| Rfc | 8371 |
|---|
| Title | Mobile Node Identifier Types for MIPv6 |
|---|
| Author | C. Perkins, V. Devarapalli |
|---|
| Date | July 2018 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|---|
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Perkins
Request for Comments: 8371 Futurewei
Category: Standards Track V. Devarapalli
ISSN: 2070-1721 Vasona Networks
July 2018
Mobile Node Identifier Types for MIPv6
Abstract
This document defines additional identifier type numbers for use with
the mobile node identifier option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) as defined
by RFC 4283.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8371.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction
The "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)" [RFC4283]
has proved to be a popular design tool for providing identifiers for
mobile nodes during authentication procedures with Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) protocols such as Diameter
[RFC6733]. To date, only a single type of identifier has been
specified, namely the Mobile Node (MN) NAI. Other types of
identifiers are in common use and are even referenced in RFC 4283.
In this document, we propose adding some basic identifier types that
are defined in various telecommunications standards, including types
for International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) [ThreeGPP-IDS],
Packet - Temporary Mobile Subscriber Identity (P-TMSI)
[ThreeGPP-IDS], International Mobile station Equipment Identities
(IMEI) [ThreeGPP-IDS], and Globally Unique Temporary UE Identity
(GUTI) [ThreeGPP-IDS]. In addition, we specify the IPv6 address
itself and IEEE MAC-layer addresses as Mobile Node identifiers.
Defining identifiers that are tied to the physical elements of the
device (e.g., the MAC address) help in deployment of Mobile IP
because, in many cases, such identifiers are the most natural means
for uniquely identifying the device and will avoid additional lookup
steps that might be needed if other identifiers were used.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. New Mobile Node Identifier Types
The following types of identifiers are commonly used to identify
mobile nodes. For each type, references are provided with full
details on the format of the type of identifier.
+--------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+
| Identifier | Description | Reference |
| Type | | |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+
| IPv6 Address | | [RFC4291] |
| | | |
| IMSI | International Mobile Subscriber | [ThreeGPP-IDS] |
| | Identity | |
| | | |
| P-TMSI | Packet - Temporary Mobile | [ThreeGPP-IDS] |
| | Subscriber Identity | |
| | | |
| GUTI | Globally Unique Temporary UE | [ThreeGPP-IDS] |
| | Identity | |
| | | |
| EUI-48 | 48-Bit Extended Unique Identifier | [IEEE802] |
| Address | | |
| | | |
| EUI-64 | 64-Bit Extended Unique Identifier | [IEEE802] |
| Address | | |
| | | |
| DUID | DHCPv6 Unique Identifier | [RFC3315] |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+
Table 1: Mobile Node Identifier Description
4. Descriptions of MN Identifier Types
This section provides descriptions for the various MN identifier
types.
4.1. Description of the IPv6 Address Type
The IPv6 address [RFC4291] is encoded as a 16-octet string containing
a full IPv6 address that has been assigned to the mobile node. The
IPv6 address MUST be a unicast routable IPv6 address. Multicast
addresses, link-local addresses, and the unspecified IPv6 address
MUST NOT be used. IPv6 Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) MAY be used as
long as any security operations making use of the ULA also take into
account the domain in which the ULA is guaranteed to be unique.
4.2. Description of the IMSI MN Identifier Type
The International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) [ThreeGPP-IDS] is
at most 15 decimal digits (i.e., digits from 0 through 9). The IMSI
MUST be encoded as a string of octets in network order (i.e., high to
low for all digits), where each digit occupies 4 bits. If needed for
full octet size, the last digit MUST be padded with 0xf. For
instance, an example IMSI 123456123456789 would be encoded as
follows:
0x12, 0x34, 0x56, 0x12, 0x34, 0x56, 0x78, 0x9f
4.3. Description of the EUI-48 Address Type
The IEEE EUI-48 address [IEEE802-GUIDELINES] is encoded as 6 octets
containing the IEEE EUI-48 address.
4.4. Description of the EUI-64 Address Type
The IEEE EUI-64 address [IEEE802-GUIDELINES] is encoded as 8 octets
containing the full IEEE EUI-64 address.
4.5. Description of the DUID Type
The DUID is the DHCPv6 Unique Identifier [RFC3315]. There are
various types of DUIDs, which are distinguished by an initial two-
octet type field. Clients and servers MUST treat DUIDs as opaque
values and MUST only compare DUIDs for equality.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any security mechanisms and does not
have any impact on existing security mechanisms.
Mobile node identifiers such as those described in this document are
considered to be private information. If used in the MN identifier
extension as defined in [RFC4283], the packet including the MN
identifier extension MUST be encrypted so that no personal
information or trackable identifiers are inadvertently disclosed to
passive observers. Operators can potentially apply IPsec
Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] in transport mode with
confidentiality and integrity protection for protecting the identity
and location information in MIPv6 signaling messages.
Some MN identifiers contain sensitive identifiers that, as used in
protocols specified by other Standards Development Organizations
(SDOs), are only used for signaling during initial network entry. In
such protocols, subsequent exchanges then rely on a temporary
identifier allocated during the initial network entry. Managing the
association between long-lived and temporary identifiers is outside
the scope of this document.
6. IANA Considerations
The new mobile node identifier types defined in this document have
been assigned values from the "Mobile Node Identifier Option
Subtypes" registry. The following values have been registered.
+-----------------+------------------------+
| Identifier Type | Identifier Type Number |
+-----------------+------------------------+
| IPv6 Address | 2 |
| IMSI | 3 |
| P-TMSI | 4 |
| EUI-48 address | 5 |
| EUI-64 address | 6 |
| GUTI | 7 |
| DUID | 8 |
| Reserved | 9-15 |
| Unassigned | 16-255 |
+-----------------+------------------------+
Table 2: New Mobile Node Identifier Types
See Section 4 for additional information about the identifier types.
The registration procedure is Standards Action [RFC8126]. The expert
must ascertain that the identifier type allows unique identification
of the mobile device; since all MN identifiers require encryption,
there is no additional privacy exposure attendant to the use of new
types.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC4283] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K.
Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6
(MIPv6)", RFC 4283, DOI 10.17487/RFC4283, November 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4283>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[EANUCCGS]
EAN International and the Uniform Code Council, "General
EAN.UCC Specifications", Version 5.0, January 2004.
[EPC-Tag-Data]
EPCglobal, Inc., "EPC Generation 1 Tag Data Standards
Version 1.1 Rev.1.27", May 2005,
<https://www.gs1.org/sites/default/files/docs/epc/
tds_1_1_rev_1_27-standard-20050510.pdf>.
[IEEE802] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE 802.
[IEEE802-GUIDELINES]
IEEE, "Guidelines for Use of Extended Unique Identifier
(EUI), Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), and
Company ID (CID)", August 2018,
<http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/tut/eui.pdf>.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
[RFID-DoD-spec]
Department of Defense, "United States Department of
Defense Suppliers' Passive RFID Information Guide",
Version 15.0, January 2010.
[RFID-framework]
Botero, O., "Heterogeneous RFID framework design, analysis
and evaluation", Institut National des Telecommunications,
July 2012.
[ThreeGPP-IDS]
3GPP, "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Numbering,
addressing and identification (Release 15)", 3GPP
TS 23.003, V15.3.0, March 2018.
[TRACK-IoT]
Chaouchi, H., "Heterogeneous IoT Network: TRACK-IoT
Plateform", Telecom SudParis, Internal Report, March 2012.
[Using-RFID-IPv6]
IPv6.com, "Using RFID & IPv6", September 2006.
Appendix A. RFID Types
The material in this non-normative appendix was originally composed
for inclusion in the main body of the specification but was moved
into an appendix because there was insufficient support for
allocating Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) types at the time.
It was observed that RFID-based mobile devices may create privacy
exposures unless confidentiality is assured for signaling. A
specification for eliminating unauthorized RFID tracking based on
Layer 2 addresses would be helpful.
Much of the following text is due to contributions from Hakima
Chaouchi. For an overview and some initial suggestions about using
RFID with IPv6 on mobile devices, see [Using-RFID-IPv6].
In the context of Internet of Things (IoT) and Industry 4.0, vertical
domain, efficient inventory, and tracking items are of major
interest, and RFID technology is the identification technology in the
hardware design of many such items.
The "TRACK-IoT" project [TRACK-IoT] [RFID-framework] explored Mobile
IPv6 as a mobility management protocol for RFID-based mobile devices.
1. Passive RFID tags (that have no processing resources) need to be
handled by the gateway (likely also the RFID reader), which is
then the endpoint of the mobility protocol. It is also the point
where the Change of Address (CoA) will be created based on some
combination such as the RFID tag and the prefix of that gateway.
The point here is to offer the possibility to passive RFID items
to get an IPv6 address and take advantage of the mobility
framework to follow the mobile device (passive tag on the item).
One example scenario that has been proposed, which shows the need
for mobility management of passive RFID items, would be pieces of
art tagged with passive tags that need to be monitored while
transported.
2. Using active RFID tags (where the processing resource is
available on the tag), the endpoint of the mobility protocol can
be hosted directly on the RFID active tag, which is also called
an identification sensor. A use case for active RFID tags
includes traceability of cold food during mobility (transport).
Also, mobility of cars equipped with active RFID tags that we
already use for toll payment can be added with mobility
management.
One major effort to connect IETF efforts to EPCglobal (RFID
standardization) led to the Object Name Service (ONS), which is the
DNS version applied for RFID logical names and page information
retrieval. Attempts have been made to connect IPv6 on the address
space to RFID identifier format. Other initiatives started working
on gateways to map tag identifiers with IPv6 addresses and build
signaling protocols for the application level. For instance,
tracking of mobile items equipped with a tag can be triggered
remotely by a remote correspondent node until a visiting area where a
mobile item equipped with an RFID tag is located. An RFID reader
will be added with an IPv6-to-RFID tag translation. One option is to
build a home IPv6 address of that tagged item by using the prefix of
the home agent combined with the tag RFID identifier of the mobile
item; as the tag ID is unique, the home IPv6 address of that item
will be also unique. Then, the visiting RFID reader will compose the
IPv6 care of address of the tagged mobile item by combining the
prefix of the RFID reader with the tag ID of the item. MIPv6 can
then normally provide the mobility management of that RFID-tagged
item. A different, useful example of tagged items involves items of
a factory that can be tracked while they are transported, especially
for real-time localization and tracking of precious items transported
without GPS. An automotive car manufacturer can assign IPv6
addresses corresponding to RFID-tagged cars or mechanical car parts
and build a tracking data set of the mobility not only of the cars,
but also of the mechanical pieces.
The Tag Data Standard promoted by Electronic Product Code (EPC)
[EPC-Tag-Data] supports several encoding systems or schemes, which
are commonly used in RFID applications, including the following:
o RFID-GID (Global Identifier),
o RFID-SGTIN (Serialized Global Trade Item Number),
o RFID-SSCC (Serial Shipping Container Code),
o RFID-SGLN (Serialized Global Location Number),
o RFID-GRAI (Global Returnable Asset Identifier),
o RFID-DOD (Department of Defense ID), and
o RFID-GIAI (Global Individual Asset Identifier).
For each RFID scheme except GID, there are three representations:
o a 64-bit binary representation (for example, SGLN-64), excluding
GID,
o a 96-bit binary representation (SGLN-96), and
o a representation as a URI.
The URI representation for the RFID is actually a URN. The EPC
document has the following language:
All categories of URIs are represented as Uniform Reference Names
(URNs) as defined by [RFC2141], where the URN Namespace is epc.
The following list includes the above RFID types.
+----------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
| Identifier | Description | Reference |
| Type | | |
+----------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
| RFID-SGTIN-64 | 64-bit Serialized Global Trade | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Item Number | |
| RFID-SSCC-64 | 64-bit Serial Shipping | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Container Code | |
| RFID-SGLN-64 | 64-bit Serialized Global | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Location Number | |
| RFID-GRAI-64 | 64-bit Global Returnable Asset | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Identifier | |
| RFID-DOD-64 | 64-bit Department of Defense | [RFID-DoD-spec] |
| | ID | |
| RFID-GIAI-64 | 64-bit Global Individual Asset | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Identifier | |
| RFID-GID-96 | 96-bit Global Identifier | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| RFID-SGTIN-96 | 96-bit Serialized Global Trade | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Item Number | |
| RFID-SSCC-96 | 96-bit Serial Shipping | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Container | |
| RFID-SGLN-96 | 96-bit Serialized Global | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Location Number | |
| RFID-GRAI-96 | 96-bit Global Returnable Asset | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Identifier | |
| RFID-DOD-96 | 96-bit Department of Defense | [RFID-DoD-spec] |
| | ID | |
| RFID-GIAI-96 | 96-bit Global Individual Asset | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Identifier | |
| RFID-GID-URI | Global Identifier represented | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | as a URI | |
| RFID-SGTIN-URI | Serialized Global Trade Item | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Number represented as a URI | |
| RFID-SSCC-URI | Serial Shipping Container Code | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | represented as a URI | |
| RFID-SGLN-URI | Global Location Number | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | represented as a URI | |
| RFID-GRAI-URI | Global Returnable Asset | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Identifier represented as a | |
| | URI | |
| RFID-DOD-URI | Department of Defense ID | [RFID-DoD-spec] |
| | represented as a URI | |
| RFID-GIAI-URI | Global Individual Asset | [EPC-Tag-Data] |
| | Identifier represented as a | |
| | URI | |
+----------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
Table 3: Mobile Node RFID Identifier Description
A.1. Description of the RFID Types
The material in this appendix has been either quoted or loosely
adapted from [EPC-Tag-Data].
The General Identifier (GID) that is used with RFID is composed of
three fields: General Manager Number, Object Class, and Serial
Number. The General Manager Number identifies an organizational
entity that is responsible for maintaining the numbers in subsequent
fields. GID encodings include a fourth field, the header, to
guarantee uniqueness in the namespace defined by EPC.
Some of the RFID types depend on the Global Trade Item Number (GTIN)
code defined in the EAN.UCC General Specifications [EANUCCGS]. A
GTIN identifies a particular class of object, such as a particular
kind of product or SKU.
The EPC encoding scheme for SGTIN permits the direct embedding of
EAN.UCC System standard GTIN and Serial Number codes on EPC tags. In
all cases, the check digit is not encoded. Two encoding schemes are
specified, SGTIN-64 (64 bits) and SGTIN-96 (96 bits).
The Serial Shipping Container Code (SSCC) is defined by the EAN.UCC
Specifications. Unlike the GTIN, the SSCC is already intended for
assignment to individual objects and therefore does not require
additional fields to serve as an EPC pure identity. Two encoding
schemes are specified, SSCC-64 (64 bits) and SSCC-96 (96 bits).
The Global Location Number (GLN) is defined by the EAN.UCC
Specifications. A GLN can represent either a discrete, unique
physical location such as a warehouse slot, or an aggregate physical
location such as an entire warehouse. In addition, a GLN can
represent a logical entity that performs a business function such as
placing an order. The Serialized Global Location Number (SGLN)
includes the Company Prefix, Location Reference, and Serial Number.
The Global Returnable Asset Identifier (GRAI) is defined by the
General EAN.UCC Specifications. Unlike the GTIN, the GRAI is already
intended for assignment to individual objects and therefore does not
require any additional fields to serve as an EPC pure identity. The
GRAI includes the Company Prefix, Asset Type, and Serial Number.
The Global Individual Asset Identifier (GIAI) is defined by the
General EAN.UCC Specifications. Unlike the GTIN, the GIAI is already
intended for assignment to individual objects and therefore does not
require any additional fields to serve as an EPC pure identity. The
GRAI includes the Company Prefix and Individual Asset Reference.
The DoD Construct identifier is defined by the United States
Department of Defense (DoD). This tag data construct may be used to
encode tags for shipping goods to the DoD by a supplier who has
already been assigned a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code.
A.1.1. Description of the RFID-SGTIN-64 Type
The RFID-SGTIN-64 is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data]. The
SGTIN-64 includes five fields: Header, Filter Value (additional data
that is used for fast filtering and preselection), Company Prefix
Index, Item Reference, and Serial Number. Only a limited number of
Company Prefixes can be represented in the 64-bit tag.
A.1.2. Description of the RFID-SGTIN-96 Type
The RFID-SGTIN-96 is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data]. The
SGTIN-96 includes six fields: Header, Filter Value, Partition (an
indication of where the subsequent Company Prefix and Item Reference
numbers are divided), Company Prefix Index, Item Reference, and
Serial Number.
A.1.3. Description of the RFID-SSCC-64 Type
The RFID-SSCC-64 is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data]. The
SSCC-64 includes four fields: Header, Filter Value, Company Prefix
Index, and Serial Reference. Only a limited number of Company
Prefixes can be represented in the 64-bit tag.
A.1.4. Description of the RFID-SSCC-96 Type
The RFID-SSCC-96 is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data]. The
SSCC-96 includes six fields: Header, Filter Value, Partition, Company
Prefix, and Serial Reference, as well as 24 bits that remain
unallocated and must be zero.
A.1.5. Description of the RFID-SGLN-64 Type
The RFID-SGLN-64 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data]. The
SGLN-64 includes five fields: Header, Filter Value, Company Prefix
Index, Location Reference, and Serial Number.
A.1.6. Description of the RFID-SGLN-96 Type
The RFID-SGLN-96 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data]. The
SGLN-96 includes six fields: Header, Filter Value, Partition, Company
Prefix, Location Reference, and Serial Number.
A.1.7. Description of the RFID-GRAI-64 Type
The RFID-GRAI-64 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data]. The
GRAI-64 includes five fields: Header, Filter Value, Company Prefix
Index, Asset Type, and Serial Number.
A.1.8. Description of the RFID-GRAI-96 Type
The RFID-GRAI-96 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data]. The
GRAI-96 includes six fields: Header, Filter Value, Partition, Company
Prefix, Asset Type, and Serial Number.
A.1.9. Description of the RFID-GIAI-64 Type
The RFID-GIAI-64 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data]. The
GIAI-64 includes four fields: Header, Filter Value, Company Prefix
Index, and Individual Asset Reference.
A.1.10. Description of the RFID-GIAI-96 Type
The RFID-GIAI-96 type is encoded as specified in [EPC-Tag-Data]. The
GIAI-96 includes five fields: Header, Filter Value, Partition,
Company Prefix, and Individual Asset Reference.
A.1.11. Description of the RFID-DoD-64 Type
The RFID-DoD-64 type is encoded as specified in [RFID-DoD-spec]. The
DoD-64 type includes four fields: Header, Filter Value, Government
Managed Identifier, and Serial Number.
A.1.12. Description of the RFID-DoD-96 Type
The RFID-DoD-96 type is encoded as specified in [RFID-DoD-spec]. The
DoD-96 type includes four fields: Header, Filter Value, Government
Managed Identifier, and Serial Number.
A.1.13. Description of the RFID URI Types
In some cases, it is desirable to encode in URI form a specific
encoding of an RFID tag. For example, an application may prefer a
URI representation for report preparation. Applications that wish to
manipulate any additional data fields on tags may need some
representation other than the pure identity forms.
For this purpose, the fields as represented in previous sections are
associated with specified fields in the various URI types. For
instance, the URI may have fields such as CompanyPrefix,
ItemReference, or SerialNumber. For details and encoding specifics,
consult [EPC-Tag-Data].
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Hakima Chaouchi, Tatuya Jinmei, Jouni
Korhonen, Sri Gundavelli, Suresh Krishnan, Dapeng Liu, Dale Worley,
Joseph Salowey, Linda Dunbar, and Mirja Kuehlewind for their helpful
comments. The authors also wish to acknowledge the RFC Editor for a
number of valuable suggestions and updates during the final stages of
producing this document.
Authors' Addresses
Charles E. Perkins
Futurewei Inc.
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
United States of America
Phone: +1-408-330-4586
Email: charliep@computer.org
Vijay Devarapalli
Vasona Networks
2900 Lakeside Drive, Suite 180
Santa Clara, CA 95054
United States of America
Email: dvijay@gmail.com