number of additional approaches were | Within the IETF ROAMOPS WG, a number of additional approaches were | |||
| considered for this, including source routing techniques based on the | considered for this, including source routing techniques based on the | |||
| NAI, and techniques relying on the AAA infrastructure. Given the | NAI, and techniques relying on the AAA infrastructure. Given the | |||
| relative simplicity of the roaming implementations described in RFC | relative simplicity of the roaming implementations described in RFC | |||
| 2194 [3], static routing mechanisms appeared adequate for the task | 2194 [3], static routing mechanisms appeared adequate for the task | |||
| and it was not deemed necessary to develop dynamic routing protocols. | and it was not deemed necessary to develop dynamic routing protocols. | |||
| As noted in RFC 2607 [5], RADIUS proxies are deployed not only for | As noted in RFC 2607 [5], RADIUS proxies are deployed not only for | |||
| routing purposes, but also to mask a number of inadequacies in the | routing purposes, but also to mask a number of inadequacies in the | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 33 | skipping to change at page 10, line 33 | |||
| [9]. RFC 2868 [7] defines tunneling attributes that the home and | [9]. RFC 2868 [7] defines tunneling attributes that the home and | |||
| mediating networks can use to establish mandatory tunneling at the | mediating networks can use to establish mandatory tunneling at the | |||
| access network. RFC 3588 [9] defines a filter syntax which can be | access network. RFC 3588 [9] defines a filter syntax which can be | |||
| used to install per-session filters under the control of AAA. | used to install per-session filters under the control of AAA. | |||
| 2.4.1 Issues with Payload Routing | 2.4.1 Issues with Payload Routing | |||
| In an attack described by Michael Richardson, a rogue hotspot | In an attack described by Michael Richardson, a rogue hotspot | |||
| operator (but with a legitimate roaming relationship to a home | operator (but with a legitimate roaming relationship to a home | |||
| network) steals revenues from local hotspot operator by spoofing its | network) steals revenues from local hotspot operator by spoofing its | |||
| identity. The rogue operator places a node with two interfaces in | identity. The rogue operator places a node with two interfaces in the | |||
| the coverage area of the local operator, and attaches to the Internet | coverage area of the local operator, and attaches to the Internet via | |||
| via this operator using a flat fee -based account. It then starts to | this operator using a flat fee -based account. It then starts to | |||
| advertise itself as a hotspot operator on the other interface, luring | advertise itself as a hotspot operator on the other interface, luring | |||
| unsuspecting clients to use this node rather the than the local | unsuspecting clients to use this node rather the than the local | |||
| operator. The users authenticate via this node and its roaming | operator. The users authenticate via this node and its roaming | |||
| relationship. All AAA and payload traffic goes via the local | relationship. All AAA and payload traffic goes via the local hotspot, | |||
| hotspot, suitably NATted by the rogue node. As a result, the rogue | suitably NATted by the rogue node. As a result, the rogue operator | |||
| operator gets the roaming service fees for a number of clients, | gets the roaming service fees for a number of clients, whereas the | |||
| whereas the local operator gets just one client. | local operator gets just one client. | |||
| Due to the way that the IEEE 802.11, IETF protocols, and common EAP | Due to the way that the IEEE 802.11, IETF protocols, and common EAP | |||
| methods have been designed, the rogue operator can actually advertise | methods have been designed, the rogue operator can actually advertise | |||
| the same identity (SSID) as the local operator; the parameters | the same identity (SSID) as the local operator; the parameters | |||
| advertised by the access point information are not authenticated | advertised by the access point information are not authenticated | |||
| end-to-end to the home network. EAP methods that support channel | end-to-end to the home network. EAP methods that support channel | |||
| bindings [10] do not have this problem, but this support is not | bindings [10] do not have this problem, but this support is not | |||
| present in commonly used methods. Rogue access point can present a | present in commonly used methods. Rogue access point can present a | |||
| different set of parameters to the client and to the home network. | different set of parameters to the client and to the home network. | |||
| The current network access mechanisms enable us to have | The current network access mechanisms enable us to have | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 19 | skipping to change at page 11, line 19 | |||
| number of times. | number of times. | |||
| We call this the "payload route binding problem". In this problem, | We call this the "payload route binding problem". In this problem, | |||
| authentication and link layer support do not guarantee that the | authentication and link layer support do not guarantee that the | |||
| packets are actually routed through the path that appears to have | packets are actually routed through the path that appears to have | |||
| been offered. Basically, if the "rogue" access point has a flat fee | been offered. Basically, if the "rogue" access point has a flat fee | |||
| account and a contract with a clearing house, it can offer access to | account and a contract with a clearing house, it can offer access to | |||
| anyone with a per-byte account, NAT their packets, and send the | anyone with a per-byte account, NAT their packets, and send the | |||
| traffic forward on its own account, and generate income. The local | traffic forward on its own account, and generate income. The local | |||
| ISP would not be able to detect this by looking at the traffic | ISP would not be able to detect this by looking at the traffic | |||
| stream. The user would not be able to detect it either, unless an | stream. The user would not be able to detect it either, unless an EAP | |||
| EAP method with channel binding support is used. And even if it is, | method with channel binding support is used. And even if it is, the | |||
| the user may not care about the identity of the access point enough | user may not care about the identity of the access point enough to | |||
| to look at it; channel bindings can only ensure that all parties | look at it; channel bindings can only ensure that all parties agree | |||
| agree about the parameters, not that they make sense. | about the parameters, not that they make sense. | |||
| The working group did not come to a conclusion whether this attack | The working group did not come to a conclusion whether this attack | |||
| needs to be prevented. Some of the proposed solutions include the | needs to be prevented. Some of the proposed solutions include the use | |||
| use of EAP EMSK in the authentication exchange with the DHCP server, | of EAP EMSK in the authentication exchange with the DHCP server, or | |||
| or the use of EAP to provide the certificates that SEND requires for | the use of EAP to provide the certificates that SEND requires for the | |||
| the authentication of Router Advertisements. Either approach means | authentication of Router Advertisements. Either approach means that | |||
| that we are sure we are speaking at layer 3 to the services that we | we are sure we are speaking at layer 3 to the services that we | |||
| authenticated at layer two. However, this does not prevent an | authenticated at layer two. However, this does not prevent an | |||
| attacker from offering such services, and then performing a NAT on | attacker from offering such services, and then performing a NAT on | |||
| the packets later. However, IPsec could be used to detect the | the packets later. However, IPsec could be used to detect the | |||
| presence of such NATs, even if NAT traversal is in use. | presence of such NATs, even if NAT traversal is in use. | |||
| 2.5 Discovery, Decision, and Selection | 2.5 Discovery, Decision, and Selection | |||
| An alternative decomposition of the problem is to consider the | An alternative decomposition of the problem is to consider the | |||
| discovery, decision, and selection aspects separately. Discovery | discovery, decision, and selection aspects separately. Discovery | |||
| consists of discovering access networks and associated POPs, | consists of discovering access networks and associated POPs, | |||
| discovering what identities the access networks will accept (either | discovering what identities the access networks will accept (either | |||
| directly or through roaming relationships), and discovering which | directly or through roaming relationships), and discovering which | |||
| potential AAA intermediaries or routes exist. | potential AAA intermediaries or routes exist. | |||
| Selection consists of attaching to the "right" access network and | Selection consists of attaching to the "right" access network and | |||
| POP, offering an identity through EAP Identity Response, and | POP, offering an identity through EAP Identity Response, and | |||
| providing a hint about the desired AAA intermediary. The selection | providing a hint about the desired AAA intermediary. The selection of | |||
| of the AAA intermediary, along with the home and access networks, | the AAA intermediary, along with the home and access networks, | |||
| determines also the treatment of payload packets. | determines also the treatment of payload packets. | |||
| Decision can be either manual selection or automatic. Most likely, | Decision can be either manual selection or automatic. Most likely, | |||
| automatic mechanisms are preferred, even if manual selection should | automatic mechanisms are preferred, even if manual selection should | |||
| be retained as a fallback. The type of the decision also places | be retained as a fallback. The type of the decision also places | |||
| additional requirements on the type of information that the discovery | additional requirements on the type of information that the discovery | |||
| phase must provide. Just knowing which choices are available is | phase must provide. Just knowing which choices are available is | |||
| probably enough for manual selection. Unfortunately, automatic | probably enough for manual selection. Unfortunately, automatic | |||
| selection based on a list of choices is by itself not possible: | selection based on a list of choices is by itself not possible: | |||
| o Some access networks may be preferred over others. For instance, | o Some access networks may be preferred over others. For instance, | |||
| the user's private corporate network may be preferred over a | the user's private corporate network may be preferred over a | |||
| public network due to cost and efficiency reasons. | public network due to cost and efficiency reasons. | |||
| o Similarly, some credentials may be preferred over others. | o Similarly, some credentials may be preferred over others. | |||
| o Use of an access network with direct connection to home network | o Use of an access network with direct connection to home network | |||
| may be preferred over using mediating networks. | may be preferred over using mediating networks. | |||
| o Some mediating networks may be preferred to others, most likely | o Some mediating networks may be preferred to others, most likely | |||
| based on cost. Note that optimizing cost is not a trivial | based on cost. Note that optimizing cost is not a trivial problem, | |||
| problem, because the total cost may be a combination of a fixed | because the total cost may be a combination of a fixed fee, | |||
| fee, per-minute, per-megabyte, volume discounts, and so on. | per-minute, per-megabyte, volume discounts, and so on. | |||
| o Preferences may come from the user, his or her employer (who's | o Preferences may come from the user, his or her employer (who's | |||
| paying the bill), home network, or access network. | paying the bill), home network, or access network. | |||
| Different discovery mechanisms can accommodate such preferences in | Different discovery mechanisms can accommodate such preferences in | |||
| various ways. Some user input or perhaps a pre-provisioned database | various ways. Some user input or perhaps a pre-provisioned database | |||
| seems inevitable. | seems inevitable. | |||
| Finally, while the final step of choosing a new network lies always | ||||
| on the client side, different approches vary in how much they rely on | ||||
| the client vs. network driven decisions. In cellular networks, for | ||||
| instance, the network-based performance measurements lead to | ||||
| instructions that the network gives to the client about the | ||||
| appropriate base station(s) that should be used. Most of the | ||||
| processing and decisions are performed on the network side. In | ||||
| contrast, in a completely client-driven approach the client may get | ||||
| some raw information from the network, but makes all decisions by | ||||
| itself. | ||||
| 2.6 Type of Information | ||||
| A third alternative way to decompose the problem is to analyze the | ||||
| type of information which is required [16]. For instance, access | ||||
| network discovery may benefit from getting knowledge about the | ||||
| quality of service available from a particular access network or | ||||
| node, and AAA routing may require knowledge of roaming agreements. | ||||
| References [16] and [30] describe the following categories of | ||||
| information which can be discovered: | ||||
| o Access network identification | ||||
| o Roaming agreements | ||||
| o Authentication mechanisms | ||||
| o Quality of service | ||||
| o Cost | ||||
| o Authorization policy | ||||
| o Privacy policy | ||||
| o Service parameters, such as the existence of middleboxes | ||||
| The nature of the discovered information can be static, such as the | ||||
| fastest available transmission speed on a given piece of equipment. | ||||
| Or it can be dynamic, such as the current load on this equipment. The | ||||
| information can describe something about the network access nodes | ||||
| themselves, or it can be something that they simply advertise on | ||||
| behalf of other parts of the network, such as roaming agreements | ||||
| further in the AAA network. | ||||
| Typically, it would be desirable to acquire all this information | ||||
| prior to the authentication process. In some cases it is in fact | ||||
| necessary, if the authentication process can not complete without the | ||||
| information. Reference [30] classifies the possible steps at which | ||||
| IEEE 802.11 networks can acquire this information: | ||||
| o Pre-association | ||||
| o Post-association (or pre-authentication) | ||||
| o Post-authentication | ||||
| Note that some EAP methods (such as those defined in [21, 23, 15]) | ||||
| have an ability to agree about additional parameters during an | ||||
| authentication process. While such parameters are useful for many | ||||
| purposes, their use for network selection suffers from an obvious | ||||
| chicken-and-egg problem. Or at least it seems costly to run a | ||||
| relatively heavy authentication process to decide whether the client | ||||
| wants to attach to this network. | ||||
| 3. Design Constrains | 3. Design Constrains | |||
| All solutions to the network selection and discovery problem must | All solutions to the network selection and discovery problem must | |||
| satisfy the following additional constraints: | satisfy the following additional constraints: | |||
| o AAA routing mechanisms have to work for requests, responses, as | o AAA routing mechanisms have to work for requests, responses, as | |||
| well as server-initiated messages. | well as server-initiated messages. | |||
| o Solution is compatible with all AAA protocols. | o Solution is compatible with all AAA protocols. | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 18 | skipping to change at page 15, line 18 | |||
| There has already been a lot of past work in this area, including a | There has already been a lot of past work in this area, including a | |||
| number of IETF Proposed Standards generated by the ROAMOPS WG. The | number of IETF Proposed Standards generated by the ROAMOPS WG. The | |||
| topic of roaming was considered different enough from both AAA and | topic of roaming was considered different enough from both AAA and | |||
| access protocols such as PPP that it deserved its own WG. | access protocols such as PPP that it deserved its own WG. | |||
| In addition to work on ROAMOPS directly relating to the problem, | In addition to work on ROAMOPS directly relating to the problem, | |||
| there has been work in SEAMOBY relating to scaling of network | there has been work in SEAMOBY relating to scaling of network | |||
| discovery mechanisms; work in PKIX relating to identity and | discovery mechanisms; work in PKIX relating to identity and | |||
| credential selection; and work in AAA WG relating to access routing. | credential selection; and work in AAA WG relating to access routing. | |||
| The PANA protocol [14] has a mechanism to advertise and select "ISPs" | The PANA protocol [18] has a mechanism to advertise and select "ISPs" | |||
| through the exchange of the ISP-Information AVP in its initial | through the exchange of the ISP-Information AVP in its initial | |||
| exchange. | exchange. | |||
| Adrangi et al [16] discuss the use of the EAP-Request/Identity for | A number of (small) improvements to payload routing control are | |||
| currently in progress in the IETF RADEXT WG. These include better | ||||
| filtering and redirection support [20]. RADEXT WG is also working on | ||||
| an new revision of the NAI specification [14]. This revision | ||||
| clarifies the use of the '!' syntax in a NAI to route requests via | ||||
| specified mediating networks. | ||||
| Adrangi et al [12] discuss the use of the EAP-Request/Identity for | ||||
| network discovery. As noted in [10] Section 3.1, the minimum EAP MTU | network discovery. As noted in [10] Section 3.1, the minimum EAP MTU | |||
| is 1020 octets, so that an EAP-Request/Identity is only guaranteed to | is 1020 octets, so that an EAP-Request/Identity is only guaranteed to | |||
| be able to include 1015 octets within the Type-Data field. Since RFC | be able to include 1015 octets within the Type-Data field. Since RFC | |||
| 1035 [1] enables FQDNs to be up to 255 octets in length, this may not | 1035 [1] enables FQDNs to be up to 255 octets in length, this may not | |||
| enable the announcement of very many networks, although if SSIDs are | enable the announcement of very many networks, although if SSIDs are | |||
| used, the maximum length of 32 octets per SSID may provide | used, the maximum length of 32 octets per SSID may provide | |||
| substantially better scaling. The use of other network identifiers | substantially better scaling. The use of other network identifiers | |||
| than domain names is also possible, for instance the PANA protocol | than domain names is also possible, for instance the PANA protocol | |||
| uses an a free form string and an SMI Network Management Private | uses an a free form string and an SMI Network Management Private | |||
| Enterprise Code [14], or Mobile Network Codes could be used as hinted | Enterprise Code [18], or Mobile Network Codes could be used as hinted | |||
| in [16]. | in [13]. | |||
| As noted in [30], the use of the EAP-Request/Identity for network | As noted in [39], the use of the EAP-Request/Identity for network | |||
| discovery has substantial negative impact on handoff latency, since | discovery has substantial negative impact on handoff latency, since | |||
| this may result in a station needing to initiate an EAP conversation | this may result in a station needing to initiate an EAP conversation | |||
| with each Access Point in order to receive an EAP-Request/Identity | with each Access Point in order to receive an EAP-Request/Identity | |||
| describing which networks are supported. Since IEEE 802.11-1999 does | describing which networks are supported. Since IEEE 802.11-1999 does | |||
| not support use of Class 1 data frames in State 1 (unauthenticated, | not support use of Class 1 data frames in State 1 (unauthenticated, | |||
| unassociated) within an ESS, this implies either that the APs must | unassociated) within an ESS, this implies either that the APs must | |||
| support 802.1X pre-authentication (optional in IEEE 802.11i) or that | support 802.1X pre-authentication (optional in IEEE 802.11i) or that | |||
| the station must associate with each AP prior to sending an | the station must associate with each AP prior to sending an | |||
| EAPOL-Start to initiate EAP. This will dramatically increase handoff | EAPOL-Start to initiate EAP. This will dramatically increase handoff | |||
| latency. | latency. | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 8 | skipping to change at page 16, line 15 | |||
| The effects to handoff latency depend also on the specific protocol | The effects to handoff latency depend also on the specific protocol | |||
| design, and the expected likelihood of having to provide | design, and the expected likelihood of having to provide | |||
| advertisements and initiate scanning of several access points. The | advertisements and initiate scanning of several access points. The | |||
| use of advertisements only as a last resort when the AAA routing has | use of advertisements only as a last resort when the AAA routing has | |||
| failed is a better approach than the use of advertisement - scanning | failed is a better approach than the use of advertisement - scanning | |||
| procedure on every attachment. | procedure on every attachment. | |||
| Furthermore, if the AP has not been updated to present an up to date | Furthermore, if the AP has not been updated to present an up to date | |||
| set of networks in the EAP-Requests/Identity, after associating to | set of networks in the EAP-Requests/Identity, after associating to | |||
| candidate APs and then choosing one, it is possible that the station | candidate APs and then choosing one, it is possible that the station | |||
| will find that the chosen network is not supported after all. In | will find that the chosen network is not supported after all. In this | |||
| this case, the station's EAP-Response/Identity may be answered with | case, the station's EAP-Response/Identity may be answered with an | |||
| an updated EAP-Request/Identity, adding yet more latency. | updated EAP-Request/Identity, adding yet more latency. | |||
| 4.2 IEEE | 4.2 IEEE | |||
| There has been work in IEEE 802.11 and 802.1 relating to network | There has been work in IEEE 802.11 and 802.1 relating to network | |||
| discovery enhancements. | discovery enhancements. | |||
| Some recent contributions in this space include the following: | Some recent contributions in this space include the following: | |||
| o [18] defines the Beacon and Probe Response mechanisms used with | o [25] defines the Beacon and Probe Response mechanisms used with | |||
| IEEE 802.11. Unfortunately, Beacons are only sent at the lowest | IEEE 802.11. Unfortunately, Beacons are only sent at the lowest | |||
| supported rate. Studies such as [31] have identified MAC layer | supported rate. Studies such as [41] have identified MAC layer | |||
| performance problems, and [28] have identified scaling issues | performance problems, and [37] have identified scaling issues | |||
| resulting from a lowering of the Beacon interval. | resulting from a lowering of the Beacon interval. | |||
| o [21] discusses the evolution of authentication models in WLANs, | o [28] discusses the evolution of authentication models in WLANs, | |||
| and the need for the network to migrate from existing models to | and the need for the network to migrate from existing models to | |||
| new ones, based on either EAP layer indications or through the use | new ones, based on either EAP layer indications or through the use | |||
| of SSIDs to represent more than the local network. It notes the | of SSIDs to represent more than the local network. It notes the | |||
| potential need for management or structuring of the SSID space. | potential need for management or structuring of the SSID space. | |||
| The paper also notes that virtual APs have scalability issues. It | The paper also notes that virtual APs have scalability issues. It | |||
| does not analyze these scalability issues in relation to those | does not analyze these scalability issues in relation to those | |||
| existing in other alternative solutions, however. | existing in other alternative solutions, however. | |||
| o [22] discusses requirements for differentiation in the way that | o [29] discusses requirements for differentiation in the way that | |||
| the user's payload traffic is routed, based on home network | the user's payload traffic is routed, based on home network | |||
| control. Such requirements have come up, for instance, in the | control. Such requirements have come up, for instance, in the | |||
| context of 3GPP. | context of 3GPP. | |||
| o [19] discusses mechanisms currently used to provide "Virtual AP" | o [26] discusses mechanisms currently used to provide "Virtual AP" | |||
| capabilities within a single physical access point. A "Virtual | capabilities within a single physical access point. A "Virtual | |||
| AP" appears at the MAC and IP layers to be distinct physical AP. | AP" appears at the MAC and IP layers to be distinct physical AP. | |||
| As noted in the paper, full compatibility with existing 802.11 | As noted in the paper, full compatibility with existing 802.11 | |||
| station implementations can only be maintained if each virtual AP | station implementations can only be maintained if each virtual AP | |||
| uses a distinct MAC address (BSSID) for use in Beacons and Probe | uses a distinct MAC address (BSSID) for use in Beacons and Probe | |||
| Responses. This draft does not discuss scaling issues in detail, | Responses. This draft does not discuss scaling issues in detail, | |||
| but recommends that only a limited number of virtual APs be | but recommends that only a limited number of virtual APs be | |||
| supported by a single physical access point. The simulations | supported by a single physical access point. The simulations | |||
| presented in [28] appear to confirm this conclusion; with a Beacon | presented in [37] appear to confirm this conclusion; with a Beacon | |||
| interval of 100 ms, once more than 8 virtual APs are supported on | interval of 100 ms, once more than 8 virtual APs are supported on | |||
| a single channel, more than 20% of bandwidth is used for Beacons | a single channel, more than 20% of bandwidth is used for Beacons | |||
| alone. This would indicate a limit of approximately 20 virtual | alone. This would indicate a limit of approximately 20 virtual APs | |||
| APs per physical AP. | per physical AP. | |||
| o The 802.11 WIEN Study Group is working on the network discovery | ||||
| and selection problem. Some of the contributions in this group | ||||
| include [31] and [30]. In general, the group is working to define | ||||
| the problem at this point in time. This includes studies on the | ||||
| limitations of existing mechanisms, and gathering requirements | ||||
| about the type of information needed from the discovery process. | ||||
| o IEEE 802.21 is developing standards to enable handover and | ||||
| interoperability between heterogeneous network types including | ||||
| both 802 and non 802 networks. The intention is to provide a | ||||
| general information transfer capability for these purposes. As a | ||||
| result, network discovery process may benefit from such standards. | ||||
| 4.3 3GPP | 4.3 3GPP | |||
| The 3GPP technical specification [23] covers the interworking of WLAN | The 3GPP technical specification [32] covers the interworking of WLAN | |||
| networks with 2G and 3G networks. This specification discusses also | networks with 2G and 3G networks. This specification discusses also | |||
| network discovery and selection issues. | network discovery and selection issues. | |||
| The specification requires that Access Network Discovery is performed | The specification requires that Access Network Discovery is performed | |||
| as specified in the standards for the relevant WLAN link layer | as specified in the standards for the relevant WLAN link layer | |||
| technology. An early version of the technical specification required | technology. An early version of the technical specification required | |||
| the use of a 3GPP-specific SSID, but that has since then been | the use of a 3GPP-specific SSID, but that has since then been | |||
| abandoned; access network or local 3GPP network based SSIDs may be | abandoned; access network or local 3GPP network based SSIDs may be | |||
| used instead. It has not been decided whether some conventions on | used instead. It has not been decided whether some conventions on the | |||
| the format of these SSIDs is required by 3GPP. | format of these SSIDs is required by 3GPP. | |||
| In addition to Access Network Discovery, it is necessary to select | In addition to Access Network Discovery, it is necessary to select | |||
| intermediary networks for the purposes of AAA Routing. In 3GPP, | intermediary networks for the purposes of AAA Routing. In 3GPP, these | |||
| these networks are called Visited Public Land-based Mobile Networks | networks are called Visited Public Land-based Mobile Networks | |||
| (VPLMNs), and it is assumed that WLAN networks may have a contract | (VPLMNs), and it is assumed that WLAN networks may have a contract | |||
| with more than one VPLMN. GSM/UMTS roaming mechanisms are then | with more than one VPLMN. GSM/UMTS roaming mechanisms are then | |||
| employed for routing AAA requests from the VPLMN to the home network. | employed for routing AAA requests from the VPLMN to the home network. | |||
| In order to select the VPLMN, the following is required: | In order to select the VPLMN, the following is required: | |||
| o User can choose the desired VPLMN. | o User can choose the desired VPLMN. | |||
| o AAA message are routed according to the NAI. | o AAA message are routed according to the NAI. | |||
| o Existing EAP mechanisms are used where possible. | o Existing EAP mechanisms are used where possible. | |||
| o Extensibility is desired, to allow the advertisement of other | o Extensibility is desired, to allow the advertisement of other | |||
| parameters later. | parameters later. | |||
| The referenced 3GPP technical specification is a so called stage 2 | The referenced 3GPP technical specification is a so called stage 2 | |||
| specification, and contains only the principles of operation, leaving | specification, and contains only the principles of operation, leaving | |||
| detailed protocol work for later. Nevertheless, the specification | detailed protocol work for later. Nevertheless, the specification | |||
| states that advertisement information shall be provided only when the | states that advertisement information shall be provided only when the | |||
| access network is unable to route the request using normal AAA | access network is unable to route the request using normal AAA | |||
| routing means, such as when it sees an unknown NAI domain. It is | routing means, such as when it sees an unknown NAI domain. It is also | |||
| also stated that where VPLMN control is required, the necessary | stated that where VPLMN control is required, the necessary | |||
| information is added to a NAI. | information is added to a NAI. | |||
| The security properties related to different mediating network | The security properties related to different mediating network | |||
| selection mechanisms have been discussed in the 3GPP contribution | selection mechanisms have been discussed in the 3GPP contribution | |||
| [24], which concludes that both SSID- and EAP-based mechanisms have | [33], which concludes that both SSID- and EAP-based mechanisms have | |||
| roughly similar (and very limited) security properties, and that, as | roughly similar (and very limited) security properties, and that, as | |||
| a result, network advertisement should be considered only as hints. | a result, network advertisement should be considered only as hints. | |||
| Ahmavaara, Haverinen, and Pichna [26] discuss the new network | Ahmavaara, Haverinen, and Pichna [35] discuss the new network | |||
| selection requirements that 3G-WLAN roaming introduces. It is | selection requirements that 3G-WLAN roaming introduces. It is | |||
| necessary to support automatic network selection, and not just manual | necessary to support automatic network selection, and not just manual | |||
| selection by the user. There may be multiple levels of networks, the | selection by the user. There may be multiple levels of networks, the | |||
| hotspot owner may have a contract with a provider who in turn has a | hotspot owner may have a contract with a provider who in turn has a | |||
| contract with one 3G network, and this 3G network has a roaming | contract with one 3G network, and this 3G network has a roaming | |||
| capability with a number of other networks. | capability with a number of other networks. | |||
| 4.4 Other | 4.4 Other | |||
| [27] discusses the need for network selection in a situation where | [36] discusses the need for network selection in a situation where | |||
| there is more than one available access network with a roaming | there is more than one available access network with a roaming | |||
| agreement to the home network. It also lists EAP-level, SSID-based, | agreement to the home network. It also lists EAP-level, SSID-based, | |||
| and PEAP-based mechanisms as potential solutions to the network | and PEAP-based mechanisms as potential solutions to the network | |||
| selection problem. | selection problem. | |||
| Eijk et al [25] discussed the general issue of network selection. | Eijk et al [34] discussed the general issue of network selection. | |||
| They concentrated primarily on the Access Network Discovery problem, | They concentrated primarily on the Access Network Discovery problem, | |||
| based on various criteria, and did not consider the other aspects of | based on various criteria, and did not consider the other aspects of | |||
| the network selection problem. Nevertheless, they mention that one | the network selection problem. Nevertheless, they mention that one of | |||
| of the network selection problems is that the information about | the network selection problems is that the information about | |||
| accessibility and roaming relationships is not stored in one | accessibility and roaming relationships is not stored in one | |||
| location, but rather spread around the network. | location, but rather spread around the network. | |||
| 5. Conclusions | 5. Conclusions | |||
| The issues surrounding the network discovery and selection problem | The issues surrounding the network discovery and selection problem | |||
| have been summarized. | have been summarized. | |||
| In the opinion of the editors of this document, the main findings | In the opinion of the editors of this document, the main findings | |||
| are: | are: | |||
| o There is a clear need for access network discovery, identifier | o There is a clear need for access network discovery, identifier | |||
| selection, AAA routing, and payload routing. | selection, AAA routing, and payload routing. | |||
| o Existing mechanisms appear sufficient for the control of payload | o Existing mechanisms appear largely sufficient for the control of | |||
| routing, but there appears to be justification for enhanced | payload routing, even if some minor improvements are being worked | |||
| mechanisms relating to access network discovery, identifier | on. But there appears to be justification for significantly | |||
| selection, and AAA routing. | enhanced mechanisms relating to access network discovery, | |||
| identifier selection, and AAA routing. | ||||
| o Nevertheless, many of the problems discussed in this draft are | o Nevertheless, many of the problems discussed in this draft are | |||
| very hard when one considers them in an environment that requires | very hard when one considers them in an environment that requires | |||
| a potentially large number of networks, fast handoffs, and | a potentially large number of networks, fast handoffs, and | |||
| automatic decisions. | automatic decisions. | |||
| o The proliferation of multiple competing network discovery | o The proliferation of multiple competing network discovery | |||
| technologies within IEEE 802, IETF, and 3GPP appears to a | technologies within IEEE 802, IETF, and 3GPP appears to a | |||
| significant problem going forward. In the absence of a clearly | significant problem going forward. In the absence of a clearly | |||
| defined solution to the problem it is likely that any or all of | defined solution to the problem it is likely that any or all of | |||
| skipping to change at page 18, line 42 | skipping to change at page 19, line 43 | |||
| In order to avoid this fate, it is strongly suggested that a | In order to avoid this fate, it is strongly suggested that a | |||
| discussion be initiated between IETF and IEEE 802 in order to work | discussion be initiated between IETF and IEEE 802 in order to work | |||
| out the roles of the each organization in solving this problem, | out the roles of the each organization in solving this problem, | |||
| and to invite 3GPP participation so that their requirements can be | and to invite 3GPP participation so that their requirements can be | |||
| fulfilled by the planned solutions. | fulfilled by the planned solutions. | |||
| o New link layers should be designed with facilities that enable the | o New link layers should be designed with facilities that enable the | |||
| efficient distribution of network advertisement information. | efficient distribution of network advertisement information. | |||
| o Solving all problems with current link layers and existing network | o Solving all problems with current link layers and existing network | |||
| access devices may not be possible. It may be useful to consider | access devices may not be possible. It may be useful to consider a | |||
| a phased approach where only certain functions are provided now, | phased approach where only certain, limited functions are provided | |||
| and the full functionality is provided when extensions to current | now, and the full functionality is provided when extensions to | |||
| link layers become available. | current link layers become available. | |||
| We will briefly comment on the specific mechanisms related to network | We will briefly comment on the specific mechanisms related to network | |||
| discovery and selection: | discovery and selection: | |||
| o As noted in studies such as [31] and [28], the IEEE 802.11 Beacon/ | o As noted in studies such as [41] and [37], the IEEE 802.11 Beacon/ | |||
| Probe Response mechanism has substantial scaling issues, and as a | Probe Response mechanism has substantial scaling issues, and as a | |||
| result a single physical access point is in practice limited to | result a single physical access point is in practice limited to | |||
| less than a dozen virtual APs on each channel with IEEE 802.11b. | less than a dozen virtual APs on each channel with IEEE 802.11b. | |||
| The situation is improved substantially with successors such as | The situation is improved substantially with successors such as | |||
| IEEE 802.11a which enable additional channels, thus potentially | IEEE 802.11a which enable additional channels, thus potentially | |||
| increasing the number of potential virtual APs. | increasing the number of potential virtual APs. | |||
| However, even these enhancements it is not feasible to advertise | However, even these enhancements it is not feasible to advertise | |||
| more than 50 different networks using existing mechanisms, and | more than 50 different networks using existing mechanisms, and | |||
| probably significantly less in most circumstances. | probably significantly less in most circumstances. | |||
| As a result, there appears to be justification for enhancing the | As a result, there appears to be justification for enhancing the | |||
| scalability of network advertisements. | scalability of network advertisements. | |||
| o Work is already underway in IEEE 802.1 to provide enhanced | o Work is already underway in IEEE 802.1 and the 802.11 WIEN Study | |||
| discovery functionality. For example, IEEE 802.1ab enables | Group to provide enhanced discovery functionality. For example, | |||
| network devices to announce themselves and provide information on | IEEE 802.1ab enables network devices to announce themselves and | |||
| their capabilities. Similarly, the IEEE 802.1af has discussed the | provide information on their capabilities. Similarly, the IEEE | |||
| idea of supporting network discovery within a future revision to | 802.1af has discussed the idea of supporting network discovery | |||
| IEEE 802.1X. However, neither IEEE 801.ab nor IEEE 802.1af is | within a future revision to IEEE 802.1X. However, neither IEEE | |||
| likely to address the transport of large quantities of data where | 801.ab nor IEEE 802.1af is likely to address the transport of | |||
| fragmentation would be a problem. | large quantities of data where fragmentation would be a problem. | |||
| Another typical limitation of link layer assistance in this area | ||||
| is that in general, it would be desirable to retrive also | ||||
| information relating to the potential next access networks or | ||||
| access points. However, such networks may be of another type than | ||||
| the current one, so the link layer would have to carry information | ||||
| relating to other types of link layers as well. This is possible, | ||||
| but requires coordination among different groups in the industry. | ||||
| o Given that EAP does not support fragmentation of EAP-Request/ | o Given that EAP does not support fragmentation of EAP-Request/ | |||
| Identity packets, and that use of EAP for network selection on all | Identity packets, and that use of EAP for network selection on all | |||
| attachments will have a very substantial adverse impact on roaming | attachments will have a substantial adverse impact on roaming | |||
| performance without appropriate lower layer support (such as | performance without appropriate lower layer support (such as | |||
| support for Class 1 data frames within IEEE 802.11), the use of | support for Class 1 data frames within IEEE 802.11), the use of | |||
| EAP is at best limited. Long-term, it makes more sense for the | EAP is limited. For instance, the use of EAP to carry quality of | |||
| desired functionality to be handled either within IEEE 802 or at | service as proposed in [16] seems hard given the limitations. | |||
| the IP layer. | Long-term, it makes more sense for the desired functionality to be | |||
| handled either within IEEE 802 or at the IP layer. However, a | ||||
| strictly limited discovery mechanism such as the one defined in | ||||
| [12] is useful. | ||||
| o In the IETF, a potential alternative is use of the SEAMOBY CARD | o In the IETF, a potential alternative is use of the SEAMOBY CARD | |||
| protocol [13], which enables advertisement of network device | protocol [17], which enables advertisement of network device | |||
| capabilities over IP. Another alternative is the recently | capabilities over IP. Another alternative is the recently proposed | |||
| proposed Device Discovery Protocol (DDP) [12], which provides | Device Discovery Protocol (DDP) [22], which provides functionality | |||
| functionality equivalent to IEEE 802.1ab using ASN.1 encoded | equivalent to IEEE 802.1ab using ASN.1 encoded advertisements sent | |||
| advertisements sent to a link-local scope multicast address. | to a link-local scope multicast address. | |||
| A limitation of these IP layer solutions is that they can only | A limitation of these IP layer solutions is that they can only | |||
| work as a means to speed up the attachment procedures when moving | work as a means to speed up the attachment procedures when moving | |||
| from one location to another; when a node starts up, it needs to | from one location to another; when a node starts up, it needs to | |||
| be able to attach to a network before IP communications are | be able to attach to a network before IP communications are | |||
| available. This is fine for optimizations, but precludes the use | available. This is fine for optimizations, but precludes the use | |||
| in a case where the discovery information is mandatory before | in a case where the discovery information is mandatory before | |||
| successful attachment can be accomplished, for instance when the | successful attachment can be accomplished, for instance when the | |||
| access network is unable to route the AAA request unaided. | access network is unable to route the AAA request unaided. | |||
| o "Phone-book" based approaches such as RFC 3017 appear attractive | o "Phone-book" based approaches such as RFC 3017 appear attractive | |||
| due to their ability to provide sufficient information for | due to their ability to provide sufficient information for | |||
| automatic selection decisions. However, there is no experience on | automatic selection decisions. However, there is no experience on | |||
| applying such approaches to wireless access. The number of WLAN | applying such approaches to wireless access. The number of WLAN | |||
| access points is significantly higher than the number of dial-in | access points is significantly higher than the number of dial-in | |||
| POPs; the distributed nature of the access network has created a | POPs; the distributed nature of the access network has created a | |||
| more complicated business and roaming structure, and the expected | more complicated business and roaming structure, and the expected | |||
| rate of change in the information is high. | rate of change in the information is high. As noted in [40] and | |||
| [16], a large fraction of current WLAN access points operate on | ||||
| the default SSID, which may make the use of the phone book | ||||
| approach hard. | ||||
| Finally, to address some of the security concerns that have come up | Finally, to address some of the security concerns that have come up | |||
| during this work, the IETF should in any case initiate work that | during this work, the IETF should in any case initiate work that | |||
| enables support for channel bindings in methods. Preferably, popular | enables support for channel bindings in methods. Preferably, popular | |||
| methods should be updated, ensuring compatibility with existing | methods should be updated, ensuring compatibility with existing | |||
| deployments. The representation of link layer parameters within EAP | deployments. The representation of link layer parameters within EAP | |||
| should utilize a common framework, to make it easier to define new | should utilize a common framework, to make it easier to define new | |||
| link layers and keep the selection of EAP methods independent of the | link layers and keep the selection of EAP methods independent of the | |||
| link layer. | link layer. A number of proposals exist in this space, but none of | |||
| them have yet been adopted by the EAP WG as work items. | ||||
| 6. Security Considerations | 6. Security Considerations | |||
| All aspects of the network discovery and selection problem are | All aspects of the network discovery and selection problem are | |||
| security related. The security issues and requirements have been | security related. The security issues and requirements have been | |||
| discussed in the previous sections. | discussed in the previous sections. | |||
| The security requirements for network discovery depend on the type of | The security requirements for network discovery depend on the type of | |||
| information being discovered. Some of the parameters may have a | information being discovered. Some of the parameters may have a | |||
| security impact, such as the claimed name of the network the user | security impact, such as the claimed name of the network the user | |||
| tries to attach to. Unfortunately, current EAP methods do not always | tries to attach to. Unfortunately, current EAP methods do not always | |||
| make the verification of such parameters possible. | make the verification of such parameters possible. New EAP methods | |||
| are doing it [21, 23], however, and there is even an attempt to | ||||
| provide a backwards compatible extensions to older methods [15]. | ||||
| The security requirements for network selection depend on whether the | The security requirements for network selection depend on whether the | |||
| selection is considered as a command or a hint. For instance, the | selection is considered as a command or a hint. For instance, the | |||
| selection that the user provided may be ignored if it relates to AAA | selection that the user provided may be ignored if it relates to AAA | |||
| routing and the access network can route the AAA traffic to the | routing and the access network can route the AAA traffic to the | |||
| correct home network using other means in any case. | correct home network using other means in any case. | |||
| Normative References | Normative References | |||
| [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and | [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and | |||
| skipping to change at page 23, line 6 | skipping to change at page 24, line 6 | |||
| [10] Blunk, L., "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", | [10] Blunk, L., "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", | |||
| draft-ietf-eap-rfc2284bis-07 (work in progress), December 2003. | draft-ietf-eap-rfc2284bis-07 (work in progress), December 2003. | |||
| [11] Housley, R. and T. Moore, "Certificate Extensions and | [11] Housley, R. and T. Moore, "Certificate Extensions and | |||
| Attributes Supporting Authentication in PPP and Wireless LAN", | Attributes Supporting Authentication in PPP and Wireless LAN", | |||
| draft-ietf-pkix-wlan-extns-04 (work in progress), December | draft-ietf-pkix-wlan-extns-04 (work in progress), December | |||
| 2002. | 2002. | |||
| Informative References | Informative References | |||
| [12] Enns, R., Marques, P. and D. Morrell, "Device Discovery | [12] Adrangi, F., "Mediating Network Discovery in the Extensible | |||
| Protocol (DDP)", draft-marques-ddp-00 (work in progress), May | Authentication Protocol (EAP)", | |||
| 2003. | draft-adrangi-eap-network-discovery-01 (work in progress), June | |||
| 2004. | ||||
| [13] Liebsch, M., "Candidate Access Router Discovery", | [13] Adrangi, F., "Network Discovery and Selection within the EAP | |||
| Framework", | ||||
| draft-adrangi-eap-network-discovery-and-selection-00 (work in | ||||
| progress), October 2003. | ||||
| [14] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J. and P. Eronen, "The Network | ||||
| Access Identifier", draft-arkko-roamops-rfc2486bis-02 (work in | ||||
| progress), July 2004. | ||||
| [15] Arkko, J. and P. Eronen, "Authenticated Service Identities for | ||||
| the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", | ||||
| draft-arkko-eap-service-identity-auth-00 (work in progress), | ||||
| April 2004. | ||||
| [16] Tschofenig, H., "Network Selection Implementation Results", | ||||
| draft-groeting-eap-netselection-results-00 (work in progress), | ||||
| July 2004. | ||||
| [17] Liebsch, M., "Candidate Access Router Discovery", | ||||
| draft-ietf-seamoby-card-protocol-05 (work in progress), | draft-ietf-seamoby-card-protocol-05 (work in progress), | |||
| November 2003. | November 2003. | |||
| [14] Forsberg, D., "Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network | [18] Forsberg, D., "Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network | |||
| Access (PANA)", draft-ietf-pana-pana-02 (work in progress), | Access (PANA)", draft-ietf-pana-pana-02 (work in progress), | |||
| October 2003. | October 2003. | |||
| [15] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", | [19] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", | |||
| draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-07 (work in progress), April 2003. | draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-07 (work in progress), April 2003. | |||
| [16] Adrangi, F., "Network Discovery and Selection within the EAP | [20] Lior, A., "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) | |||
| Framework", | Redirection", draft-lior-radius-redirection-00 (work in | |||
| draft-adrangi-eap-network-discovery-and-selection-00 (work in | progress), February 2004. | |||
| progress), October 2003. | ||||
| [17] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Local and | [21] Josefsson, S., Palekar, A., Simon, D. and G. Zorn, "Protected | |||
| EAP Protocol (PEAP)", draft-josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap-07 | ||||
| (work in progress), October 2003. | ||||
| [22] Enns, R., Marques, P. and D. Morrell, "Device Discovery | ||||
| Protocol (DDP)", draft-marques-ddp-00 (work in progress), May | ||||
| 2003. | ||||
| [23] Tschofenig, H. and D. Kroeselberg, "EAP IKEv2 Method | ||||
| (EAP-IKEv2)", draft-tschofenig-eap-ikev2-03 (work in progress), | ||||
| February 2004. | ||||
| [24] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Local and | ||||
| Metropolitan Area Networks: Port-Based Network Access Control", | Metropolitan Area Networks: Port-Based Network Access Control", | |||
| IEEE Standard 802.1X, September 2001. | IEEE Standard 802.1X, September 2001. | |||
| [18] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Wireless | [25] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Wireless | |||
| LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) | LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) | |||
| Specifications", IEEE Standard 802.11, 1999. | Specifications", IEEE Standard 802.11, 1999. | |||
| [19] Aboba, B., "Virtual Access Points", IEEE Contribution | [26] Aboba, B., "Virtual Access Points", IEEE Contribution | |||
| 11-03-154r1, May 2003. | 11-03-154r1, May 2003. | |||
| [20] Mishra, A., "Improving the latnecy of the Probe Phase during | [27] Mishra, A., "Improving the latnecy of the Probe Phase during | |||
| 802.11 Handoff", IEEE Contribution 11-03-417r2, May 2003. | 802.11 Handoff", IEEE Contribution 11-03-417r2, May 2003. | |||
| [21] Hepworth, E., "Co-existence of Different Authentication | [28] Hepworth, E., "Co-existence of Different Authentication | |||
| Models", IEEE Contribution 11-03-0827 2003. | Models", IEEE Contribution 11-03-0827 2003. | |||
| [22] Hong, C. and T. Yew, "Interworking - WLAN Control", IEEE | [29] Hong, C. and T. Yew, "Interworking - WLAN Control", IEEE | |||
| Contribution 11-03-0843 2003. | Contribution 11-03-0843 2003. | |||
| [23] 3GPP, "3GPP System to Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) | [30] Berg, S., "Information to Support Network Selection", IEEE | |||
| Contribution 11-04-0624 2004. | ||||
| [31] Aboba, B., "Network Selection", IEEE Contribution 11-04-0638 | ||||
| 2004. | ||||
| [32] 3GPP, "3GPP System to Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) | ||||
| interworking; System Description; Release 6", 3GPP Draft | interworking; System Description; Release 6", 3GPP Draft | |||
| Technical Specification 23.234 v 2.2.0, December 2003. | Technical Specification 23.234 v 2.2.0, December 2003. | |||
| [24] Ericsson, "Security of EAP and SSID based network | [33] Ericsson, "Security of EAP and SSID based network | |||
| advertisements", 3GPP Contribution S3-030736, November 2003. | advertisements", 3GPP Contribution S3-030736, November 2003. | |||
| [25] Eijk, R., Brok, J., Bemmel, J. and B. Busropan, "Access Network | [34] Eijk, R., Brok, J., Bemmel, J. and B. Busropan, "Access Network | |||
| Selection in a 4G Environment and the Role of Terminal and | Selection in a 4G Environment and the Role of Terminal and | |||
| Service Platform", 10th WWRF, New York, October 2003. | Service Platform", 10th WWRF, New York, October 2003. | |||
| [26] Ahmavaara, K., Haverinen, H. and R. Pichna, "Interworking | [35] Ahmavaara, K., Haverinen, H. and R. Pichna, "Interworking | |||
| Architecture between WLAN and 3G Systems", IEEE Communications | Architecture between WLAN and 3G Systems", IEEE Communications | |||
| Magazine, November 2003. | Magazine, November 2003. | |||
| [27] Intel, "Wireless LAN (WLAN) End to End Guidelines for | [36] Intel, "Wireless LAN (WLAN) End to End Guidelines for | |||
| Enterprises and Public Hotspot Service Providers", November | Enterprises and Public Hotspot Service Providers", November | |||
| 2003. | 2003. | |||
| [28] Velayos, H. and G. Karlsson, "Techniques to Reduce IEEE 802.11b | [37] Velayos, H. and G. Karlsson, "Techniques to Reduce IEEE 802.11b | |||
| MAC Layer Handover Time", Laboratory for Communication | MAC Layer Handover Time", Laboratory for Communication | |||
| Networks, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, | Networks, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, | |||
| Sweden, TRITA-IMIT-LCN R 03:02, April 2003. | Sweden, TRITA-IMIT-LCN R 03:02, April 2003. | |||
| [29] Judd, G. and P. Steenkiste, "Fixing 802.11 Access Point | [38] Judd, G. and P. Steenkiste, "Fixing 802.11 Access Point | |||
| Selection", Sigcomm Poster Session 2002. | Selection", Sigcomm Poster Session 2002. | |||
| [30] Eronen, P., "Network Selection Issues", presentation to EAP WG | [39] Eronen, P., "Network Selection Issues", presentation to EAP WG | |||
| at IETF 58, November 2003. | at IETF 58, November 2003. | |||
| [31] Heusse, M., "Performance Anomaly of 802.11b", LSR-IMAG | [40] Priest, J., "The State of Wireless London", July 2004. | |||
| [41] Heusse, M., "Performance Anomaly of 802.11b", LSR-IMAG | ||||
| Laboratory, Grenoble, France, IEEE Infocom 2003. | Laboratory, Grenoble, France, IEEE Infocom 2003. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Jari Arkko | Jari Arkko | |||
| Ericsson | Ericsson | |||
| Jorvas 02420 | Jorvas 02420 | |||
| Finland | Finland | |||
| skipping to change at page 25, line 6 | skipping to change at page 27, line 6 | |||
| Bernard Aboba | Bernard Aboba | |||
| Microsoft | Microsoft | |||
| One Microsoft Way | One Microsoft Way | |||
| Redmond, WA 98052 | Redmond, WA 98052 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| EMail: aboba@internaut.com | EMail: aboba@internaut.com | |||
| Appendix A. Contributors | Appendix A. Contributors | |||
| This draft is based on the discussion held on the EAP WG mailing list | Version 00 of this draft was based on the discussion held on the EAP | |||
| in December 2003, and on a number of input documents such as [16]. | WG mailing list in December 2003, and on a number of input documents | |||
| The editors of this document would like to especially acknowledge the | such as [13]. The editors of this document would like to especially | |||
| contributions of Farid Adrangi, Farooq Bari, Michael Richardson, Pasi | acknowledge the contributions of Farid Adrangi, Farooq Bari, Michael | |||
| Eronen, Mark Watson, Mark Grayson, Johan Rune, and Tomas | Richardson, Pasi Eronen, Mark Watson, Mark Grayson, Johan Rune, and | |||
| Goldbeck-Lowe. | Tomas Goldbeck-Lowe. | |||
| Input for version 01 has been gathered from many sources, including | ||||
| the above persons as well as 3GPP and IEEE developments. We would | ||||
| also like to thank Alper Yegin, Victor Lortz, Stephen Hayes, and | ||||
| David Johnston for comments. | ||||
| Appendix B. Modifications from Version 00 | ||||
| The following modifications have been incorporated to the -01 version | ||||
| of this draft: | ||||
| o Added a discussion of new IETF protocol documents relating to this | ||||
| problem, such as [12], [14], [20], and [15]. | ||||
| o Added references to a number of new documents that discuss the | ||||
| network selection problem. | ||||
| o Added pointers to new IEEE work in this area. | ||||
| o Added a discussion of what type of information may need to be | ||||
| discovered and when (Section 2.6). | ||||
| o Added a discussion relating to the use of phone books in an | ||||
| environment where network identifiers are not being regularly set. | ||||
| o Added a discussion of network-based control in Section 2.5. | ||||
| o Updated the conclusions. | ||||
| Intellectual Property Statement | Intellectual Property Statement | |||
| The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | |||
| intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to | Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to | |||
| pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in | pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in | |||
| this document or the extent to which any license under such rights | this document or the extent to which any license under such rights | |||
| might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it | might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has | |||
| has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the | made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information | |||
| IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and | on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can | |||
| standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of | be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of | ||||
| licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to | Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any | |||
| obtain a general license or permission for the use of such | assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an | |||
| proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can | attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of | |||
| be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. | 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 | The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any | |||
| copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary | copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary | |||
| rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice | rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement | |||
| this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive | this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at | |||
| Director. | ietf-ipr@ietf.org. | |||
| Full Copyright Statement | ||||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer of Validity | |||
| This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to | This document and the information contained herein are provided on an | |||
| others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it | "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS | |||
| or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published | OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET | |||
| and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any | ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, | |||
| kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are | INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE | |||
| included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this | INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED | |||
| document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing | WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. | |||
| 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 | Copyright Statement | |||
| revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. | ||||
| This document and the information contained herein is provided on an | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject | |||
| "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING | to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and | |||
| TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING | except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. | |||
| 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 | Acknowledgment | |||
| Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the | Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the | |||
| Internet Society. | Internet Society. | |||
| End of changes. | ||||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff v1.06, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||