draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-03.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-04.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-04.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-03.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.)
Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom
Ostfold University College Ostfold University College
September 2003 November 2003
Expires February 2004 Expires April 2004
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Sub-IP Area Standards IETF Sub-IP Area Standards
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Status of this Memo
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at
any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
skipping to change at line 60 skipping to change at line 59
5. Proposed Standards 5. Proposed Standards
6. Experimental RFCs 6. Experimental RFCs
7. Summary of Results 7. Summary of Results
7.1 Standards 7.1 Standards
7.2 Draft Standards 7.2 Draft Standards
7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3 Proposed Standards
7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.4 Experimental RFCs
8. Security Consideration 8. Security Consideration
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
10. References 10. References
11. Authors Addresses 11. Authors' Addresses
12. Intellectual Property Statement 12. Intellectual Property Statement
13. Full Copyright Statement 13. Full Copyright Statement
1.0 Introduction 1.0 Introduction
This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage of This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage of
IPv4 addresses in IETF standards. In an effort to have the information IPv4 addresses in IETF standards. In an effort to have the information
in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents conforming in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents conforming
to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Manangement & to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Management &
Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
For a full introduction, please see the intro[1] draft. For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1].
2.0 Document Organization 2.0 Document Organization
The rest of the document sections are described below. The rest of the document sections are described below.
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft, Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft,
and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed
in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. The comments in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with (around) RFC 3100.
for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is
vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look
the problems have already been fixed. ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed.
Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, and Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, and
6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole and the 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole and the
problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated. problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated.
3.0 Full Standards 3.0 Full Standards
Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as 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.
skipping to change at line 119 skipping to change at line 118
requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed
are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They
therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the
Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of
many competing solutions to problems. In these later cases, no many competing solutions to problems. In these later cases, no
discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose of this discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose of this
discussion. discussion.
5.01 RFC 3031 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) 5.01 RFC 3031 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.01 RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding 5.02 RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.03 RFC 3034 Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks 5.03 RFC 3034 Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks
Specification Specification
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.04 RFC 3035 MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching 5.04 RFC 3035 MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.05 RFC 3036 LDP Specification 5.05 RFC 3036 LDP Specification
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.06 RFC 3038 VCID Notification over ATM link for LDP 5.06 RFC 3038 VCID Notification over ATM link for LDP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.0 Experimental RFCs 6.0 Experimental RFCs
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale
implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in
nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet
community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other
potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as
alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem. alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem.
6.1 RFC 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism 6.1 RFC 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
7.0 Summary of Results 7.0 Summary of Results
In the initial survey of RFCs 0 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 0 positives were identified out of a
total of 7, broken down as follows: total of 7, broken down as follows:
Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00%
Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00%
Proposed Standards 0 of 6 or 0.00% Proposed Standards 0 of 6 or 0.00%
Experimental RFCs 0 of 1 or 0.00% Experimental RFCs 0 of 1 or 0.00%
skipping to change at line 211 skipping to change at line 210
The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola
for guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this for guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this
document. document.
10.0 References 10.0 References
10.1 Normative 10.1 Normative
[1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "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-04.txt IETF work in progress, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05.txt IETF work in progress,
September 2003 November 2003
11.0 Authors Addresses 11.0 Authors' Addresses
Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions
at: at:
Philip J. Nesser II Philip J. Nesser II
Principal Principal
Nesser & Nesser Consulting Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
Kirkland, WA 98034 Kirkland, WA 98034
Email: phil@nesser.com Email: phil@nesser.com
Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Phone: +1 425 481 4303
Fax: +1 425 48 Fax: +1 425 48
Andreas Bergstrom Andreas Bergstrom (Editor)
Ostfold University College Ostfold University College
Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
Address: Rute 503 Buer Address: Rute 503 Buer
N-1766 Halden N-1766 Halden
Norway Norway
12.0 Intellectual Property Statement 12.0 Intellectual Property Statement
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
 End of changes. 

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