RFC 8045
RADIUS Extensions for IP Port Configuration and Reporting
4. Applications, Use Cases, and Examples
This section describes some applications and use cases to illustrate the use of the attributes proposed in this document.4.1. Managing CGN Port Behavior Using RADIUS
In a broadband network, customer information is usually stored on a RADIUS server, and the BNG acts as a NAS. The communication between the NAS and the RADIUS server is triggered by a user when it signs in to the Internet service where either PPP or DHCP/DHCPv6 is used. When a user signs in, the NAS sends a RADIUS Access-Request message to the RADIUS server. The RADIUS server validates the request, and if the validation succeeds, it in turn sends back a RADIUS Access-Accept message. The Access-Accept message carries configuration information specific to that user back to the NAS, where some of the information would be passed on to the requesting user via PPP or DHCP/DHCPv6. A CGN function in a broadband network is most likely to be co-located on a BNG. In that case, parameters for CGN port mapping behavior for users can be configured on the RADIUS server. When a user signs in to the Internet service, the associated parameters can be conveyed to the NAS, and proper configuration is accomplished on the CGN device for that user. Also, a CGN operation status such as CGN port allocation and deallocation for a specific user on the BNG can also be transmitted back to the RADIUS server for accounting purposes using the RADIUS protocol. The RADIUS protocol has already been widely deployed in broadband networks to manage BNG, thus the functionality described in this specification introduces little overhead to the existing network operation. In the following subsections, we describe how to manage CGN behavior using the RADIUS protocol, with required RADIUS extensions proposed in Section 3.4.1.1. Configure IP Port Limit for a User
In the face of an IPv4 address shortage, there are currently proposals to multiplex multiple users' connections over a number of shared IPv4 addresses, such as Carrier Grade NAT [RFC6888], Dual-Stack Lite [RFC6333], NAT64 [RFC6146], etc. As a result, a single IPv4 public address may be shared by hundreds or even thousands of users. As indicated in [RFC6269], it is therefore
necessary to impose limits on the total number of ports available to an individual user to ensure that the shared resource, i.e., the IPv4 address, remains available in some capacity to all the users using it. The support of an IP port limit is also documented in [RFC6888] as a requirement for CGN. The IP port limit imposed on an end user may be on the total number of IP source transport ports or a specific IP transport protocol as defined in Section 3.1.1. The per-user IP port limit is configured on a RADIUS server, along with other user information such as credentials. When a user signs in to the Internet service successfully, the IP port limit for the subscriber is passed by the RADIUS server to the BNG, which is acting as a NAS and is co-located with the CGN using the IP-Port-Limit-Info RADIUS attribute (defined in Section 3.1.1) along with other configuration parameters. While some parameters are passed to the user, the IP port limit is recorded on the CGN device for imposing the usage of IP transport ports for that user. Figure 15 illustrates how the RADIUS protocol is used to configure the maximum number of TCP/UDP ports for a given user on a CGN device. User CGN/NAS AAA | BNG Server | | | | | | |----Service Request------>| | | | | | |-----Access-Request -------->| | | | | |<----Access-Accept-----------| | | (IP-Port-Limit-Info) | | | (for TCP/UDP ports) | |<---Service Granted ------| | | (other parameters) | | | | | | (CGN external port | | allocation and | | IPv4 address assignment) | | | | Figure 15: RADIUS Message Flow for Configuring CGN Port Limit
The IP port limit created on a CGN device for a specific user using a RADIUS extension may be changed using a RADIUS CoA message [RFC5176] that carries the same RADIUS attribute. The CoA message may be sent from the RADIUS server directly to the NAS, and once a RADIUS CoA ACK message is accepted and sent back, the new IP port limit replaces the previous one. Figure 16 illustrates how the RADIUS protocol is used to increase the TCP/UDP port limit from 1024 to 2048 on a CGN device for a specific user. User CGN/NAS AAA | BNG Server | | | | TCP/UDP Port Limit (1024) | | | | | |<---------CoA Request----------| | | (IP-Port-Limit-Info) | | | (for TCP/UDP ports) | | | | | TCP/UDP Port Limit (2048) | | | | | |---------CoA Response--------->| | | | Figure 16: RADIUS Message Flow for Changing a User's CGN Port Limit4.1.2. Report IP Port Allocation/Deallocation
Upon obtaining the IP port limit for a user, the CGN device needs to allocate an IP transport port for the user when receiving a new IP flow sent from that user. As one practice, a CGN may allocate a block of IP ports for a specific user, instead of one port at a time, and within each port block the ports may be randomly distributed or in consecutive fashion. When a CGN device allocates a block of transport ports, the information can be easily conveyed to the RADIUS server by a new RADIUS attribute called the IP-Port-Range (defined in Section 3.1.2). The CGN device may allocate one or more IP port ranges, where each range contains a set of numbers representing IP transport ports and the total number of ports MUST be less or equal to the associated IP port limit imposed for that user. A CGN device may choose to allocate a small port range and allocate more at a later time as needed; such practice is good because of its randomization in nature.
At the same time, the CGN device also needs to decide on the shared IPv4 address for that user. The shared IPv4 address and the pre-allocated IP port range are both passed to the RADIUS server. When a user initiates an IP flow, the CGN device randomly selects a transport port number from the associated and pre-allocated IP port range for that user to replace the original source port number along with the replacement of the source IP address by the shared IPv4 address. A CGN device may decide to "free" a previously assigned set of IP ports that have been allocated for a specific user but are not currently in use, and with that, the CGN device must send the information of the deallocated IP port range along with the shared IPv4 address to the RADIUS server. Figure 17 illustrates how the RADIUS protocol is used to report a set of ports allocated and deallocated, respectively, by a NAT64 device for a specific user to the RADIUS server. 2001:db8:100:200::/56 is the IPv6 prefix allocated to this user. In order to limit the usage of the NAT64 resources on a per-user basis for fairness of resource usage (see REQ-4 of [RFC6888]), port range allocations are bound to the /56 prefix, not to the source IPv6 address of the request. The NAT64 device is configured with the per-user port limit policy by some means (e.g., subscriber-mask [RFC7785]).
Host NAT64/NAS AAA | BNG Server | | | | | | |----Service Request------>| | | | | | |-----Access-Request -------->| | | | | |<----Access-Accept-----------| |<---Service Granted ------| | | (other parameters) | | ... ... ... | | | | | | | (NAT64 decides to allocate | | a TCP/UDP port range for the user) | | | | | |-----Accounting-Request----->| | | (IP-Port-Range | | | for allocation) | ... ... ... | | | | (NAT64 decides to deallocate | | a TCP/UDP port range for the user) | | | | | |-----Accounting-Request----->| | | (IP-Port-Range | | | for deallocation) | | | | Figure 17: RADIUS Message Flow for Reporting NAT64 Allocation/Deallocation of a Port Set4.1.3. Configure Port Forwarding Mapping
In most scenarios, the port mapping on a NAT device is dynamically created when the IP packets of an IP connection initiated by a user arrives. For some applications, the port mapping needs to be pre-defined and allow IP packets of applications from outside a CGN device to pass through and be "port forwarded" to the correct user located behind the CGN device. The Port Control Protocol (PCP) [RFC6887], provides a mechanism to create a mapping from an external IP address and port to an internal IP address and port on a CGN device just to achieve the "port forwarding" purpose. PCP is a server-client protocol capable of creating or deleting a mapping along with a rich set of features on a CGN device in dynamic fashion. In some deployments, all users need
is a few (typically just one) pre-configured port mappings for applications at home, such as a web cam; the lifetime of such a port mapping remains valid throughout the duration of the customer's Internet service connection time. In such an environment, it is possible to statically configure a port mapping on the RADIUS server for a user and let the RADIUS protocol propagate the information to the associated CGN device. Note that this document targets deployments where a AAA server is responsible for instructing NAT mappings for a given subscriber and does not make any assumption about the host's capabilities with regards to port forwarding control. This deployment is complementary to PCP given that PCP targets a different deployment model where an application (on the host) controls its mappings in an upstream CPE, CGN, firewall, etc. Figure 18 illustrates how the RADIUS protocol is used to configure a port forwarding mapping on a NAT44 device. Host CGN/NAS AAA | BNG Server | | | |----Service Request------>| | | | | | |---------Access-Request------->| | | | | |<--------Access-Accept---------| | | (IP-Port-Forwarding-Map) | |<---Service Granted ------| | | (other parameters) | | | | | | (Create a port mapping | | for the user, and | | associate it with the | | internal IP address | | and external IP address) | | | | | | | | |------Accounting-Request------>| | | (IP-Port-Forwarding-Map) | Figure 18: RADIUS Message Flow for Configuring a Port Forwarding Mapping
A port forwarding mapping that is created on a CGN device using the RADIUS extension as described above may also be changed using a RADIUS CoA message [RFC5176] that carries the same RADIUS association. The CoA message may be sent from the RADIUS server directly to the NAS, and once the RADIUS CoA ACK message is accepted and sent back, the new port forwarding mapping then replaces the previous one. Figure 19 illustrates how the RADIUS protocol is used to change an existing port mapping from (a:X) to (a:Y), where "a" is an internal port, and "X" and "Y" are external ports, respectively, for a specific user with a specific IP address Host CGN/NAS AAA | BNG Server | | | | Internal IP Address | | Port Map (a:X) | | | | | |<---------CoA Request----------| | | (IP-Port-Forwarding-Map) | | | | | Internal IP Address | | Port Map (a:Y) | | | | | |---------CoA Response--------->| | | (IP-Port-Forwarding-Map) | Figure 19: RADIUS Message Flow for Changing a User's Port Forwarding Mapping4.1.4. An Example
An Internet Service Provider (ISP) assigns TCP/UDP 500 ports for the user Joe. This number is the limit that can be used for TCP/UDP ports on a CGN device for Joe and it is configured on a RADIUS server. Also, Joe asks for a pre-defined port forwarding mapping on the CGN device for his web cam applications (external port 5000 maps to internal port 1234). When Joe successfully connects to the Internet service, the RADIUS server conveys the TCP/UDP port limit (500) and the port forwarding mapping (external port 5000 to internal port 1234) to the CGN device using the IP-Port-Limit-Info Attribute and IP-Port-Forwarding-Map Attribute, respectively, carried by an Access-Accept message to the BNG where NAS and CGN are co-located.
Upon receiving the first outbound IP packet sent from Joe's laptop, the CGN device decides to allocate a small port pool that contains 40 consecutive ports, from 3500 to 3540, inclusively, and also assigns a shared IPv4 address 192.0.2.15 for Joe. The CGN device also randomly selects one port from the allocated range (say, 3519) and uses that port to replace the original source port in outbound IP packets. For accounting purposes, the CGN device passes this port range (3500-3540) and the shared IPv4 address 192.0.2.15 together to the RADIUS server using IP-Port-Range Attribute carried by an Accounting-Request message. When Joe works on more applications with more outbound IP mappings and the port pool (3500-3540) is close to exhaust, the CGN device allocates a second port pool (8500-8800) in a similar fashion and also passes the new port range (8500-8800) and IPv4 address 192.0.2.15 together to the RADIUS server using IP-Port-Range Attribute carried by an Accounting-Request message. Note when the CGN allocates more ports, it needs to assure that the total number of ports allocated for Joe is within the limit. Joe decides to upgrade his service agreement with more TCP/UDP ports allowed (up to 1000 ports). The ISP updates the information in Joe's profile on the RADIUS server, which then sends a CoA-Request message that carries the IP-Port-Limit-Info Attribute with 1000 ports to the CGN device; the CGN device in turn sends back a CoA-ACK message. With that, Joe enjoys more available TCP/UDP ports for his applications. When Joe is not using his service, most of the IP mappings are closed with their associated TCP/UDP ports released on the CGN device, which then sends the relevant information back to the RADIUS server using the IP-Port-Range Attribute carried by the Accounting-Request message. Throughout Joe's connection with his ISP, applications can communicate with his web cam at home from the external realm, thus directly traversing the pre-configured mapping on the CGN device. When Joe disconnects from his Internet service, the CGN device will deallocate all TCP/UDP ports as well as the port forwarding mapping and send the relevant information to the RADIUS server.
4.2. Report Assigned Port Set for a Visiting UE
Figure 20 illustrates an example of the flow exchange that occurs when the visiting User Equipment (UE) connects to a CPE offering WLAN service. For identification purposes (see [RFC6967]), once the CPE assigns a port set, it issues a RADIUS message to report the assigned port set. UE CPE CGN AAA | BNG Server | | | | | | |----Service Request------>| | | | | | |-----Access-Request -------->| | | | | |<----Access-Accept-----------| |<---Service Granted ------| | | (other parameters) | | ... | ... ... |<---IP@----| | | | | | | | (CPE assigns a TCP/UDP port | | range for this visiting UE) | | | | | |--Accounting-Request-...------------------->| | | (IP-Port-Range | | | for allocation) | ... | ... ... | | | | | | | | | (CPE withdraws a TCP/UDP port | | range for a visiting UE) | | | | | |--Accounting-Request-...------------------->| | | (IP-Port-Range | | | for deallocation) | | | | Figure 20: RADIUS Message Flow for Reporting CPE Allocation/Deallocation of a Port Set to a Visiting UE
5. Table of Attributes
This document proposes three new RADIUS attributes, and their formats are as follows: o IP-Port-Limit-Info: 241.5 o IP-Port-Range: 241.6 o IP-Port-Forwarding-Map: 241.7 The following table provides a guide as to what type of RADIUS packets may contain these attributes and in what quantity. Request Accept Reject Challenge Acct. # Attribute Request 0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 241.5 IP-Port-Limit-Info 0 0 0 0 0+ 241.6 IP-Port-Range 0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 241.7 IP-Port-Forwarding-Map The following table defines the meaning of the above table entries. 0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in packet. 0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present in packet.6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any security issue other than the ones already identified in RADIUS documents [RFC2865] and [RFC5176] for CoA messages. Known RADIUS vulnerabilities apply to this specification. For example, if RADIUS packets are sent in the clear, an attacker in the communication path between the RADIUS client and server may glean information that it will use to prevent a legitimate user from accessing the service by appropriately setting the maximum number of IP ports conveyed in an IP-Port-Limit-Info Attribute; exhaust the port quota of a user by installing many mapping entries (IP-Port-Forwarding-Map Attribute); prevent incoming traffic from being delivered to its legitimate destination by manipulating the mapping entries installed by means of an IP-Port-Forwarding-Map Attribute; discover the IP address and port range that are assigned to a given user and reported in an IP-Port-Range Attribute; and so on. The root cause of these attack vectors is the communication between the RADIUS client and server.
The IP-Port-Local-Id TLV includes an identifier of which the type and length is deployment and implementation dependent. This identifier might carry privacy-sensitive information. It is therefore RECOMMENDED to utilize identifiers that do not have such privacy concerns. If there is any error in a RADIUS Accounting-Request packet sent from a RADIUS client to the server, the RADIUS server MUST NOT send a response to the client (refer to [RFC2866]). Examples of the errors include the erroneous port range in the IP-Port-Range Attribute, inconsistent port mapping in the IP-Port-Forwarding-Map Attribute, etc. This document targets deployments where a trusted relationship is in place between the RADIUS client and server with communication optionally secured by IPsec or Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC6614].7. IANA Considerations
Per this document, IANA has made new code point assignments for both IPFIX Information Elements and RADIUS attributes as explained in the following subsections.7.1. New IPFIX Information Elements
The following IPFIX Information Element has been registered (refer to Section 3.2.2): o sourceTransportPortsLimit: * Name: sourceTransportPortsLimit * Element ID: 458 * Description: This Information Element contains the maximum number of IP source transport ports that can be used by an end user when sending IP packets; each user is associated with one or more (source) IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. This Information Element is particularly useful in address-sharing deployments that adhere to REQ-4 of [RFC6888]. Limiting the number of ports assigned to each user ensures fairness among users and mitigates the denial-of-service attack that a user could launch against other users through the address-sharing device in order to grab more ports. * Data type: unsigned16
* Data type semantics: totalCounter
* Data type unit: ports
* Data value range: from 1 to 65535
7.2. New RADIUS Attributes
The Attribute Types defined in this document have been registered by
IANA from the RADIUS namespace as described in the "IANA
Considerations" section of [RFC3575], in accordance with BCP 26
[RFC5226]. For RADIUS packets, attributes, and registries created by
this document, IANA has placed them at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types>.
In particular, this document defines three new RADIUS attributes, as
follows, from the Short Extended Space of [RFC6929]:
Type Description Data Type Reference
---- ----------- --------- ---------
241.5 IP-Port-Limit-Info tlv Section 3.1.1
241.6 IP-Port-Range tlv Section 3.1.2
241.7 IP-Port-Forwarding-Map tlv Section 3.1.3
7.3. New RADIUS TLVs
IANA has created a new registry called "RADIUS IP Port Configuration
and Reporting TLVs". All TLVs in this registry have one or more
parent RADIUS attributes in nesting (refer to [RFC6929]). This
registry contains the following TLVs:
Value Description Data Type Reference
----- ----------- --------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 IP-Port-Type integer Section 3.2.1
2 IP-Port-Limit integer Section 3.2.2
3 IP-Port-Ext-IPv4-Addr ipv4addr Section 3.2.3
4 IP-Port-Int-IPv4-Addr ipv4addr Section 3.2.4
5 IP-Port-Int-IPv6-Addr ipv4addr Section 3.2.5
6 IP-Port-Int-Port integer Section 3.2.6
7 IP-Port-Ext-Port integer Section 3.2.7
8 IP-Port-Alloc integer Section 3.2.8
9 IP-Port-Range-Start integer Section 3.2.9
10 IP-Port-Range-End integer Section 3.2.10
11 IP-Port-Local-Id string Section 3.2.11
12-255 Unassigned
The registration procedure for this registry is Standards Action as defined in [RFC5226].8. References
8.1. Normative References
[IPFIX] IANA, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/>. [ProtocolNumbers] IANA, "Protocol Numbers", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2865>. [RFC3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575, DOI 10.17487/RFC3575, July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3575>. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. [RFC6929] DeKok, A. and A. Lior, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol Extensions", RFC 6929, DOI 10.17487/RFC6929, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6929>. [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed., and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>. [RFC8044] DeKok, A., "Data Types in RADIUS", RFC 8044, DOI 10.17487/RFC8044, January 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8044>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. [RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>. [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>. [RFC2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, DOI 10.17487/RFC2866, June 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2866>. [RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022>. [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>. [RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>. [RFC5176] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B. Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 5176, DOI 10.17487/RFC5176, January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5176>. [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>. [RFC6158] DeKok, A., Ed., and G. Weber, "RADIUS Design Guidelines", BCP 158, RFC 6158, DOI 10.17487/RFC6158, March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6158>.
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Ed., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269, DOI 10.17487/RFC6269, June 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6269>. [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>. [RFC6598] Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, DOI 10.17487/RFC6598, April 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6598>. [RFC6614] Winter, S., McCauley, M., Venaas, S., and K. Wierenga, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS", RFC 6614, DOI 10.17487/RFC6614, May 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6614>. [RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>. [RFC6888] Perreault, S., Ed., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A., and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, DOI 10.17487/RFC6888, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6888>. [RFC6967] Boucadair, M., Touch, J., Levis, P., and R. Penno, "Analysis of Potential Solutions for Revealing a Host Identifier (HOST_ID) in Shared Address Deployments", RFC 6967, DOI 10.17487/RFC6967, June 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6967>. [RFC7785] Vinapamula, S. and M. Boucadair, "Recommendations for Prefix Binding in the Context of Softwire Dual-Stack Lite", RFC 7785, DOI 10.17487/RFC7785, February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7785>.
[TR-146] Broadband Forum, "TR-146: Subscriber Sessions", Broadband Forum Technical Report 146, Issue 1, May 2013, <http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/ download/TR-146.pdf>. [WIFI-SERVICES] Gundavelli, S., Grayson, M., Seite, P., and Y. Lee, "Service Provider Wi-Fi Services Over Residential Architectures", Work in Progress, draft-gundavelli-v6ops-community-wifi-svcs-06, April 2013.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Dan Wing, Roberta Maglione, Daniel Derksen, David Thaler, Alan DeKok, Lionel Morand, and Peter Deacon for their useful comments and suggestions. Special thanks to Lionel Morand for the Shepherd review and to Kathleen Moriarty for the AD review. Thanks to Carl Wallace, Tim Chown, and Ben Campbell for the detailed review.Authors' Addresses
Dean Cheng Huawei 2330 Central Expressway Santa Clara, California 95050 United States of America Email: dean.cheng@huawei.com Jouni Korhonen Broadcom Corporation 3151 Zanker Road San Jose, California 95134 United States of America Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com Mohamed Boucadair Orange Rennes France Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Senthil Sivakumar Cisco Systems 7100-8 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, North Carolina United States of America Email: ssenthil@cisco.com