draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-00.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-01.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-00.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-01.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Expires August 2003 Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom
Ostfold University College
June 2003
Expires December 2003
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Operations & Management Area Standards IETF Operations & Management Area Standards
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at line 31 skipping to change at line 34
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently
deployed IETF Operations & Management Area documented standards. In order deployed IETF Operations & Management Area documented standards. In
to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6 Internet, order to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all
many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is the evolution of IPv6 Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is
current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is hoped that these the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is
protocols (and their implementations) will be redesigned to be network hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be
address independent, but failing that will at least dually support IPv4 redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will at
and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full,
as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and any dependencies will be documented. Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and
any dependencies will be documented.
1.0 Introduction
This work began as a megolithic document draft-ietf-ngtrans-
ipv4survey-XX.txt. In an effort to rework the information into a more
manageable form, it has been broken into 8 documents conforming to the
current IETF areas (Application, General, Internet, Manangement & Operations,
Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
1.1 Short Historical Perspective
There are many challenges that face the Internet Engineering community.
The foremost of these challenges has been the scaling issue. How to grow
a network that was envisioned to handle thousands of hosts to one that
will handle tens of millions of networks with billions of hosts. Over the
years this scaling problem has been overcome with changes to the network
layer and to routing protocols. (Ignoring the tremendous advances in
computational hardware)
The first "modern" transition to the network layer occurred in during the
early 1980's from the Network Control Protocol (NCP) to IPv4. This
culminated in the famous "flag day" of January 1, 1983. This version of
IP was documented in RFC 760. This was a version of IP with 8 bit network
and 24 bit host addresses. A year later IP was updated in RFC 791 to
include the famous A, B, C, D, & E class system.
Networks were growing in such a way that it was clear that a need for
breaking networks into smaller pieces was needed. In October of 1984 RFC
917 was published formalizing the practice of subnetting.
By the late 1980's it was clear that the current exterior routing protocol
used by the Internet (EGP) was not sufficient to scale with the growth of
the Internet. The first version of BGP was documented in 1989 in RFC
1105.
The next scaling issues to became apparent in the early 1990's was the
exhaustion of the Class B address space. The growth and commercialization
of the Internet had organizations requesting IP addresses in alarming
numbers. In May of 1992 over 45% of the Class B space was allocated. In
early 1993 RFC 1466 was published directing assignment of blocks of Class
C's be given out instead of Class B's. This solved the problem of address
space exhaustion but had significant impact of the routing infrastructure.
The number of entries in the "core" routing tables began to grow
exponentially as a result of RFC 1466. This led to the implementation of
BGP4 and CIDR prefix addressing. This may have solved the problem for the
present but there are still potential scaling issues.
Current Internet growth would have long overwhelmed the current address
space if industry didn't supply a solution in Network Address Translators
(NATs). To do this the Internet has sacrificed the underlying
"End-to-End" principle.
In the early 1990's the IETF was aware of these potential problems and
began a long design process to create a successor to IPv4 that would
address these issues. The outcome of that process was IPv6.
The purpose of this document is not to discuss the merits or problems of
IPv6. That is a debate that is still ongoing and will eventually be
decided on how well the IETF defines transition mechanisms and how
industry accepts the solution. The question is not "should," but "when."
1.2 A Brief Aside
Throughout this document there are discussions on how protocols might be
updated to support IPv6 addresses. Although current thinking is that IPv6
should suffice as the dominant network layer protocol for the lifetime of
the author, it is not unreasonable to contemplate further upgrade to IP.
Work done by the IRTF Interplanetary Internet Working Group shows one idea
of far reaching thinking. It may be a reasonable idea (or may not) to
consider designing protocols in such a way that they can be either IP
version aware or independent. This idea must be balanced against issues
of simplicity and performance. Therefore it is recommended that protocol
designer keep this issue in mind in future designs.
Just as a reminder, remember the words of Jon Postel:
"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what
you accept from others."
2.0 Methodology Table of Contents
To perform this study each class of IETF standards are investigated in 1. Introduction
order of maturity: Full, Draft, and Proposed, as well as Experimental. 2. Document Organisation
Informational RFC are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by 3. Full Standards
either newer versions or as they have transitioned through the standards 4. Draft Standards
process are not covered. 5. Proposed Standards
6. Experimental RFCs
7. Summary of Results
7.1 Standards
7.2 Draft Standards
7.3 Proposed Standards
7.4 Experimental RFCs
8. Security Consideration
9. Acknowledgements
10. References
11. Authors Address
12. Intellectual Property Statement
13. Full Copyright Statement
Please note that a side effect of this choice of methodology is that 1.0 Introduction
some protocols that are defined by a series of RFC's that are of different
levels of standards maturity are covered in different spots in the
document. Likewise other natural groupings (i.e. MIBs, SMTP extensions,
IP over FOO, PPP, DNS, etc.) could easily be imagined.
2.1 Scope This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage of
IPv4 addresses in IETF stanadards. 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, Manangement &
Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
The procedure used in this investigation is an exhaustive reading of the For a full introduction, please see the intro[1] draft.
applicable RFC's. This task involves reading approximately 25000 pages
of protocol specifications. To compound this, it was more than a process
of simple reading. It was necessary to attempt to understand the purpose
and functionality of each protocol in order to make a proper determination
of IPv4 reliability. The author has made ever effort to make this effort
and the resulting document as complete as possible, but it is likely that
some subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) dependence was missed. The author
encourage those familiar (designers, implementers or anyone who has an
intimate knowledge) with any protocol to review the appropriate sections
and make comments.
2.2 Document Organization 2.0 Document Organization
The rest of the document sections are described below. The document is organized as described below:
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft, 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 and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed in
its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. The comments for its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. The comments for
each RFC is "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a vacuum each RFC is "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a
and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if the vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if
problems have already been fixed. the problems have already been fixed.
Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, and 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 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. problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated.
3.0 Full Standards 3.0 Full Standards
Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as "Standards") Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as
are fully mature protocol specification that are widely implemented and "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely
used throughout the Internet. implemented and used throughout the Internet.
3.1 RFC 1157 Simple Network Management Protocol 3.1 RFC 1157 Simple Network Management Protocol
Beginning in Section 3.2.6.3.2 atTable Object Type Names thru the rest of Beginning in Section 3.2.6.3.2 atTable Object Type Names thru the rest
Section 3 there are numerous references to the use of IPv4 addresses as of Section 3 there are numerous references to the use of IPv4 addresses
part of OIDs. as part of OIDs.
Section 4. Protocol Specification specifies the format of an SNMP packet Section 4. Protocol Specification specifies the format of an SNMP
which uses the overall format of: packet which uses the overall format of:
RFC1157-SNMP DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN RFC1157-SNMP DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS IMPORTS
ObjectName, ObjectSyntax, NetworkAddress, IpAddress, TimeTicks ObjectName, ObjectSyntax, NetworkAddress, IpAddress, TimeTicks
FROM RFC1155-SMI; FROM RFC1155-SMI;
Section 4.1.3.1. Example of Table Traversal has many uses of IPv4 addresses Section 4.1.3.1. Example of Table Traversal has many uses of IPv4
in its example of table transversal. addresses in its example of table transversal.
Section 5. Definitions reiterates the use of IPv4 addresses. Section 5. Definitions reiterates the use of IPv4 addresses.
RFC1157-SNMP DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN RFC1157-SNMP DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS IMPORTS
ObjectName, ObjectSyntax, NetworkAddress, IpAddress, TimeTicks ObjectName, ObjectSyntax, NetworkAddress, IpAddress, TimeTicks
FROM RFC1155-SMI; FROM RFC1155-SMI;
3.2 RFC 1155 Structure of Management Information 3.2 RFC 1155 Structure of Management Information
Section 3.2.3.2. IpAddress defines the following: Section 3.2.3.2. IpAddress defines the following:
This application-wide type represents a 32-bit internet address. It This application-wide type represents a 32-bit internet address. It
is represented as an OCTET STRING of length 4, in network byte-order. is represented as an OCTET STRING of length 4, in network byte-order.
There are several instances of the use of this definition in the rest of the There are several instances of the use of this definition in the rest of
document. the document.
3.3 RFC 1213 Management Information Base 3.3 RFC 1213 Management Information Base
There are far too many instances of IPv4 addresses is this document There are far too many instances of IPv4 addresses is this document
to enumerate here. Clearly the entire IP OID sub tree is rife with to enumerate here. Clearly the entire IP OID sub tree is rife with
IPv4 dependencies. A new sub tree needs to be defined to deal with IPv4 dependencies. A new sub tree needs to be defined to deal with
IPv6 addresses leaving the current sub tree intact for IPv4 address IPv6 addresses leaving the current sub tree intact for IPv4 address
information. information.
3.4 RFC 1643 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface 3.4 RFC 1643 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like
Types Interface Types
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.5 Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2. RFC2578, 3.5 Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2. RFC2578,
RFC2579 RFC2579
3.5.1 RFC 2578 Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2) 3.5.1 RFC 2578 Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)
Section 7.1.5. IpAddress defines: Section 7.1.5. IpAddress defines:
skipping to change at line 260 skipping to change at line 187
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.02 RFC 1559 DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions (DECNET-MIB) 4.02 RFC 1559 DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions (DECNET-MIB)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.03 RFC 1657 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth 4.03 RFC 1657 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth
Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2 (BGP-4-MIB) Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2 (BGP-4-MIB)
The MIB defined in this RFC deals with objects in a BGP4 based routing The MIB defined in this RFC deals with objects in a BGP4 based routing
system and therefore contain many objects that are limited by the IpAddress system and therefore contain many objects that are limited by the
32-bit value defined in MIB2. Clearly the values of this MIB are limited IpAddress 32-bit value defined in MIB2. Clearly the values of this MIB
to IPv4 addresses. No update is needed, although a new MIB should be are limited to IPv4 addresses. No update is needed, although a new MIB
defined for BGP++ to allow management of IPv6 addresses and routes. should be defined for BGP++ to allow management of IPv6 addresses and
routes.
4.04 RFC 1658 Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream Devices 4.04 RFC 1658 Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream
using SMIv2 Devices using SMIv2
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.05 RFC 1659 Definitions of Managed Objects for RS-232-like Hardware 4.05 RFC 1659 Definitions of Managed Objects for RS-232-like Hardware
Devices using SMIv2 Devices using SMIv2
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.06 RFC 1660 Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like 4.06 RFC 1660 Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like
Hardware Devices using SMIv2 Hardware Devices using SMIv2
skipping to change at line 449 skipping to change at line 377
4.16 RFC 2572 Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network 4.16 RFC 2572 Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP) (MPD-SNMP) Management Protocol (SNMP) (MPD-SNMP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.17 RFC 2573 SNMP Applications (SNMP-APP) 4.17 RFC 2573 SNMP Applications (SNMP-APP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.18 RFC 2574 User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple 4.18 RFC 2574 User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3) (USM-SNMPV3) Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3) (USM-SNMPV3)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.19 RFC 2575 View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple 4.19 RFC 2575 View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP) (VACM-SNMP) Network Management Protocol (SNMP) (VACM-SNMP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.20 RFC 2790 Host Resources MIB 4.20 RFC 2790 Host Resources MIB
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.21 RFC 2863 The Interfaces Group MIB (INTERGRMIB) 4.21 RFC 2863 The Interfaces Group MIB (INTERGRMIB)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There is some discussion There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There is some
in one OID about an interface performing a self test, but it is IP version discussion in one OID about an interface performing a self test, but it
independent. is IP version independent.
5.0 Proposed Standards 5.0 Proposed Standards
Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no
requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed
are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They
therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the Internet therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the
community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of many competing Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of
solutions to problems. In these later cases, no discussion is presented many competing solutions to problems. In these later cases, no
as it would not serve the purpose of this discussion. discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose of this
discussion.
5.001 RFC 1239 Reassignment of experimental MIBs to standard MIBs 5.001 RFC 1239 Reassignment of experimental MIBs to standard MIBs
(STD-MIBs) (STD-MIBs)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.002 RFC 1269 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway 5.002 RFC 1269 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway
Protocol: Version 3 (BGP-MIB) Protocol: Version 3 (BGP-MIB)
The use of BGP3 has been depreciated and is not discussed. The use of BGP3 has been depreciated and is not discussed.
skipping to change at line 1667 skipping to change at line 1596
MAX-ACCESS read-only MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"The NAS-IP-Address of the RADIUS authentication client "The NAS-IP-Address of the RADIUS authentication client
referred to in this table entry." referred to in this table entry."
::= { radiusAuthClientEntry 2 } ::= { radiusAuthClientEntry 2 }
There needs to be an update to allow an IPv6 based OID for this There needs to be an update to allow an IPv6 based OID for this
value. value.
5.081 RFC 2662 Definitions of Managed Objects for the ADSL 5.081 RFC 2622 Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)
(RPSL)
The only objects in the version of RPSL that deal with IP addresses
are defined as:
<ipv4-address> An IPv4 address is represented as a sequence of four
integers in the range from 0 to 255 separated by the character dot
".". For example, 128.9.128.5 represents a valid IPv4 address.
In the rest of this document, we may refer to IPv4 addresses as IP
addresses.
<address-prefix> An address prefix is represented as an IPv4 address
followed by the character slash "/" followed by an integer in the
range from 0 to 32. The following are valid address prefixes:
128.9.128.5/32, 128.9.0.0/16, 0.0.0.0/0; and the following address
prefixes are invalid: 0/0, 128.9/16 since 0 or 128.9 are not
strings containing four integers.
There seems to be an awareness of IPv6 because of the terminology but
it is not specifically defined. Therefore additional objects for IPv6
addresses and masks need to be defined.
5.082 RFC 2662 Definitions of Managed Objects for the ADSL
Lines (MIB) Lines (MIB)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.082 RFC 2665 Definitions of Managed Objects for the 5.083 RFC 2665 Definitions of Managed Objects for the
Ethernet-like Interface Types (MIB) Ethernet-like Interface Types (MIB)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.083 RFC 2667 IP Tunnel MIB 5.084 RFC 2667 IP Tunnel MIB
The Abstract of this document says: The Abstract of this document says:
This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for use with This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for use with
network management protocols in the Internet community. In network management protocols in the Internet community. In
particular, it describes managed objects used for managing tunnels of particular, it describes managed objects used for managing tunnels of
any type over IPv4 networks. Extension MIBs may be designed for any type over IPv4 networks. Extension MIBs may be designed for
managing protocol-specific objects. Likewise, extension MIBs may be managing protocol-specific objects. Likewise, extension MIBs may be
designed for managing security-specific objects. This MIB does not designed for managing security-specific objects. This MIB does not
support tunnels over non-IPv4 networks (including IPv6 networks). support tunnels over non-IPv4 networks (including IPv6 networks).
Management of such tunnels may be supported by other MIBs. Management of such tunnels may be supported by other MIBs.
A similar MIB for tunneling over IPv6 should be defined. A similar MIB for tunneling over IPv6 should be defined.
5.084 RFC 2668 Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Medium 5.085 RFC 2668 Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Medium
Attachment Units (MAUs) (MAU-MIB) Attachment Units (MAUs) (MAU-MIB)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.085 RFC 2669 DOCSIS Cable Device MIB Cable Device Management 5.086 RFC 2669 DOCSIS Cable Device MIB Cable Device Management
Information Base for DOCSIS compliant Cable Modems and Information Base for DOCSIS compliant Cable Modems and
Cable Modem Termination Systems Cable Modem Termination Systems
This document states: This document states:
Please note that the DOCSIS 1.0 standard only requires Cable Please note that the DOCSIS 1.0 standard only requires Cable
Modems to implement SNMPv1 and to process IPv4 customer traffic. Modems to implement SNMPv1 and to process IPv4 customer traffic.
Design choices in this MIB reflect those requirements. Future Design choices in this MIB reflect those requirements. Future
versions of the DOCSIS standard are expected to require support versions of the DOCSIS standard are expected to require support
for SNMPv3 and IPv6 as well. for SNMPv3 and IPv6 as well.
5.086 RFC 2670 Radio Frequency (RF) Interface Management Information 5.087 RFC 2670 Radio Frequency (RF) Interface Management Information
Base for MCNS/DOCSIS compliant RF interfaces (MIB) Base for MCNS/DOCSIS compliant RF interfaces (MIB)
This MIB defines the following OIDs: This MIB defines the following OIDs:
DocsIfCmtsCmStatusEntry ::= SEQUENCE { DocsIfCmtsCmStatusEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
docsIfCmtsCmStatusIndex Integer32, docsIfCmtsCmStatusIndex Integer32,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusMacAddress MacAddress, docsIfCmtsCmStatusMacAddress MacAddress,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusIpAddress IpAddress, docsIfCmtsCmStatusIpAddress IpAddress,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusDownChannelIfIndex InterfaceIndexOrZero, docsIfCmtsCmStatusDownChannelIfIndex InterfaceIndexOrZero,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusUpChannelIfIndex InterfaceIndexOrZero, docsIfCmtsCmStatusUpChannelIfIndex InterfaceIndexOrZero,
skipping to change at line 1745 skipping to change at line 1697
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"IP address of this Cable Modem. If the Cable Modem has no "IP address of this Cable Modem. If the Cable Modem has no
IP address assigned, or the IP address is unknown, this IP address assigned, or the IP address is unknown, this
object returns a value of 0.0.0.0. If the Cable Modem has object returns a value of 0.0.0.0. If the Cable Modem has
multiple IP addresses, this object returns the IP address multiple IP addresses, this object returns the IP address
associated with the Cable interface." associated with the Cable interface."
::= { docsIfCmtsCmStatusEntry 3 } ::= { docsIfCmtsCmStatusEntry 3 }
IPv6 OIDs should be defined. IPv6 OIDs should be defined.
5.087 RFC 2674 Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with 5.088 RFC 2674 Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with
Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN
Extensions (MIB) Extensions (MIB)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.088 RFC 2677 Definitions of Managed Objects for the NBMA Next 5.089 RFC 2677 Definitions of Managed Objects for the NBMA Next
Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) (NHRP-MIB) Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) (NHRP-MIB)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.089 RFC 2720 Traffic Flow Measurement: Meter MIB 5.90 RFC 2720 Traffic Flow Measurement: Meter MIB
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.090 RFC 2737 Entity MIB (Version 2) 5.091 RFC 2725 Routing Policy System Security
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.092 RFC 2726 PGP Authentication for RIPE Database Updates
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.093 RFC 2737 Entity MIB (Version 2)
The TAddress Syntax is used in this MIB which contains IPv4 The TAddress Syntax is used in this MIB which contains IPv4
assumptions and need to be updated. assumptions and need to be updated.
entLogicalTAddress OBJECT-TYPE entLogicalTAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX TAddress SYNTAX TAddress
MAX-ACCESS read-only MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"The transport service address by which the logical entity "The transport service address by which the logical entity
receives network management traffic, formatted according to receives network management traffic, formatted according to
the corresponding value of entLogicalTDomain. the corresponding value of entLogicalTDomain.
For snmpUDPDomain, a TAddress is 6 octets long, the initial For snmpUDPDomain, a TAddress is 6 octets long, the initial
4 octets containing the IP-address in network-byte order and 4 octets containing the IP-address in network-byte order and
the last 2 containing the UDP port in network-byte order. the last 2 containing the UDP port in network-byte order.
Consult 'Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Consult 'Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple
Network Management Protocol' (RFC 1906 [RFC1906]) for Network Management Protocol' (RFC 1906 [RFC1906]) for
further information on snmpUDPDomain." further information on snmpUDPDomain."
5.091 RFC 2741 Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol Version 5.094 RFC 2741 Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol Version
1 (SNMP) 1 (SNMP)
This protocol contains definitions for IPv4 only objects, by reference This protocol contains definitions for IPv4 only objects, by reference
and all examples use only IPv4 addressing. However, there does not and all examples use only IPv4 addressing. However, there does not
seem to be any reason that it could not easily be modified to support seem to be any reason that it could not easily be modified to support
IPv6 addresses. IPv6 addresses.
5.092 RFC 2742 Definitions of Managed Objects for Extensible SNMP 5.095 RFC 2742 Definitions of Managed Objects for Extensible SNMP
Agents Agents
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.093 RFC 2748 The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol 5.096 RFC 2748 The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol
(COPS) (COPS)
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.094 RFC 2749 COPS usage for RSVP 5.097 RFC 2749 COPS usage for RSVP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.095 RFC 2787 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Virtual 5.098 RFC 2769 Routing Policy System Replication (RPSL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.099 RFC 2787 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Virtual
Router Redundancy Protocol Router Redundancy Protocol
As stated in the Overview section: As stated in the Overview section:
Since the VRRP protocol is intended for use with IPv4 routers only, Since the VRRP protocol is intended for use with IPv4 routers only,
this MIB uses the SYNTAX for IP addresses which is specific to IPv4. this MIB uses the SYNTAX for IP addresses which is specific to IPv4.
Thus, changes will be required for this MIB to interoperate in an Thus, changes will be required for this MIB to interoperate in an
IPv6 environment. IPv6 environment.
5.096 RFC 2788 Network Services Monitoring MIB 5.100 RFC 2788 Network Services Monitoring MIB
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.097 RFC 2789 Mail Monitoring MIB 5.101 RFC 2789 Mail Monitoring MIB
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.098 RFC 2837 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fabric Element 5.102 RFC 2837 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fabric Element
in Fibre Channel Standard in Fibre Channel Standard
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.099 RFC 2851 Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses 5.103 RFC 2851 Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses
This MIB defines a new set of OIDs for that allow new MIB's to This MIB defines a new set of OIDs for that allow new MIB's to
use multiple versions of IP. Currently IPv4 and IPv6 addressing use multiple versions of IP. Currently IPv4 and IPv6 addressing
is defined. Update of the many MIBs previously identified as is defined. Update of the many MIBs previously identified as
having IPv4 dependencies could easily be updated using this new having IPv4 dependencies could easily be updated using this new
set of IP address abstractions. set of IP address abstractions.
5.100 RFC 2856 Textual Conventions for Additional High Capacity 5.104 RFC 2856 Textual Conventions for Additional High Capacity
Data Types (SNMP) Data Types (SNMP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.101 RFC 2864 The Inverted Stack Table Extension to the Interfaces 5.105 RFC 2864 The Inverted Stack Table Extension to the Interfaces
Group MIB Group MIB
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.102 RFC 2895 Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier 5.106 RFC 2895 Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier
Reference (RMON-MIB) Reference (RMON-MIB)
This MIB is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This MIB is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.103 RFC 2925 Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote 5.107 RFC 2925 Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote
Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations
This MIB mostly is IPv4 and IPv6 aware. There are a few This MIB mostly is IPv4 and IPv6 aware. There are a few
assumptions that are problems thought. In the following OIDs: assumptions that are problems thought. In the following OIDs:
pingCtlDataSize OBJECT-TYPE pingCtlDataSize OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65507) SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65507)
UNITS "octets" UNITS "octets"
MAX-ACCESS read-create MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current STATUS current
skipping to change at line 1889 skipping to change at line 1853
request in octets. A traceroute request is essentially request in octets. A traceroute request is essentially
transmitted by encoding a UDP datagram into a transmitted by encoding a UDP datagram into a
IP packet. So subtracting the size of a UDP header IP packet. So subtracting the size of a UDP header
(8 octets) and the size of a IP header (20 octets) (8 octets) and the size of a IP header (20 octets)
yields a maximum of 65507 octets." yields a maximum of 65507 octets."
DEFVAL { 0 } DEFVAL { 0 }
::= { traceRouteCtlEntry 6 } ::= { traceRouteCtlEntry 6 }
There is clearly an assumption of IPv4 header sizes. There is clearly an assumption of IPv4 header sizes.
5.104 RFC 2932 IPv4 Multicast Routing MIB 5.108 RFC 2932 IPv4 Multicast Routing MIB
This protocol is only defined for IPv4 and a similar MIB This protocol is only defined for IPv4 and a similar MIB
must be defined for IPv6. must be defined for IPv6.
5.105 RFC 2933 Internet Group Management Protocol MIB 5.109 RFC 2933 Internet Group Management Protocol MIB
As stated in this document: As stated in this document:
Since IGMP is specific to IPv4, this MIB does not support management Since IGMP is specific to IPv4, this MIB does not support management
of equivalent functionality for other address families, such as IPv6. of equivalent functionality for other address families, such as IPv6.
5.106 RFC 2940 Definitions of Managed Objects for Common 5.110 RFC 2940 Definitions of Managed Objects for Common
Open Policy Service (COPS) Protocol Clients Open Policy Service (COPS) Protocol Clients
This MIB is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This MIB is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.107 RFC 2954 Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame 5.111 RFC 2954 Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame
Relay Service (FR-MIB) Relay Service (FR-MIB)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.108 RFC 2955 Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring 5.112 RFC 2955 Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring
and Controlling the Frame Relay/ATM PVC Service and Controlling the Frame Relay/ATM PVC Service
Interworking Function Interworking Function
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.109 RFC 2959 Real-Time Transport Protocol Management 5.113 RFC 2959 Real-Time Transport Protocol Management
Information Base Information Base
There are numerous uses of the included TAddress Syntax which is There are numerous uses of the included TAddress Syntax which is
IPv4 dependent as noted above. IPv4 dependent as noted above.
For example: For example:
rtpSessionRemAddr OBJECT-TYPE rtpSessionRemAddr OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX TAddress SYNTAX TAddress
MAX-ACCESS read-create MAX-ACCESS read-create
skipping to change at line 1946 skipping to change at line 1910
in the case of individual unicast network address pairs.' See in the case of individual unicast network address pairs.' See
RFC 1889, 'RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications,' RFC 1889, 'RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications,'
sec. 3. The transport service is identified by rtpSessionDomain. sec. 3. The transport service is identified by rtpSessionDomain.
For snmpUDPDomain, this is an IP address and even-numbered UDP For snmpUDPDomain, this is an IP address and even-numbered UDP
Port with the RTCP being sent on the next higher odd-numbered Port with the RTCP being sent on the next higher odd-numbered
port, see RFC 1889, sec. 5." port, see RFC 1889, sec. 5."
::= { rtpSessionEntry 3 } ::= { rtpSessionEntry 3 }
There are a total of 8 instances of this. There are a total of 8 instances of this.
5.110 RFC 2981 Event MIB 5.114 RFC 2981 Event MIB
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.111 RFC 2982 Distributed Management Expression MIB 5.115 RFC 2982 Distributed Management Expression MIB
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.112 RFC 3014 Notification Log MIB 5.116 RFC 3014 Notification Log MIB
This document contains OIDs that are IPv4 specific: This document contains OIDs that are IPv4 specific:
nlmLogVariableIpAddressVal OBJECT-TYPE nlmLogVariableIpAddressVal OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IpAddress SYNTAX IpAddress
MAX-ACCESS read-only MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"The value when nlmLogVariableType is 'ipAddress'. "The value when nlmLogVariableType is 'ipAddress'.
Although this seems to be unfriendly for IPv6, we Although this seems to be unfriendly for IPv6, we
skipping to change at line 1977 skipping to change at line 1941
as IpAddress. as IpAddress.
IPv6 addresses are represented using TAddress or IPv6 addresses are represented using TAddress or
InetAddress, and so the underlying datatype is InetAddress, and so the underlying datatype is
OCTET STRING, and their value would be stored in OCTET STRING, and their value would be stored in
the nlmLogVariableOctetStringVal column." the nlmLogVariableOctetStringVal column."
::= { nlmLogVariableEntry 9 } ::= { nlmLogVariableEntry 9 }
Not withstanding the note in the DESCRIPTION. Not withstanding the note in the DESCRIPTION.
5.113 RFC 3019 IP Version 6 Management Information Base for 5.117 RFC 3019 IP Version 6 Management Information Base for
The Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol The Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol
This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this
document. document.
5.114 RFC 3020 Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring 5.118 RFC 3020 Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring
and Controlling the UNI/NNI Multilink Frame Relay Function and Controlling the UNI/NNI Multilink Frame Relay Function
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.115 RFC 3055 Management Information Base for the PINT Services 5.119 RFC 3055 Management Information Base for the PINT Services
Architecture Architecture
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.116 RFC 3060 Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1 5.120 RFC 3060 Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1
Specification (CIM) Specification (CIM)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.117 RFC 3084 COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR) 5.121 RFC 3084 COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)
(COPS-PR) (COPS-PR)
This is an IPv4 only protocol. A version for IPv6 must be defined. This is an IPv4 only protocol. A version for IPv6 must be defined.
6.0 Experimental RFCs 6.0 Experimental RFCs
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale
implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in
nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet
community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other
skipping to change at line 2077 skipping to change at line 2041
6.13 RFC 2903 Generic AAA Architecture 6.13 RFC 2903 Generic AAA Architecture
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.14 RFC 2934 Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4 6.14 RFC 2934 Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4
This document is specific to IPv4. This document is specific to IPv4.
7.0 Summary of Results 7.0 Summary of Results
In the initial survey of RFCs 40 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 41 positives were identified out of a
total of 159, broken down as follows: total of 163, broken down as follows:
Standards 3 of 7 or 42.86% Standards 3 of 7 or 42.86%
Draft Standards 6 of 21 or 28.57% Draft Standards 6 of 21 or 28.57%
Proposed Standards 30 of 117 or 25.64% Proposed Standards 31 of 121 or 25.62%
Experimental RFCs 1 of 14 or 7.14% Experimental RFCs 1 of 14 or 7.14%
Of those identified many require no action because they document Of those identified many require no action because they document
outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols
that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups. that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups.
Additionally there are many instances of standards that SHOULD be Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be
updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not
updated. The remaining instances are documented below. updated. The remaining instances are documented below.
The author has attempted to organize the results in a format that allows
easy reference to other protocol designers. The following recommendations
uses the documented terms "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
described in RFC 2119. They should only be interpreted in the context
of RFC 2119 when they appear in all caps. That is, the word "should" in
the previous SHOULD NOT be interpreted as in RFC 2119.
The assignment of these terms has been based entirely on the authors
perceived needs for updates and should not be taken as an official
statement.
7.1 Standards 7.1 Standards
7.1.1 STD 15 Simple Network Management Protocol (RFCs 1157, 1155, 1213) 7.1.1 STD 15 Simple Network Management Protocol (RFCs 1157, 1155, 1213)
The limitations identified have been addressed. The limitations identified have been addressed.
7.2 Draft Standards 7.2 Draft Standards
7.2.1 BGP4 MIB (RFC 1657) 7.2.1 BGP4 MIB (RFC 1657)
This problem is currently being addressed by the Inter Domain Routing This problem is currently being addressed by the Inter Domain Routing
(IDR) WG and an ID exists (draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mib-09.txt). (IDR) WG and an ID exists (draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mib-09.txt).
7.2.2 SMDS MIB (RFC 1694) 7.2.2 SMDS MIB (RFC 1694)
See Section 7.1.22. Once a specification for IPv6 over SMDS is See Section 7.1.22. Once a specification for IPv6 over SMDS is
created a new MIB MUST be defined. created a new MIB must be defined.
7.2.3 RIPv2 MIB (RFC 1724) 7.2.3 RIPv2 MIB (RFC 1724)
See Section 7.1.24. This problem is currently being addressed by the See Section 7.1.24. This problem is currently being addressed by the
RIP WG and an ID exists (draft-ietf-rip-mib-01.txt). RIP WG and an ID exists (draft-ietf-rip-mib-01.txt).
7.2.4 OSPFv2 MIB (RFC 1850) 7.2.4 OSPFv2 MIB (RFC 1850)
This problem is currently being addressed by the OSPF WG and an ID This problem is currently being addressed by the OSPF WG and an ID
exists (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-04.txt). exists (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-04.txt).
skipping to change at line 2146 skipping to change at line 2098
7.2.6 Frame Relay MIB (RFC 2115) 7.2.6 Frame Relay MIB (RFC 2115)
The problem has been fixed in RFC 2954, Definitions of Managed Objects The problem has been fixed in RFC 2954, Definitions of Managed Objects
for Frame Relay Service. for Frame Relay Service.
7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3 Proposed Standards
7.3.01 MIB for Multiprotocol Interconnect over X.25 (RFC 1461) 7.3.01 MIB for Multiprotocol Interconnect over X.25 (RFC 1461)
This problem has not been addressed. A new specification SHOULD This problem has not been addressed. A new specification should
be created. be created.
7.3.02 PPP IPCP MIB (RFC 1473) 7.3.02 PPP IPCP MIB (RFC 1473)
There is no updated MIB to cover the problems outlined. A new MIB There is no updated MIB to cover the problems outlined. A new MIB
MUST be defined. must be defined.
7.3.03 DNS Server MIB (RFC 1611) 7.3.03 DNS Server MIB (RFC 1611)
The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB MUST be defined. The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB must be defined.
7.3.04 DNS Resolver MIB (RFC 1612) 7.3.04 DNS Resolver MIB (RFC 1612)
The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB MUST be defined. The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB must be defined.
7.3.05 Appletalk MIB (RFC 1742) 7.3.05 Appletalk MIB (RFC 1742)
The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB SHOULD be defined. The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be defined.
7.3.06 The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility 7.3.06 The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility
Support using SMIv2 (RFC 2006) Support using SMIv2 (RFC 2006)
The problems are being resolved by the Mobile IP WG and there is The problems are being resolved by the Mobile IP WG and there is
an ID (draft-ietf-mobileip-rfc2006bis-00.txt) an ID (draft-ietf-mobileip-rfc2006bis-00.txt)
7.3.07 SMIv2 MIB IP (RFC 2011) 7.3.07 SMIv2 MIB IP (RFC 2011)
The problems have been addressed in RFC 2851, Textual Conventions The problems have been addressed in RFC 2851, Textual Conventions
skipping to change at line 2195 skipping to change at line 2147
The problems have been addressed in RFC 2454, IPv6 Management The problems have been addressed in RFC 2454, IPv6 Management
Information Base for the User Datagram Protocol. Information Base for the User Datagram Protocol.
7.3.10 RMON MIB (RFC 2021) 7.3.10 RMON MIB (RFC 2021)
The problems have been addressed in RFC 2819, Remote Network The problems have been addressed in RFC 2819, Remote Network
Monitoring Management Information Base. Monitoring Management Information Base.
7.3.11 DataLink Switching using SMIv2 MIB (RFC 2022) 7.3.11 DataLink Switching using SMIv2 MIB (RFC 2022)
The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB SHOULD be The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be
defined. defined.
7.3.12 IP Forwarding Table MIB (RFC 2096) 7.3.12 IP Forwarding Table MIB (RFC 2096)
This issue is being worked on by the IPv6 WG and an ID exists to This issue is being worked on by the IPv6 WG and an ID exists to
address this (draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2096-update-00.txt) address this (draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2096-update-00.txt)
7.3.13 Classical IP & ARP over ATM MIB (RFC 2320) 7.3.13 Classical IP & ARP over ATM MIB (RFC 2320)
The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB MUST be The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB must be
defined. defined.
7.3.14 Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 ATM MIB (RFC 2417) 7.3.14 Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 ATM MIB (RFC 2417)
The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB MUST be The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB must be
defined. defined.
7.3.15 ATM MIB (RFC 2515) 7.3.15 ATM MIB (RFC 2515)
The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB MUST be The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB must be
defined. defined.
7.3.16 TN3270 MIB (RFC 2562) 7.3.16 TN3270 MIB (RFC 2562)
The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB MAY be The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB may be
defined. defined.
7.3.17 Application MIB (RFC 2564) 7.3.17 Application MIB (RFC 2564)
The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB MAY be The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB may be
defined. defined.
7.3.18 Coexistence of SNMP v1, v2, & v3 (RFC 2576) 7.3.18 Coexistence of SNMP v1, v2, & v3 (RFC 2576)
There are no real issues that can be resolved. There are no real issues that can be resolved.
7.3.19 Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN/HPR in IP Networks 7.3.19 Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN/HPR in IP Networks
(RFC 2584) (RFC 2584)
The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB MAY be The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB may be
defined. defined.
7.3.20 RADIUS MIB (RFC 2618) 7.3.20 RADIUS MIB (RFC 2618)
The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB SHOULD be defined. The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be defined.
7.3.21 RADIUS Authentication Server MIB (RFC 2619) 7.3.21 RADIUS Authentication Server MIB (RFC 2619)
The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB SHOULD be defined. The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be defined.
7.3.22 IPv4 Tunnel MIB (RFC 2667) 7.3.22 IPv4 Tunnel MIB (RFC 2667)
The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB SHOULD be defined. The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be defined.
7.3.23 DOCSIS MIB (RFC 2669) 7.3.23 DOCSIS MIB (RFC 2669)
This problem is currently being addressed by the IPCDN WG and an ID This problem is currently being addressed by the IPCDN WG and an ID
is available (draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-01.txt). is available (draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-01.txt).
7.3.24 RF MIB For DOCSIS (RFC 2670) 7.3.24 RF MIB For DOCSIS (RFC 2670)
This problem is currently being addressed by the IPCDN WG and an ID This problem is currently being addressed by the IPCDN WG and an ID
is available (draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-01.txt). is available (draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-01.txt).
7.3.25 Entity MIB Version 2 (RFC 2737) 7.3.25 Entity MIB Version 2 (RFC 2737)
The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB SHOULD be defined. The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be defined.
7.3.26 AgentX Protocol V1 (RFC 2741) 7.3.26 AgentX Protocol V1 (RFC 2741)
The problems have not been addressed and a new protocol MAY be The problems have not been addressed and a new protocol may be
defined. defined.
7.3.27 VRRP MIB (RFC 2787) 7.3.27 VRRP MIB (RFC 2787)
The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB SHOULD be defined. The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be defined.
7.3.28 MIB For Traceroute, Pings and Lookups (RFC 2925) 7.3.28 MIB For Traceroute, Pings and Lookups (RFC 2925)
The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB MAY be defined. The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB may be defined.
7.3.29 IPv4 Multicast Routing MIB (RFC 2932) 7.3.29 IPv4 Multicast Routing MIB (RFC 2932)
This problem is currently being addressed by the IDR WG and several This problem is currently being addressed by the IDR WG and several
IDs exist. IDs exist.
7.3.30 IGMP MIB (RFC 2933) 7.3.30 IGMP MIB (RFC 2933)
This problem is currently being addressed by the IDR WG. This problem is currently being addressed by the IDR WG.
7.3.31 RPSL (RFC 2622)
Additional objects must be defined for IPv6 addresses and prefixes.
7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.4 Experimental RFCs
7.4.1 Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4 (RFC 2934) 7.4.1 Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4 (RFC 2934)
The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB SHOULD be defined. The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be defined.
8.0 Acknowledgements 8.0 Security Consideration
The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does not
in the research and production of this document. Additionally the have security considerations in itself.
author would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.
9.0 Authors Address 9.0 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 thanks
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.
10.0 References
10.1 Normative
[1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey of
IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-01.txt IETF work in progress,
June 2003
11.0 Authors Address
Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions
at: at:
Philip J. Nesser II Philip J. Nesser II
Principal Principal
Nesser & Nesser Consulting Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
Kirkland, WA 98034 Kirkland, WA 98034
Email: phil@nesser.com Email: phil@nesser.com
Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Phone: +1 425 481 4303
Fax: +1 425 48 Fax: +1 425 48
Andreas Bergstrom
Ostfold University College
Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
Address: Rute 503 Buer
N-1766 Halden
Norway
12.0 Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
13.0 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 docu-
ment 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 develop-
ing 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 lim-
ited 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 DIS-
CLAIMS 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.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/