draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-00.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-00.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting Network Working Group C. Olvera (Editor)
Expires August 2003 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Consulintel
Internet Draft P. J. Nesser II
Nesser & Nesser Consulting
June 2003
Expires December 2003
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Routing Area Standards IETF Routing Area Standards
Status of this Memo
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
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt athttp://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 investigation work seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses
deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. In order to in currently deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. In
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
current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is hoped that these is the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies.
protocols (and their implementations) will be redesigned to be network It is 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
and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards
as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and any dependencies will be documented. (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be
surveyed and any dependencies will be documented.
1.0 Introduction draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
This work began as a megolithic document draft-ietf-ngtrans- Table of Contents
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 1. Introduction...................................................3
There are many challenges that face the Internet Engineering community. 2. Document Organization..........................................3
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 3. Full Standards.................................................3
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 4. Draft Standards................................................5
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 5. Proposed Standards.............................................5
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 6. Experimental RFCs.............................................12
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 7. Summary of Results............................................16
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 8. Security Considerations.......................................19
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 9. Acknowledgements..............................................19
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 10. References...................................................19
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 11. Authors' Addresses...........................................20
Throughout this document there are discussions on how protocols might be Copyright........................................................20
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: Intellectual Property............................................21
"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
you accept from others." Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
2.0 Methodology 1. Introduction
To perform this study each class of IETF standards are investigated in This work aims to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently
order of maturity: Full, Draft, and Proposed, as well as Experimental. deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. Also, throughout
Informational RFC are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by this document there are discussions on how routing protocols might be
either newer versions or as they have transitioned through the standards updated to support IPv6 addresses.
process are not covered.
Please note that a side effect of this choice of methodology is that This material was originally presented within a single document, but
some protocols that are defined by a series of RFC's that are of different has subsequently been split into 7 documents conforming to the
levels of standards maturity are covered in different spots in the current IETF main areas (Application, Internet, Operations &
document. Likewise other natural groupings (i.e. MIBs, SMTP extensions, Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
IP over FOO, PPP, DNS, etc.) could easily be imagined.
2.1 Scope The general overview, methodology and scope of the investigation for
the whole 7 documents can be found in the introduction of this set of
documents [1].
The procedure used in this investigation is an exhaustive reading of the 2. Document Organization
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 The main Sections of this document are described below.
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 RFC 3247.
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.
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft, Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5,
and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed in and 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole
its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. The comments for and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are
each RFC is "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a vacuum correlated.
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 3. Full Standards
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.
3.0 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.
Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as "Standards") 3.1 RFC 904 Exterior Gateway Protocol
are fully mature protocol specification that are widely implemented and
used throughout the Internet.
3.1 RFC 1009 Gateway Requirements This RFC has been depreciated to Historic status and is not
considered.
It is pointless to attempt to try and quantify the IPv4 references in this draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
document. The document specifies operations of IPv4 routers/gateways. Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Hence, it makes numerous references that are IPv4 specific. Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
Like RFC 1122, it is necessary to rewrite this document and create a "IPv6 3.2 RFC 1009 Gateway Requirements
Gateway Requirements" standard.
3.2 RFC 904 Exterior Gateway Protocol It is pointless to attempt to try and quantify the IPv4 references in
this document. The document specifies operations of IPv4
routers/gateways. Hence, it makes numerous references that are IPv4
specific.
This RFC has been depreciated to Historic status and is not considered. Like RFC 1122, it is necessary to rewrite this document and create a
"IPv6 Gateway Requirements" standard.
3.3 RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol 3.3 RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol
This RFC has been reclassified as historic and replace by STD 56. This RFC has been reclassified as historic and replace by STD 56. See
See Section 3.56 for its further discussion. Section 3.6 for its further discussion.
3.4 Interface Message Processor: Specifications for the 3.4 Interface Message Processor: Specifications for the Interconnection
Interconnection of a Host and an IMP of a Host and an IMP
This standard has be reclassified as Historic and is not considered in this This standard STD 39 has been reclassified as historic and is not
discussion. considered in this discussion.
3.5 RFC 2328 OSPF Version 2 3.5 RFC 2328 OSPF Version 2
This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing. It is highly assumptive This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing. It is highly
about address formats being IPv4 in nature. A new versions of OSPF must assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in nature. A new version
be created to support IPv6. of OSPF must be created to support IPv6.
3.6 RFC 2453 RIP Version 2 3.6 RFC 2453 RIP Version 2
RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality
is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2080. is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2080.
3.7 RFC 1722 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement 3.7 RFC 1722 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement
RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality
is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2081. is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2081.
4.0 Draft Standards draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
4. Draft Standards
Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF. Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF.
A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple, A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple,
independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are usually independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are
quite mature and widely used. usually quite mature and widely used.
4.1 RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) (BGP-4) 4.1 RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)
This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing information This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing
and does not support IPv6. A new EGP must be defined for the exchange of information and does not support IPv6. A new EGP must be defined for
IPv6 routing information. the exchange of IPv6 routing information.
4.2 RFC 1772 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the 4.2 RFC 1772 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
Internet (BGP-4-APP) (BGP-4-APP)
This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP4 on the Internet. Since BGP4 This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP4 on the Internet. Since
is limited to IPv4 addresses, it is expected that a similar document will BGP4 is limited to IPv4 addresses, it is expected that a similar
be created to be paired with the definition of the next generation BGP. document will be created to be paired with the definition of the next
generation BGP.
5.0 Proposed Standards 5. 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
are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They Proposed are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards
therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the Internet process. They therefore are often just proposed ideas that are
community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of many competing presented to the Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or
solutions to problems. In these later cases, no discussion is presented they are one of many competing solutions to problems. In these later
as it would not serve the purpose of this discussion. cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose
of this discussion.
5.01 RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual 5.1 RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual
environments (IS-IS) environments (IS-IS)
This documents specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing
information. It is incompatible with IPv6. There are is substantial information. It is incompatible with IPv6. There are substantial
work being done on a newer version of IS-IS that should include IPv6 work being done on a newer version of IS-IS that should include IPv6
routing. routing.
5.02 RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4. It is 5.2 RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF
expected that a similar document be assigned for when a version of OSPF
that supports IPv6 is established.
5.03 RFC 1397 Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4.
of The Border Gateway Protocol It is expected that a similar document be assigned for when a version
of OSPF that supports IPv6 is established.
5.3 RFC 1397 Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of The
Border Gateway Protocol
BGP2 and BGP3 are both depreciated and therefore are not discussed in BGP2 and BGP3 are both depreciated and therefore are not discussed in
this document. this document.
5.04 RFC 1403 BGP OSPF Interaction (BGP-OSPF) 5.4 RFC 1403 BGP OSPF Interaction (BGP-OSPF)
This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols
and how they exchange IPv4 information. A similar document should be and how they exchange IPv4 information. A similar document should be
produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6. produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6.
5.05 RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing 5.5 RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing (IDPR-ARCH)
(IDPR-ARCH)
The architecture described in this documents has no IPv4 dependencies. The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies.
5.06 RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: 5.6 RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version
Version 1 (IDPR) 1 (IDPR)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.07 RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of 5.7 RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless
Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) (CIDR) Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) (CIDR)
This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
5.08 RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with 5.8 RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR (CIDR-
CIDR (CIDR-ARCH) ARCH)
This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
5.09 RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address 5.9 RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
Assignment and Aggregation Strategy (CIDR-STRA) Assignment and Aggregation Strategy (CIDR-STRA)
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
5.10 RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits (RIP-DC) 5.10 RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits (RIP-DC)
This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4 This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4
routing information. routing information.
In Section 3. IP Routing Information Protocol Version 1 shows: In Section 3 of RFC 1582, IP Routing Information Protocol Version 1
shows:
Followed by up to 25 routing entries (each 20 octets) Followed by up to 25 routing entries (each 20 octets)
0 1 2 3 3 0 1 2 3 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| address family identifier (2) | must be zero (2) | | address family identifier (2) | must be zero (2) |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| IP address (4) | | IP address (4) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
skipping to change at line 317 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
| must be zero (4) | | must be zero (4) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| metric (4) | | metric (4) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
. .
. .
The format of an IP RIP datagram in octets, with each tick mark The format of an IP RIP datagram in octets, with each tick mark
representing one bit. All fields are in network order. representing one bit. All fields are in network order.
The four octets: sequence number (2), fragment number (1) and The four octets: sequence number (2), fragment number (1) and number
number of fragments (1) are not present in the original RIP of fragments (1) are not present in the original RIP specification.
specification. They are only present if command takes the They are only present if command takes the values 7 or 8.
values 7 or 8.
Figure 2. IP Routing Information Protocol packet format Figure 2. IP Routing Information Protocol packet format
The section referencing RIPv2 refers back to the above text. The Section referencing RIPv2 refers back to the above text.
5.11 RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF (OSPF-Multi) 5.11 RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF (OSPF-Multi)
This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 routing This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 routing
protocol. A similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6. protocol. A similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
5.12 RFC 1587 The OSPF NSSA Option (OSPF-NSSA) 5.12 RFC 1587 The OSPF NSSA Option (OSPF-NSSA)
This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol and This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol and it
it is assumed that any updated version of OSPF to support IPv6 will is assumed that any updated version of OSPF to support IPv6 will
contain an appropriate update for this option. contain an appropriate update for this option.
5.13 RFC 1745 BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction (BGP4/IDRP) 5.13 RFC 1745 BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction (BGP4/IDRP)
This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols
and how they exchange IPv4 information. A similar document should be and how they exchange IPv4 information. A similar document should be
produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6. produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6.
5.14 RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits (OSPF-DC) 5.14 RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits (OSPF-DC)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact
that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only
supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF
to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.
5.15 RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute (BGP-COMM) 5.15 RFC 1812 Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers
This document is only intended to describe requirements for IPv4
implementations in router. A similar document should be produced for
IPv6.
5.16 RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute (BGP-COMM)
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a
newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
enhancement. enhancement.
5.16 RFC 2080 RIPng for IPv6 (RIPNG-IPV6) 5.17 RFC 2080 RIPng for IPv6 (RIPNG-IPV6)
This RFC documents a protocol for exchanging IPv6 routing information This RFC documents a protocol for exchanging IPv6 routing information
and is not discussed in this document. and is not discussed in this document.
5.17 RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand 5.18 RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits
Circuits (RIP-TRIG) (RIP-TRIG)
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
This RFC defines an enhancement for an IPv4 routing protocol and This RFC defines an enhancement for an IPv4 routing protocol and
while it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherintely limited to IPv4. while it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherintely limited to IPv4.
It is expected that a similar mechanism will be implemented in RIPng. It is expected that a similar mechanism will be implemented in RIPng.
5.18 RFC 2332 NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) (NHRP) 5.19 RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
This document is very generic in its design and seems to be able
to support numerous layer 3 addressing schemes and should include
both IPv4 and IPv6.
5.19 RFC 2333 NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement
This document is very generic in its design and seems to be able
to support numerous layer 3 addressing schemes and should include
both IPv4 and IPv6.
5.20 RFC 2335 A Distributed NHRP Service Using SCSP (NHRP-SCSP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.21 RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
This protocol is IPv4 specific. See the following:
5.1 VRRP Packet Format This protocol is IPv4 specific. See the following from RFC 2338:
This section defines the format of the VRRP packet and the relevant 5.1 VRRP Packet Format. This Section defines the format of the VRRP
fields in the IP header. packet and the relevant fields in the IP header.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Type | Virtual Rtr ID| Priority | Count IP Addrs| |Version| Type | Virtual Rtr ID| Priority | Count IP Addrs|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Auth Type | Adver Int | Checksum | | Auth Type | Adver Int | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Address (1) | | IP Address (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at line 427 skipping to change at page 9, line 51
The primary IP address of the interface the packet is being sent The primary IP address of the interface the packet is being sent
from. from.
5.2.2 Destination Address 5.2.2 Destination Address
The IP multicast address as assigned by the IANA for VRRP is: The IP multicast address as assigned by the IANA for VRRP is:
224.0.0.18 224.0.0.18
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
This is a link local scope multicast address. Routers MUST NOT This is a link local scope multicast address. Routers MUST NOT
forward a datagram with this destination address regardless of its forward a datagram with this destination address regardless of its
TTL. TTL.
There are numerous other references to 32-bit IP addresses. There There are numerous other references to 32-bit IP addresses. There
does not seem to be any reason that a new version of this protocol does not seem to be any reason that a new version of this protocol
could be straightforwardly be developed for IPv6. could be straightforwardly be developed for IPv6.
5.22 RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option (OSPF-LSA) 5.20 RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option (OSPF-LSA)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact
that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only
supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF
to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.
5.23 RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping 5.21 RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a
newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
enhancement. enhancement.
5.24 RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 5.22 RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-
Inter-Domain Routing Domain Routing
This RFC documents IPv6 routing methods and is not discussed
in this document.
5.25 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.
5.26 RFC 2735 NHRP Support for Virtual Private Networks
This protocol implies only IPv4 operations, but does not seem to This RFC documents IPv6 routing methods and is not discussed in this
present any reason that it would not function for IPv6. document.
5.27 RFC 2740 OSPF for IPv6 5.23 RFC 2740 OSPF for IPv6
This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and is not discussed This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and is not discussed
in this document. in this document.
5.28 RFC 2769 Routing Policy System Replication (RPSL) 5.24 RFC 2784 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.29 RFC 2784 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) (GRE)
This protocol is only defined for IPv4. The document states: This protocol is only defined for IPv4. The document states in the
Appendix:
o IPv6 as Delivery and/or Payload Protocol o IPv6 as Delivery and/or Payload Protocol
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
This specification describes the intersection of GRE currently This specification describes the intersection of GRE currently
deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery and/or payload deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery and/or payload
protocol is not included protocol is not included.
Therefore, a new version must be defined for IPv6. Therefore, a new version must be defined for IPv6.
5.30 RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh 5.25 RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh (IBGP)
(IBGP)
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a
newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
enhancement. enhancement.
Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in
in and IPv6 aware BGP. and IPv6 aware BGP.
5.31 RFC 2842 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 5.26 RFC 2842 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a
newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
enhancement. enhancement.
Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in
in and IPv6 aware BGP. and IPv6 aware BGP.
5.32 RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 (MEXT-BGP4) 5.27 RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 (MEXT-BGP4)
In the Abstract In the Abstract:
Currently BGP-4 [BGP-4] is capable of carrying routing information Currently BGP-4 [BGP-4] is capable of carrying routing information
only for IPv4 [IPv4]. This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to only for IPv4 [IPv4]. This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to
enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer
protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward
compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate
with a router that doesn't support the extensions. with a router that doesnÆt support the extensions.
The document is therefore no examined further in this document. The document is therefore no examined further in this document.
5.33 RFC 2890 Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE 5.28 RFC 2890 Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.34 RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
This document defines an IPv6 only document and is not concerned 5.29 RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6
in this document.
5.35 RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 The RFC defines an IPv6 only document and is not concerned in this
document.
5.30 RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.36 RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP (BGP-ASC) 5.31 RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP (BGP-ASC)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.37 RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 (SDP) 5.32 RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 (SDP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.38 RFC 3122 Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse 5.33 RFC 3122 Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse
Discovery Specification Discovery Specification
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.
5.39 RFC 3140 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes 6. Experimental RFCs
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.0 Experimental RFCs
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have
implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in widescale implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often
nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet propriety in nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented
community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other to the Internet community in order to allow potential
potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as interoperability or some other potential useful scenario. In a few
alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem. cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution
to an acknowledged problem.
6.01 RFC 1075 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (IP-DVMRP) 6.1 RFC 1075 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (IP-DVMRP)
This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. A This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. A
similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6 multicast routing (or the similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6 multicast routing (or the
functionality must be included in other "standard" IPv6 routing functionality must be included in other "standard" IPv6 routing
protocols.) protocols.)
6.02 RFC 1383 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (DNS-IP) draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
6.2 RFC 1383 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (DNS-IP)
This proposal is IPv4 limited: This proposal is IPv4 limited:
This record is designed for easy general purpose extensions in the This record is designed for easy general purpose extensions in the
DNS, and its content is a text string. The RX record will contain DNS, and its content is a text string. The RX record will contain
three fields: three fields:
- A record identifier composed of the two characters "RX". - A record identifier composed of the two characters "RX". This is
This is used to disambiguate from other experimental uses used to disambiguate from other experimental uses of the "TXT"
of the "TXT" record. record.
- A cost indicator, encoded on up to 3 numerical digits. - A cost indicator, encoded on up to 3 numerical digits. The
The corresponding positive integer value should be less corresponding positive integer value should be less that 256, in
that 256, in order to preserve future evolutions. order to preserve future evolutions.
- An IP address, encoded as a text string following the - An IP address, encoded as a text string following the "dot"
"dot" notation. notation.
The three strings will be separated by a single comma. An example of The three strings will be separated by a single comma. An example of
record would thus be: record would thus be:
___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
| domain | type | record | value | | domain | type | record | value |
| - | | | | | - | | | |
|*.27.32.192.in-addr.arpa | IP | TXT | RX, 10, 10.0.0.7| |*.27.32.192.in-addr.arpa | IP | TXT | RX, 10, 10.0.0.7|
|_________________________|________|__________|___________________| |_________________________|________|__________|___________________|
which means that for all hosts whose IP address starts by the three which means that for all hosts whose IP address starts by the three
octets "192.32.27" the IP host "10.0.0.7" can be used as a gateway, octets "192.32.27" the IP host "10.0.0.7" can be used as a gateway,
and that the preference value is 10. and that the preference value is 10.
skipping to change at line 617 skipping to change at page 13, line 38
___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
| domain | type | record | value | | domain | type | record | value |
| - | | | | | - | | | |
|*.27.32.192.in-addr.arpa | IP | TXT | RX, 10, 10.0.0.7| |*.27.32.192.in-addr.arpa | IP | TXT | RX, 10, 10.0.0.7|
|_________________________|________|__________|___________________| |_________________________|________|__________|___________________|
which means that for all hosts whose IP address starts by the three which means that for all hosts whose IP address starts by the three
octets "192.32.27" the IP host "10.0.0.7" can be used as a gateway, octets "192.32.27" the IP host "10.0.0.7" can be used as a gateway,
and that the preference value is 10. and that the preference value is 10.
6.03 RFC 1476 RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol (RAP) 6.3 RFC 1476 RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol (RAP)
This document defines an IPv7 routing protocol and has been abandoned This document defines an IPv7 routing protocol and has been abandoned
by the IETF as a feasible design. It is not considered in this by the IETF as a feasible design. It is not considered in this
document. document.
6.04 RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow (OSPF-OVFL) 6.4 RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow (OSPF-OVFL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact
that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only that it is a new functionality for a routing protocol that only
supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF
to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.
6.05 RFC 1863 A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
routing (BGP-IDRP) Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
6.5 RFC 1863 A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing
(BGP-IDRP)
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
6.06 RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh 6.6 RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP (BGP-
IBGP (BGP-RR) RR)
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a
newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
enhancement. enhancement.
Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in
in and IPv6 aware BGP. and IPv6 aware BGP.
6.07 RFC 2189 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing 6.7 RFC 2189 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing
This document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast. The document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast. It
It is expected that it could easily be updated to support IPv6 is expected that it could easily be updated to support IPv6
multicasting. multicasting.
7.3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format From Section 7.3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CBT Control Packet Header | | CBT Control Packet Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| group address | | group address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| target router | | target router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| originating router | | originating router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| option type | option len | option value | | option type | option len | option value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format Figure 3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format
JOIN_REQUEST Field Definitions JOIN_REQUEST Field Definitions
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
o group address: multicast group address of the group being joined. o group address: multicast group address of the group being joined.
For a "wildcard" join (see [5]), this field contains the value of For a "wildcard" join (see [5]), this field contains the value of
INADDR_ANY. INADDR_ANY.
o target router: target (core) router for the group. o target router: target (core) router for the group.
o originating router: router that originated this JOIN_REQUEST. o originating router: router that originated this JOIN_REQUEST.
There are many other packet formats defined in the document that There are many other packet formats defined in the document that show
show this limitation as well. this limitation as well.
6.08 RFC 2201 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture 6.8 RFC 2201 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture
See previous section for the IPv4 limitation in this protocol. See previous Section for the IPv4 limitation in this protocol.
6.09 RFC 2520 NHRP with Mobile NHCs (NHRP-MNHCS) 6.9 RFC 2337 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse
Mode PIM
This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism must
be defined for IPv6 multicasting.
6.10 RFC 2362 Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
6.10 RFC 2676 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions 6.11 RFC 2676 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions
There are IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. IT requires the There are IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. It requires the use of
use of the IPv4 TOS header field. It is assumed that a future the IPv4 TOS header field. It is assumed that a future update to
update to OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.
functionality.
7.0 Summary of Results draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
In the initial survey of RFCs 26 positives were identified out of a 7. Summary of Results
total of 58, broken down as follows:
In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a
total of 53, broken down as follows:
Standards 2 of 7 or 28.57%
Standards 3 of 7 or 42.86%
Draft Standards 1 of 2 or 50.00% Draft Standards 1 of 2 or 50.00%
Proposed Standards 18 of 39 or 46.15%
Experimental RFCs 4 of 10 or 40.00% Proposed Standards 17 of 33 or 51.52%
Experimental RFCs 5 of 11 or 45.45%
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 The authors have attempted to organize the results in a format that
easy reference to other protocol designers. The following recommendations allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The assignment of
uses the documented terms "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", statements has been based entirely on the authors perceived needs for
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" updates and should not be taken as an official statement.
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 4 Router Requirements (RFC 1812) 7.1.1 STD 54 OSPF (RFC 2328)
RFC 1812 SHOULD be updated to include IPv6 Routing Requirements (once
they are finalized)
7.1.2 STD 54 OSPF (RFC 2328)
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
7.1.3 STD 56 RIPv2 (RFC 2453) 7.1.2 STD 56 RIPv2 (RFC 2453)
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. This problem has been fixed by RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.
7.2 Draft Standards 7.2 Draft Standards
7.2.1 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (RFC 1771) 7.2.1 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (RFC 1771)
This problem has been fixed in RFC2283, Multiprotocol Extensions This problem has been fixed in RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for
for BGP-4. BGP-4.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3 Proposed Standards
7.3.01 IS-IS (RFC 1195) 7.3.1 IS-IS (RFC 1195)
This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG and a ID is This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG and a ID is currently
currently available (draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-02.txt) available (draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-02.txt)
7.3.02 Applicability Statement for OSPFv2 (RFC 1370) 7.3.2 Applicability Statement for OSPFv2 (RFC 1370)
This problem has been resolved in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. This problem has been resolved in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
7.3.03 Applicability of CIDR (RFC 1517) 7.3.3 Applicability of CIDR (RFC 1517)
The contents of this specification has been treated in various The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6
IPv6 addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374. addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374.
7.3.04 CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518) 7.3.4 CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518)
The contents of this specification has been treated in various The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6
IPv6 addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374. addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374.
7.3.05 RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582) 7.3.5 RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582)
This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.
7.3.06 OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584) 7.3.6 OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584)
This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
7.3.07 OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 1587) 7.3.7 OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 1587)
This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
7.3.08 BGP4/IDRP OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745) 7.3.8 BGP4/IDRP OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745)
The problems are addressed in the combination of RFC2283, The problems are addressed in the combination of RFC2283,
Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 and RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 and RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
7.3.09 OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793) 7.3.9 OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793)
This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
7.3.10 IPv4 Router Requirements (RFC 1812) 7.3.10 IPv4 Router Requirements (RFC 1812)
See Section 7.1.2. This document should be updated to include IPv6 Routing Requirements.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
7.3.11 RIP Triggered Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 2091) 7.3.11 RIP Triggered Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 2091)
This functionality is provided in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. This functionality is provided in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.
7.3.12 VRRP (RFC 2338) 7.3.12 VRRP (RFC 2338)
The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG and The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG and there
there is an ID (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-02.txt). is an ID (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-02.txt).
7.3.13 OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370) 7.3.13 OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370)
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
7.3.14 BGP Route Flap Dampening (RFC 2439) 7.3.14 BGP Route Flap Dampening (RFC 2439)
These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283,
Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.
7.3.15 RPSL (RFC 2622) 7.3.15 GRE (RFC 2784)
Additional objects MUST be defined for IPv6 addresses and prefixes.
7.3.16 GRE (RFC 2784)
The problems have not been addressed and a new protocol SHOULD be The problems have not been addressed and a new protocol should be
defined. defined.
7.3.17 BGP Route Reflector (RFC 2796) 7.3.16 BGP Route Reflector (RFC 2796)
These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283,
Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.
7.3.18 Capabilities Advertisement in BGP4 (RFC 2842) 7.3.17 Capabilities Advertisement in BGP4 (RFC 2842)
These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283,
Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.
7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.4 Experimental RFCs
7.4.1 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (RFC 1075) 7.4.1 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (RFC 1075)
This protocol is a routing protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. It This protocol is a routing protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. It
is no longer in use and SHOULD NOT be redefined. is no longer in use and should not be redefined.
7.4.2 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (RFC 1383) 7.4.2 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (RFC 1383)
This protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR and a new protocol standard This protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR and a new protocol standard
SHOULD NOT be produced. should not be produced.
7.4.3 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676) draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
7.4.3 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing (RFC 2189)
This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol
standard may be produced.
7.4.4 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676)
An update to this document can be simply define the use of the IPv6 An update to this document can be simply define the use of the IPv6
Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the
IPv4 TOS field. IPv4 TOS field.
7.4.4 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing 7.4.5 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse Mode
(RFC 2189) PIM (RFC 2337)
This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism must
standard MAY be produced. be defined for IPv6 multicast.
8.0 Acknowledgements 8. Security Considerations
The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society This document examines the IPv6-readiness of routing specification;
in the research and production of this document. Additionally the this does not have security considerations in itself.
author would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.
9.0 Authors Address 9. Acknowledgements
Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet
at: Society in the research and production of this document.
The support of IETF IPv6 Operations (v6ops) WG is appreciate also.
Philip J. Nesser II would like to thanks his partner in all ways,
Wendy M. Nesser.
Cesar Olvera would like to thanks to Jordi Palet (Consulintel) his
support and review of this document.
10. References
Normative References
[1] Nesser II, P. J., "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses
in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-
intro-01.txt, IETF Internet Draft, June 2003.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
11. Authors' Addresses
Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or
suggestions at:
Cesar Olvera Morales
Researcher
Consulintel
San Jose Artesano, 1
Alcobendas 28108
Madrid, Spain
Email: cesar.olvera@consulintel.es
Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
Fax: +34 91 151 81 98
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
Copyright
The following Full Copyright Statement from RFC 2026, Section 10.4,
describes the applicable copyright for this document.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society June, 2003. All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The following notice from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, describes the
position of the IETF concerning intellectual property claims made
against this document.
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 other 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
IETFÆs 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 implementers 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.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
 End of changes. 

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