summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/internet-draft-satp.txt
blob: 60ac189ada149ab4be2ef6dfed08c68fe05c3817 (plain) (blame)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
Network Working Group                                         O. Gsenger
Internet-Draft                                            April 27, 2007
Expires: October 29, 2007


                secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)
           draft-gsenger-secure-anycast-tunneling-protocol-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).















Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


Abstract

   The secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP) defines a protocol used
   for communication between any combination of unicast and anycast
   tunnel endpoints.  It allows tunneling of every ETHER TYPE protocol
   (e.g. ethernet, ip, arp ...).  SATP directly includes cryptography
   and message authentication based on the methodes used by SRTP.  It is
   intended to deliver a generic, scaleable and secure solution for
   tunneling and relaying of packets of any protocol.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Motivation and usage scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Usage scenarions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.1.1.  Tunneling from unicast hosts over anycast routers
               to other unicast hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.1.2.  Tunneling from unicast hosts to anycast networks . . .  5
       2.1.3.  Redundant tunnel connection of 2 networks  . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Using SATP on top of IP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1.  Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  ICMP messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Protocol specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Header format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  sender ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  sequence number  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.4.  payload  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.5.  padding (OPTIONAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.6.  padding count  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.7.  payload type field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.7.1.  MKI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.7.2.  authentication tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.8.  Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1.  Replay protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     7.2.  Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 17







Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


1.  Introduction

   SATP is somehow a mixture of a generic encapsulation protocol like
   GRE [4] and a secure tunneling protocol as IPsec [5] in tunnel mode.
   To save some header overhead it uses the encryption technices of SRTP
   [1].  It supports peer to peer tunnels, where tunnel endpoints can be
   any combination of unicast, multicast or anycast hosts, so it defines
   a Host Anycast Service [6]

1.1.  Notational Conventions

   The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [2].





































Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


2.  Motivation and usage scenarios

   This section gives an overview of possible usage scenarios.  Please
   note, that the protocols used in the figures are only examples and
   that SATP itself does not care about either transport protocols or
   encapsulated protocols.  Routing is not done by SATP and each
   implemetation MAY choose it's own way of doing this task (e.g. using
   functions provided by the operating system).  SATP is used only to
   encapsulate and encrypt data.

2.1.  Usage scenarions

2.1.1.  Tunneling from unicast hosts over anycast routers to other
        unicast hosts

   An example of SATP used to tunnel in a unicast client - anycast
   server model

                       --------- router -----------
                      /                            \
       unicast ------+---------- router ------------+------ unicast
       host           \                            /        host
                       --------- router -----------

     unicast  | encrypted     |  anycast  | encrypted     |  unicast
     tunnel   | communication |  tunnel   | communication |  tunnel
     endpoint | using SATP    |  endpoint | using SATP    |  endpoint

                                 Figure 1

   In this scenario the payload gets encapsuleted into a SATP packet by
   a unicast host and gets transmitted to one of the anycast routers.
   It than gets decapsulated by the router.  This router makes a routing
   descision based on the underlying protocol and transmits a new SATP
   package to one or more unicast hosts depending on the routing
   descition.















Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


2.1.2.  Tunneling from unicast hosts to anycast networks

   An example of SATP used to encrypt data between a unicast host and
   anycast networks

                          -------Router -+---- DNS Server
                         /                \
                        /                  --- 6to4 Router
                       /
       unicast -------+----------Router --+--- DNS Server
       host            \                   \
                        \                   --- 6to4 Router
                         \
                          -------Router -+---- DNS Server
                                          \
                                           --- 6to4 Router

     unicast  | encrypted     |  anycast  | plaintext
     tunnel   | communication |  tunnel   | anycast
     endpoint | using SATP    |  endpoint | services


                                 Figure 2

   When the unicast hosts wants to transmit data to one of the anycast
   DNS servers, it encapsulates the data and sends a SATP packet to the
   anycast address of the routers.  The packet arrives at one of the
   routers, gets decapsulated and routed to the DNS server.  This method
   can be used to tunnel between a clients and networks providing
   anycast services.  It can also be used the other way to virtually
   locate a unicast service within anycasted networks.

2.1.3.  Redundant tunnel connection of 2 networks

   An example of SATP used to connect 2 networks

                 Router -----------   ---------------Router
               /                   \ /                     \
       Network - Router ------------x                       Network
          A    \                   / \                     /   B
                 Router -----------   ---------------Router

               | packets       |  packets  |  packets      |
    plaintext  | get           |  take a   |  get          | plaintext
    packets    | de/encrypted  |  random   |  de/encrypted | packets
               |de/encapsulated|   path    |de/encapsulated|





Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


                                 Figure 3

   Network A has multiple routers, that act as gateway/tunnel endpoints
   to another network B. This is done to build a redundant encrypted
   tunnel connection between the two networks.  All tunnel endpoints of
   network A share the same anycast address and all tunnel endpoints of
   network B share another anycast address.  When a packet from network
   A gets transmitted to network B, it first arrives on one of network
   A's border routers.  Which router is used is determined by network
   A's internal routing.  This router encapsulates the package and sends
   it to the anycast address of the network B routers.  The SATP packet
   arrives at one of network B's routers and gets decapsulated and
   routed to it's destination within network B.

2.2.  Encapsulation

   SATP does not depend on which lower layer protocols is used, but this
   section gives an example of how packets could look like.

































Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


   Examples of SATP used with different lower layer and payload
   protocols

       +------+-----+-------------------------------+
       |      |     |      + ---------------+------ |
       | IPv6 | UDP | SATP | Ethernet 802.3 | ... | |
       |      |     |      +----------------+-----+ |
       +------+-----+-------------------------------+

   Tunneling of Ethernet over UDP/IPv6

       +------+-----+---------------------------+
       |      |     |      +------+-----+-----+ |
       | IPv4 | UDP | SATP | IPv6 | UDP | RTP | |
       |      |     |      +------+-----+-----+ |
       +------+-----+---------------------------+

   Tunneling of IPv6 over UDP/IPv4 with RTP payload

       +------+-------------------------------+
       |      |      + ---------------+------ |
       | IPv6 | SATP | Ethernet 802.3 | ... | |
       |      |      +----------------+-----+ |
       +------+-------------------------------+

   Tunneling of Ethernet over IPv6

       +------+---------------------------+
       |      |      +------+-----+-----+ |
       | IPv4 | SATP | IPv6 | UDP | RTP | |
       |      |      +------+-----+-----+ |
       +------+---------------------------+

   Tunneling of IPv6 over IPv4 with RTP payload

                                 Figure 4















Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


3.  Using SATP on top of IP

3.1.  Fragmentation

   The only way of fully supporting fragmentation would be to
   synchronise fragments between all anycast servers.  This is
   considered to be too much overhead, so there are two non perfect
   solutions for these problems.  Either fragmentation HAS TO be
   disabled or if not all fragments arrive at the same server the ip
   datagramm HAS TO be discarded.  As routing changes are not expected
   to occure very frequently, the encapsulated protocol can do a
   retransmission and all fragments will arrive at the new server.

   If the payload ip headers's Don't Fragment (DF) bit is set, than the
   DF bit of the outer ip header HAS TO be set as well.

3.2.  ICMP messages

   ICMP messages MUST be relayed according to rfc2003 section 4 [3].
   This is needed for path MTU dedection.































Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


4.  Protocol specification

4.1.  Header format

   Protocol Format

        0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         sequence number                       | |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+ |
     |           sender ID           #                               | |
   +#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+                               + |
   | |              ....        payload        ...                   | |
   | |-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ |
   | | padding (OPT) | pad count(OPT)|         payload type          | |
   +#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+-+
   | ~                          MKI (OPTIONAL)                       ~ |
   | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
   | :                 authentication tag (RECOMMENDED)              : |
   | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
   |                                                                   |
   +- Encrypted Portion                       Authenticated Portion ---+

                                 Figure 5

4.2.  sender ID

   The sender ID is a 16bit unsigned integer.  It HAS TO be unique for
   every sender sharing the same anycast address

4.3.  sequence number

   The sequence number is a 32 bit unsigned integer in network byte
   order.  It starts with a random value and is increased by 1 for every
   sent packet.  After the maximum value, it starts over from 0.  This
   overrun causes the ROC to be increased.

4.4.  payload

   A packet of the type payload type (e.g. an IP packet).

4.5.  padding (OPTIONAL)

   Padding of max 255 octets.  None of the pre-defined encryption
   transforms uses any padding; for these, the plaintext and encrypted
   payload sizes match exactly.  Transforms are based on transforms of
   the SRTP protocol and these transforms might use the RTP padding



Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


   format, so a RTP like padding is supported.  If padding field is
   present, than the padding count field MUST be set to the padding
   lenght.

4.6.  padding count

   The number of octets of the padding field.  This field is optional.
   It's presence is signaled by the key management and not by this
   protocol.  If this field isn't present, the padding field MUST NOT be
   present as well.

4.7.  payload type field

   The payload type field defines the payload protocol.  ETHER TYPE
   protocol numbers are used.  See IANA assigned ethernet numbers [7] .
   The values 0000-05DC are reserverd and MUST NOT be used.

   Some examples for protocol types

   HEX
   0000 Reserved
   .... Reserved
   05DC Reserved
   0800 Internet IP (IPv4)
   6558 transparent ethernet bridging
   86DD IPv6

                                 Figure 6

4.7.1.  MKI

   The MKI (Master Key Identifier) is OPTIONAL and of configurable
   length.  See SRTP Section 3.1 [1] for details

4.7.2.  authentication tag

   The authentication tag is RECOMMENDED and of configurable length.  It
   contains a cryptographic checksum of the sender ID, sequence number
   and the encrypted portion, but not of the MKI.  On sender side
   encryption HAS TO be done before calculating the authentication tag.
   A receiver HAS TO calculate the authentication tag before decrypting
   the encrypted portion.

4.8.  Encryption

   Encryption is done in the same way as for SRTP [1].  This section
   will only discuss some small changes that HAVE TO be made.  Please
   read SRTP RFC3711 section 3-9 [1] for details.



Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


   The least significant bits of SSRC are replaced by the sender ID and
   the rest is filled with zeros.  For the SRTP SEQ the 16 least
   significant bits of the SATP sequence number are used and the 16 most
   significant bits of the sequence number replace the 16 least
   significant bits of the SRTP ROC.

   Difference between SRTP and SATP

          0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     SATP    sequence number                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                      =
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | SRTP ROC least significant   |         SRTP SEQ               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


          0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|       SATP sender ID          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                      =
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                           SRTP SSRC                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                 Figure 7





















Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


5.  Security Considerations

   As SATP uses the same encrytion technics as SRTP [1], it shares the
   same security issues.  This section will only discuss some small
   changes.  Please read SRTP RFC3711 section 9 [1] for details.

5.1.  Replay protection

   Replay protection is done by a replay list.  Every anycast receiver
   has it's own replay list, which SOULDN'T be syncronised, because of
   massive overhead.  This leads to an additional possible attack.  A
   attacker is able to replay a captured packet once to every anycast
   reciever.  This attack is considered of be very unlikely, because
   multiple attack hosts in different loactions are needed to reach the
   seperate anycast receivers and the number of replays is limited to
   the count of receivers - 1.  Such replays might also happen because
   of routing problems, so a payload protocol HAS TO be robust against a
   small number of duplicated packages.  The window size and position
   HAS TO be syncronised between multible anycast receivers to limit
   this attack.































Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


6.  IANA Considerations

   To use the protocol on top of UDP and IP protocol numberes have to be
   assiged by IANA.















































Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
        Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
        RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [2]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [3]  Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
        October 1996.

7.2.  Informational References

   [4]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. Traina,
        "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000.

   [5]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
        Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.

   [6]  Partridge, C., Mendez, T., and W. Milliken, "Host Anycasting
        Service", RFC 1546, November 1993.



























Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


URIs

   [7]  <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ethernet-numbers>
















































Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


Author's Address

   Othmar Gsenger
   Puerstingerstr 32
   Saalfelden  5760
   AT

   Phone:
   Email: satp@gsenger.com
   URI:   http://www.gsenger.com/satp/









































Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft  secure anycast tunneling protocol (SATP)      April 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Gsenger                 Expires October 29, 2007               [Page 17]