draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-01.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-02.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-01.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-02.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom
Ostfold University College Ostfold University College
June 2003 September 2003
Expires December 2003 Expires February 2004
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 67 skipping to change at line 67
8. Security Consideration 8. Security Consideration
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
10. References 10. References
11. Authors Address 11. Authors Address
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 stanadards. 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, Manangement &
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 intro[1] draft.
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 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 each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a
vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if
the 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 " Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as "
skipping to change at line 117 skipping to change at line 117
is free from IPv4 references but there is an inconsistency in the is free from IPv4 references but there is an inconsistency in the
computation of checksums. The text says: "The checksum also covers a computation of checksums. The text says: "The checksum also covers a
96 bit pseudo header conceptually prefixed to the TCP header. This 96 bit pseudo header conceptually prefixed to the TCP header. This
pseudo header contains the Source Address, the Destination Address, pseudo header contains the Source Address, the Destination Address,
the Protocol, and TCP length." The first and second 32-bit words are the Protocol, and TCP length." The first and second 32-bit words are
clearly meant to specify 32-bit IPv4 addresses. While no modification clearly meant to specify 32-bit IPv4 addresses. While no modification
of the TCP protocol is necessitated by this problem, an alternate needs of the TCP protocol is necessitated by this problem, an alternate needs
to be specified as an update document, or as part of another IPv6 to be specified as an update document, or as part of another IPv6
document. document.
3.1 RFC 907 Host Access Protocol specification
FIXME: requires to be analyzed by subject matter experts.
This is a layer 3 protocol, and has no IPv4 dependencies.
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 421 skipping to change at line 426
Calling address client's IP address Calling address client's IP address
(4 octets) (4 octets)
4.0 Draft Standards 4.0 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 usually
quite mature and widely used. quite mature and widely used.
4.1 RFC 3551 RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal
Control.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
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 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 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
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
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.03 RFC 1553 Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX) (CIPX) 5.03 RFC 1553 Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.04 RFC 1692 Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux) (TMUX) 5.04 RFC 1692 Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)
Section 6. Implementation Notes is states: Section 6. Implementation Notes is states:
Because the TMux mini-header does not contain a TOS field, only Because the TMux mini-header does not contain a TOS field, only
segments with the same IP TOS field should be contained in a single segments with the same IP TOS field should be contained in a single
TMux message. As most systems do not use the TOS feature, this is TMux message. As most systems do not use the TOS feature, this is
not a major restriction. Where the TOS field is used, it may be not a major restriction. Where the TOS field is used, it may be
desirable to hold several messages under construction for a host, one desirable to hold several messages under construction for a host, one
for each TOS value. for each TOS value.
skipping to change at line 503 skipping to change at line 513
* NC_NIT "nit" * NC_NIT "nit"
* NC_IEEE802 "ieee802" * NC_IEEE802 "ieee802"
* NC_OSI "osi" * NC_OSI "osi"
* NC_X25 "x25" * NC_X25 "x25"
* NC_OSINET "osinet" * NC_OSINET "osinet"
* NC_GOSIP "gosip" * NC_GOSIP "gosip"
It is clear that the value for NC_INET is intended for the IP protocol It is clear that the value for NC_INET is intended for the IP protocol
and is seems clear that it is IPv4 dependent. and is seems clear that it is IPv4 dependent.
5.07 RFC 1889 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications 5.08 RFC 1962 The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)
(RTP)
In general this protocol makes many references to running on UDP over
IP unicast, as well as multicast addresses. There seems to be no
reason that it will run effectively over IPv6 unicast and multicast.
The only possible point is in Section A.7 Computing the RTCP
Transmission Interval which contains the following code fragment:
/*
* Very first call at application start-up uses half the min
* delay for quicker notification while still allowing some time
* before reporting for randomization and to learn about other
* sources so the report interval will converge to the correct
* interval more quickly. The average RTCP size is initialized
* to 128 octets which is conservative (it assumes everyone else
* is generating SRs instead of RRs: 20 IP + 8 UDP + 52 SR + 48
* SDES CNAME).
*/
if (initial) {
rtcp_min_time /= 2;
*avg_rtcp_size = 128;
}
which assumes an IPv4 header length of 20 bytes. It seems a simple
update to this code to check for IP version and pick a value
appropriate for the IP version.
5.08 RFC 1890 RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with
Minimal Control (RTP-AV)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.09 RFC 1962 The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP) (PPP-CCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.10 RFC 2018 TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options (TCP-ACK) 5.09 RFC 2018 TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.11 RFC 2029 RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Video Encoding 5.10 RFC 2029 RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Video Encoding
(RTP-CELLB)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.12 RFC 2032 RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams 5.11 RFC 2032 RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams
(RTP-H.261)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.13 RFC 2126 ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT) (ITOT) 5.12 RFC 2126 ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT)
This protocol is IPv6 aware and has no issues. This protocol is IPv6 aware and has no issues.
5.14 RFC 2190 RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams 5.13 RFC 2190 RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.15 RFC 2198 RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data (RTP-RAD) 5.14 RFC 2198 RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.16 RFC 2205 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- 5.15 RFC 2205 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version 1 Functional Specification (RSVP) Version 1 Functional Specification
In Section 1. Introduction the statement is made: In Section 1. Introduction the statement is made:
RSVP operates on top of IPv4 or IPv6, occupying the place of a RSVP operates on top of IPv4 or IPv6, occupying the place of a
transport protocol in the protocol stack. transport protocol in the protocol stack.
Appendix A defines all of the header formats for RSVP and there are Appendix A defines all of the header formats for RSVP and there are
multiple formats for both IPv4 and IPv6. multiple formats for both IPv4 and IPv6.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.17 RFC 2207 RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows (RSVP-IPSEC) 5.16 RFC 2207 RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows
The defined IPsec extensions are valid for both IPv4 & IPv6. The defined IPsec extensions are valid for both IPv4 & IPv6.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.18 RFC 2210 The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services 5.17 RFC 2210 The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services
(RSVP-IS)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.19 RFC 2211 Specification of the Controlled-Load Network 5.18 RFC 2211 Specification of the Controlled-Load Network
Element Service Element Service
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.20 RFC 2212 Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service 5.19 RFC 2212 Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service
(GQOS)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.21 RFC 2215 General Characterization Parameters for 5.20 RFC 2215 General Characterization Parameters for
Integrated Service Network Elements Integrated Service Network Elements
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.22 RFC 2250 RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video 5.21 RFC 2250 RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video
(RTP-MPEG)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.23 RFC 2326 Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) (RTSP) 5.22 RFC 2326 Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)
Section 3.2 RTSP URL defines: Section 3.2 RTSP URL defines:
The "rtsp" and "rtspu" schemes are used to refer to network resources The "rtsp" and "rtspu" schemes are used to refer to network resources
via the RTSP protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific via the RTSP protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific
syntax and semantics for RTSP URLs. syntax and semantics for RTSP URLs.
rtsp_URL = ( "rtsp:" | "rtspu:" ) rtsp_URL = ( "rtsp:" | "rtspu:" )
"//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path ] "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path ]
host = <A legal Internet host domain name of IP address host = <A legal Internet host domain name of IP address
skipping to change at line 665 skipping to change at line 636
m=whiteboard 32416 UDP WB m=whiteboard 32416 UDP WB
a=orient:portrait a=orient:portrait
which implies the use of the "IP4" tag and it should be possible to which implies the use of the "IP4" tag and it should be possible to
use an "IP6" tag. There are also numerous other similar examples use an "IP6" tag. There are also numerous other similar examples
using the "IP4" tag. using the "IP4" tag.
There seems to be nothing that requires IPv4, and a small set of There seems to be nothing that requires IPv4, and a small set of
updates can be created to document IPv6 functionality. updates can be created to document IPv6 functionality.
5.24 RFC 2327 SDP: Session Description Protocol (SDP) 5.23 RFC 2327 SDP: Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Like the previous document, a sample SDP description is given as:
An example SDP description is:
v=0
o=mhandley 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 126.16.64.4
s=SDP Seminar
i=A Seminar on the session description protocol
u=http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/M.Handley/sdp.03.ps
e=mjh@isi.edu (Mark Handley)
c=IN IP4 224.2.17.12/127
t=2873397496 2873404696
a=recvonly
m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 0
m=video 51372 RTP/AVP 31
m=application 32416 udp wb
a=orient:portrait
Later an explicit discussion of the network addressing scheme is
given:
<network type> is a text string giving the type of network.
Initially "IN" is defined to have the meaning "Internet". <address
type> is a text string giving the type of the address that follows.
Initially "IP4" and "IP6" are defined. <address> is the globally
unique address of the machine from which the session was created.
For an address type of IP4, this is either the fully-qualified domain
name of the machine, or the dotted-decimal representation of the IP
version 4 address of the machine. For an address type of IP6, this
is either the fully-qualified domain name of the machine, or the
compressed textual representation of the IP version 6 address of the
machine. For both IP4 and IP6, the fully-qualified domain name is
the form that SHOULD be given unless this is unavailable, in which
case the globally unique address may be substituted. A local IP
address MUST NOT be used in any context where the SDP description
might leave the scope in which the address is meaningful.
Although later in the definitions of connection types the following
text is found:
Connection Data
c=<network type> <address type> <connection address>
The "c=" field contains connection data.
A session announcement must contain one "c=" field in each media
description (see below) or a "c=" field at the session-level. It may
contain a session-level "c=" field and one additional "c=" field per
media description, in which case the per-media values override the
session-level settings for the relevant media.
The first sub-field is the network type, which is a text string
giving the type of network. Initially "IN" is defined to have the
meaning "Internet".
The second sub-field is the address type. This allows SDP to be used
for sessions that are not IP based. Currently only IP4 is defined.
The third sub-field is the connection address. Optional extra
subfields may be added after the connection address depending on the
value of the <address type> field.
For IP4 addresses, the connection address is defined as follows:
o Typically the connection address will be a class-D IP multicast
group address. If the session is not multicast, then the
connection address contains the fully-qualified domain name or the
unicast IP address of the expected data source or data relay or
data sink as determined by additional attribute fields. It is not
expected that fully-qualified domain names or unicast addresses
will be given in a session description that is communicated by a
multicast announcement, though this is not prohibited. If a
unicast data stream is to pass through a network address
translator, the use of a fully-qualified domain name rather than an
unicast IP address is RECOMMENDED. In other cases, the use of an
IP address to specify a particular interface on a multi-homed host
might be required. Thus this specification leaves the decision as
to which to use up to the individual application, but all
applications MUST be able to cope with receiving both formats.
o Conferences using an IP multicast connection address must also have
a time to live (TTL) value present in addition to the multicast
address. The TTL and the address together define the scope with
which multicast packets sent in this conference will be sent. TTL
values must be in the range 0-255.
The TTL for the session is appended to the address using a slash as
a separator. An example is:
c=IN IP4 224.2.1.1/127
Hierarchical or layered encoding schemes are data streams where the
encoding from a single media source is split into a number of
layers. The receiver can choose the desired quality (and hence
bandwidth) by only subscribing to a subset of these layers. Such
layered encodings are normally transmitted in multiple multicast
groups to allow multicast pruning. This technique keeps unwanted
traffic from sites only requiring certain levels of the hierarchy.
For applications requiring multiple multicast groups, we allow the
following notation to be used for the connection address:
<base multicast address>/<ttl>/<number of addresses>
If the number of addresses is not given it is assumed to be one.
Multicast addresses so assigned are contiguously allocated above
the base address, so that, for example:
c=IN IP4 224.2.1.1/127/3
would state that addresses 224.2.1.1, 224.2.1.2 and 224.2.1.3 are
to be used at a ttl of 127. This is semantically identical to
including multiple "c=" lines in a media description:
c=IN IP4 224.2.1.1/127
c=IN IP4 224.2.1.2/127
c=IN IP4 224.2.1.3/127
Multiple addresses or "c=" lines can only be specified on a per-
media basis, and not for a session-level "c=" field.
It is illegal for the slash notation described above to be used for
IP unicast addresses.
This is probably because the definitions for IPv6 multicast was not This protocol is under revision, and IPv6 support was addded in
standardized at the time of this documents production. A similar RFC 2327 which updates this protocol.
mechanism for IPv6 multicast could defined in a straightforward manner.
5.25 RFC 2380 RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements 5.24 RFC 2380 RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.26 RFC 2381 Interoperation of Controlled-Load Service and 5.25 RFC 2381 Interoperation of Controlled-Load Service and
Guaranteed Service with ATM Guaranteed Service with ATM
There does not seem any inherent IPv4 limitations in this protocol, There does not seem any inherent IPv4 limitations in this protocol,
but it assumes work of other standards that have IPv4 limitations. but it assumes work of other standards that have IPv4 limitations.
5.27 RFC 2393 IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp) (IPCOMP) 5.26 RFC 2429 RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.28 RFC 2429 RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T
Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+) Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.29 RFC 2431 RTP Payload Format for BT.656 Video Encoding 5.27 RFC 2431 RTP Payload Format for BT.656 Video Encoding
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.30 RFC 2435 RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video 5.28 RFC 2435 RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.31 RFC 2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services Field 5.29 RFC 2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services Field
(DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.32 RFC 2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for Low-Speed 5.30 RFC 2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for Low-Speed
Serial Links Serial Links
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.33 RFC 2509 IP Header Compression over PPP (IPCOM-PPP) 5.31 RFC 2581 TCP Congestion Control
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.34 RFC 2543 SIP: Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
In Section 2 SIP Uniform Resource Locators the following specification
is made:
SIP-URL = "sip:" [ userinfo "@" ] hostport
url-parameters [ headers ]
hostport = host [ ":" port ]
host = hostname | IPv4address
hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ]
IPv4address = 1*digit "." 1*digit "." 1*digit "." 1*digit
Later it states:
The issue of IPv6 literal addresses in URLs is being looked at
elsewhere in the IETF. SIP implementers are advised to keep up to
date on that activity.
Further:
URL parameters: SIP URLs can define specific parameters of the
request. URL parameters are added after the host component and
are separated by semi-colons. The transport parameter determines
the transport mechanism (UDP or TCP). UDP is to be assumed
when no explicit transport parameter is included. The maddr
parameter provides the server address to be contacted for this
user, overriding the address supplied in the host field. This
address is typically a multicast address, but could also be the
address of a backup server. The ttl parameter determines the
time-to-live value of the UDP multicast packet and MUST only be
used if maddr is a multicast address and the transport protocol
is UDP. The user parameter was described above. For example, to
specify to call j.doe@big.com using multicast to 239.255.255.1
with a ttl of 15, the following URL would be used:
sip:j.doe@big.com;maddr=239.255.255.1;ttl=15
and then:
sip:alice@10.1.2.3
and in Section 4.2.6 REGISTER
A client uses the REGISTER method to register the address listed in
the To header field with a SIP server.
A user agent MAY register with a local server on startup by sending a
REGISTER request to the well-known "all SIP servers" multicast
address "sip.mcast.net" (224.0.1.75).
There are many examples of transactions which use IPv4 only addresses.
This protocol clearly needs to be updated for IPv6.
5.35 RFC 2581 TCP Congestion Control (TCP-CC)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.36 RFC 2597 Assured Forwarding PHB Group 5.32 RFC 2597 Assured Forwarding PHB Group
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.37 RFC 2598 An Expedited Forwarding PHB
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.38 RFC 2658 RTP Payload Format for PureVoice(tm) Audio 5.33 RFC 2658 RTP Payload Format for PureVoice(tm) Audio
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.39 RFC 2678 IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity (IPPM-MET) 5.34 RFC 2678 IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity
This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will
need to be defined. need to be defined.
5.40 RFC 2679 A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM 5.35 RFC 2679 A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM
This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will
need to be defined. need to be defined.
5.41 RFC 2680 A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM 5.36 RFC 2680 A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM
This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will
need to be defined. need to be defined.
5.42 RFC 2681 A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM 5.37 RFC 2681 A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM
This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will
need to be defined. need to be defined.
5.43 RFC 2730 Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol 5.38 RFC 2730 Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol
(MADCAP) (MADCAP) (MADCAP) (MADCAP)
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.44 RFC 2733 An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error 5.39 RFC 2733 An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
Correction Correction
This protocol is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. Once This protocol is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. Once
that limitation is fixed, then this protocol should support IPv6. that limitation is fixed, then this protocol should support IPv6.
5.45 RFC 2745 RSVP Diagnostic Messages 5.40 RFC 2745 RSVP Diagnostic Messages
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.46 RFC 2746 RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels 5.41 RFC 2746 RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.47 RFC 2750 RSVP Extensions for Policy Control 5.42 RFC 2750 RSVP Extensions for Policy Control
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.48 RFC 2751 Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element
(RSVP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.49 RFC 2752 Identity Representation for RSVP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.50 RFC 2793 RTP Payload for Text Conversation 5.43 RFC 2793 RTP Payload for Text Conversation
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.51 RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol for 5.44 RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol for
RSVP-based Admission Control over IEEE 802-style networks RSVP-based Admission Control over IEEE 802-style networks
This protocol claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but all of This protocol claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but all of
the examples are given with IPv4 addresses. That, by itself is the examples are given with IPv4 addresses. That, by itself is
not a telling point but the following statement is made: not a telling point but the following statement is made:
a) LocalDSBMAddrInfo -- current DSBM's IP address (initially, a) LocalDSBMAddrInfo -- current DSBM's IP address (initially,
0.0.0.0) and priority. All IP addresses are assumed to be in 0.0.0.0) and priority. All IP addresses are assumed to be in
network byte order. In addition, current DSBM's L2 address is network byte order. In addition, current DSBM's L2 address is
also stored as part of this state information. also stored as part of this state information.
which could just be sloppy wording. Perhaps a short document which could just be sloppy wording. Perhaps a short document
clarifying the text is appropriate. clarifying the text is appropriate.
5.52 RFC 2815 Integrated Service Mappings on IEEE 802 Networks 5.45 RFC 2815 Integrated Service Mappings on IEEE 802 Networks
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.53 RFC 2833 RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones 5.46 RFC 2833 RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones
and Telephony Signals and Telephony Signals
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.54 RFC 2848 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP 5.47 RFC 2848 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP
for IP Access to Telephone Call Services for IP Access to Telephone Call Services
This protocol is dependent on SDP & SIP which has IPv4 dependencies. This protocol is dependent on SDP 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.
5.55 RFC 2862 RTP Payload Format for Real-Time Pointers 5.48 RFC 2862 RTP Payload Format for Real-Time Pointers
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.56 RFC 2872 Application and Sub Application Identity Policy Element 5.49 RFC 2872 Application and Sub Application Identity Policy Element
for Use with RSVP for Use with RSVP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.57 RFC 2873 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field 5.50 RFC 2873 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field
This protocol documents a technique using IPv4 headers. A similar This protocol documents a technique using IPv4 headers. A similar
technique, if needed, will need to be defined for IPv6. technique, if needed, will need to be defined for IPv6.
5.58 RFC 2883 An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) 5.51 RFC 2883 An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK)
Option for TCP (SACK) Option for TCP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.59 RFC 2907 MADCAP Multicast Scope Nesting State Option 5.52 RFC 2907 MADCAP Multicast Scope Nesting State Option
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.60 RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol 5.53 RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.61 RFC 2961 RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions 5.54 RFC 2961 RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.62 RFC 2976 The SIP INFO Method 5.55 RFC 2976 The SIP INFO Method
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.63 RFC 2988 Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer 5.56 RFC 2988 Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.64 RFC 2996 Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object 5.57 RFC 2996 Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.65 RFC 2997 Specification of the Null Service Type 5.58 RFC 2997 Specification of the Null Service Type
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.66 RFC 3003 The audio/mpeg Media Type 5.59 RFC 3003 The audio/mpeg Media Type
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.67 RFC 3006 Integrated Services in the Presence of 5.60 RFC 3006 Integrated Services in the Presence of
Compressible Flows Compressible Flows
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.
5.68 RFC 3010 NFS version 4 Protocol (NFSv4) 5.61 RFC 3016 RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.69 RFC 3015 Megaco Protocol Version 1.0 (MEGACO)
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.70 RFC 3016 RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual
Streams Streams
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.71 RFC 3033 The Assignment of the Information Field and Protocol 5.62 RFC 3033 The Assignment of the Information Field and Protocol
Identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and Q.2957 Identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and Q.2957
User-to-user Signaling for the Internet Protocol User-to-user Signaling for the Internet Protocol
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.72 RFC 3042 Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit 5.63 RFC 3042 Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.73 RFC 3047 RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.722.1 5.64 RFC 3047 RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.722.1
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.74 RFC 3057 ISDN Q.921-User Adaptation Layer 5.65 RFC 3057 ISDN Q.921-User Adaptation Layer
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.75 RFC 3095 Robust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four 5.66 RFC 3095 Robust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four
profiles profiles
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.76 RFC 3108 Conventions for the use of the Session Description 5.67 RFC 3108 Conventions for the use of the Session Description
Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer Connections Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer Connections
This protocol is currently limited to IPv4 as amplified below: This protocol is currently limited to IPv4 as amplified below:
The range and format of the <rtcpPortNum> and <rtcpIPaddr> The range and format of the <rtcpPortNum> and <rtcpIPaddr>
subparameters is per [1]. The <rtcpPortNum> is a decimal number subparameters is per [1]. The <rtcpPortNum> is a decimal number
between 1024 and 65535. It is an odd number. If an even number in between 1024 and 65535. It is an odd number. If an even number in
this range is specified, the next odd number is used. The this range is specified, the next odd number is used. The
<rtcpIPaddr> is expressed in the usual dotted decimal IP address <rtcpIPaddr> is expressed in the usual dotted decimal IP address
representation, from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255. representation, from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255.
and and
<rtcpIPaddr> IP address for receipt Dotted decimal, 7-15 chars <rtcpIPaddr> IP address for receipt Dotted decimal, 7-15 chars
of RTCP packets of RTCP packets
5.77 RFC 3119 A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio 5.68 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 5.69 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 5.70 RFC 3140 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.71 RFC 3390 Increasing TCP's Initial Window
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.71 RFC 3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 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
skipping to change at line 1162 skipping to change at line 931
synchronization mechanism of the IRTP depends on the requirement synchronization mechanism of the IRTP depends on the requirement
that each IRTP module knows the internet addresses of all modules that each IRTP module knows the internet addresses of all modules
with which it will communicate. For each remote internet address, with which it will communicate. For each remote internet address,
an IRTP module must maintain the following information (called the an IRTP module must maintain the following information (called the
connection table): connection table):
rem_addr (32 bit remote internet address) rem_addr (32 bit remote internet address)
A new specification that is IPv6 aware would need to be created. A new specification that is IPv6 aware would need to be created.
6.03 RFC 998 NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol (NETBLT) 6.03 RFC 998 NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol
This RFC states: This RFC states:
The active end specifies a passive client through a client-specific The active end specifies a passive client through a client-specific
"well-known" 16 bit port number on which the passive end listens. "well-known" 16 bit port number on which the passive end listens.
The active end identifies itself through a 32 bit Internet address The active end identifies itself through a 32 bit Internet address
and a unique 16 bit port number. and a unique 16 bit port number.
Clearly, this is IPv4 dependent, but could easily be modified to support Clearly, this is IPv4 dependent, but could easily be modified to support
IPv6 addressing. IPv6 addressing.
6.04 RFC 1045 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (VMTP) 6.04 RFC 1045 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol
This protocol has many IPv4 dependencies in its implementation This protocol has many IPv4 dependencies in its implementation
appendices. For operations over IPv6 a similar implementation appendices. For operations over IPv6 a similar implementation
procedure must be defined. The IPv4 specific information is procedure must be defined. The IPv4 specific information is
show below. show below.
IV.1. Domain 1 IV.1. Domain 1
For initial use of VMTP, we define the domain with Domain identifier 1 For initial use of VMTP, we define the domain with Domain identifier 1
as follows: as follows:
skipping to change at line 1293 skipping to change at line 1062
identifiers. identifiers.
VMTP_DEFAULT_LECLIENT LE-1-224.0.1.0 VMTP_DEFAULT_LECLIENT LE-1-224.0.1.0
Client entity identifier to use when a (little-endian) Client entity identifier to use when a (little-endian)
host has not determined or been allocated any client host has not determined or been allocated any client
entity identifiers. entity identifiers.
Note that 224.0.1.0 is the host group address assigned to VMTP and to Note that 224.0.1.0 is the host group address assigned to VMTP and to
which all VMTP hosts belong. which all VMTP hosts belong.
6.05 RFC 1146 TCP alternate checksum options (TCP-ACO) 6.05 RFC 1146 TCP alternate checksum options
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.06 RFC 1151 Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP) (RDP) 6.06 RFC 1151 Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.07 RFC 1644 T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional 6.07 RFC 1644 T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional
Specification (T/TCP) Specification
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.08 RFC 1693 An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service (TCP-POS) 6.08 RFC 1693 An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.09 RFC 1791 TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU 6.09 RFC 1791 TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.10 RFC 2343 RTP Payload Format for Bundled MPEG (RTP-MPEG) 6.10 RFC 2343 RTP Payload Format for Bundled MPEG
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.11 RFC 2414 Increasing TCP's Initial Window (TCP-WIN)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.12 RFC 2582 The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery 6.12 RFC 2582 The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery
Algorithm Algorithm
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.13 RFC 2762 Sampling of the Group Membership in RTP 6.13 RFC 2762 Sampling of the Group Membership in RTP
This protocol is IPv4 limited. It is also reliant on the There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
underlying assumptions of RTP which is also IPv4 specific.
6.14 RFC 2859 A Time Sliding Window Three Colour Marker (TSWTCM) 6.14 RFC 2859 A Time Sliding Window Three Colour Marker (TSWTCM)
(TSWTCM)
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
6.15 RFC 2861 TCP Congestion Window Validation 6.15 RFC 2861 TCP Congestion Window Validation
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)
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
6.17 RFC 3173 IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.18 RFC 3181 Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.19 RFC 3182 Identity Representation for RSVP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.20 RFC 3246 An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Behavior)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.21 RFC 3261 SIP: Session Initiation Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.22 RFC 3262 Reliability of Provisional Responses in Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.23 RFC 3263 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.24 RFC 3264 An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol
(SDP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.25 RFC 3265 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event
Notification
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.26 RFC 3525 Gateway Control Protocol Version 1
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.27 RFC 3544 IP Header Compression over PPP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.28 RFC 3530 Network File System (NFS) version 4 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 24 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 24 positives were identified out of a
total of 100, 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 or 0.00% Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00%
Proposed Standards 15 of 79 or 18.99% Proposed Standards 15 of 79 or 18.99%
Experimental RFCs 5 of 16 or 31.25% Experimental RFCs 5 of 16 or 31.25%
skipping to change at line 1371 skipping to change at line 1184
updated. The remaining instances are documented below. updated. The remaining instances are documented below.
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 RFC 907 Host Access Protocol specification
FIXME: requires to be analyzed by subject matter experts.
This is a layer 3 protocol, and as such has no IPv4 dependencies.
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.
skipping to change at line 1397 skipping to change at line 1216
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 RTSP (RFC 2326)
A modification of the algorithm defined in A.7 to support both
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses should be defined.
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) 7.3.04 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. These problems are solved by documents
currently in Auth48 or IESG discuss.
7.3.06 SIP (RFC 2543)
One problem is addressed in RFC 2732, IPv6 Literal Addresses in
URL's. The other problem is being addressed by the SIP WG and
many IDs exist correcting the remaining problems.
7.3.07 IPPM Metrics (RFC 2678) 7.3.05 IPPM Metrics (RFC 2678)
The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues.
7.3.08 IPPM One Way Delay Metric for IPPM (RFC 2679) 7.3.06 IPPM One Way Delay Metric for IPPM (RFC 2679)
The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. An ID is available The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. An ID is available
(draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-03.txt). (draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-03.txt).
7.3.09 IPPM One Way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM (RFC 2680) 7.3.07 IPPM One Way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM (RFC 2680)
The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues.
7.3.10 Round Trip Delay Metric for IPPM (RFC 2681) 7.3.09 Round Trip Delay Metric for IPPM (RFC 2681)
The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues.
7.3.11 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP for IP 7.3.08 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 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) 7.3.09 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 7.3.10 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) 7.3.11 SDP For ATM Bearer Connections (RFC 3108)
The problems are not being addressed and SHOULD be addressed in The problems are not being addressed and SHOULD be addressed in
a new protocol. a new protocol.
7.3.15 The Congestion Manager (RFC 3124) 7.3.12 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
skipping to change at line 1511 skipping to change at line 1320
9.0 Acknowledgements 9.0 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 Additionally the author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to thanks
his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser. his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.
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. He would further like to thank Allison Mankin and
Collins Perkins for valuable feedback on some points of this document.
10.0 References 10.0 References
10.1 Normative 10.1 Normative
[1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey of [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey
IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-01.txt IETF work in progress, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-04.txt IETF work in progress,
June 2003 September 2003
11.0 Authors Address 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
 End of changes. 

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