Network Working Group                               Philip                                C. Olvera (Editor)
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt                  Consulintel
Internet Draft                                          P. J. Nesser II
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-00.txt
                                             Nesser & Nesser Consulting
                                                              June 2003
                                                  Expires August December 2003

              Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
                        IETF Routing Area Standards

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

Status of this Memo

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
   athttp://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

   This document investigation work seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses
   in currently deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards.  In
   order to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all
   IPv6 Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps
   is the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies.
   It is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be
   redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will
   at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6.  To this end, all Standards
   (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be
   surveyed and any dependencies will be documented.

1.0

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3

   2. Document Organization..........................................3

   3. Full Standards.................................................3

   4. Draft Standards................................................5

   5. Proposed Standards.............................................5

   6. Experimental RFCs.............................................12

   7. Summary of Results............................................16

   8. Security Considerations.......................................19

   9. Acknowledgements..............................................19

   10. References...................................................19

   11. Authors' Addresses...........................................20

   Copyright........................................................20

   Intellectual Property............................................21

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards

1. Introduction

   This work began as a megolithic aims to document draft-ietf-ngtrans-
ipv4survey-XX.txt.  In an effort all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently
   deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. Also, throughout
   this document there are discussions on how routing protocols might be
   updated to rework the information into support IPv6 addresses.

   This material was originally presented within a more
manageable form, it single document, but
   has subsequently been broken split into 8 7 documents conforming to the
   current IETF main areas (Application, General, Internet, Manangement Operations & Operations,
   Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).

1.1 Short Historical Perspective

There are many challenges that face the Internet Engineering community.

   The foremost general overview, methodology and scope 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 investigation for
   the whole 7 documents can be found in the introduction of millions this set of networks with billions
   documents [1].

2. Document Organization

   The main Sections of hosts.  Over the
years this scaling problem has been overcome with changes to the network
layer document are described below.

   Sections 3, 4, 5, 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 6 each describe the famous "flag day" of January 1, 1983.  This version raw analysis of
IP was documented in Full,
   Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs.  Each RFC 760.  This was a version of IP is
   discussed in its turn starting with 8 bit network RFC 1 and 24 bit host addresses.  A year later IP was updated ending with RFC 3247.
   The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature.  That is, each RFC 791 to
include the famous A, B, C, D, & E class system.

Networks were growing is
   discussed 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 vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look
   ahead" to see if the practice problems have already been fixed.

   Section 7 is an analysis of subnetting.

By the late 1980's it was clear data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5,
   and 6.  It is here that all of the current exterior routing protocol
used by results are considered as a whole
   and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are
   correlated.

3. Full Standards

   Full Internet (EGP) was not sufficient Standards (most commonly simply referred to scale with the growth of as
   "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely
   implemented and used throughout the Internet.  The first version of BGP was documented in 1989 in

3.1  RFC
1105.

The next scaling issues 904 Exterior Gateway Protocol

   This RFC has been depreciated to became apparent in the early 1990's was the
exhaustion of the Class B address space.  The growth Historic status and commercialization is not
   considered.

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 Survey of the Internet had organizations requesting IP addresses IPv4 Addresses in alarming
numbers.  In May of 1992 over 45% of the Class B space was allocated.  In
early 1993 Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards

3.2  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 1009 Gateway Requirements

   It is pointless to attempt to try and quantify the routing infrastructure. IPv4 references in
   this document.  The number document specifies operations of entries in the "core" routing tables began IPv4
   routers/gateways.  Hence, it makes numerous references that are IPv4
   specific.

   Like RFC 1122, it is necessary to grow
exponentially as rewrite this document and create a result of
   "IPv6 Gateway Requirements" standard.

3.3  RFC 1466. 1058 Routing Information Protocol

   This led to the implementation of
BGP4 RFC has been reclassified as historic and CIDR prefix addressing.  This may have solved the problem replace by STD 56. See
   Section 3.6 for its further discussion.

3.4  Interface Message Processor: Specifications 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 Interconnection
    of
IPv6.  That is a debate that is still ongoing Host and will eventually be
decided on how well the IETF defines transition mechanisms an IMP

   This standard STD 39 has been reclassified as historic and how
industry accepts the solution.  The question is not "should," but "when."

1.2 A Brief Aside

Throughout
   considered in 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 discussion.

3.5  RFC 2328 OSPF Version 2

   This RFC defines a 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. IPv4 routing.  It may be a reasonable idea (or may not) to
consider designing protocols is highly
   assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in such a way that they can be either IP nature.  A new version aware or independent.  This idea
   of OSPF must be balanced against issues
of simplicity and performance.  Therefore it created to support IPv6.

3.6  RFC 2453 RIP Version 2

   RIPv2 is recommended that protocol
designer keep this issue only intended for IPv4 networks.  IPv6 routing functionality
   is contain in mind RIPng documented in future designs.

Just as a reminder, remember the words of Jon Postel:

	"Be conservative RFC 2080.

3.7  RFC 1722 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement

   RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks.  IPv6 routing functionality
   is contain in what you send; be liberal RIPng documented in what
         you accept from others."

2.0 Methodology

To perform this study each class RFC 2081.

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 Survey of IETF standards are investigated IPv4 Addresses in
order of maturity:  Full, Draft, and Proposed, as well as Experimental.
Informational RFC are not addressed.  RFCs that have been obsoleted by
either newer versions or as they have transitioned through Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards

4. Draft Standards

   Draft Standards represent the standards
process penultimate standard level in the IETF.
   A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are not covered.

Please note that a side effect of this choice of methodology is that
some protocols that multiple,
   independent, interoperable implementations.  Draft Standards are defined by
   usually quite mature and widely used.

4.1  RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)

   This RFC defines a series protocol used for exchange of RFC's that are IPv4 routing
   information and does not support IPv6.  A new EGP must be defined for
   the exchange of different
levels IPv6 routing information.

4.2  RFC 1772 Application 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

The procedure used Border Gateway Protocol in this investigation is an exhaustive reading of the
applicable RFC's. Internet
    (BGP-4-APP)

   This task involves reading approximately 25000 pages
of protocol specifications.  To compound this, it was more than RFC is a process discussion of simple reading.  It was necessary to attempt to understand the purpose
and functionality use of each protocol in order BGP4 on the Internet.  Since
   BGP4 is limited 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 addresses, it is likely expected 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 a similar
   document will be created to review be paired with the appropriate sections
and make comments.

2.2 Document Organization

The rest definition of the document sections are described below.

Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft,
and next
   generation BGP.

5. Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs.  Each RFC is discussed in
its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247.  The comments Standards

   Proposed Standards are introductory level documents.  There are no
   requirements for
each RFC is "raw" in nature.  That is, each RFC is discussed in even a vacuum
and problems single implementation.  In many cases
   Proposed are never implemented 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 advanced in Sections 3, 4, 5, and
6.  It is here that all of the results IETF standards
   process.  They therefore are considered as a whole and the
problems often just proposed ideas that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated.

3.0 Full Standards

Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred
   presented to as "Standards") the Internet community.  Sometimes flaws are fully mature protocol specification that exposed or
   they are widely implemented and
used throughout the Internet.

3.1 RFC 1009 Gateway Requirements

It is pointless to attempt one of many competing solutions to try and quantify problems.  In these later
   cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the IPv4 references in purpose
   of this
document.  The discussion.

5.1  RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual
    environments (IS-IS)

   This document specifies operations a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routers/gateways.
Hence, it makes numerous references that routing
   information.  It is incompatible with IPv6.  There are substantial
   work being done on a newer version of IS-IS that should include IPv6
   routing.

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 Survey of IPv4 specific.

Like Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards

5.2  RFC 1122, it is necessary to rewrite this 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF

   This document and create discusses a "IPv6
Gateway Requirements" standard.

3.2 RFC 904 Exterior Gateway Protocol

This RFC has been depreciated version of OSPF that is limited to Historic status and IPv4.
   It is not considered.

3.3 RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol

This expected that a similar document be assigned for when a version
   of OSPF that supports IPv6 is established.

5.3  RFC has been reclassified as historic 1397 Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and replace by STD 56.
See Section 3.56 for its further discussion.

3.4 Interface Message Processor: Specifications for the
     Interconnection BGP3 Version of a Host The
    Border Gateway Protocol

   BGP2 and an IMP

This standard has be reclassified as Historic BGP3 are both depreciated and is therefore are not considered discussed in
   this
discussion.

3.5 document.

5.4  RFC 2328 1403 BGP OSPF Version 2 Interaction (BGP-OSPF)

   This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing.  It is highly assumptive
about address formats being document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols
   and how they exchange IPv4 in nature. information.  A new similar document should be
   produced when versions of OSPF must
be created to and BGP that support IPv6.

3.6

5.5  RFC 2453 RIP Version 2

RIPv2 is only intended 1478 An Architecture for IPv4 networks.  IPv6 routing functionality
is contain in RIPng documented Inter-Domain Policy Routing (IDPR-ARCH)

   The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies.

5.6  RFC 2080.

3.7 RFC 1722 RIP Version 2 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Applicability Statement

RIPv2 is only intended for Specification: Version
    1 (IDPR)

   There are no IPv4 networks.  IPv6 routing functionality
is contain in RIPng documented dependencies in this protocol.

5.7  RFC 2081.

4.0 Draft Standards

Draft Standards represent 1517 Applicability Statement for the penultimate standard level in the IETF.
A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple,
independent, interoperable implementations.  Draft Standards are usually
quite mature and widely used.

4.1 RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) (BGP-4) Implementation of Classless
    Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) (CIDR)

   This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.

5.8  RFC defines a protocol used 1518 An Architecture for exchange of IP Address Allocation with CIDR (CIDR-
    ARCH)

   This document deals exclusively with IPv4 routing information
and does not support IPv6.  A new EGP must be defined for the exchange of
IPv6 routing information.

4.2 addressing issue.

5.9  RFC 1772 Application 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
    Assignment and Aggregation Strategy (CIDR-STRA)

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 Survey of the Border Gateway Protocol IPv4 Addresses in the
     Internet (BGP-4-APP) Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards

   This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.

5.10   RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP4 on the Internet.  Since BGP4
is limited 1582 Extensions to IPv4 addresses, it RIP to Support Demand Circuits (RIP-DC)

   This protocol is expected that a similar document will
be created an extension to be paired with the definition of the next generation BGP.

5.0 Proposed Standards

Proposed Standards are introductory level documents.  There are no
requirements for even a single implementation. protocol for exchanging IPv4
   routing information.

   In many cases Proposed
are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process.  They
therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the Internet
community.  Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one Section 3 of many competing
solutions to problems.  In these later cases, no discussion is presented
as it would not serve the purpose of this discussion.

5.01 RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual
      environments (IS-IS)

This documents specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing
information.  It is incompatible with IPv6.  There are is substantial
work being done on a newer version of IS-IS that should include IPv6
routing.

5.02 RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF

This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4.  It is
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
      of The Border Gateway Protocol

BGP2 and BGP3 are both depreciated and therefore are not discussed in
this document.

5.04 RFC 1403 BGP OSPF Interaction (BGP-OSPF)

This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols
and how they exchange IPv4 information.  A similar document should be
produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6.

5.05 RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing
      (IDPR-ARCH)

The architecture described in this documents has no IPv4 dependencies.

5.06 RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification:
      Version 1 (IDPR)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.

5.07 RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of
      Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) (CIDR)

This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.

5.08 RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with
      CIDR (CIDR-ARCH)

This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.

5.09 RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
      Assignment and Aggregation Strategy (CIDR-STRA)

This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.

5.10 RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits (RIP-DC)

This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4
routing information.

In Section 3. IP Routing Information Protocol Version 1 shows:

     Followed by up RFC 1582, IP Routing Information Protocol Version 1
   shows:

   Followed by up to 25 routing entries (each 20 octets)

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | address family identifier (2) |      must be zero (2)         |
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   |                         IP address (4)                        |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                        must be zero (4)                       |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                        must be zero (4)                       |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                          metric (4)                           |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
                                   .
                                   .

   The format of an IP RIP datagram in octets, with each tick mark
   representing one bit.    All fields are in network order.

   The four octets: sequence number (2), fragment number (1) and number
   of fragments (1) are not present in the original RIP specification.
   They are only present if command takes the values 7 or 8.

         Figure 2.   IP Routing Information Protocol packet format

   The section Section referencing RIPv2 refers back to the above text.

5.11   RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF (OSPF-Multi)

   This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 routing
   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)

   This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol and it
   is assumed that any updated version of OSPF to support IPv6 will
   contain an appropriate update for this option.

5.13   RFC 1745 BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction (BGP4/IDRP)

   This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols
   and how they exchange IPv4 information.  A similar document should be
   produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6.

5.14   RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits (OSPF-DC)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact
   that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only
   supports IPv4 networks.  It is assumed that a future update to OSPF
   to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.

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
   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
   enhancement.

5.16

5.17   RFC 2080 RIPng for IPv6 (RIPNG-IPV6)

   This RFC documents a protocol for exchanging IPv6 routing information
   and is not discussed in this document.

5.17

5.18   RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits
    (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
   while it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherintely limited to IPv4.
It is expected that a similar mechanism will be implemented in RIPng.

5.18 RFC 2332 NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) (NHRP)

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 it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherintely limited to IPv4.
   It is expected that a similar mechanism will be implemented in this protocol.

5.21 RIPng.

5.19   RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)

   This protocol is IPv4 specific.  See the following: following from RFC 2338:

   5.1   VRRP Packet Format Format. This section Section defines the format of the VRRP
   packet and the relevant fields in the IP header.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Version| Type  | Virtual Rtr ID|   Priority    | Count IP Addrs|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Auth Type   |   Adver Int   |          Checksum             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         IP Address (1)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            .                                  |
   |                            .                                  |
   |                            .                                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         IP Address (n)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Authentication Data (1)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Authentication Data (2)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   5.2   IP Field Descriptions

   5.2.1 Source Address

   The primary IP address of the interface the packet is being sent
   from.

   5.2.2 Destination Address

   The IP multicast address as assigned by the IANA for VRRP is:

      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
   forward a datagram with this destination address regardless of its
   TTL.

   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
   could be straightforwardly be developed for IPv6.

5.22

5.20   RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option (OSPF-LSA)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact
   that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only
   supports IPv4 networks.  It is assumed that a future update to OSPF
   to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.

5.23

5.21   RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping

   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
   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
   enhancement.

5.24

5.22   RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6
      Inter-Domain Inter-
    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
present any reason that it would not function for IPv6.

5.27

5.23   RFC 2740 OSPF for IPv6

   This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and is not discussed
   in this document.

5.28 RFC 2769 Routing Policy System Replication (RPSL)

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.

5.29

5.24   RFC 2784 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) (GRE)

   This protocol is only defined for IPv4.  The document states: states in the
   Appendix:

   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
   deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery and/or payload
   protocol is not included included.

   Therefore, a new version must be defined for IPv6.

5.30

5.25   RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh (IBGP)

   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
   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
   enhancement.

   Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in
   and IPv6 aware BGP.

5.31

5.26   RFC 2842 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4

   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
   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
   enhancement.

   Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in
   and IPv6 aware BGP.

5.32

5.27   RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 (MEXT-BGP4)

   In the Abstract Abstract:

   Currently BGP-4 [BGP-4] is capable of carrying routing information
   only for IPv4 [IPv4]. This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to
   enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer
   protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward
   compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate
   with a router that doesn't doesnÆt support the extensions.

   The document is therefore no examined further in this document.

5.33

5.28   RFC 2890 Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.

5.34

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards

5.29   RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6

This document

   The RFC defines an IPv6 only document and is not concerned in this
   document.

5.35

5.30   RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.

5.36

5.31   RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP (BGP-ASC)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.

5.37

5.32   RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 (SDP)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.

5.38

5.33   RFC 3122 Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse
    Discovery Specification

   This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this
   document.

5.39 RFC 3140 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.

6.0

6. Experimental RFCs

   Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have
   widescale implementation or usage on the Internet.  They are often
   propriety in nature or used in limited arenas.  They are documented
   to the Internet community in order to allow potential
   interoperability or some other potential useful scenario.  In a few
   cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution
   to an acknowledged problem.

6.01

6.1  RFC 1075 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (IP-DVMRP)

   This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing.  A
   similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6 multicast routing (or the
   functionality must be included in other "standard" IPv6 routing
   protocols.)

6.02

               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 record is designed for easy general purpose extensions in the
   DNS, and its content is a text string. The RX record will contain
   three fields:

   -  A record identifier composed of the two characters "RX". This is
   used to disambiguate from other experimental uses of the "TXT"
   record.

   -  A cost indicator, encoded on up to 3 numerical digits. The
   corresponding positive integer value should be less that 256, in
   order to preserve future evolutions.

   -  An IP address, encoded as a text string following the "dot"
   notation.

   The three strings will be separated by a single comma. An example of
   record would thus be:
    ___________________________________________________________________
    |         domain          |   type |   record |   value           |
    |            -            |        |          |                   |
    |*.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
   octets "192.32.27" the IP host "10.0.0.7" can be used as a gateway,
   and that the preference value is 10.

6.03

6.3  RFC 1476 RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol (RAP)

   This document defines an IPv7 routing protocol and has been abandoned
   by the IETF as a feasible design.  It is not considered in this
   document.

6.04

6.4  RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow (OSPF-OVFL)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact
   that it is an a new functionality for a routing protocol that only
   supports IPv4 networks.  It is assumed that a future update to OSPF
   to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.

6.05

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 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.

6.06

6.6  RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP (BGP-RR) (BGP-
    RR)

   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
   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
   enhancement.

   Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in
   and IPv6 aware BGP.

6.07

6.7  RFC 2189 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing

This

   The document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast.  It
   is expected that it could easily be updated to support IPv6
   multicasting.

   From Section 7.3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format Format:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    CBT Control Packet Header                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          group address                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          target router                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        originating router                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  option type  |  option len   |        option value           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format

   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.
   For a "wildcard" join (see [5]), this field contains the value of
   INADDR_ANY.

   o  target router: target (core) router for the group.

   o  originating router: router that originated this JOIN_REQUEST.

   There are many other packet formats defined in the document that show
   this limitation as well.

6.08

6.8  RFC 2201 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture

   See previous section Section for the IPv4 limitation in this protocol.

6.09

6.9  RFC 2520 NHRP with Mobile NHCs (NHRP-MNHCS) 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.

6.10

6.11   RFC 2676 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions

   There are IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.  IT  It requires the use of
   the IPv4 TOS header field.  It is assumed that a future update to
   OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.

7.0

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards

7. Summary of Results

   In the initial survey of RFCs 26 25 positives were identified out of a
   total of 58, 53, broken down as follows:

   Standards				  3                 2 of  7 or 42.86% 28.57%

   Draft Standards           1 of  2 or 50.00%

   Proposed Standards			 18       17 of 39 33 or 46.15% 51.52%

   Experimental RFCs			  4         5 of 10 11 or 40.00% 45.45%

   Of those identified many require no action because they document
   outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols
   that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups.
   Additionally there are many instances of standards that SHOULD should be
   updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not
   updated. The remaining instances are documented below.

   The author authors have attempted to organize the results in a format that
   allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The assignment of
   statements has been based entirely on the authors perceived needs for
   updates and should not be taken as an official statement.

7.1  Standards

   7.1.1 STD 54 OSPF (RFC 2328)

   This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.1.2  STD 56 RIPv2 (RFC 2453)

   This problem has been fixed by RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.

7.2  Draft Standards

   7.2.1 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (RFC 1771)

   This problem has been fixed in RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for
   BGP-4.

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards

7.3  Proposed Standards

   7.3.1 IS-IS (RFC 1195)

   This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG and a ID is currently
   available (draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-02.txt)

   7.3.2 Applicability Statement for OSPFv2 (RFC 1370)

   This problem has been resolved in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.3.3 Applicability of CIDR (RFC 1517)

   The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6
   addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374.

   7.3.4 CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518)

   The contents of this specification 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 been treated in various IPv6
   addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2119.  They should only be interpreted 2373 & 2374.

   7.3.5 RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582)

   This problem has been addressed in the context
of RFC 2119 when they appear in all caps.  That is, the word "should" 2080, RIPng for IPv6.

   7.3.6 OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584)

   This functionality has been covered in
the previous SHOULD NOT be interpreted as RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.3.7 OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 1587)

   This functionality has been covered in RFC 2119. 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.3.8 BGP4/IDRP OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745)

   The assignment problems are addressed in the combination of these terms RFC2283,
   Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 and RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.3.9 OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793)

   This functionality has been based entirely on the authors
perceived needs covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for updates and should not be taken as an official
statement.

7.1  Standards

7.1.1 STD 4 IPv6.

   7.3.10   IPv4 Router Requirements (RFC 1812)

RFC 1812 SHOULD

   This document should be updated to include IPv6 Routing Requirements (once
they 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)

   This functionality is provided in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.

   7.3.12   VRRP (RFC 2338)

   The problems identified are finalized)

7.1.2 STD 54 being addressed by the VRRP WG and there
   is an ID (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-02.txt).

   7.3.13   OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2328) 2370)

   This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

7.1.3 STD 56 RIPv2

   7.3.14   BGP Route Flap Dampening (RFC 2453)

This problem has been fixed by 2439)

   These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2080, RIPng 2283,
   Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6.

7.2 Draft Standards

7.2.1 Border Gateway Protocol 4 BGP-4.

   7.3.15   GRE (RFC 1771)

This problem has 2784)

   The problems have not been fixed addressed and a new protocol should be
   defined.

   7.3.16   BGP Route Reflector (RFC 2796)

   These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283,
   Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.

   7.3.17   Capabilities Advertisement in RFC2283, BGP4 (RFC 2842)

   These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283,
   Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.

7.3  Proposed Standards

7.3.01 IS-IS

7.4  Experimental RFCs

   7.4.1 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (RFC 1195) 1075)

   This problem protocol is being addressed by the IS-IS WG and a ID is
currently available (draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-02.txt)

7.3.02 Applicability Statement routing protocol for OSPFv2 IPv4 multicast routing.  It
   is no longer in use and should not be redefined.

   7.4.2 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (RFC 1370) 1383)

   This problem has been resolved protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR and a new protocol standard
   should not be produced.

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in RFC 2740, 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 for IPv6.

7.3.03  Applicability of CIDR Extensions (RFC 1517)

The contents of 2676)

   An update to this specification has been treated in various
IPv6 addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374.

7.3.04  CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518)

The contents document can be simply define the use of this specification has been treated in various the IPv6 addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374.

7.3.05  RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits
   Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the
   IPv4 TOS field.

   7.4.5 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse Mode
   PIM (RFC 1582) 2337)

   This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng protocol is designed for IPv6.

7.3.06  OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584)

This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism must
   be defined for IPv6.

7.3.07  OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 1587) IPv6 multicast.

8. Security Considerations

   This functionality has been covered document examines the IPv6-readiness of routing specification;
   this does not have security considerations in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

7.3.08  BGP4/IDRP OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745) itself.

9. Acknowledgements

   The problems are addressed authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet
   Society in the combination research and production of RFC2283,
Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 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 RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

7.3.09  OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793)

This functionality has been covered review of this document.

10.  References

   Normative References

   [1]   Nesser II, P. J., "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses
   in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

7.3.10 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 Router Requirements (RFC 1812)

See Section 7.1.2.

7.3.11  RIP Triggered Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 2091)

This functionality is provided 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
   Principal
   Nesser & Nesser Consulting
   13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
   Kirkland, WA 98034
   Email: phil@nesser.com
   Phone: +1 425 481 4303

Copyright

   The following Full Copyright Statement from RFC 2080, RIPng 2026, Section 10.4,
   describes the applicable copyright for IPv6.

7.3.12  VRRP (RFC 2338) this document.

   Copyright (C) The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG and
there is an ID (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-02.txt).

7.3.13  OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370) Internet Society June, 2003. All Rights Reserved.

   This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

7.3.14  BGP Route Flap Dampening (RFC 2439)

These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283,
Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.

7.3.15  RPSL (RFC 2622)

Additional objects MUST document and translations of it may be defined for IPv6 addresses copied and prefixes.

7.3.16  GRE (RFC 2784)

The problems have not been addressed furnished to
   others, and a new protocol SHOULD derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be
defined.

7.3.17  BGP Route Reflector (RFC 2796)

These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283,
Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.

7.3.18  Capabilities Advertisement prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in BGP4 (RFC 2842)

These issues whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283,
Multiprotocol Extensions
   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 BGP-4.

7.4  Experimental RFCs

7.4.1  Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (RFC 1075)

This protocol is a routing protocol the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for IPv4 multicast routing.  It
is no longer
   copyrights defined in use and SHOULD NOT the Internet Standards process must be redefined.

7.4.2  An Experiment
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in DNS Based IP Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing (RFC 1383) Area Standards

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR document and a new protocol standard
SHOULD 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 be produced.

7.4.3  QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676)

An update to 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 can document.

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be simply define claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of other technology described in
   this document or the IPv6
Traffic Class field since it is defined extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be exactly the same as the
IPv4 TOS field.

7.4.4  Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing
        (RFC 2189)

This protocol relies available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on IPv4 IGMP Multicast the
   IETFÆs procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and a new protocol
standard MAY
   standards-related documentation can be produced.

8.0 Acknowledgements

The author would like found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to acknowledge be made available, or the support result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the Internet Society
in the research and production use of such
   proprietary rights by implementers or users of this document.   Additionally specification can
   be obtained from the
author would like IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.

9.0 Authors Address

Please contact the author with bring to its attention any questions, comments
   copyrights, patents or suggestions
at:

Philip J. Nesser II
Principal
Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
Kirkland, WA 98034

Email:  phil@nesser.com
Phone:  +1 425 481 4303
Fax:    +1 425 48 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