hi all,
I am enclosing my first attempt on the new draft for Known Request-Routing ...
Please provide your input to me ASAP.
I also need input on the format and the way I have arranged the names.
PS: When is the deadline for IETF drafts.
PS: I also need a list of people for the acknowledment section.
regards
abbie
Network Working Group A. Barbir
Internet-Draft Nortel Networks
Expires: August 9, 2001 B. Cain
Cereva Networks
F. Douglis
AT&T Labs
M. Green
Entera
M. Hofmann
Lucent
R. Nair
D. Potter
Cisco
O. Spatscheck
AT&T Labs
February 9, 2001
Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms
draft-barbir-cdnp-known-request-routing-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 August 9, 2001.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
Abstract
The work presents a summary of Request-Routing techniques that are used to
direct client requests to surrogates based on various policies and possible set
of metrics. In this memo the term Request-Routing represent techniques that are
commonly called content routing or content redirection. In principle, Request-
Routing techniques can be classified under: DNS request-routing, transport-layer
Request-Routing, and application-layer Request-Routing.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
1. Introduction
Request-Routing techniques are generally used to direct client requests
for objects to a surrogateor a set of surrogates that could best serve that
content. Request-Routing mechanisms could be used to direct client requests
to surrogates that are within a Content Deliver Network (CDN) or to
surrogates that are in a cooperating or peered CDN.
Request-Routing techniques can be thought off as agents that are positioned
in the communications path between a Content Source and the CLIENT, and are
responsible for determining which requests should be redirected to a given
surrogate that could serve that content. An example of a Request-Routing
system occurs when a Content Provider relies on a Content Delivery Networks
(CDNs) using DNS redirection to distribute some or all of its content.
In general, Request-Routing techniques can be used as a vehicle to extend
the reach and scale of Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). There exist
multiple Request-Routing mechanisms. At a high-level, these may be
classified under: DNS Request-Routing, transport-layer Request-Routing,
and application-layer Request-Routing.
In principle a request routing system uses a set of metrics in an attempts
to direct users to surrogate which can best serve the request. For example,
the choice of the surrogate could be based on network proximity, bandwidth
availability, surrogate load and availability of content.
The memo is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a summary of known
DNS based Request-Routing techniques. Section 3 discusses transport-layer
Request-Routing methods. In section 4 application-layer Request-Routing
mechanisms are explored. Section 5 provides insight on combining the
various methods that were discussed in the earlier section in order to
optimize the performance of the Request-Routing System. Section 6
provides a summary of possible metrics and measurements techniques
that could be used by the Request-Routing system to choose a
given surrogate.
2. DNS based Request-Routing Mechanisms
DNS based Request-Routing techniques are common due to the ubiquity
of DNS as a directory service. In DNS based Request-Routing
techniques, a specialized DNS server is inserted in the DNS resolution
process. The server is capable of returning either a different set
A, NS or CNAME records based on user defined policies, or metrics
or combination of both.
The overall goal is to improve the performance and scalability of the
objects represented by the domain name that is resolved.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
2.1 Single Reply
In this approach, the DNS server is authoritative for the entire DNS
domain or a sub domain. The DNS server returns the IP address of
the best surrogate in an A record to the client site DNS server. The IP
address of the surrogate could also be a virtual IP(VIP) address of
the best set of surrogates for the client site DNS server.
2.2 Multiple Replies
In this approach, the Request-Routing DNS server returns multiple
replies such as several A records for various surrogates. Thus, common
implementations of client site DNS server's cycles through the multiple
replies in a Round-Robin fashion .Therefore, the order in which the
records are returned can be used to direct multiple clients using a
single client site DNS server.
2.3 Multi-Level Resolution
In this approach multiple request-routing DNS servers can be
involved in a single DNS resolution. The rational of utilizing
multiple request-routing DNS servers in a single DNS resolution is
to allow one to distribute more complex decisions from a single
Request-Routing DNS server to multiple, more specialized,
Request-Routing DNS servers. The most common mechanisms used to
insert multiple request-routing DNS servers in a single DNS resolution
is the use of NS and CNAME records.
2.3.1 NS Redirection
A DNS server can use NS records to redirect the authority of the
next level domain to another request-routing DNS server. Thus, this
techniques allows multiple DNS server to be involved in the name
resolution process. For example, a client site DNS server resolving
a.b.c.com would eventually request a resolution of a.b.c.com from the
name server authoritative for c.com. The nameserver authoritative for
this domain might be a request-routing DNS server. In this case the
Request-Routing DNS server can either return a set of A records
or can redirect the resolution of the request a.b.c.com to the DNS
server that is authoritative for b.c.com using NS records.
One drawback in the use of NS records is that the number of
request-routing DNS servers is limited by the number of parts in the
DNS name. This problem results from the DNS policy that causes a
client site DNS server to abandon a request if no additional parts
of the DNS name are resolved in an exchange with an authoritative
DNS server.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
A second drawback is that the last DNS server can determine the TTL
of the entire resolution process. The reason is that the last DNS
server can return in the authoritative section of its response its
own NS record. The TTL for this record is solely determined by the
last DNS server. The client will use this cached NS record
site DNS server for further resolutions until it expires.
Another drawback is that some implementations of bind voluntarily
cause timeouts to simplify their implementation in cases in which a
NS-level redirect points to a name server for which no valid A
record is returned or cached. This is especially a problem if the
domain of the name server does not match the domain currently resolved,
since in this case the A records, which might be passed in the DNS
response, are discarded for security reasons.
2.3.2 CNAME Redirection
Multi-level redirection using CNAMEs works in a similar fashion to
NS records redirection. In this scenario, the Request-Routing DNS
server returns a CNAME record to direct resolution to an entirely
new domain. In principle, the new domain might employ a new set of
Request-Routing DNS servers.
One disadvantage of this approach is the additional overhead of
resolving the new domain name. The main advantage of this approach
is that the number of Request-Routing DNS servers is independent
of the depth of the domain name.
2.6 Anycast
To combine measurement and redirection, the Request-Routing DNS
server can advertise an anycast address as its IP address. The same
address, is used by multiple physical DNS servers. In this
scenario, the Request-Routing DNS server that is the closest to the
client site DNS server in terms of OSPF and BGP routing will receive
the packet containing the DNS resolution request. The server can use
this information to make a Request-routing decision. Drawbacks of
this approach are listed below:
* The request-routing DNS server may not be the closest server
in terms of routing to the client.
* Typically, routing protocols are not load sensitive. Hence,
the closest server may not be the one with the least network
latency.
* The server load is not considered during the Request-Routing process.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
2.7 Object Encoding
Since only DNS names are visible during the DNS Request-Routing,
some solutions encode the object type, object hash or similar
information into the DNS name. This might vary from a simple
division of objects based on object type (such as images.a.b.c.com
and streaming.a.b.c.com) to a sophisticate schema in which the
domain name contains a unique identifier (such as a hash) of the
object. The obvious advantage is that object information is
available during the request-routing process. The disadvantage is
that the client site DNS server has to perform multiple DNS
resolutions to retrieve a single Web page, which might increase
rather than decrease the overall latency.
2.8 DNS Request-Routing Limitations
DNS based Request-Routing techniques suffer from the following limitations:
1. DNS only allows resolution at the domain level. However, an
ideal request resolution system would service requests
per object level.
2. In DNS based Request-Routing systems servers may be required to
return DNS entries with a short time-to-live (TTL)values.
This may be needed in order to be able to react quickly in the
face of changing conditions. This in return may increase the
volume of requests to DNS servers.
3. DNS implementations sometimes do not always adhere to
DNS standards. For example, many implementations
do not honor the DNS TTL field.
4. DNS Request-Routing is based only on knowledge of the local
DNS server, as client addresses are not relayed within DNS
requests. This limits the ability of the system to determine
client's proximity to the surrogate.
5. DNS servers can request and allow recursive resolution of DNS
names. For recursive resolution of requests, the Request-Routing
DNS server will be exposed to the IP address of the client
site DNS server. In this case, the Request-Routing DNS
server will be exposed to the address of the DNS server that
is recursively requesting the information. For example,
imgs.company.com might be resolved by a CDN, but the request
for the resolution might come from dns1.company.com as a result
of the recursion.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
6. Clients that share a single client site DNS server will be
redirected to the same set of IP addresses during the TTL
interval. This might lead to overloading of the surrogate
during a flash crowd.
7. Some implementations of bind can cause DNS timeouts to occur
while handling exceptional situations. For example, timeouts
can occur for NS redirections to unknown domains.
3. Transport-Layer Request-Routing
At the transport-layer finer levels of granularity can be achieved
by the close inspection of client's requests. In this approach,
the Request-Routing system inspects the information available in the
first packet of the client request to make surrogate selection
decisions. The inspection of client's requests provides data about
the client's IP address, port information, and layer 4 protocol.
The acquired data could be used in combination of user-defined
policies and other metrics to determine the selection of a
surrogate that is better suited to serve the request. The techniques
that are used to hand off the session to a more appropriate
surrogate are beyond the scope of this document.
Typically the forward-flow traffic (client to newly selected
surrogate) will flow through the surrogate originally chosen
by DNS. The reverse-flow (surrogate to client) traffic,
which normally transfers much more data than the forward flow,
typically takes the direct path.
The overhead associated with transport-layer Request-Routing makes it
better suited for long-lived sessions such as FTP [1] or RTSP [3].
However, it also could be used to direct clients away from
overloaded surrogates.
In general, transport-layer Request-Routing can be combined with
DNS based techniques. As stated earlier, DNS based methods resolve
clients requests based on domains or sub domains with exposure to
the clients DNS server IP address. Hence, the DNS based methods could
be used as a first step in deciding on an appropriate surrogates with
more accurate refinement made by the transport-layer Request-Routing
system.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
4. Application-Layer Request-Routing
Application-layer Request-Routing systems perform deeper examination
of client's packets beyond the transport layer header. Deeper examination
of client's packets provides fine-grained Request-Routing control down
to the level of individual objects. The process could be performed in
real time at the time of the object request. Application-layer
Request-Routing systems can provide better control over the selection
of the best surrogate, due to their exposure to the client's IP address.
4.1 Header Inspection
Applications such as HTTP [4], RTSP [3], and SSL [2] provide hints
in the initial portion of the session about how the client request
must be directed. These hints may come from the URL of the content
or other parts of the MIME request header such as Cookies.
4.1.1 URL-Based Request-Routing
HTTP and RTSP content requests describe the requested content by its
URL. In many cases, this information is sufficient to disambiguate
the content and suitably direct the request. In most cases, it may be
sufficient to make Request-Routing decision just by examining the
prefix or suffix of the URL.
4.1.1.1 302 Redirection
In this approach, the client's request is first resolved to a virtual
surrogate. Consequently, the surrogate returns an application-specific
code such as the 302 (in the case of HTTP or RTSP) to redirect the
client to the actual delivery node.
This technique is relatively simple to implement. However, the
main drawback of this method is the additional latency involved in
sending the redirect message back to the client.
4.1.1.2 In-Path Element
In this technique, an In-Path element is present in the network in
the forwarding path of the client's request. The In-Path element
provides transparent interception of the transport connection.
The In-Path element examines the client's content requests and
performs Request-Routing decisions.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
The In-Path element then splices the client connection to a
connection with the appropriate delivery node and passes along the
content request. In general, the return path would go through the
In-Path element. However, it is possible to arrange for a direct return
By passing the address translation information to the surrogate
or delivery node through some proprietary means.
The primary disadvantage with this method is the performance
implications of URL-parsing in the path of the network traffic.
However, it is generally the case that the return traffic is much
larger than the forward traffic.
The technique allows for the possibility of portioning the Traffic
among a set of delivery nodes by content objects identified by URLs.
This allows object-specific control of server loading. For example,
requests for non-cacheable objects may be directed away from a cache.
4.1.2 Mime Header-Based Request-Routing
In this technique, other MIME-headers in the content request are
used in the selection of the delivery node or surrogate. to make the
content-rule selection. Example of some useful MIME-headers are:
Cookie, Language, and User-Agent.
Cookies are used to identify a customer or session by a web site.
Cookie-based Request-Routing provides content service differentiation
based on the client. In addition, it is possible to direct a connection
from a multi-session transaction to be directed to the same server to
achieve session-level persistence.
The language header can be used to direct traffic to a language-specific
delivery node. The user-agent header helps identify the type of client
device. For example, a voice-browser, PDA, or cell phone can indicate
the type of delivery node that has content specialized to handle the
content request.
4.1.3 Site-Specific Identifiers
Site-specific identifiers help authenticate and identify a session
from a specific user. This information may be used to direct a
content request.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
One example of a site-specific identifier is the SSL Session
Identifier. This identifier is generated by a web server and used by
the web client in succeeding sessions to identify itself and avoid
an entire security authentication exchange. In order to inspect the
session identifier, an In-Path element would observe the responses
of the web server and determine the session identifier which is then
used to associate the session to a specific server. The remaining
sessions are directed based on the stored session identifier.
4.2 Content Modification
This technique enables a content provider to take direct
control over Request-Routing decisions without the need for specific
switching devices or directory services in the path between the client
and the origin server. Basically, a content provider can directly
communicate to the client the best surrogate that can serve the request.
Decisions about the best surrogate can be made on a per-object basis
or it can depend on a set of metrics. The overall goal is to improve
scalability and the performance for delivering the modified content,
including all embedded objects.
In general, the method takes advantage of content objects that consist
of basic structure that includes references to additional, embedded
objects. For example, most web pages, consist of an HTML document that
contains plain text together with some embedded objects, such as GIF
or JPEG images. The embedded objects are referenced using embedded
HTML directives. In general, , embedded HTML directives direct the
client to retrieve the embedded objects from the origin server.
A content provider can now modify references to embedded objects
such that they could be fetched from the best surrogate.
This technique is also known as URLRewriting. The basic types of URL
rewriting are discussed in the following subsections.
4.2.1 A-priori URL Rewriting
In this scheme, a content provider rewrites the embedded URLs
before the content is positioned on the origin server. In this
case, URL rewriting can be done either manually or by using a software
tools that parse the content and replace embedded URLs.
A-priori URL rewriting alone does not allow consideration of client
specifics for Request-Routing. However, it can be used in combination
with DNS Request-Routing to direct related DNS queries into the
domain name space of the service provider. Dynamic Request-Routing
based on client specifics are then done using the DNS approach.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
4.2.2 On-Demand URL Rewriting
On-Demand or dynamic URL rewriting, modifies the content when the
client request reaches the origin server. At this time, the identity
of the client is known and can be considered when rewriting the
embedded URLs. In particular, an automated process can determine,
on-demand, which surrogate would serve the requesting client best.
The embedded URLs can then be rewritten to direct the client to
retrieve the objects from the best surrogate rather than from
the origin server.
4.2.3 Content Modification Limitations
Content modification as a Request-Routing mechanism suffers from
the following :
1. The first request from a client to a specific site
must be served from the origin server.
2. Content that has been modified to include references to
nearby surrogates rather than to the origin server should be
marked as non-cacheable and should not be cached.
Alternatively, such pages can be marked to be cacheable only
for a relative short period of time. Rewritten URLs on cached
pages can cause problems, because they can be outdated and
point to surrogates that are no longer available or no longer
good choices.
3. On-demand URL rewriting (including content parsing,
information retrieval, and URL rewriting) has to be done in
real-time, which poses the question of performance and
processing capabilities.
5. Combination of Multiple Mechanisms
There are environments in which a combination of different
mechanisms can be beneficial and advantageous over using one of the
proposed mechanisms alone. The following example illustrates how the
mechanisms can be used in combination.
A basic problem of DNS Request-Routing is the resolution granularity
that allows resolution on a per-domain level only. A per-object
redirection cannot easily be achieved. However, content modification
can be used together with DNS request-routing to overcome this
problem. With content modification, references to different objects
on the same origin server can be rewritten to point into different
domain name spaces. Using DNS request-routing, requests for those
objects can now dynamically be directed to different surrogates.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
6. Measurements
Request-Routing systems can use a variety of metrics in order
to determine the best surrogate that can serve a client's request.
In general, these metrics are based on network measurements and
feedback from surrogates.
In general it is possible to combine multiple metrics using both
proximity and surrogate feedback for best surrogate selection.
The following sections describe several well known metrics as well
as the major techniques for obtaining them.
6.1 Proximity Measurements
Proximity measurements can be used by the Request-Routing system to
direct users to the "closest" surrogate. In a DNS Request-Routing
system, the measurements are made to the client's local DNS server.
However, in a client-side direction model, the IP address of the
client is directly exposed and therefore more accurate proximity
measurements can be obtained.
Proximity measurements can also be exchanged between the set
of surrogates and the requesting entity. In many cases, proximity
measurements are "one-way" in that they measure only either the
forward or reverse path of packets from the surrogate to the
requesting entity. This is important as many paths in the Internet
are asymmetric.
In order to obtain a set of proximity measurements, a network may
employ active probing techniques and/or passive measurement techniques.
The following sections describe these two techniques.
6.1.1 Active Probing
Active probing is when past or possible requesting entities are probed
using one or more techniques to determine one or more metrics from
each surrogate or set of surrogates. An example of a probing technique
is an ICMP ECHO Request that is periodically sent from each surrogate
or set of surrogates to a potential requesting entity.
In any active probing approach, a list of potential requesting
entities need to be obtained. This list can be generated dynamically:
as requests arrive, the requesting entity addresses can be cached for
later probing. Another potential solution is to use an algorithm to
divide address space into blocks and to probe those blocks. Limitations
of active probing techniques include:
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
1. Measurements can only be taken periodically.
2. Firewalls and NATs disallow probes.
3. Probes often cause security alarms to be triggered on
intrusion detection systems.
6.1.2 Passive Measurement
Passive measurements could be obtained when a client performs data
transfers to or from a surrogate. Here, a bootstrap mechanism is
used to direct the client to a bootstrap surrogate. Once the client
connects, the actual performance of the transfer is measured. This
data is then fed back into the request-routing system.
An example of passive measurement is to watch the packet loss from a
client to a surrogate by observing TCP behavior. Latency
measurements can also be learned by observing TCP behavior.
The limitations of passive measurement approach are directly related
to the bootstrapping mechanism. Basically, a good mechanism is needed
to ensure that not every surrogate is tested " per client in order
to obtain the data.
6.1.3 Metric Types
The following sections list some of the metrics, which can be used
for proximity calculations.
* Latency: Network latency measurements metrics are used to
determine the surrogate (or set of surrogates) that has the
least delay to the requesting entity. These measurements can
be obtained using either an active probing approach or a
passive network measurement system.
* Packet Loss: Packet loss measurements can be used as a
selection metric. A passive measurement approach can easily
obtain packet loss information from TCP header information.
Active probing can periodically measure packet loss from
probes.
* Hop Counts: Router hops from the surrogate to the requesting
entity can be used as a proximity measurement.
* BGP Information: BGP AS PATH and MED attributes can be used to
determine the "BGP distance" to a given prefix/length pair.
In order to use BGP information for proximity measurements, it
must be obtained at each surrogate site/location.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
6.2 Surrogate Feedback
The Request-Routing system can use feedback from surrogates in order
to select a "least-loaded" delivery node. Feedback can be delivered
from each surrogate or can be aggregated by site or by location.
6.2.1 Probing
For example, feedback information may be obtained by periodically probing a
surrogate by issuing an HTTP request and observing the
behavior. The problems with probing for surrogate information are:
1. It is difficult to obtain "real-time" information.
2. Non-real-time information may be inaccurate.
Consequently, feedback information can be obtained by agents that reside on
surrogates that can communicate a variety of metrics about
their nodes.
6.2.2 Well Known Metrics
The following provides a brief summary of several of the popular metrics
that is used for surrogate feedback:
* Surrogate CPU Load.
* Interface Load / Dropped packets.
* Number of connections being served.
* Storage I/O Load.
7. Acknowledgements
[Reviewers go here]
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
References
[1] Postel, J., "File Transfer Protocol", RFC 765, June 1980,
<URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc765.txt>.
[2] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1", RFC
2246, January 1999,
<URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt>.
[3] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A. and R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming
Protocol", RFC 2326, April 1998,
<URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt>.
[4] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999,
<URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt>.
[5] Day, M., Cain, B. and G. Tomlinson, "A Model for CDN Peering",
draft-day-cdnp-model-02.txt (work in progress), October 2000,
<URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-day-cdnp-model-02
.txt>.
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
Authors' Addresses
Abbie Barbir
Nortel Networks
abbieb@nortelnetworks.com
Brad Cain
Cereva Networks
bcain@cereva.com
Fred Douglis
AT&T Labs
Room B137
180 Park Ave, Bldg 103
Florham Park, NJ 07932
US
Phone: +1 973 360 8775
EMail: douglis@research.att.com
Mark Green
Entera, Inc.
40971 Encyclopedia Circle
Fremont, CA 94538
US
Phone: +1 510 770 5268
EMail: markg@entera.com
Markus Hofmann
Lucent Technologies
Room 4F-513
101 Crawfords Corner Rd.
Holmdel, NJ 07733
US
Phone: +1 732 332 5983
EMail: hofmann@bell-labs.com
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
Raj Nair
Cisco Systems
50 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720
US
Phone: +1 978 206 3029
EMail: rnair@cisco.com
Doug Potter
Cisco Systems
50 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720
US
Phone: +1 978 206 ????
EMail: dougpott@cisco.com
Oliver Spatscheck
AT&T Labs
Room B131
180 Park Ave, Bldg 103
Florham Park, NJ 07932
US
Phone: +1 973 360 ????
EMail: spatsch@research.att.com
Barbir, et. al. Expires August 2, 2001 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Known CDN Request-Routing Mechanisms August 2001
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.