draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-04.txt   rfc3793.txt 
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-04.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.) Network Working Group P. Nesser, II
Request for Comments: 3793 Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Category: Informational A. Bergstrom, Ed.
Ostfold University College Ostfold University College
November 2003 May 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 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 at Copyright Notice
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in
deployed IETF Sub-IP Area documented standards. In order to currently deployed IETF Sub-IP Area documented standards. In order
successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6 to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6
Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is the Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is
evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It
hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be
redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will at redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will
least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full, at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards
Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be
any dependencies will be documented. surveyed and any dependencies will be documented.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Document Organisation 2. Document Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Full Standards 3. Full Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Draft Standards 4. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Proposed Standards 5. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Experimental RFCs 6. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Summary of Results 7. Summary of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1 Standards 7.01. Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2 Draft Standards 7.02. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.3 Proposed Standards 7.03. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.04. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Security Consideration 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
10. References 10. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
11. Authors' Addresses 11. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
12. Intellectual Property Statement 12. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
13. Full Copyright Statement
1.0 Introduction 1. 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
IPv4 addresses in IETF standards. In an effort to have the information of IPv4 addresses in IETF standards. In an effort to have the
in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents conforming information in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents
to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Management & conforming to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet,
Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). Operations & Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1]. For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1].
2.0 Document Organization 2. 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,
and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is
in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with (around) RFC 3100. discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with (around)
The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is RFC 3100. The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is,
discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look each RFC is discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do
ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed. not "look ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed.
Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, and Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5,
6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole and the and 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole
problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated. and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are
correlated.
3.0 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.
There are no full standars within the scope of this document. There are no full standards within the scope of this document.
4.0 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 usually independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are
quite mature and widely used. usually quite mature and widely used.
There are no draft standards within the scope of this document. There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.
5.0 Proposed Standards 5. Proposed Standards
Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no
requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases
are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They Proposed are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards
therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the process. They therefore are often just proposed ideas that are
Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of presented to the Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or
many competing solutions to problems. In these later cases, no they are one of many competing solutions to problems. In these later
discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose of this cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose
discussion. of this 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 specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.02 RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding 5.02. RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding
This specification 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 specification. 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 specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.05 RFC 3036 LDP Specification 5.05. RFC 3036 LDP Specification
This specification 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 specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.0 Experimental RFCs 6. Experimental RFCs
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have
implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in widescale implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often
nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet propriety in nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented
community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other to the Internet community in order to allow potential
potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as interoperability or some other potential useful scenario. In a few
alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem. cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution
to an acknowledged problem.
6.1 RFC 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism 6.01. RFC 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
7.0 Summary of Results 7. 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 out of 0 or 0.00%
Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% Draft Standards: 0 out of 0 or 0.00%
Proposed Standards 0 of 6 or 0.00% Proposed Standards: 0 out of 6 or 0.00%
Experimental RFCs 0 of 1 or 0.00% Experimental RFCs: 0 out of 1 or 0.00%
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.
7.1 Standards 7.01. Standards
There are no standards within the scope of this document. There are no standards within the scope of this document.
7.2 Draft Standards 7.02. Draft Standards
There are no draft standards within the scope of this document. There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.
7.3 Proposed Standards 7.03. Proposed Standards
There are no proposed standards with recommendations in this document. There are no proposed standards with recommendations in this
document.
7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.04. Experimental RFCs
There are no experimental standards with recommendations in this There are no experimental standards with recommendations in this
document. document.
8.0 Security Consideration 8. Security Considerations
This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does not This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does
have security considerations in itself. not have security considerations in itself.
9.0 Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet
Society in the research and production of this document. Society in the research and production of this document.
Additionally the author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to thanks
his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.
The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola Additionally the author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to thank his
for guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.
document.
10.0 References The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola for
guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this document.
10.1 Normative 10. Normative Reference
[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-05.txt IETF work in progress, RFC 3789, May 2004.
November 2003
11.0 Authors' Addresses 11. Authors' Addresses
Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or
at: suggestions 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
Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Phone: +1 425 481 4303
Fax: +1 425 48 Fax: +1 425 48
EMail: phil@nesser.com
Andreas Bergstrom (Editor) Andreas Bergstrom, Editor
Ostfold University College Ostfold University College
Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no Rute 503 Buer
Address: Rute 503 Buer
N-1766 Halden N-1766 Halden
Norway Norway
12.0 Intellectual Property Statement EMail: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
12. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
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 are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The 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 of the 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 implementors 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.
13.0 Full Copyright Statement 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.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. Acknowledgement
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it Internet Society.
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this docu-
ment 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 develop-
ing 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 lim-
ited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked
by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document
and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis
and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DIS-
CLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT
INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 

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