draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt 
Network Working Group C. Olvera (Editor) Network Working Group C. Olvera
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Consulintel draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt Consulintel
Internet Draft P. J. Nesser II Internet Draft P. J. Nesser II
Nesser & Nesser Consulting Expires April 2004 Nesser & Nesser Consulting
June 2003 October 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 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.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
in currently deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. In in currently deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. In
order to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all order to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all
IPv6 Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps IPv6 Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps
is the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. is the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies.
It is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be It is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be
redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will
at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards
(Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be
surveyed and any dependencies will be documented. surveyed and any dependencies will be documented.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3 1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Document Organization..........................................3 2. Document Organization..........................................3
3. Full Standards.................................................3 3. Full Standards.................................................4
4. Draft Standards................................................5 4. Draft Standards................................................4
5. Proposed Standards.............................................5 5. Proposed Standards.............................................4
6. Experimental RFCs.............................................12 6. Experimental RFCs..............................................9
7. Summary of Results............................................16 7. Summary of Results............................................11
8. Security Considerations.......................................19 8. Security Considerations.......................................14
9. Acknowledgements..............................................19 9. Acknowledgements..............................................15
10. References...................................................19 10. References...................................................15
11. Authors' Addresses...........................................20 11. Authors' Addresses...........................................16
Copyright........................................................20 Copyright........................................................16
Intellectual Property............................................21 Intellectual Property............................................17
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This work aims to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently This work aims to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently
deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. Also, throughout deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. Also, throughout
this document there are discussions on how routing protocols might be this document there are discussions on how routing protocols might be
updated to support IPv6 addresses. updated to support IPv6 addresses.
This material was originally presented within a single document, but This material was originally presented within a single document, but
has subsequently been split into 7 documents conforming to the in an effort to have the information in a manageable form, it has
current IETF main areas (Application, Internet, Operations & subsequently been split into 7 documents conforming to the current
Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). IETF main areas (Application[2], Internet[3], Operations & Management
[4], Routing[this document], Security[5], Sub-IP[6] and
Transport[7]).
The general overview, methodology and scope of the investigation for The general overview, methodology used during documentation and scope
the whole 7 documents can be found in the introduction of this set of of the investigation for the whole 7 documents can be found in the
documents [1]. introduction of this set of documents[1].
It is important to mention that to perform this study the following
classes of IETF standards are investigated: Full, Draft, and
Proposed, as well as Experimental. Informational, BCP and Historic
RFCs are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by either
newer versions or as they have transitioned through the standards
process are also not covered.
2. Document Organization 2. Document Organization
The main Sections of this document are described below. The main Sections of this document are described below.
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full,
Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is Draft, Proposed Standards and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is
discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending (around) RFC
The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is 3100. The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each
discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look RFC is discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not
ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed. "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, Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5,
and 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole and 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 and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are
correlated. correlated.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
3. Full Standards 3. Full Standards
Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as
"Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely
implemented and used throughout the Internet. implemented and used throughout the Internet.
3.1 RFC 904 Exterior Gateway Protocol 3.1 RFC 1722 (STD 57) RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement
This RFC has been depreciated to Historic status and is not
considered.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
3.2 RFC 1009 Gateway Requirements
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.
Like RFC 1122, it is necessary to rewrite this document and create a
"IPv6 Gateway Requirements" standard.
3.3 RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol
This RFC has been reclassified as historic and replace by STD 56. See
Section 3.6 for its further discussion.
3.4 Interface Message Processor: Specifications for the Interconnection
of a Host and an IMP
This standard STD 39 has been reclassified as historic and is not RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks.
considered in this discussion.
3.5 RFC 2328 OSPF Version 2 3.2 RFC 2328 (STD 54) OSPF Version 2
This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing. It is highly This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing. It is highly
assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in nature. A new version assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in nature.
of OSPF must be created to support IPv6.
3.6 RFC 2453 RIP Version 2
RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality
is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2080.
3.7 RFC 1722 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement
RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality 3.3 RFC 2453 (STD 56) RIP Version 2
is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2081.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks.
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
4. Draft 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 independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are
usually quite mature and widely used. usually quite mature and widely used.
4.1 RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 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 This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing
information and does not support IPv6. A new EGP must be defined for information and does not support IPv6 as is defined.
the exchange of IPv6 routing information.
4.2 RFC 1772 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet 4.2 RFC 1772 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
(BGP-4-APP)
This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP4 on the Internet. Since This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP-4 on the Internet.
BGP4 is limited to IPv4 addresses, it is expected that a similar
document will be created to be paired with the definition of the next
generation BGP.
5. 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 requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
Proposed are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards Proposed are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards
process. They therefore are often just proposed ideas that are process. They therefore are often just proposed ideas that are
presented to the Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or presented to the Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or
they are one of many competing solutions to problems. In these later they are one of many competing solutions to problems. In these later
cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose
of this discussion. of this discussion.
5.1 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
This document 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 substantial information.
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 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
5.2 RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF 5.2 RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF
This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4. 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.
5.3 RFC 1397 Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of The 5.3 RFC 1397 Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of The
Border Gateway Protocol Border Gateway Protocol
BGP2 and BGP3 are both depreciated and therefore are not discussed in BGP2 and BGP3 are both deprecated and therefore are not discussed in
this document. this document.
5.4 RFC 1403 BGP OSPF Interaction (BGP-OSPF) 5.4 RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing
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.
5.5 RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing (IDPR-ARCH)
The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies. The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies.
5.6 RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version 5.5 RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version
1 (IDPR) 1 (IDPR)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.7 RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless 5.6 RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless
Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) (CIDR) Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)
This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
5.8 RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR (CIDR-
ARCH)
This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
5.9 RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address 5.7 RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR
Assignment and Aggregation Strategy (CIDR-STRA)
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 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) 5.8 RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
Assignment and Aggregation Strategy
This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4
routing information.
In Section 3 of 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 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 This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
5.12 RFC 1587 The OSPF NSSA Option (OSPF-NSSA) 5.9 RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits
This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol and it This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4
is assumed that any updated version of OSPF to support IPv6 will routing information.
contain an appropriate update for this option.
5.13 RFC 1745 BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction (BGP4/IDRP) 5.10 RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF
This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 only
and how they exchange IPv4 information. A similar document should be routing protocol.
produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6.
5.14 RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits (OSPF-DC) 5.11 RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits
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.
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) 5.12 RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only.
newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
enhancement.
5.17 RFC 2080 RIPng for IPv6 (RIPNG-IPV6) 5.13 RFC 2080 RIPng for 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.
5.18 RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits 5.14 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 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 inherently limited to IPv4.
It is expected that a similar mechanism will be implemented in RIPng.
5.19 RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
This protocol is IPv4 specific. See the following from RFC 2338:
5.1 VRRP Packet Format. This 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 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
This is a link local scope multicast address. Routers MUST NOT 5.15 RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
forward a datagram with this destination address regardless of its
TTL.
There are numerous other references to 32-bit IP addresses. There This protocol is IPv4 specific, there are numerous references to 32-
does not seem to be any reason that a new version of this protocol bit IP addresses.
could be straightforwardly be developed for IPv6.
5.20 RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option (OSPF-LSA) 5.16 RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option
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.
to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.
5.21 RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping 5.17 RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is This protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, even though the
an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.
newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
enhancement.
5.22 RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter- 5.18 RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-
Domain Routing Domain Routing
This RFC documents IPv6 routing methods and is not discussed in this This RFC documents IPv6 routing methods and is not discussed in this
document. document.
5.23 RFC 2740 OSPF for IPv6 5.19 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.
5.24 RFC 2784 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) 5.20 RFC 2784 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
This protocol is only defined for IPv4. The document states in the This protocol is only defined for IPv4. The document states in the
Appendix: 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. 5.21 RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP
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.
5.26 RFC 2842 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
enhancement.
Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
and IPv6 aware BGP. base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This
specification updates but does not obsolete RFC 1966.
5.27 RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 (MEXT-BGP4) 5.22 RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4
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 doesnt support the extensions. with a router that doesn't support the extensions.
The document is therefore no examined further in this document. The document is therefore not examined further in this document.
5.28 RFC 2890 Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE 5.23 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.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 5.24 RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
5.29 RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6
The RFC defines an IPv6 only document and is not concerned in this The RFC defines an IPv6 only document and is not concerned in this
document. survey.
5.30 RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 5.25 RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.
5.31 RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP (BGP-ASC) 5.26 RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.
5.32 RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 (SDP) 5.27 RFC 3101 The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option
This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
5.28 RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.33 RFC 3122 Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse 5.29 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.
6. Experimental RFCs 6. Experimental RFCs
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have wide
widescale implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often scale implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often
propriety in nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented propriety in nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented
to the Internet community in order to allow potential to the Internet community in order to allow potential
interoperability or some other potential useful scenario. In a few interoperability or some other potential useful scenario. In a few
cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution
to an acknowledged problem. to an acknowledged problem.
6.1 RFC 1075 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (IP-DVMRP) 6.1 RFC 1075 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (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.)
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing.
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
6.2 RFC 1383 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (DNS-IP) 6.2 RFC 1383 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing
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, A cost indicator, and An IP
address.
- 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 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|
|_________________________|________|__________|___________________| |_________________________|________|__________|___________________|
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
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.
6.3 RFC 1476 RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol (RAP) 6.3 RFC 1476 RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol
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.
6.4 RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow (OSPF-OVFL) 6.4 RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow
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 a 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.
to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.
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 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.
6.6 RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP (BGP- 6.6 RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP
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 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
and IPv6 aware BGP. base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This
specification has been updated by RFC 2796.
6.7 RFC 2189 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing 6.7 RFC 2189 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing
The document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast. It The document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast.
is expected that it could easily be updated to support IPv6 There are many packet formats defined that show IPv4 usage.
multicasting.
From Section 7.3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet 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.
6.8 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.
6.9 RFC 2337 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse 6.9 RFC 2337 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse
Mode PIM Mode PIM
This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism must This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast.
be defined for IPv6 multicasting.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
6.10 RFC 2362 Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): 6.10 RFC 2362 Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification 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.
6.11 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 use of There are IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. It requires the use of
the IPv4 TOS header field. It is assumed that a future update to the IPv4 TOS header field.
OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
7. Summary of Results 7. Summary of Results
In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs, 22 positives were identified out of a
total of 53, broken down as follows: total of 44, broken down as follows:
Standards 2 of 7 or 28.57% Standards 3 of 3 or 100%
Draft Standards 1 of 2 or 50.00% Draft Standards 1 of 2 or 50.00%
Proposed Standards 17 of 33 or 51.52% Proposed Standards 13 of 29 or 44.83%
Experimental RFCs 5 of 11 or 45.45% Experimental RFCs 6 of 11 or 54.54%
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 authors have attempted to organize the results in a format that The authors have attempted to organize the results in a format that
allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The assignment of allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The assignment of
statements has been based entirely on the authors perceived needs for statements has been based entirely on the authors perceived needs for
updates and should not be taken as an official statement. updates and should not be taken as an official statement.
7.1 Standards 7.1 Standards
7.1.1 STD 54 OSPF (RFC 2328) 7.1.1 STD 57 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement (RFC
1722)
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2081, RIPng Protocol Applicability
Statement.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
7.1.2 STD 54 OSPF Version 2 (RFC 2328)
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
7.1.2 STD 56 RIPv2 (RFC 2453) 7.1.3 STD 56 RIP Version 2 (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 RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for This problem has been fixed in RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for
BGP-4. BGP-4, RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-
Domain Routing, and some IDs as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-02.txt.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt RFC 2858 extends BGP to support multi-protocol extensions that allows
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently routing information for other address families to be exchanged. RFC
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 2545 further extends RFC 2858 for full support of exchanging IPv6
routing information and additionally clarifies support of the
extended BGP-4 protocol using TCP+IPv6 as a transport mechanism. RFC
1771, 2858 & 2545 must be supported in order to provide full IPv6
support.
Note also that all the BGP extensions analyzed previously in this
memo function without changes with the updated version of BGP-4.
7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3 Proposed Standards
7.3.1 IS-IS (RFC 1195) 7.3.1 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments
(RFC 1195)
This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG and a ID is currently This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG, and an ID is
available (draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-02.txt) currently available: draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-05.txt.
7.3.2 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.
7.3.3 Applicability of CIDR (RFC 1517) 7.3.3 Applicability of CIDR (RFC 1517)
The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6
addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374. addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
7.3.4 CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518) 7.3.4 CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518)
The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6
addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374. addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587.
7.3.5 RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582) 7.3.5 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment
and Aggregation Strategy (RFC 1519)
This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6
addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587.
7.3.6 OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584) 7.3.6 RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582)
This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.
7.3.7 OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 1587) 7.3.7 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.
7.3.8 BGP4/IDRP OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745) 7.3.8 OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793)
The problems are addressed in the combination of 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 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) 7.3.9 RIP Triggered Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 2091)
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)
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) 7.3.10 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)(RFC 2338)
The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG and there The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG and there
is an ID (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-02.txt). is an ID: draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-05.txt.
7.3.13 OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370)
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, 7.3.11 OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370)
Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.
7.3.15 GRE (RFC 2784) This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. Opaque
options support is an inbuilt functionality in OSPFv3.
The problems have not been addressed and a new protocol should be 7.3.12 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)(RFC 2784)
defined.
7.3.16 BGP Route Reflector (RFC 2796) Even trough GRE tunneling over IPv6 has been implemented and used,
its use has not been formally specified. Clarifications are required.
These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, 7.3.13 OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 3101)
Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.
7.3.17 Capabilities Advertisement in BGP4 (RFC 2842) This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
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 need 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, but is no longer relevant has
should not be produced. never seen much use; no action is necessary.
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) 7.4.3 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing (RFC 2189)
This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol
standard may be produced. standard may be produced. However, the multicast routing protocol has
never been in much use and is no longer relevant; no action is
necessary.
7.4.4 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676) 7.4.4 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture (RFC
2201)
An update to this document can be simply define the use of the IPv6 See previous Section for the limitation in this protocol.
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 7.4.5 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse
PIM (RFC 2337) Mode PIM (RFC 2337)
This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism must This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast. However, Intra-LIS IP
be defined for IPv6 multicast. multicast among routers over ATM is not believed to be relevant
anymore. A new mechanism may be defined for IPv6 multicast.
7.4.6 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676)
QoS extensions for OSPF were never used for OSPFv2, and there seems
to be little need for them in OSPFv3.
However, if necessary, an update to this document could simply define
the use of the IPv6 Traffic Class field since it is defined to be
exactly the same as the IPv4 TOS field.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document examines the IPv6-readiness of routing specification; This document examines the IPv6-readiness of routing specification;
this does not have security considerations in itself. this does not have security considerations in itself.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet The original author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to acknowledge
Society in the research and production of this document. the support of the Internet Society in the research and production of
this document.
The support of IETF IPv6 Operations (v6ops) WG is appreciate also. He also would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M.
Nesser.
Philip J. Nesser II would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Cesar Olvera would like to thanks Pekka Savola for an extended
Wendy M. Nesser. guidance and comments for the edition of this document, and Jordi
Palet for his support and reviews.
Cesar Olvera would like to thanks to Jordi Palet (Consulintel) his Additionally, he would further like to thank Andreas Bergstrom, Brian
support and review of this document. Carpenter, Jeff Haas, Vishwas Manral, Gabriela Medina, Venkata Naidu,
Jeff Parker and Curtis Villamizar for valuable feedback.
10. References 10. References
Normative References Normative References
[1] Nesser II, P. J., "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom "Introduction to the
in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey- Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
intro-01.txt, IETF Internet Draft, June 2003. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-03.txt, IETF Internet Draft, August
2003.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt [2] Philip J. Nesser II, Rute Sofia. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards", draft-ietf-
v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-02.txt, IETF work in progress, September 2003.
[3] Philip J. Nesser II, Cleveland Mickles. "Internet Area: Survey
of IPv4 Addresses Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-
v6ops-ipv4survey-int-01.txt, IETF work in progress, June 2003.
[4] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4
addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area
Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-03.txt IETF work in
progress, September 2003.
[5] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4
Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards", draft-
ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-02.txt, IETF work in progress, September
2003.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
[6] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4
Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards", draft-
ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-02.txt, IETF work in progress, August
2003.
[7] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom "Survey of IPv4
Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-02.txt IETF work in progress,
September 2003.
11. Authors' Addresses 11. Authors' Addresses
Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or
suggestions at: suggestions at:
Cesar Olvera Morales Cesar Olvera Morales
Researcher Researcher
Consulintel Consulintel
San Jose Artesano, 1 San Jose Artesano, 1
Alcobendas 28108 28108 - Alcobendas
Madrid, Spain Madrid, Spain
Email: cesar.olvera@consulintel.es Email: cesar.olvera@consulintel.es
Phone: +34 91 151 81 99 Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
Fax: +34 91 151 81 98 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
skipping to change at page 20, line 41 skipping to change at page 16, line 51
The following Full Copyright Statement from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, The following Full Copyright Statement from RFC 2026, Section 10.4,
describes the applicable copyright for this document. describes the applicable copyright for this document.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society June, 2003. All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society June, 2003. All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English. 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 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
skipping to change at page 21, line 29 skipping to change at page 17, line 39
The following notice from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, describes the The following notice from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, describes the
position of the IETF concerning intellectual property claims made position of the IETF concerning intellectual property claims made
against this document. against this document.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use other technology described in pertain to the implementation or use other technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETFs procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances 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 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director. Director.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt
 End of changes. 

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