draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt   rfc3791.txt 
Network Working Group C. Olvera Network Working Group C. Olvera
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt Consulintel Request for Comments: 3791 Consulintel
Internet Draft P. J. Nesser II Category: Informational P. Nesser, II
Expires April 2004 Nesser & Nesser Consulting Nesser & Nesser Consulting
December 2003 June 2004
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Routing Area Standards IETF Routing Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
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 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 Copyright Notice
athttp://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
This investigation work seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses This investigation work seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses
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-03.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Document Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Document Organization..........................................3 3. Full Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Full Standards.................................................4 5. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Draft Standards................................................4 7. Summary of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Proposed Standards.............................................4 9. Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Experimental RFCs..............................................9 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Summary of Results............................................11 11. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations.......................................14
9. Acknowledgements..............................................15
10. References...................................................15
11. Authors' Addresses...........................................16
Copyright........................................................16
Intellectual Property............................................17
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
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
in an effort to have the information in a manageable form, it has in an effort to have the information in a manageable form, it has
subsequently been split into 7 documents conforming to the current subsequently been split into 7 documents conforming to the current
IETF main areas (Application[2], Internet[3], Operations & Management IETF main areas (Application [2], Internet [3], Operations &
[4], Routing[this document], Security[5], Sub-IP[6] and Management [4], Routing [this document], Security [5], Sub-IP [6] and
Transport[7]). Transport[7]).
The general overview, methodology used during documentation and scope The general overview, methodology used during documentation and scope
of the investigation for the whole 7 documents can be found in the of the investigation for the whole 7 documents can be found in the
introduction of this set of documents[1]. introduction of this set of documents[1].
It is important to mention that to perform this study the following It is important to mention that to perform this study the following
classes of IETF standards are investigated: Full, Draft, and classes of IETF standards are investigated: Full, Draft, and
Proposed, as well as Experimental. Informational, BCP and Historic Proposed, as well as Experimental. Informational, BCP and Historic
RFCs are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by either RFCs are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by either
skipping to change at page 3, line 48 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending (around) RFC discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending (around) RFC
3100. The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each 3100. The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each
RFC is discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not RFC is discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not
"look 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-03.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 1722 (STD 57) RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement 3.1. RFC 1722 (STD 57) RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement
RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks.
3.2 RFC 2328 (STD 54) 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. assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in nature.
3.3 RFC 2453 (STD 56) RIP Version 2 3.3. RFC 2453 (STD 56) RIP Version 2
RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks.
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 as is defined. information and does not support IPv6 as is defined.
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
This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP-4 on the Internet. This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP-4 on the Internet.
4.3 RFC 3392 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 4.3. RFC 3392 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only. base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only.
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-03.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 environments
This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing
information. information.
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.
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
Border Gateway Protocol The Border Gateway Protocol
BGP2 and BGP3 are both deprecated 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 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing 5.4. RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing
The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies. The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies.
5.5 RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version 5.5. RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification:
1 (IDPR) Version 1 (IDPR)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.6 RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless 5.6. RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of
Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)
This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
5.7 RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR 5.7. RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
5.8 RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address 5.8. RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
Assignment and Aggregation Strategy Assignment and Aggregation Strategy
This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
5.9 RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits 5.9. RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits
This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4 This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4
routing information. routing information.
5.10 RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF 5.10. RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF
This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 only This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 only
routing protocol. routing protocol.
5.11 RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits 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 a new functionality for a routing protocol that only that it is a new functionality for a routing protocol that only
supports IPv4 networks. supports IPv4 networks.
5.12 RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute 5.12. RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only. base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only.
5.13 RFC 2080 RIPng for 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.
5.14 RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits 5.14. RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits
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 inherently limited to IPv4. while it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherently limited to IPv4.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 5.15. RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
5.15 RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
This protocol is IPv4 specific, there are numerous references to 32- This protocol is IPv4 specific, there are numerous references to 32-
bit IP addresses. bit IP addresses.
5.16 RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option 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 a new functionality for a routing protocol that only that it is a new functionality for a routing protocol that only
supports IPv4 networks. supports IPv4 networks.
5.17 RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping 5.17. RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping
The protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, even though the The protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, even though the
base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.
5.18 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.
5.19 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.
5.20 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
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.
5.21 RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP 5.21. RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This
specification updates but does not obsolete RFC 1966. specification updates but does not obsolete RFC 1966.
5.22 RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 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 is capable of carrying routing information only for
only for IPv4 [IPv4]. This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to IPv4. This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to
enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g.,
protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward compatible - a
compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate router that supports the extensions can interoperate with a router
with a router that doesn't support the extensions. that doesn't support the extensions.
The document is therefore not examined further in this document. The document is therefore not examined further in this document.
5.23 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.
5.24 RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6 5.24. 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
survey. survey.
5.25 RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 5.25. RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.
5.26 RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP 5.26. RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.
5.27 RFC 3101 The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option 5.27. RFC 3101 The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option
This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol. This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 5.28. RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4
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.
5.29 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 wide Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have wide
scale 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 (DVMRP) 6.1. RFC 1075 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP)
This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing.
6.2 RFC 1383 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing 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: A record identifier, A cost indicator, and An IP three fields: A record identifier, A cost indicator, and An IP
address. address.
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:
skipping to change at page 9, line 42 skipping to change at page 8, line 7
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: A record identifier, A cost indicator, and An IP three fields: A record identifier, A cost indicator, and An IP
address. address.
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-03.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 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 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. supports IPv4 networks.
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
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 6.6. RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This
specification has been updated by RFC 2796. 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. The document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast.
There are many packet formats defined that show IPv4 usage. There are many packet formats defined that show IPv4 usage.
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
Mode PIM Sparse Mode PIM
This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast. This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 6.10. RFC 2362 Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
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. the IPv4 TOS header field.
7. Summary of Results 7. Summary of Results
In the initial survey of RFCs, 22 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs, 23 positives were identified out of a
total of 45, broken down as follows: total of 46, broken down as follows:
Standards 3 of 3 or 100%
Draft Standards 1 of 3 or 33.33%
Proposed Standards 13 of 29 or 44.83%
Experimental RFCs 6 of 11 or 54.54% Standards: 3 out of 3 or 100.00%
Draft Standards: 1 out of 3 or 33.33%
Proposed Standards: 13 out of 29 or 44.83%
Experimental RFCs: 6 out 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 allows easy
The authors have attempted to organize the results in a format that reference to other protocol designers. The assignment of statements
allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The assignment of has been based entirely on the authors perceived needs for updates
statements has been based entirely on the authors perceived needs for 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 57 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement (RFC 7.1.1. STD 57 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement (RFC 1722)
1722)
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2081, RIPng Protocol Applicability This problem has been fixed by RFC 2081, RIPng Protocol Applicability
Statement. Statement.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 7.1.2. STD 54 OSPF Version 2 (RFC 2328)
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.
7.1.3 STD 56 RIP Version 2 (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 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for This problem has been fixed in RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for
BGP-4, RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter- BGP-4, RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6
Domain Routing, and some IDs as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-02.txt. Inter-Domain Routing, and in [8].
RFC 2858 extends BGP to support multi-protocol extensions that allows RFC 2858 extends BGP to support multi-protocol extensions that allows
routing information for other address families to be exchanged. RFC routing information for other address families to be exchanged. RFC
2545 further extends RFC 2858 for full support of exchanging IPv6 2545 further extends RFC 2858 for full support of exchanging IPv6
routing information and additionally clarifies support of the routing information and additionally clarifies support of the
extended BGP-4 protocol using TCP+IPv6 as a transport mechanism. RFC extended BGP-4 protocol using TCP+IPv6 as a transport mechanism. RFC
1771, 2858 & 2545 must be supported in order to provide full IPv6 1771, 2858 & 2545 must be supported in order to provide full IPv6
support. support.
Note also that all the BGP extensions analyzed previously in this Note also that all the BGP extensions analyzed previously in this
memo function without changes with the updated version of BGP-4. memo function without changes with the updated version of BGP-4.
7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3. Proposed Standards
7.3.1 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments 7.3.1. Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments
(RFC 1195) (RFC 1195)
This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG, and an ID is This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG [9].
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 3513 & 3587. addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 7.3.4. CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518)
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
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 3513 & 3587. addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587.
7.3.5 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment 7.3.5. Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment
and Aggregation Strategy (RFC 1519) and Aggregation Strategy (RFC 1519)
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 3513 & 3587. addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587.
7.3.6 RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582) 7.3.6. RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582)
This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.
7.3.7 OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584) 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 OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793) 7.3.8. 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.
7.3.9 RIP Triggered Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 2091) 7.3.9. 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.
7.3.10 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (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 [10].
is an ID: draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-05.txt.
7.3.11 OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370) 7.3.11. OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370)
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. Opaque This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. Opaque
options support is an inbuilt functionality in OSPFv3. options support is an inbuilt functionality in OSPFv3.
7.3.12 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)(RFC 2784) 7.3.12. Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)(RFC 2784)
Even trough GRE tunneling over IPv6 has been implemented and used, Even though GRE tunneling over IPv6 has been implemented and used,
its use has not been formally specified. Clarifications are required. its use has not been formally specified. Clarifications are
required.
7.3.13 OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 3101) 7.3.13. OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 3101)
This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 7.4. Experimental RFCs
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
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 need 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, but is no longer relevant has This protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR, but is no longer relevant has
never seen much use; no action is necessary. never seen much use; no action is necessary.
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. However, the multicast routing protocol has standard may be produced. However, the multicast routing protocol
never been in much use and is no longer relevant; no action is has never been in much use and is no longer relevant; no action is
necessary. necessary.
7.4.4 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture (RFC 7.4.4. Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture (RFC 2201)
2201)
See previous Section for the limitation in this protocol. See previous Section for the limitation in this protocol.
7.4.5 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse 7.4.5. Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse
Mode PIM (RFC 2337) Mode PIM (RFC 2337)
This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast. However, Intra-LIS IP This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast. However, Intra-LIS IP
multicast among routers over ATM is not believed to be relevant multicast among routers over ATM is not believed to be relevant
anymore. A new mechanism may be defined for IPv6 multicast. anymore. A new mechanism may be defined for IPv6 multicast.
7.4.6 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676) 7.4.6. QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676)
QoS extensions for OSPF were never used for OSPFv2, and there seems QoS extensions for OSPF were never used for OSPFv2, and there seems
to be little need for them in OSPFv3. to be little need for them in OSPFv3.
However, if necessary, an update to this document could simply define 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 the use of the IPv6 Traffic Class field since it is defined to be
exactly the same as the IPv4 TOS field. 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-03.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The original author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to acknowledge The original author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to acknowledge
the support of the Internet Society in the research and production of the support of the Internet Society in the research and production of
this document. this document.
He also would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. He also would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M.
Nesser. Nesser.
Cesar Olvera would like to thanks Pekka Savola for an extended Cesar Olvera would like to thanks Pekka Savola for an extended
guidance and comments for the edition of this document, and Jordi guidance and comments for the edition of this document, and Jordi
Palet for his support and reviews. Palet for his support and reviews.
Additionally, he would further like to thank Andreas Bergstrom, Brian Additionally, he would further like to thank Andreas Bergstrom, Brian
Carpenter, Jeff Haas, Vishwas Manral, Gabriela Medina, Venkata Naidu, Carpenter, Jeff Haas, Vishwas Manral, Gabriela Medina, Venkata Naidu,
Jeff Parker and Curtis Villamizar for valuable feedback. Jeff Parker and Curtis Villamizar for valuable feedback.
10. References 10. References
Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom "Introduction to the [1] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-03.txt, IETF Internet Draft, August RFC 3789, June 2004.
2003.
[2] Philip J. Nesser II, Rute Sofia. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in [2] Sofia, R. and P. Nesser, II, "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards", draft-ietf- Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards", RFC 3795,
v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-02.txt, IETF work in progress, September 2003. June 2004.
[3] Philip J. Nesser II, Cleveland Mickles. "Internet Area: Survey [3] Mickles, C. and P. Nesser, II, "Internet Area: Survey of IPv4
of IPv4 Addresses Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf- Addresses Currently Deployed IETF Standards", RFC 3790, June
v6ops-ipv4survey-int-01.txt, IETF work in progress, June 2003. 2004.
[4] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 [4] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, "Survey of IPv4 addresses in
addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area
Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-03.txt IETF work in Standards", RFC 3796, June 2004.
progress, September 2003.
[5] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 [5] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards", draft- Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards", RFC 3792,
ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-02.txt, IETF work in progress, September June 2004.
2003.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt [6] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards", RFC 3793, June
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 2004.
[6] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 [7] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards", draft- Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards", RFC 3794,
ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-02.txt, IETF work in progress, August June 2004.
10.2. Informative References
[8] Chen, E. and J. Yuan, "AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-
4", Work in Progress, December 2003.
[9] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", Work in Progress, January
2003. 2003.
[7] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom "Survey of IPv4 [10] Hinden, R., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol for IPv6", Work
Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards", in Progress, February 2004.
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
28108 - Alcobendas 28108 - Alcobendas
Madrid, Spain Madrid, Spain
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
EMail: cesar.olvera@consulintel.es
Philip J. Nesser II Philip J. Nesser II
Principal Principal
Nesser & Nesser Consulting Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
Kirkland, WA 98034 Kirkland, WA 98034
Email: phil@nesser.com
Phone: +1 425 481 4303
Copyright
The following Full Copyright Statement from RFC 2026, Section 10.4,
describes the applicable copyright for this document.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society June, 2003. All Rights Reserved. Phone: +1 425 481 4303
EMail: phil@nesser.com
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 12. Full Copyright Statement
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The following notice from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, describes the
position of the IETF concerning intellectual property claims made
against this document.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
pertain to the implementation or use other technology described in to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights described in this document or the extent to which any license
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
Director. specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.25, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/