draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-00.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-01.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-00.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-01.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Expires August 2003 Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom
Ostfold University College
June 2003
Expires December 2003
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Transport Area Standards IETF Transport Area Standards
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 Status of this Memo
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at line 32 skipping to change at line 35
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 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 currently
deployed IETF Transport Area documented standards. In order to deployed IETF Transport Area documented standards. In order to
successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6 Internet, successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6
many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is the evolution of Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is the
current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is hoped that these evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is hoped
protocols (and their implementations) will be redesigned to be network that these protocols (and their implementations) will be redesigned to
address independent, but failing that will at least dually support IPv4 be network address independent, but failing that will at least dually
and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full, Draft, and
as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and any dependencies will be documented. Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and any
dependencies will be documented.
1.0 Introduction
This work began as a megolithic document draft-ietf-ngtrans-
ipv4survey-XX.txt. In an effort to rework the information into a more
manageable form, it has been broken into 8 documents conforming to the
current IETF areas (Application, General, Internet, Manangement & Operations,
Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
1.1 Short Historical Perspective
There are many challenges that face the Internet Engineering community.
The foremost of these challenges has been the scaling issue. How to grow
a network that was envisioned to handle thousands of hosts to one that
will handle tens of millions of networks with billions of hosts. Over the
years this scaling problem has been overcome with changes to the network
layer and to routing protocols. (Ignoring the tremendous advances in
computational hardware)
The first "modern" transition to the network layer occurred in during the
early 1980's from the Network Control Protocol (NCP) to IPv4. This
culminated in the famous "flag day" of January 1, 1983. This version of
IP was documented in RFC 760. This was a version of IP with 8 bit network
and 24 bit host addresses. A year later IP was updated in RFC 791 to
include the famous A, B, C, D, & E class system.
Networks were growing in such a way that it was clear that a need for
breaking networks into smaller pieces was needed. In October of 1984 RFC
917 was published formalizing the practice of subnetting.
By the late 1980's it was clear that the current exterior routing protocol
used by the Internet (EGP) was not sufficient to scale with the growth of
the Internet. The first version of BGP was documented in 1989 in RFC
1105.
The next scaling issues to became apparent in the early 1990's was the
exhaustion of the Class B address space. The growth and commercialization
of the Internet had organizations requesting IP addresses in alarming
numbers. In May of 1992 over 45% of the Class B space was allocated. In
early 1993 RFC 1466 was published directing assignment of blocks of Class
C's be given out instead of Class B's. This solved the problem of address
space exhaustion but had significant impact of the routing infrastructure.
The number of entries in the "core" routing tables began to grow
exponentially as a result of RFC 1466. This led to the implementation of
BGP4 and CIDR prefix addressing. This may have solved the problem for the
present but there are still potential scaling issues.
Current Internet growth would have long overwhelmed the current address
space if industry didn't supply a solution in Network Address Translators
(NATs). To do this the Internet has sacrificed the underlying
"End-to-End" principle.
In the early 1990's the IETF was aware of these potential problems and
began a long design process to create a successor to IPv4 that would
address these issues. The outcome of that process was IPv6.
The purpose of this document is not to discuss the merits or problems of
IPv6. That is a debate that is still ongoing and will eventually be
decided on how well the IETF defines transition mechanisms and how
industry accepts the solution. The question is not "should," but "when."
1.2 A Brief Aside
Throughout this document there are discussions on how protocols might be
updated to support IPv6 addresses. Although current thinking is that IPv6
should suffice as the dominant network layer protocol for the lifetime of
the author, it is not unreasonable to contemplate further upgrade to IP.
Work done by the IRTF Interplanetary Internet Working Group shows one idea
of far reaching thinking. It may be a reasonable idea (or may not) to
consider designing protocols in such a way that they can be either IP
version aware or independent. This idea must be balanced against issues
of simplicity and performance. Therefore it is recommended that protocol
designer keep this issue in mind in future designs.
Just as a reminder, remember the words of Jon Postel:
"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what
you accept from others."
2.0 Methodology Table of Contents
To perform this study each class of IETF standards are investigated in 1. Introduction
order of maturity: Full, Draft, and Proposed, as well as Experimental. 2. Document Organisation
Informational RFC are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by 3. Full Standards
either newer versions or as they have transitioned through the standards 4. Draft Standards
process are not covered. 5. Proposed Standards
6. Experimental RFCs
7. Summary of Results
7.1 Standards
7.2 Draft Standards
7.3 Proposed Standards
7.4 Experimental RFCs
8. Security Consideration
9. Acknowledgements
10. References
11. Authors Address
12. Intellectual Property Statement
13. Full Copyright Statement
Please note that a side effect of this choice of methodology is that 1.0 Introduction
some protocols that are defined by a series of RFC's that are of different
levels of standards maturity are covered in different spots in the
document. Likewise other natural groupings (i.e. MIBs, SMTP extensions,
IP over FOO, PPP, DNS, etc.) could easily be imagined.
2.1 Scope This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage of
IPv4 addresses in IETF stanadards. In an effort to have the information
in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents conforming
to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Manangement &
Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
The procedure used in this investigation is an exhaustive reading of the For a full introduction, please see the intro[1] draft.
applicable RFC's. This task involves reading approximately 25000 pages
of protocol specifications. To compound this, it was more than a process
of simple reading. It was necessary to attempt to understand the purpose
and functionality of each protocol in order to make a proper determination
of IPv4 reliability. The author has made ever effort to make this effort
and the resulting document as complete as possible, but it is likely that
some subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) dependence was missed. The author
encourage those familiar (designers, implementers or anyone who has an
intimate knowledge) with any protocol to review the appropriate sections
and make comments.
2.2 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 in and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed in
its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. The comments for its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. The comments for
each RFC is "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a vacuum each RFC is "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a
and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if the vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if
problems have already been fixed. 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 "Standards") Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as "
are fully mature protocol specification that are widely implemented and Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely
used throughout the Internet. implemented and used throughout the Internet.
3.1 RFC 768 User Datagram Protocol 3.1 RFC 768 User Datagram Protocol
Although UDP is a transport protocol there is one reference to the UDP/IP Although UDP is a transport protocol there is one reference to the
interface that states; "The UDP module must be able to determine the UDP/IP interface that states; "The UDP module must be able to
source and destination internet addresses and the protocol field from the determine the source and destination internet addresses and the
internet header." This does not force a rewrite of the protocol but will protocol field from the internet header." This does not force a
clearly cause changes in implementations. rewrite of the protocol but will clearly cause changes in
implementations.
3.2 RFC 793 Transmission Control Protocol 3.2 RFC 793 Transmission Control Protocol
Section 3.1 which specifies the header format for TCP. The TCP header is Section 3.1 which specifies the header format for TCP. The TCP header
free from IPv4 references but there is an inconsistency in the computation is free from IPv4 references but there is an inconsistency in the
of checksums. The text says: "The checksum also covers a 96 bit pseudo computation of checksums. The text says: "The checksum also covers a
header conceptually prefixed to the TCP header. This pseudo header 96 bit pseudo header conceptually prefixed to the TCP header. This
contains the Source Address, the Destination Address, the Protocol, and pseudo header contains the Source Address, the Destination Address,
TCP length." The first and second 32-bit words are clearly meant to the Protocol, and TCP length." The first and second 32-bit words are
specify 32-bit IPv4 addresses. While no modification of the TCP protocol clearly meant to specify 32-bit IPv4 addresses. While no modification
is necessitated by this problem, an alternate needs to be specified as an of the TCP protocol is necessitated by this problem, an alternate needs
update document, or as part of another IPv6 document. to be specified as an update document, or as part of another IPv6
document.
3.3 NetBIOS Service Protocols. RFC1001, RFC1002 3.3 NetBIOS Service Protocols. RFC1001, RFC1002
3.3.1 RFC 1001 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP 3.3.1 RFC 1001 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP
TRANSPORT: TRANSPORT:
CONCEPTS AND METHODS CONCEPTS AND METHODS
Section 15.4.1. RELEASE BY B NODES defines: Section 15.4.1. RELEASE BY B NODES defines:
A NAME RELEASE DEMAND contains the following information: A NAME RELEASE DEMAND contains the following information:
skipping to change at line 325 skipping to change at line 254
- M NODES: - M NODES:
- Node's permanent unique name - Node's permanent unique name
- Whether IGMP is in use - Whether IGMP is in use
- Broadcast IP address to use - Broadcast IP address to use
- IP address of NBNS - IP address of NBNS
- IP address of NBDD - IP address of NBDD
- Whether NetBIOS session keep-alives are needed - Whether NetBIOS session keep-alives are needed
- Usable UDP data field length (to control fragmentation) - Usable UDP data field length (to control fragmentation)
All of the proceeding sections make implicit use of IPv4 addresses and All of the proceeding sections make implicit use of IPv4 addresses and
a new specification should be defined for use of IPv6 underlying addresses. a new specification should be defined for use of IPv6 underlying
addresses.
3.3.2 RFC 1002 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP 3.3.2 RFC 1002 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP
TRANSPORT: TRANSPORT:
DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS
Section 4.2.1.3. RESOURCE RECORD defines Section 4.2.1.3. RESOURCE RECORD defines
RESOURCE RECORD RR_TYPE field definitions: RESOURCE RECORD RR_TYPE field definitions:
Symbol Value Description: Symbol Value Description:
A 0x0001 IP address Resource Record (See REDIRECT NAME A 0x0001 IP address Resource Record (See REDIRECT NAME
QUERY RESPONSE) QUERY RESPONSE)
Sections 4.2.2. NAME REGISTRATION REQUEST, 4.2.3. NAME OVERWRITE Sections 4.2.2. NAME REGISTRATION REQUEST, 4.2.3. NAME OVERWRITE
REQUEST & DEMAND, 4.2.4. NAME REFRESH REQUEST, 4.2.5. POSITIVE NAME REQUEST & DEMAND, 4.2.4. NAME REFRESH REQUEST, 4.2.5. POSITIVE NAME
REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.6. NEGATIVE NAME REGISTRATION RESPONSE, REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.6. NEGATIVE NAME REGISTRATION RESPONSE,
4.2.7. END-NODE CHALLENGE REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.9. NAME RELEASE 4.2.7. END-NODE CHALLENGE REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.9. NAME RELEASE
REQUEST & DEMAND, 4.2.10. POSITIVE NAME RELEASE RESPONSE, REQUEST & DEMAND, 4.2.10. POSITIVE NAME RELEASE RESPONSE,
4.2.11. NEGATIVE NAME RELEASE RESPONSE and Sections 4.2.13. POSITIVE 4.2.11. NEGATIVE NAME RELEASE RESPONSE and Sections 4.2.13. POSITIVE
NAME QUERY RESPONSEall contain 32 bit fields labeled "NB_ADDRESS" clearly NAME QUERY RESPONSEall contain 32 bit fields labeled "NB_ADDRESS"
defined for IPv4 addresses clearly defined for IPv4 addresses
Sections 4.2.15. REDIRECT NAME QUERY RESPONSE contains a field Sections 4.2.15. REDIRECT NAME QUERY RESPONSE contains a field
"NSD_IP_ADDR" "NSD_IP_ADDR"
which also is designed for a IPv4 address. which also is designed for a IPv4 address.
Section 4.3.5. SESSION RETARGET RESPONSE PACKET Section 4.3.5. SESSION RETARGET RESPONSE PACKET
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at line 464 skipping to change at line 394
5.3. NetBIOS DATAGRAM SERVICE PROTOCOLS 5.3. NetBIOS DATAGRAM SERVICE PROTOCOLS
The following are GLOBAL variables and should be NetBIOS user The following are GLOBAL variables and should be NetBIOS user
configurable: configurable:
- BROADCAST_ADDRESS: the IP address B-nodes use to send datagrams - BROADCAST_ADDRESS: the IP address B-nodes use to send datagrams
with group name destinations and broadcast datagrams. The with group name destinations and broadcast datagrams. The
default is the IP broadcast address for a single IP network. default is the IP broadcast address for a single IP network.
There is also a large amount of pseudo code for most of the protocols There is also a large amount of pseudo code for most of the protocols
functionality that make no specific reference to IPv4 addresses. However functionality that make no specific reference to IPv4 addresses.
they assume the use of the above defined packets. The pseudo code may be However they assume the use of the above defined packets. The pseudo
valid for IPv6 as long as the packet formats are updated. code may be valid for IPv6 as long as the packet formats are updated.
3.4 RFC 1006 ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (Version: 3) 3.4 RFC 1006 ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (Version: 3)
Section 5. The Protocol defines a mapping specification Section 5. The Protocol defines a mapping specification
Mapping parameters is also straight-forward: Mapping parameters is also straight-forward:
network service TCP network service TCP
------- --- ------- ---
CONNECTION RELEASE CONNECTION RELEASE
skipping to change at line 496 skipping to change at line 426
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 usually
quite mature and widely used. quite mature and widely used.
5.0 Proposed Standards 5.0 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 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 Internet therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the
community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of many competing Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of
solutions to problems. In these later cases, no discussion is presented many competing solutions to problems. In these later cases, no
as it would not serve the purpose of this discussion. discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose of this
discussion.
5.01 RFC 1144 Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial 5.01 RFC 1144 Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial
links (IP-CMPRS) links (IP-CMPRS)
This RFC is specifically oriented towards TCP/IPv4 packet headers This RFC is specifically oriented towards TCP/IPv4 packet headers
and will not work in it's current form. Significant work has already and will not work in it's current form. Significant work has already
been done on similar algorithms for TCP/IPv6 headers. been done on similar algorithms for TCP/IPv6 headers.
5.02 RFC 1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance (TCP-EXT) 5.02 RFC 1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance (TCP-EXT)
skipping to change at line 1184 skipping to change at line 1115
5.77 RFC 3119 A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio 5.77 RFC 3119 A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.78 RFC 3124 The Congestion Manager 5.78 RFC 3124 The Congestion Manager
This document is IPv4 limited since it uses the IPv4 TOS header This document is IPv4 limited since it uses the IPv4 TOS header
field. field.
5.79 RFC 3140 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
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.
6.01 RFC 908 Reliable Data Protocol (RDP) 6.01 RFC 908 Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)
skipping to change at line 1414 skipping to change at line 1349
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
6.16 RFC 2909 The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol 6.16 RFC 2909 The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol
(MASC) (MASC)
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
7.0 Summary of Results 7.0 Summary of Results
In the initial survey of RFCs 24 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 24 positives were identified out of a
total of 99, broken down as follows: total of 100, broken down as follows:
Standards 4 of 5 or 80.00% Standards 4 of 5 or 80.00%
Draft Standards 0 of 0 Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00%
Proposed Standards 15 of 78 or 19.23% Proposed Standards 15 of 79 or 18.99%
Experimental RFCs 5 of 16 or 31.25% Experimental RFCs 5 of 16 or 31.25%
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 author has attempted to organize the results in a format that allows
easy reference to other protocol designers. The following recommendations
uses the documented terms "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
described in RFC 2119. They should only be interpreted in the context
of RFC 2119 when they appear in all caps. That is, the word "should" in
the previous SHOULD NOT be interpreted as in RFC 2119.
The assignment of these terms has been based entirely on the authors
perceived needs for updates and should not be taken as an official
statement.
7.1 Standards 7.1 Standards
7.1.1 STD 7 Transmission Control Protocol (RFC 793) 7.1.1 STD 7 Transmission Control Protocol (RFC 793)
Section 3.1 defines the technique for computing the TCP checksum that Section 3.1 defines the technique for computing the TCP checksum that
uses the 32 bit source and destination IPv4 addresses. This problem is uses the 32 bit source and destination IPv4 addresses. This problem is
addressed in RFC 2460 Section 8.1. addressed in RFC 2460 Section 8.1.
7.1.2 STD 19 Netbios over TCP/UDP (RFCs 1001 & 1002) 7.1.2 STD 19 Netbios over TCP/UDP (RFCs 1001 & 1002)
These two RFCs have many inherent IPv4 assumptions and a new set of These two RFCs have many inherent IPv4 assumptions and a new set of
protocols MUST be defined. protocols must be defined.
7.1.3 STD 35 ISO Transport over TCP (RFC 1006) 7.1.3 STD 35 ISO Transport over TCP (RFC 1006)
This problem has been fixed in RFC 2126, ISO Transport Service on This problem has been fixed in RFC 2126, ISO Transport Service on
top of TCP. top of TCP.
7.2 Draft Standards 7.2 Draft Standards
There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.
7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3 Proposed Standards
7.3.01 TCP/IP Header Compression over Slow Serial Links (RFC 1144) 7.3.01 TCP/IP Header Compression over Slow Serial Links (RFC 1144)
This problem has been resolved in RFC2508, Compressing IP/UDP/RTP This problem has been resolved in RFC2508, Compressing IP/UDP/RTP
Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links. See also RFC 2507 & RFC 2509. Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links. See also RFC 2507 & RFC 2509.
7.3.02 ONC RPC v2 (RFC 1833) 7.3.02 ONC RPC v2 (RFC 1833)
The problems can be resolved with a definition of the NC_INET6 The problems can be resolved with a definition of the NC_INET6
protocol family. protocol family.
7.3.03 RTP (RFC 1889) 7.3.03 RTP (RFC 1889)
A modification of the algorithm defined in A.7 to support both A modification of the algorithm defined in A.7 to support both
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses SHOULD be defined. IPv4 and IPv6 addresses should be defined.
7.3.04 RTSP (RFC 2326) 7.3.04 RTSP (RFC 2326)
Problem has been acknowledged by the RTSP developer group and will Problem has been acknowledged by the RTSP developer group and will
be addressed in the move from Proposed to Draft Standard. This be addressed in the move from Proposed to Draft Standard. This
problem is also addressed in RFC 2732, IPv6 Literal Addresses in problem is also addressed in RFC 2732, IPv6 Literal Addresses in
URL's. URL's.
7.3.05 SDP (RFC 2327) 7.3.05 SDP (RFC 2327)
One problem is addressed in RFC 2732, IPv6 Literal Addresses in One problem is addressed in RFC 2732, IPv6 Literal Addresses in
URL's. The other problem can be addressed with a minor textual URL's. The other problem can be addressed with a minor textual
clarification. This MUST be done if the document is to transition clarification. This must be done if the document is to transition
from Proposed to Draft. from Proposed to Draft.
7.3.06 SIP (RFC 2543) 7.3.06 SIP (RFC 2543)
One problem is addressed in RFC 2732, IPv6 Literal Addresses in One problem is addressed in RFC 2732, IPv6 Literal Addresses in
URL's. The other problem is being addressed by the SIP WG and URL's. The other problem is being addressed by the SIP WG and
many IDs exist correcting the remaining problems. many IDs exist correcting the remaining problems.
7.3.07 IPPM Metrics (RFC 2678) 7.3.07 IPPM Metrics (RFC 2678)
skipping to change at line 1523 skipping to change at line 1448
7.3.11 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP for IP 7.3.11 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP for IP
Access to Telephone Call Services(RFC 2848) Access to Telephone Call Services(RFC 2848)
This protocol is dependent on SDP & SIP which has IPv4 dependencies. This protocol is dependent on SDP & SIP which has IPv4 dependencies.
Once these limitations are fixed, then this protocol should support Once these limitations are fixed, then this protocol should support
IPv6. IPv6.
7.3.12 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field (RFC 2873) 7.3.12 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field (RFC 2873)
The problems are not being addressed and MAY be addressed in a new The problems are not being addressed and may be addressed in a new
protocol. protocol.
7.3.13 Integrated Services in the Presence of Compressible Flows 7.3.13 Integrated Services in the Presence of Compressible Flows
(RFC 3006) (RFC 3006)
This document defines a protocol that discusses compressible This document defines a protocol that discusses compressible
flows, but only in an IPv4 context. When IPv6 compressible flows flows, but only in an IPv4 context. When IPv6 compressible flows
are defined, a similar technique should also be defined. are defined, a similar technique should also be defined.
7.3.14 SDP For ATM Bearer Connections (RFC 3108) 7.3.14 SDP For ATM Bearer Connections (RFC 3108)
skipping to change at line 1548 skipping to change at line 1473
7.3.15 The Congestion Manager (RFC 3124) 7.3.15 The Congestion Manager (RFC 3124)
An update to this document can be simply define the use of the IPv6 An update to this document can be simply define the use of the IPv6
Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the
IPv4 TOS field. IPv4 TOS field.
7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.4 Experimental RFCs
7.4.1 Reliable Data Protocol (RFC 908) 7.4.1 Reliable Data Protocol (RFC 908)
This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard MAY be This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be
produced. produced.
7.4.2 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and 7.4.2 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and
interface specification (RFC 938) interface specification (RFC 938)
This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard MAY be This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be
produced. produced.
7.4.3 NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol (RFC 998) 7.4.3 NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol (RFC 998)
This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard MAY be This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be
produced. produced.
7.4.4 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (RFC 1045) 7.4.4 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (RFC 1045)
This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard MAY be This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be
produced. produced.
7.4.5 OSPF over ATM and Proxy-PAR (RFC 2844) 7.4.5 OSPF over ATM and Proxy-PAR (RFC 2844)
This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard MAY be This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be
produced. produced.
8.0 Acknowledgements 8.0 Security Consideration
The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does not
in the research and production of this document. Additionally the have security considerations in itself.
author would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.
9.0 Authors Address 9.0 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet
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
for guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this
document.
10.0 References
10.1 Normative
[1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey of
IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-01.txt IETF work in progress,
June 2003
11.0 Authors Address
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
Ostfold University College
Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
Address: Rute 503 Buer
N-1766 Halden
Norway
12.0 Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies 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
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
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
13.0 Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
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
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 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/