Internet DRAFT - draft-ayyasamy-ieprep-isp-recommend
draft-ayyasamy-ieprep-isp-recommend
Document June 2002
Internet Engineering Task Force S.Ayyasamy
Internet Draft UMKC
Expires: December 2002 F.Baker
Cisco Systems
Recommended Internet Service Provider Procedures For Emergency
Preparedness
<draft-ayyasamy-ieprep-isp-recommend-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 [1].
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.
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to express what the engineering
community expects of Service providers with respect to emergency
preparedness. The document can be considered as a set of
recommendations to support mission-critical traffic at various
locations like access and core.
The goal of the draft is to raise discussion among Internet service
providers (ISPs) on the importance of accommodating emergency
services across Internet.
Conventions used in this document
The recommendations are stated as points ordered chronologically. For
example,ÆÆR (X)ÆÆ indicates recommendation number X. But, they don't
represent any order of preference.
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 1]
Document June 2002
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The Internet can be useful before, during, and after disaster events.
For a long time, it has proved to be useful when other communication
failed, there by acting as a secondary form of communication .The
process of identifying and prioritizing mission-critical traffic is
the basic requirement. The other obvious requirements that internet
can serve includes information dissemination for media and public,
accessing operational data on-line, providing back up communication,
instant messaging and visualizing events via video. The other useful
area includes listing of victims, route maps and dynamically updated
information source. But, Internet has some drawbacks, such as
congestion, dependence on power, security risks and software/hardware
requirements. Though some shortcomings exist, history shows Internet
worked fine during disaster times when compared with telephone
circuits [3]. But, the success of emergency management lies in
integrating the information from satellite, surveillance, ad-hoc
management and location identification from global positioning system
(GPS) into the Internet.
1.2 Objective
The solution techniques proposed for emergency requirements [4] is
very broad. It includes effective control of best-effort traffic,
enhancements to QoS models like intserv and diffserv, application
level signaling support with SIP/H.323, traffic engineering methods
using IP, MPLS and other multi-service networks etc.The document[5]
serves as the frame work for supporting emergency traffic in IP
telephony environment .The solution space can be enhanced or may even
change as newer applications and technologies arise. Hence, an
effective implementation lies in the hands of ISPs. They can just
over-provision or implement any of the standard solutions recommended
by IETF.
The service providers manage autonomous systems, which form the
global Internet. They operate the backbone network, which provide
communication between the customers and the rest of the Internet. In
today's commercial Internet, the backbone networks are engineered in
a way that there is virtually no packet loss, even during the worst
possible network congestion .The access and peering points are
carefully rate limited and tuned to adhere to service level
agreements and peering arrangements. Hence, recommendations vary
largely between the access and peering points in comparison to the
backbone, which necessitate a separate study.
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 2]
Document June 2002
The need for awareness among ISPs for possible use of Internet as a
mission critical information transfer medium is the objective behind
the draft.
1.3 Scope
The draft focuses on recommendations for emergency management within
Internet and doesnÆt deal with mode of action at junction points
between Internet and PSTN network. Also, the draft addresses service
providers only.
1.4 Terminology
1.Authorized Users
They include people authorized by appropriate authority (Ex: NCS [6]
in US) to establish emergency communication sessions through public
networking facilities for facilitating immediate disaster recovery
operation [4].
2.Disaster
It includes incidents (Ex: terrorist attacks, forest fire, state
emergencies etc), which leads to event driven congestion across
Internet and other telecommunication networks.
3.Mission-critical traffic
The information transfer between authorized users is classified as
mission-critical traffic. It excludes other priority traffic, which
doesnÆt support emergency management. Other alternative terms include
IEPREP traffic or high-priority traffic.
4.Emergency service
It includes any type of service, which helps the process of critical
information dissemination. For example, service can be at an
application-level like instant massaging (IM) or at a physical layer
level like optical restoration techniques.
5. Emergency management
It includes operation and management (OAM) functionalities necessary
for providing priority across Internet. Traffic engineering,
signaling and reservation are part of operation functionalities while
traffic monitoring and measurement comes under management functions.
6. Service providers
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 3]
Document June 2002
It includes organizations in the business of providing Internet
connectivity or other Internet services including but not restricted
to web hosting services, content providers and e-mail services.
2. Intra-domain issues
2.1 Over-Provisioning
This is the default capacity management technique exercised by
service providers on backbone networks .In the face of extreme
congestion, QoS methods like Intserv, diffserv and MPLS etc work when
the overall capacity requirement of emergency traffic is less than
the available bandwidth. Network performance degrades rapidly as the
high-priority traffic exceeds the limit. Some of the issues in over-
provisioning include:
R (1): An improved switching and capacity augmentation guarantee high
probability of call completion across Internet. Adding backbone
capacity appears to be an obvious step although bandwidth alone
cannot solve the problem. The other possible areas of improvement
include deploying dense wave division multiplexing (DWDM) equipment
to increase the transmission capacity. Routers still remain a
bottleneck to the bandwidth supply. Hence, switching and routing
capacity can also be increased.
R (2):It is also important to conserve bandwidth wisely. Some of the
techniques for bandwidth management includes [7], traffic shifting,
dynamic delay pools, dynamic bandwidth allocation and content supply
tools.
R (3): Unpredictable event driven congestion during periods of
disaster leads to excess web traffic. Hence, redundancy and increase
in content supply can avoid the loading of web servers. This helps in
reducing access congestion thereby increasing the availability
requirement.
R (4):If the service providers have agreements for providing
guarantee to high-priority traffic, it is advisable to over-provision
rather than over-subscribe links.
R (5): Sometimes, capacity augmentation increases the congestion due
to uneven traffic distribution. Hence, network planners are
recommended to use a combination of QoS and bandwidth augmentation
approach for an effective emergency management.
2.2 QoS and Diffserv
Over provisioning cannot prevent or avoid hot spots caused by uneven
traffic distribution. The various Quality of service models (Intserv,
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 4]
Document June 2002
Diffserv, MPLS etc) are the only means by which a predictable service
can be guaranteed. The framework document [5] is the standard
document to be consulted for giving priority to VoIP applications in
a QoS environment. The following points has to be taken into account
while using QoS as a mode of availability:
R (6): To avoid inter-operability problems, it is highly recommended
to re-use the existing technology rather than implement new methods.
But, it is also equally emphasized that one can use any kind of
method within their domain as long it doesnÆt have impact on the
Internet.
R (7): Complex implementations/ modifications should be avoided .Our
goal highly depends on short time scale and hence, complex
implementations make the work difficult (Ex: specifying multiple
parameters for per-flow queuing schemes).
2.2.1 diffserv
R (8): A combination of Differentiated Services Architecture [8] and
the Framework for Integrated Services Operation over Differentiated
Services Networks [9] avoids inter-class effects. The exact
configuration is documented in [10]. Our requirements are best
achieved when diffserv is used in combination with traffic
engineering and active queue management [11] techniques.
R (9): The various active queue management schemes can be used for
managing capacity and can act as best effort control in addition to
the functions mentioned in [11]. The queuing and discard behavior of
the AF PHB group as stated in section 4 of [12] provides many
suggestions on possible use of RED [13] within diffserv domain. RED
can be used to implement queues with packets of different drop
priorities. During times of congestion, low priority traffic can be
preferentially dropped while packets within emergency traffic being
dropped last.
R (10): New PHB traffic classes and code points can be used within
private network. But, one has to conform [14] when used across
Internet.
R (11): The per-domain behavior (PDB) [15] defines PDB as "The
expected treatment that an identifiable or target group of packets
will receive from "edge-to-edge" of a DS domain. A particular PHB
(or, if applicable, list of PHBs) and traffic conditioning
requirements are associated with each PDB."
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 5]
Document June 2002
The virtual wire PDB offers strict traffic conditioning and
attributes. Virtual wire gives a highly guaranteed support for
emergency services.
Author's note: The draft on virtual wire PDB has expired. Recent
discussion in Diffserv mailing list suggests further work on this
side.
2.2.2 MPLS
Some of the recommendations include:
R (12): Explicit routes can be specified for Label switched paths
(LSPs) which can be configured manually or dynamically using
Constrained-based routing. The fast reroute [16] serves as a back up
when the primary route fails by pre-configuring the desired link.
Explicit routing and fast-reroute are the two important techniques
recommended for emergency services.
R (13): The providers who has ATM core and want to support IEPREP,
can use MPLS as a circuit-emulation technology and can easily inter-
operate with IP networks.
2.3 Traffic Engineering (TE)
Traffic engineering is the method by which traffic is routed
selectively and control are applied at various levels to bring the
congested network to normal conditions. The term is highly misused
and depends on the context of the problem to be approached.
2.3.1 TE in IP network
R (14):Interior-gateway protocols (IGP) use link weights in finding
which route a packet should take .The additive weights are assigned
manually to influence the route used. Hence, IGP metrics can be
tailored such that emergency traffic is routed on an alternate path
thereby avoiding congested links. Some of the limitations include:
First, there is no effective relation between metric attributes and
the routes. Second, additive metrics like link state attributes does
not provide the ability to manipulate non-additive based constraints.
TE in IP networks is normally done at large time scales. But,
disaster events require service within short time scales. Hence, a
hybrid approach with MPLS has to be used to converge at short time
scales. [17] Provides pointers on doing traffic engineering in IP
networks.
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 6]
Document June 2002
R (15): The congestion arising due to uneven distribution of traffic
during periods of disaster can be averted by following Equal cost
multi-path (ECMP) technique. This technique will allow distribution
of traffic evenly among the available paths.
2.3.2 TE with MPLS
R (16): A combination of the stated techniques in section 2.2.2 with
constrained based routing algorithms is helpful in dynamic emergency
management. The overview and principle of traffic engineering RFC
[18] explains in more detail on various TE techniques.
2.4 Other recommendations
R (17) During extreme overload conditions, OSPF LSA ACK and Hello
packets can be prioritized by some DSCP marking [19].
R (18) Dynamic routing schemes can be used along with constrained
Based algorithms for pre-emption and re-routing of desired traffic
[20].
3. Inter-domain issues
The inter-domain has long been neglected because of policy issues.
Redundancy, symmetry and load balancing are some of the Inter-domain
protocol properties relevant to our objectives. Though prevalent in
use, BGP is considered as the weakest link in the Internet. Stability
and configuration problems affect High-priority traffic than other
background traffic. Hence, BGP have to be made more robust and
resilient.
Some of the factors to be considered include:
R (19): For a long time, the service providers involve in manual
configurations to tweak the BGP routing policies. Humans are prone to
mistakes which are reflected in the BGP peering. One of the reasons
for the longer convergence time includes massive prefix loss from the
routing tables during peak congestion [21]. It underscores the
importance of a robust Inter-domain protocol. The service providers
are recommended to avoid manual mis-configuration, which leads to
excess loss on periods of disaster.
R (20): The service providers should make public their filtering
policies and contact information.
R (22): The evolutionary architecture advocated by IRTF routing group
[22] must support diffserv domains to recognize service level
specifications.
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 7]
Document June 2002
The routing system MUST provide means for detecting infrastructural
failures of both node equipment and communication links at short time
intervals. The future routing architecture should take these factors
into account for a resilient Internet.
R (23): The class of inter-domain protocols is governed by policies
of the respective peering domains. Hence, co-ordination between
service providers is essential. The service provider conference like
nanog [24] are the places where discussions between service providers
can be initiated for emergency management by way of BOF sessions.
4. Access network:
The access providers give connectivity to customers at various levels
depending on the infrastructure cost. The customers increase their
fault tolerance and capacity by means of multi-homing. Also, access
can be more congested than the backbone because there is less
statistical multiplexing. For instance, a flash crowd can easily
overwhelm a web site while having little effect on backbone traffic.
Recommendations in section 2 apply to access networks too.
Some recommended practices include:
R (25): The flash crowd problem results in many SYNs and SYN ACKs,
congesting the access links. This causes some dropping of SYNs, but
also results in loss of data. SYNs and SYN ACKs, in opposing
directions, represent new sessions. Under this circumstance, the SYNs
and SYN ACKs can be put at a lower priority, meaning that they will
either get dropped or will simply wait. One has to identify the
traffic of emergency service to give higher priority. When early
congestion notification is applied to subsequent packets in the TCP
exchange, they can help in characterizing emergency traffic, while
dropping SYNs and SYN ACKs [35].
Author's note: Multi-homing with BGP, speed mis-match issues and ??
can also discussed.
5. Peering and service level agreements
R (26): The robustness of the Internet lies in the redundancy among
service providers in providing service to a particular geographical
area. A certain degree of volunteering is necessary other than the
business motives behind the peering agreements. The tier one-service
providers can give transit at subsidized rates for other service
providers who want to route the emergency traffic. The respective
government agencies can also decrease the regulations and provide
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 8]
Document June 2002
incentives for the service providers who support emergency
management. The Peering BOF sessions [24] should also discuss ways
for effective co-operation between the service providers on times of
disaster. The ISP should also consider providing their contact
information transparently and correctly for urgent contacts.
R (27): Service level specification (SLS) trades various technical
requirements to be met by the provider to the customer or another
provider. The technical specification required for satisfying
availability requirement is more important than guaranteed service.
Automatic and dynamic negotiation of service level specification can
be exercised. Reliability parameters like maximum down time and
recovery time are most important factors to be negotiated than other
performance metrics .A tight bound SLS can also be guaranteed for
emergency services on use of virtual leased lines.
R (28): For a long-time, flat rate based pricing was the commonly
used practice to charge customers. Though, it satisfies the social
fairness criteria of pricing, it is not suitable for economic
efficiency of service providers in general and for emergency
management operations in particular. Any pricing scheme used by
Service providers should assume that resources will be scarce or the
network is running at high level of utilization. Since, prices
indicate one's usage, pricing based on priority adds economic value
to the providers and also serve as a useful method for charging high-
priority users. Though, social fairness cannot be accommodated, at
least proportional fairness have to be exercised. The Service level
specifications should also address this recommendation.
R (29): The presence of priority fields in the protocol formats
tempts one to insert local priority policy into the protocol fields.
The end -to-end principle requires separating label from policy .So,
policy of a particular domain should be stored either in SIP proxies
or bandwidth brokers in a diffserv domain, thereby allowing dynamic
policy allocation and transfer.
Another debatable issue is preemption. This term is more related to
circuit based networks and has little relevance when considering
connection-less networks, like Internet. Even with circuit-emulation
technologies like MPLS, a particular LSP can pre-empt another LSP and
as such it doesnÆt depend on any policy issue.
6. Infrastructure management
The problem of link outages and destruction of transmission system
can thwart all priority mechanisms implemented across one's network.
Hence, this is an important factor to be considered by service
providers.
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 9]
Document June 2002
R (30)[25]: During outages, Interoperability and reliability are the
main issues to be considered for re-routing the traffic across other
network. Also, vendors should work cooperatively with service
providers to get essential communications up and running. Power
consumption and conservation should also be addressed.
7. Traffic monitoring
R (31): A recommended method for giving priority to mission-critical
traffic edge to edge is stated below:
Traffic tools should be employed to do the following four steps:
1.Traffic differentiation
2.Examine traffic
3.Control mechanisms.
4. Verification.
Traffic differentiation can be done either at packet-level or flow -
level. The recommended classification markers include SIP resource
priority header [26] at application level and Diffserv markers [10]
at network level. Classification based on fancy applications (like
MPLS) has become a norm in present day routers obviating predicate
classification based on <offset, length, mask, and value>.
The second part concentrates on performance and utilization analysis
of various flows (responsive flow, high bandwidth flow, irresponsive
flow, high priority flow). It throws light on various efficiency
factors, which has to be considered for bandwidth allocation. The
result of this phase can be obtained from sniffers like tcp dump [27]
or by passive packet measurement techniques [28], [29].
Reports provide insight into historical performance, emergency
service compliance, and metric analysis and billing .If the reports
are not to our expectations, control policies of the ISP should be
modified or SLAs have to be reviewed. These mechanisms are
standardized at packet level as in [28] and flow level as in [30].
8. Specific recommendations
8.1 Web hosting services
R (33): Disaster events lead to access congestion at news and
government web sites. An obvious approach to reduce access
congestion is to increase the content supply. Mirroring works by
duplicating entire websites at several locations by placing them
closer to the user. But, Each site has different uniform resource
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 10]
Document June 2002
header (URL) and the user must choose one of the mirror sites with
no idea which site might provide the best performance. Content
distribution network (CDN) can be employed by web hosting services
for load balancing the web traffic during such hard times.
CDN is a network optimized to deliver specific content, such as
static web pages, transaction-based web sites, and streaming media.
It works more like a web cache system but in addition place copies
of their data to the user as near as possible by any casting method
[31].
R (34) content limitation& reduction: A gradual reduction can be
done starting from removing advertisements & graphics, Links and
other information to just text format. The rate of reduction can
depend on the congestion at the server.
8.2 Application service providers
R (35): The Potential applications which supports emergency service
include information retrieval from distributed database, Instant
messaging and presence, application layer signaling (SIP / H.323),
VoIP based services, electronic mail, file transfer and world wide
web.
R (36): Most of the emergency calls originate from PSTN networks and
have their destination in Internet. This requires an access platform
for transferring emergency calls. ASPs can use soft switches for
providing critical connectivity to the PSTN in a highly scalable and
reliable fashion.
R (37): The I Am Alive (IAA) system works as a database for handling
victim's information. But, those web sites often become vulnerable
to security hazards. Hence, the application service providers should
come up with more reliable distributed algorithms.
9. Other recommendations
R (38): Regardless of transport, applications should comply with the
IETF Congestion Control Principles [33].
R (39): Today's Internet is predominantly point to point or unicast.
Multicast offers ISPs the promise of significant bandwidth savings
and information transfer. Multicast can be used to reduce demand on
the server. Multicast is one of the few services used on September
11 for communication. But, multicasting is difficult to deploy and
is not in much use. If the Service providers offer multicast based
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 11]
Document June 2002
solutions, they are recommended to create a ubiquitous and reliable
Internet.
10. Security Considerations
The draft [34] details on the security mechanisms required for
emergency preparedness.
11. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Jennifer Rexford Of AT&T research for private
discussions on traffic engineering and other inter-domain issues.
Additional thanks to Arvind and Kapil for reviewing the draft.
12. Reference
1 Bradner, S., "The internet standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026,October 1996.
2 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
levels ", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
3 Brewin, B., "Nation's Networks See Large Volume Spikes After
attacks," Computer world, September 17, 2001.
4 Folts, H., Beard, C, "Requirements for Emergency telecommunication
capabilities in the internet," Internet draft, Work in Progress,
June 2002.
5 Carlberg, K. and I. Brown, "Framework for Supporting IEPS in IP
Telephony," Internet draft, work in progress, May 2002.
6 http://www.ncs.gov/
7 Dias, G.V., "Managing Internet Bandwidth: The LEARN ExperienceÆÆ,
NET 2001,June 2001.
8 Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and
Weiss, w., "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC
2475,December 1998.
9 Bernet, Y., Ford, P., Yavatkar, R., Baker, F., Zhang, L., Speer,
M., Braden, R., Davie, B., Wroclawski, J. and E.Felstaine, "A
Framework for Integrated Services Operation over Diffserv
Networks", RFC 2998, November 2000. 10 Baker, F.,"Edge Interface
PHB recommendations," Internet draft, work in progress, June 2002.
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 12]
Document June 2002
11 Braden, B., Clark, D., Crowcroft, J., Davie, B., Deering, S.,
Estrin, D., Floyd, S., Jacobson, V., Minshall, G., Partridge, C.,
Peterson, L., Ramakrishnan, K., Shenker, S., Wroclawski, J.,
Zhang, L.,ææRecommendations on queue management and congestion
avoidance in the internet,ÆÆ RFC - 2309, April 1998.
12 Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W. and Wroclawski, J., "Assured
forwarding PHB," RFC 2597, June 1999.
13 Floyd, S., and Jacobson, V., ææRandom Early Detection gateways for
Congestion AvoidanceÆÆ. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Volume
1, Number 4, August 1993, pp. 397-413.
14 Brim, S., Carpenter, B. and F. Le Faucheur, Black, D, "Per Hop
Behavior Identification Codes", RFC 3140, June 2001.
15 Nichols, K., Carpenter, B., ææDefinition of Differentiated Services
Per-domain Behaviors and Rules for their SpecificationÆÆ, RFC-3086,
April 2001.
16 Ping, P., Der-Haw, G., George, S., Jean, P.V., Dave, C., Alia, A.,
Markus, J.,"Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels",
Internet Draft, work in progress, July 2002.
17 Feldmann, A., Greenberg, A., Lund, C., Reingold, N., Rexford, J.,
"NetScope: Traffic engineering for IP networks," IEEE Network
Magazine, Mar./Apr. 2000,pp.11-19.
18 Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, I., Widjaja, X., Xiao,X.,"Overview
and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering", RFC 3272,May 2002
19 Ash, J., Choudhury, G.L., Sapozhnikova, V.D., Sherif, M., Manral,
V., Maunder, A.," Congestion Avoidance & Control for OSPF
Networks", Internet Draft, Work in progress, April 2002.
20 Ash, G.R., "Dynamic Routing in Telecommunications Network",
MacGraw Hill, 1998.
21 Mahajan, R., wetherall, D., Anderson, T.,ææthe impact of BGP
misconfiguration on connectivity,ÆÆ in proc. nanog23, October 2001.
22 http://www.irtf.org.
23 Feamster, N., Borkenhagen, J., Rexford, J.,"Controlling the impact
of BGP policy changes on IP traffic," AT&T Research Technical
Report 011106-02, November 2001.
24 http://nanog.org.
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 13]
Document June 2002
25 Yankee group, " September 11, 2001: Infrastructure Impacts,
Implications, and Recommendations ", Special Report, September
2001.
26 Polk, J., Schulzrinne, H, "SIP Communications Resource Priority
Header", Internet Draft, Work In Progress, December 2001.
27 http://www.tcpdump.org
28 Duffield, N., Greenberg, A., Grossglauser, M., Rexford, J.,"A
Framework for Passive Packet Measurement", work in progress,
February 2002.
29 http://www.Sflow.org.
30 http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/.
31 Partridge, C., Mendez, T., Milliken, W.,"Host Any casting
Service", RFC 1546,November 1993.
32 Berners-Lee, T., Gettys, J., Nielsen, H.F., "Replication and
Caching Position Statement," World-Wide Web consortium, November
2000.
33 Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC2914,
September 2000.
34 Brown, I., "A Security Framework for Prioritised Emergency
Communication", Internet draft, March 2002.
35 http://iepscheme.net/archive/
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 14]
Document June 2002
Author's Addresses
Ayyasamy SenthilKumar Fred Baker
University Of Missouri Cisco Systems
Kansas City 1121 Via Del Rey
MO 64110 Santa Barbara, CA 93117
USA USA
Phone: +1-408-526-4257
Email: saq66@umkc.edu Fax: +1-413-473-2403
Email: fred.baker@cisco.com
Ayyasamy Expires - December 2002 [Page 15]
