| Rfc | 3793 |
|---|
| Title | Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area
Standards Track and Experimental Documents |
|---|
| Author | P. Nesser, II, A.
Bergstrom, Ed. |
|---|
| Date | June 2004 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|---|
|
Network Working Group P. Nesser, II
Request for Comments: 3793 Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Category: Informational A. Bergstrom, Ed.
Ostfold University College
May 2004
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Sub-IP Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in
currently deployed IETF Sub-IP Area documented standards. In order
to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6
Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is
the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It
is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be
redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will
at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards
(Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be
surveyed and any dependencies will be documented.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Document Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Full Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Summary of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.01. Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.02. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.03. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.04. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
10. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
11. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
12. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage
of IPv4 addresses in IETF standards. In an effort to have the
information in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents
conforming to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet,
Operations & Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1].
2. Document Organization
The rest of the document sections are described below.
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full,
Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is
discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with (around)
RFC 3100. The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is,
each RFC is discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do
not "look ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed.
Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5,
and 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole
and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are
correlated.
3. Full Standards
Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as
"Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely
implemented and used throughout the Internet.
There are no full standards within the scope of this document.
4. Draft Standards
Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF.
A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple,
independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are
usually quite mature and widely used.
There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.
5. Proposed Standards
Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no
requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases
Proposed are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards
process. They therefore are often just proposed ideas that are
presented to the Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or
they are one of many competing solutions to problems. In these later
cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose
of this discussion.
5.01. RFC 3031 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.02. RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
5.03. RFC 3034 Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks
Specification
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.04. RFC 3035 MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.05. RFC 3036 LDP Specification
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
5.06. RFC 3038 VCID Notification over ATM link for LDP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6. Experimental RFCs
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have
widescale implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often
propriety in nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented
to the Internet community in order to allow potential
interoperability or some other potential useful scenario. In a few
cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution
to an acknowledged problem.
6.01. RFC 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
7. Summary of Results
In the initial survey of RFCs 0 positives were identified out of a
total of 7, broken down as follows:
Standards: 0 out of 0 or 0.00%
Draft Standards: 0 out of 0 or 0.00%
Proposed Standards: 0 out of 6 or 0.00%
Experimental RFCs: 0 out of 1 or 0.00%
Of those identified many require no action because they document
outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols
that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups.
Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be
updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not
updated. The remaining instances are documented below.
7.01. Standards
There are no standards within the scope of this document.
7.02. Draft Standards
There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.
7.03. Proposed Standards
There are no proposed standards with recommendations in this
document.
7.04. Experimental RFCs
There are no experimental standards with recommendations in this
document.
8. Security Considerations
This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does
not have security considerations in itself.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet
Society in the research and production of this document.
Additionally the author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to thank his
partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.
The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola for
guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this document.
10. Normative Reference
[1] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
RFC 3789, May 2004.
11. Authors' Addresses
Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or
suggestions at:
Philip J. Nesser II
Principal
Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone: +1 425 481 4303
Fax: +1 425 48
EMail: phil@nesser.com
Andreas Bergstrom, Editor
Ostfold University College
Rute 503 Buer
N-1766 Halden
Norway
EMail: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
12. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.