draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-05.txt   rfc3794.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II Network Working Group P. Nesser, II
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-05.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting Request for Comments: 3794 Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.) Category: Informational A. Bergstrom, Ed.
Ostfold University College Ostfold University College
December 2003 June 2004
Expires May 2004
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Transport Area Standards IETF Transport 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).
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 Transport Area documented standards. In order to currently deployed IETF Transport Area documented standards. In
successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6 order to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all
Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is the IPv6 Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps
evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is hoped is the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies.
that these protocols (and their implementations) will be redesigned to It is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be
be network address independent, but failing that will at least dually redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will
support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full, Draft, and at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards
Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and any (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be
dependencies will be documented. surveyed and any dependencies will be documented.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1.0. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Document Organisation 2.0. Document Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Full Standards 3.0. Full Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Draft Standards 4.0. Draft Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Proposed Standards 5.0. Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Experimental RFCs 6.0. Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Summary of Results 7.0. Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1 Standards 7.1. Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.2 Draft Standards 7.2. Draft Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3. Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.4. Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Security Consideration 8.0. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. Acknowledgements 9.0. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10. References 10.0. Normative Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11. Authors' Addresses 11.0. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. Intellectual Property Statement 12.0. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
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
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 2.0. 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,
and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed in Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is
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 3.0. Full Standards
Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as
"Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely
implemented and used throughout the Internet. implemented and used throughout the Internet.
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 Although UDP is a transport protocol there is one reference to the
UDP/IP interface that states; "The UDP module must be able to UDP/IP interface that states; "The UDP module must be able to
determine the source and destination internet addresses and the determine the source and destination internet addresses and the
protocol field from the internet header." This does not force a protocol field from the internet header." This does not force a
rewrite of the protocol but will clearly cause changes in rewrite of the protocol but will clearly cause changes in
implementations. 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 Section 3.1 which specifies the header format for TCP. The TCP
is free from IPv4 references but there is an inconsistency in the header is free from IPv4 references but there is an inconsistency in
computation of checksums. The text says: "The checksum also covers a the computation of checksums. The text says: "The checksum also
96 bit pseudo header conceptually prefixed to the TCP header. This covers a 96 bit pseudo header conceptually prefixed to the TCP
pseudo header contains the Source Address, the Destination Address, header. This pseudo header contains the Source Address, the
the Protocol, and TCP length." The first and second 32-bit words are Destination Address, the Protocol, and TCP length." The first and
clearly meant to specify 32-bit IPv4 addresses. While no modification second 32-bit words are clearly meant to specify 32-bit IPv4
of the TCP protocol is necessitated by this problem, an alternate needs addresses. While no modification of the TCP protocol is necessitated
to be specified as an update document, or as part of another IPv6 by this problem, an alternate needs to be specified as an update
document. document, or as part of another IPv6 document.
3.3 RFC 907 Host Access Protocol specification 3.3. RFC 907 Host Access Protocol specification
This is a layer 3 protocol, and has as such no IPv4 dependencies. This is a layer 3 protocol, and has as such no IPv4 dependencies.
3.4 NetBIOS Service Protocols. RFC1001, RFC1002 3.4. NetBIOS Service Protocols. RFC1001, RFC1002
3.4.1 RFC 1001 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP 3.4.1. RFC 1001 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A
TRANSPORT: TCP/UDP 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:
- NetBIOS name - NetBIOS name
- The scope of the NetBIOS name - The scope of the NetBIOS name
- Name type: unique or group - Name type: unique or group
- IP address of the releasing node - IP address of the releasing node
- Transaction ID - Transaction ID
skipping to change at line 161 skipping to change at page 4, line 17
- The scope of the NetBIOS name - The scope of the NetBIOS name
- Name type: unique or group - Name type: unique or group
- IP address of the releasing node - IP address of the releasing node
- Transaction ID - Transaction ID
- Result: - Result:
- Yes: name was released - Yes: name was released
- No: name was not released, a reason code is provided - No: name was not released, a reason code is provided
Section 16. NetBIOS SESSION SERVICE states: Section 16. NetBIOS SESSION SERVICE states:
The NetBIOS session service begins after one or more IP addresses The NetBIOS session service begins after one or more IP
have been found for the target name. These addresses may have been addresses have been found for the target name. These addresses
acquired using the NetBIOS name query transactions or by other means, may have been acquired using the NetBIOS name query
such as a local name table or cache. transactions or by other means, such as a local name table or
cache.
Section 16.1. OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS SESSION SERVICE Section 16.1. OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS SESSION SERVICE
Session service has three phases: Session service has three phases:
Session establishment - it is during this phase that the IP Session establishment - it is during this phase that the IP
address and TCP port of the called name is determined, and a address and TCP port of the called name is determined, and a
TCP connection is established with the remote party. TCP connection is established with the remote party.
16.1.1. SESSION ESTABLISHMENT PHASE OVERVIEW 6.1.1. SESSION ESTABLISHMENT PHASE OVERVIEW
An end-node begins establishment of a session to another node by An end-node begins establishment of a session to another node
somehow acquiring (perhaps using the name query transactions or a by somehow acquiring (perhaps using the name query transactions
local cache) the IP address of the node or nodes purported to own the or a local cache) the IP address of the node or nodes purported
destination name. to own the destination name.
Once the TCP connection is open, the calling node sends session Once the TCP connection is open, the calling node sends session
service request packet. This packet contains the following service request packet. This packet contains the following
information: information:
- Calling IP address (see note) - Calling IP address (see note)
- Calling NetBIOS name - Calling NetBIOS name
- Called IP address (see note) - Called IP address (see note)
- Called NetBIOS name - Called NetBIOS name
NOTE: The IP addresses are obtained from the TCP service NOTE: The IP addresses are obtained from the TCP service
interface. interface.
If a compatible LISTEN exists, and there are adequate resources, then If a compatible LISTEN exists, and there are adequate
the session server may transform the existing TCP connection into the resources, then the session server may transform the existing
NetBIOS data session. Alternatively, the session server may TCP connection into the NetBIOS data session. Alternatively,
redirect, or "retarget" the caller to another TCP port (and IP the session server may redirect, or "retarget" the caller to
address). another TCP port (and IP address).
If the caller is redirected, the caller begins the session If the caller is redirected, the caller begins the session
establishment anew, but using the new IP address and TCP port given establishment anew, but using the new IP address and TCP port
in the retarget response. Again a TCP connection is created, and given in the retarget response. Again a TCP connection is
again the calling and called node exchange credentials. The called created, and again the calling and called node exchange
party may accept the call, reject the call, or make a further credentials. The called party may accept the call, reject the
redirection. call, or make a further redirection.
17.1. OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS DATAGRAM SERVICE 17.1. OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS DATAGRAM SERVICE
Every NetBIOS datagram has a named destination and source. To Every NetBIOS datagram has a named destination and source. To
transmit a NetBIOS datagram, the datagram service must perform a name transmit a NetBIOS datagram, the datagram service must perform
query operation to learn the IP address and the attributes of the a name query operation to learn the IP address and the
destination NetBIOS name. (This information may be cached to avoid attributes of the destination NetBIOS name. (This information
the overhead of name query on subsequent NetBIOS datagrams.) may be cached to avoid the overhead of name query on subsequent
NetBIOS datagrams.)
17.1.1. UNICAST, MULTICAST, AND BROADCAST 17.1.1. UNICAST, MULTICAST, AND BROADCAST
NetBIOS datagrams may be unicast, multicast, or broadcast. A NetBIOS NetBIOS datagrams may be unicast, multicast, or broadcast. A
datagram addressed to a unique NetBIOS name is unicast. A NetBIOS NetBIOS datagram addressed to a unique NetBIOS name is unicast.
datagram addressed to a group NetBIOS name, whether there are zero, A NetBIOS datagram addressed to a group NetBIOS name, whether
one, or more actual members, is multicast. A NetBIOS datagram sent there are zero, one, or more actual members, is multicast. A
using the NetBIOS "Send Broadcast Datagram" primitive is broadcast. NetBIOS datagram sent using the NetBIOS "Send Broadcast
Datagram" primitive is broadcast.
17.1.2. FRAGMENTATION OF NetBIOS DATAGRAMS 17.1.2. FRAGMENTATION OF NetBIOS DATAGRAMS
When the header and data of a NetBIOS datagram exceeds the maximum When the header and data of a NetBIOS datagram exceeds the
amount of data allowed in a UDP packet, the NetBIOS datagram must be maximum amount of data allowed in a UDP packet, the NetBIOS
fragmented before transmission and reassembled upon receipt. datagram must be fragmented before transmission and reassembled
upon receipt.
A NetBIOS Datagram is composed of the following protocol elements: A NetBIOS Datagram is composed of the following protocol
elements:
- IP header of 20 bytes (minimum) - IP header of 20 bytes (minimum)
- UDP header of 8 bytes - UDP header of 8 bytes
- NetBIOS Datagram Header of 14 bytes - NetBIOS Datagram Header of 14 bytes
- The NetBIOS Datagram data. - The NetBIOS Datagram data.
18. NODE CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS 18. NODE CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS
- B NODES: - B NODES:
- Node's permanent unique name - Node's permanent unique name
skipping to change at line 258 skipping to change at page 6, line 28
- Usable UDP data field length (to control fragmentation) - Usable UDP data field length (to control fragmentation)
- 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
a new specification should be defined for use of IPv6 underlying and a new specification should be defined for use of IPv6 underlying
addresses. addresses.
3.3.2 RFC 1002 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP 3.4.2. RFC 1002 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A
TRANSPORT: TCP/UDP 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
QUERY RESPONSE) REDIRECT NAME QUERY RESPONSE)
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
REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.6. NEGATIVE NAME REGISTRATION RESPONSE,
4.2.7. END-NODE CHALLENGE REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.9. NAME RELEASE
REQUEST & DEMAND, 4.2.10. POSITIVE NAME RELEASE RESPONSE,
4.2.11. NEGATIVE NAME RELEASE RESPONSE and Sections 4.2.13. POSITIVE
NAME QUERY RESPONSEall contain 32 bit fields labeled "NB_ADDRESS"
clearly defined for IPv4 addresses
Sections 4.2.15. REDIRECT NAME QUERY RESPONSE contains a field Sections 4.2.2. NAME REGISTRATION REQUEST, 4.2.3. NAME
"NSD_IP_ADDR" OVERWRITE REQUEST & DEMAND, 4.2.4. NAME REFRESH REQUEST,
which also is designed for a IPv4 address. 4.2.5. POSITIVE NAME REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.6. NEGATIVE
NAME REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.7. END-NODE CHALLENGE
REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.9. NAME RELEASE REQUEST & DEMAND,
4.2.10. POSITIVE NAME RELEASE RESPONSE, 4.2.11. NEGATIVE NAME
RELEASE RESPONSE and Sections 4.2.13. POSITIVE NAME QUERY
RESPONSE all contain 32 bit fields labeled "NB_ADDRESS" clearly
defined for IPv4 addresses Sections 4.2.15. REDIRECT NAME
QUERY RESPONSE contains a field "NSD_IP_ADDR" 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TYPE | FLAGS | LENGTH | | TYPE | FLAGS | LENGTH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RETARGET_IP_ADDRESS | | RETARGET_IP_ADDRESS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at line 313 skipping to change at page 8, line 4
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID | | MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SOURCE_IP | | SOURCE_IP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SOURCE_PORT | DGM_LENGTH | | SOURCE_PORT | DGM_LENGTH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PACKET_OFFSET | | PACKET_OFFSET |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Section 4.4.2. DIRECT_UNIQUE, DIRECT_GROUP, & BROADCAST
4.4.2. DIRECT_UNIQUE, DIRECT_GROUP, & BROADCAST DATAGRAM DATAGRAM
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID | | MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SOURCE_IP | | SOURCE_IP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SOURCE_PORT | DGM_LENGTH | | SOURCE_PORT | DGM_LENGTH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at line 354 skipping to change at page 9, line 4
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID | | MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SOURCE_IP | | SOURCE_IP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SOURCE_PORT | ERROR_CODE | | SOURCE_PORT | ERROR_CODE |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Section 4.4.4. DATAGRAM QUERY REQUEST
4.4.4. DATAGRAM QUERY REQUEST
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID | | MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SOURCE_IP | | SOURCE_IP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SOURCE_PORT | | | SOURCE_PORT | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
skipping to change at line 394 skipping to change at page 9, line 43
/ DESTINATION_NAME / / DESTINATION_NAME /
/ / / /
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
with group name destinations and broadcast datagrams. The datagrams with group name destinations and broadcast
default is the IP broadcast address for a single IP network. datagrams. The 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
functionality that make no specific reference to IPv4 addresses. protocols functionality that make no specific reference to IPv4
However they assume the use of the above defined packets. The pseudo addresses. However they assume the use of the above defined
code may be valid for IPv6 as long as the packet formats are updated. packets. The pseudo code may be valid for IPv6 as long as the
packet formats are updated.
3.5 RFC 1006 ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (Version: 3) 3.5. 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
Called address server's IP address Called address server's IP address
(4 octets) (4 octets)
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
quite mature and widely used. usually quite mature and widely used.
4.1 RFC 3530 Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol 4.1. RFC 3530 Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
4.2 RFC 3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications 4.2. RFC 3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
4.3 RFC 3551 RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal 4.3. RFC 3551 RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with
Control. Minimal Control.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 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
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 1144 Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial 5.01. RFC 1144 Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial
links 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
been done on similar algorithms for TCP/IPv6 headers. already been done on similar algorithms for TCP/IPv6 headers.
5.02 RFC 1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance 5.02. RFC 1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.03 RFC 1553 Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX) 5.03. RFC 1553 Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.04 RFC 1692 Transport Multiplexing Protocol (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
TMux message. As most systems do not use the TOS feature, this is single TMux message. As most systems do not use the TOS
not a major restriction. Where the TOS field is used, it may be feature, this is not a major restriction. Where the TOS field
desirable to hold several messages under construction for a host, one is used, it may be desirable to hold several messages under
for each TOS value. construction for a host, one for each TOS value.
Segments containing IP options should not be multiplexed. Segments containing IP options should not be multiplexed.
This is clearly IPv4 specific, but a simple restatement in IPv6 This is clearly IPv4 specific, but a simple restatement in IPv6
terms will allow complete functionality. terms will allow complete functionality.
5.05 RFC 1831 RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification 5.05. RFC 1831 RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
Version 2 RPC Specification Version 2 RPC
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.06 RFC 1833 Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2 5.06. RFC 1833 Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2
In Section 2.1 RPCBIND Protocol Specification (in RPC Language) In Section 2.1 RPCBIND Protocol Specification (in RPC Language)
there is the following code fragment: there is the following code fragment:
* Protocol family (r_nc_protofmly): * Protocol family (r_nc_protofmly):
* This identifies the family to which the protocol belongs. The * This identifies the family to which the protocol belongs.
* following values are defined: * The following values are defined:
* NC_NOPROTOFMLY "-" * NC_NOPROTOFMLY "-"
* NC_LOOPBACK "loopback" * NC_LOOPBACK "loopback"
* NC_INET "inet" * NC_INET "inet"
* NC_IMPLINK "implink" * NC_IMPLINK "implink"
* NC_PUP "pup" * NC_PUP "pup"
* NC_CHAOS "chaos" * NC_CHAOS "chaos"
* NC_NS "ns" * NC_NS "ns"
* NC_NBS "nbs" * NC_NBS "nbs"
* NC_ECMA "ecma" * NC_ECMA "ecma"
* NC_DATAKIT "datakit" * NC_DATAKIT "datakit"
skipping to change at line 518 skipping to change at page 12, line 37
* NC_LAT "lat" * NC_LAT "lat"
* NC_HYLINK "hylink" * NC_HYLINK "hylink"
* NC_APPLETALK "appletalk" * NC_APPLETALK "appletalk"
* 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
and is seems clear that it is IPv4 dependent. protocol and is seems clear that it is IPv4 dependent.
5.07 RFC 1962 The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP) 5.07. RFC 1962 The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.08 RFC 2018 TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options 5.08. RFC 2018 TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.09 RFC 2029 RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Video Encoding 5.09. RFC 2029 RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Video Encoding
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.10 RFC 2032 RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams 5.10. RFC 2032 RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.11 RFC 2126 ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT) 5.11. RFC 2126 ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT)
This specification is IPv6 aware and has no issues. This specification is IPv6 aware and has no issues.
5.12 RFC 2190 RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams 5.12. RFC 2190 RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.13 RFC 2198 RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data 5.13. RFC 2198 RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.14 RFC 2205 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- 5.14. RFC 2205 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version 1 Functional Specification 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
multiple formats for both IPv4 and IPv6. are multiple formats for both IPv4 and IPv6.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.15 RFC 2207 RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows 5.15. 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 specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.16 RFC 2210 The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services 5.16. RFC 2210 The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.17 RFC 2211 Specification of the Controlled-Load Network 5.17. RFC 2211 Specification of the Controlled-Load Network
Element Service Element Service
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.18 RFC 2212 Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service 5.18. RFC 2212 Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.19 RFC 2215 General Characterization Parameters for 5.19. RFC 2215 General Characterization Parameters for
Integrated Service Network Elements Integrated Service Network Elements
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.20 RFC 2250 RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video 5.20. RFC 2250 RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.21 RFC 2326 Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) 5.21. 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
via the RTSP protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific resources via the RTSP protocol. This section defines the
syntax and semantics for RTSP URLs. scheme-specific 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
(in dotted decimal form), as defined by Section 2.1 address (in dotted decimal form), as defined
of RFC 1123 \cite{rfc1123}> by Section 2.1 of RFC 1123 \cite{rfc1123}>
port = *DIGIT port = *DIGIT
Although later in that section the following text is added: Although later in that section the following text is added:
The use of IP addresses in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever possible The use of IP addresses in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever
(see RFC 1924 [19]). possible (see RFC 1924 [19]).
Some later examples show: Some later examples show:
Example: Example:
C->S: DESCRIBE rtsp://server.example.com/fizzle/foo RTSP/1.0 C->S: DESCRIBE rtsp://server.example.com/fizzle/foo RTSP/1.0
CSeq: 312 CSeq: 312
Accept: application/sdp, application/rtsl, application/mheg Accept: application/sdp, application/rtsl,
application/mheg
S->C: RTSP/1.0 200 OK S->C: RTSP/1.0 200 OK
CSeq: 312 CSeq: 312
Date: 23 Jan 1997 15:35:06 GMT Date: 23 Jan 1997 15:35:06 GMT
Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 376 Content-Length: 376
v=0 v=0
o=mhandley 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 126.16.64.4 o=mhandley 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 126.16.64.4
s=SDP Seminar s=SDP Seminar
skipping to change at line 637 skipping to change at page 15, line 14
u=http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/M.Handley/sdp.03.ps u=http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/M.Handley/sdp.03.ps
e=mjh@isi.edu (Mark Handley) e=mjh@isi.edu (Mark Handley)
c=IN IP4 224.2.17.12/127 c=IN IP4 224.2.17.12/127
t=2873397496 2873404696 t=2873397496 2873404696
a=recvonly a=recvonly
m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0 m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
m=video 2232 RTP/AVP 31 m=video 2232 RTP/AVP 31
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
use an "IP6" tag. There are also numerous other similar examples to use an "IP6" tag. There are also numerous other similar
using the "IP4" tag. examples using the "IP4" tag.
RTSP is also dependent on IPv6 support in a protocol capable of RTSP is also dependent on IPv6 support in a protocol capable of
describing media configurations, for example SDP RFC 2327. describing media configurations, for example SDP RFC 2327.
RTSP can be used over IPv6 as long as the media description protocol RTSP can be used over IPv6 as long as the media description
supports IPv6, but only for certain restricted use cases. For full protocol supports IPv6, but only for certain restricted use cases.
functionality there is need for IPv6 support. The amount of updates For full functionality there is need for IPv6 support. The amount
needed are small. of updates needed are small.
5.22 RFC 2327 SDP: Session Description Protocol (SDP) 5.22. RFC 2327 SDP: Session Description Protocol (SDP)
This specification is under revision, and IPv6 support was added in This specification is under revision, and IPv6 support was added
RFC 3266 which updates this specification. in RFC 3266 which updates this specification.
5.23 RFC 2380 RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements 5.23. RFC 2380 RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.24 RFC 2381 Interoperation of Controlled-Load Service and 5.24. 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 specification, There does not seem any inherent IPv4 limitations in this
but it assumes work of other standards that have IPv4 limitations. specification, but it assumes work of other standards that have
IPv4 limitations.
5.25 RFC 2429 RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T 5.25. 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 specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.26 RFC 2431 RTP Payload Format for BT.656 Video Encoding 5.26. RFC 2431 RTP Payload Format for BT.656 Video Encoding
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.27 RFC 2435 RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video 5.27. RFC 2435 RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.28 RFC 2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services Field 5.28. 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 specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.29 RFC 2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for Low-Speed 5.29. RFC 2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for Low-Speed
Serial Links Serial Links
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.30 RFC 2581 TCP Congestion Control 5.30. RFC 2581 TCP Congestion Control
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.31 RFC 2597 Assured Forwarding PHB Group 5.31. RFC 2597 Assured Forwarding PHB Group
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
5.32 RFC 2658 RTP Payload Format for PureVoice(tm) Audio 5.32. RFC 2658 RTP Payload Format for PureVoice(tm) Audio
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.33 RFC 2678 IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity 5.33. RFC 2678 IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity
This specification only supports IPv4. This specification only supports IPv4.
5.34 RFC 2679 A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM 5.34. RFC 2679 A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM
This specification only supports IPv4. This specification only supports IPv4.
5.35 RFC 2680 A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM 5.35. RFC 2680 A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM
This specification only supports IPv4. This specification only supports IPv4.
5.36 RFC 2681 A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM 5.36. RFC 2681 A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM
This specification only supports IPv4. This specification only supports IPv4.
5.37 RFC 2730 Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol 5.37. RFC 2730 Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol
(MADCAP) (MADCAP)
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
5.38 RFC 2733 An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error 5.38. RFC 2733 An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
Correction Correction
This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4
Once that limitation is fixed, then this specification should support dependencies. Once that limitation is fixed, then this
IPv6. specification should support IPv6.
5.39 RFC 2745 RSVP Diagnostic Messages 5.39. RFC 2745 RSVP Diagnostic Messages
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
5.40 RFC 2746 RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels 5.40. RFC 2746 RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
5.41 RFC 2750 RSVP Extensions for Policy Control 5.41. RFC 2750 RSVP Extensions for Policy Control
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.42 RFC 2793 RTP Payload for Text Conversation 5.42. RFC 2793 RTP Payload for Text Conversation
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.43 RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol for 5.43. 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 specification claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but all of This specification claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but all
the examples are given with IPv4 addresses. That, by itself is of 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.
5.44 RFC 2815 Integrated Service Mappings on IEEE 802 Networks 5.44. RFC 2815 Integrated Service Mappings on IEEE 802 Networks
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.45 RFC 2833 RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones 5.45. RFC 2833 RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones
and Telephony Signals and Telephony Signals
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.46 RFC 2848 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP 5.46. RFC 2848 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and
for IP Access to Telephone Call Services SDP for IP Access to Telephone Call Services
This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4
Once these limitations are fixed, then this specification should support dependencies. Once these limitations are fixed, then this
IPv6. specification should support IPv6.
5.47 RFC 2862 RTP Payload Format for Real-Time Pointers 5.47. RFC 2862 RTP Payload Format for Real-Time Pointers
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.48 RFC 2872 Application and Sub Application Identity Policy Element 5.48. RFC 2872 Application and Sub Application Identity Policy
for Use with RSVP Element for Use with RSVP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.49 RFC 2873 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field 5.49. RFC 2873 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field
This specification documents a technique using IPv4 headers. A similar This specification documents a technique using IPv4 headers. A
technique, if needed, will need to be defined for IPv6. similar technique, if needed, will need to be defined for IPv6.
5.50 RFC 2883 An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) 5.50. RFC 2883 An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK)
Option for TCP Option for TCP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.51 RFC 2907 MADCAP Multicast Scope Nesting State Option 5.51. RFC 2907 MADCAP Multicast Scope Nesting State Option
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
5.52 RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol 5.52. RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
5.53 RFC 2961 RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions 5.53. RFC 2961 RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
5.54 RFC 2976 The SIP INFO Method 5.54. RFC 2976 The SIP INFO Method
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.55 RFC 2988 Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer 5.55. RFC 2988 Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.56 RFC 2996 Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object 5.56. RFC 2996 Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.57 RFC 2997 Specification of the Null Service Type 5.57. RFC 2997 Specification of the Null Service Type
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.58 RFC 3003 The audio/mpeg Media Type 5.58. RFC 3003 The audio/mpeg Media Type
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.59 RFC 3006 Integrated Services in the Presence of 5.59. 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.
5.60 RFC 3016 RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual 5.60. RFC 3016 RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual
Streams Streams
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.61 RFC 3033 The Assignment of the Information Field and Protocol 5.61. RFC 3033 The Assignment of the Information Field and
Identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and Q.2957 Protocol Identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and
User-to-user Signaling for the Internet Protocol Q.2957 User-to-user Signaling for the Internet Protocol
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
5.62 RFC 3042 Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit 5.62. RFC 3042 Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.63 RFC 3047 RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.722.1 5.63. RFC 3047 RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.722.1
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.64 RFC 3057 ISDN Q.921-User Adaptation Layer 5.64. RFC 3057 ISDN Q.921-User Adaptation Layer
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.65 RFC 3095 Robust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four 5.65. RFC 3095 Robust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four
profiles profiles
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
5.66 RFC 3108 Conventions for the use of the Session Description 5.66. RFC 3108 Conventions for the use of the Session Description
Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer Connections Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer Connections
This specification is currently limited to IPv4 as amplified below: This specification 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
between 1024 and 65535. It is an odd number. If an even number in number between 1024 and 65535. It is an odd number. If an
this range is specified, the next odd number is used. The even number in this range is specified, the next odd number is
<rtcpIPaddr> is expressed in the usual dotted decimal IP address used. The <rtcpIPaddr> is expressed in the usual dotted
representation, from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255. decimal IP address 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,
of RTCP packets 7-15 chars of RTCP packets
5.67 RFC 3119 A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio 5.67. RFC 3119 A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.68 RFC 3124 The Congestion Manager 5.68. 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.
5.69 RFC 3140 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes 5.69. RFC 3140 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.70 RFC 3173 IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp) 5.70. RFC 3173 IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.71 RFC 3181 Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element 5.71. RFC 3181 Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.72 RFC 3182 Identity Representation for RSVP 5.72. RFC 3182 Identity Representation for RSVP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.73 RFC 3246 An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Behavior) 5.73. RFC 3246 An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Behavior)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.74 RFC 3261 SIP: Session Initiation Protocol 5.74. RFC 3261 SIP: Session Initiation Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.75 RFC 3262 Reliability of Provisional Responses in Session 5.75. RFC 3262 Reliability of Provisional Responses in Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Initiation Protocol (SIP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.76 RFC 3263 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers 5.76. RFC 3263 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP
Servers
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.77 RFC 3264 An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol 5.77. RFC 3264 An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description
(SDP) Protocol (SDP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.78 RFC 3265 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event 5.78. RFC 3265 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event
Notification Notification
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.79 RFC 3390 Increasing TCP's Initial Window 5.79. RFC 3390 Increasing TCP's Initial Window
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.80 RFC 3525 Gateway Control Protocol Version 1 5.80. RFC 3525 Gateway Control Protocol Version 1
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.81 RFC 3544 IP Header Compression over PPP 5.81. RFC 3544 IP Header Compression over PPP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.0 Experimental RFCs 6.0. Experimental RFCs
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have
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.
6.01 RFC 908 Reliable Data Protocol (RDP) 6.1. RFC 908 Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)
This document is IPv4 limited as stated in the following section: This document is IPv4 limited as stated in the following section:
4.1 IP Header Format 4.1. IP Header Format
When used in the internet environment, RDP segments are sent When used in the internet environment, RDP segments are sent
using the version 4 IP header as described in RFC791, "Internet using the version 4 IP header as described in RFC791, "Internet
Protocol." The RDP protocol number is ??? (decimal). The time- Protocol." The RDP protocol number is ??? (decimal). The
to-live field should be set to a reasonable value for the time-to-live field should be set to a reasonable value for the
network. network.
All other fields should be set as specified in RFC-791. All other fields should be set as specified in RFC-791.
A new protocol specification would be needed to support IPv6. A new protocol specification would be needed to support IPv6.
6.02 RFC 938 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and 6.02. RFC 938 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and
interface specification (IRTP) interface specification (IRTP)
This specification specification states: This specification states:
4.1 State Variables 4.1. State Variables
Each IRTP is associated with a single internet address. The Each IRTP is associated with a single internet address. The
synchronization mechanism of the IRTP depends on the requirement synchronization mechanism of the IRTP depends on the
that each IRTP module knows the internet addresses of all modules requirement that each IRTP module knows the internet addresses
with which it will communicate. For each remote internet address, of all modules with which it will communicate. For each remote
an IRTP module must maintain the following information (called the internet address, an IRTP module must maintain the following
connection table): information (called the 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 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-
"well-known" 16 bit port number on which the passive end listens. specific "well-known" 16 bit port number on which the passive
The active end identifies itself through a 32 bit Internet address end listens. The active end identifies itself through a 32 bit
and a unique 16 bit port number. Internet address 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
IPv6 addressing. support IPv6 addressing.
6.04 RFC 1045 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol 6.04. RFC 1045 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol
This specification has many IPv4 dependencies in its implementation This specification has many IPv4 dependencies in its
appendices. For operations over IPv6 a similar implementation implementation appendices. For operations over IPv6 a similar
procedure must be defined. The IPv4 specific information is implementation procedure must be defined. The IPv4 specific
show below. information is 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
as follows: identifier 1 as follows:
+-----------+----------------+------------------------+ +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
| TypeFlags | Discriminator | Internet Address | | TypeFlags | Discriminator | Internet Address |
+-----------+----------------+------------------------+ +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
4 bits 28 bits 32 bits 4 bits 28 bits 32 bits
The Internet address is the Internet address of the host on which this The Internet address is the Internet address of the host on
entity-id is originally allocated. The Discriminator is an arbitrary which this entity-id is originally allocated. The
value that is unique relative to this Internet host address. In Discriminator is an arbitrary value that is unique relative to
addition, the host must guarantee that this identifier does not get this Internet host address. In addition, the host must
reused for a long period of time after it becomes invalid. ("Invalid" guarantee that this identifier does not get reused for a long
means that no VMTP module considers in bound to an entity.) One period of time after it becomes invalid. ("Invalid" means that
technique is to use the lower order bits of a 1 second clock. The clock no VMTP module considers in bound to an entity.) One technique
need not represent real-time but must never be set back after a crash. is to use the lower order bits of a 1 second clock. The clock
In a simple implementation, using the low order bits of a clock as the need not represent real-time but must never be set back after a
time stamp, the generation of unique identifiers is overall limited to crash. In a simple implementation, using the low order bits of
no more than 1 per second on average. The type flags were described in a clock as the time stamp, the generation of unique identifiers
Section 3.1. is overall limited to no more than 1 per second on average.
The type flags were described in Section 3.1.
An entity may migrate between hosts. Thus, an implementation can An entity may migrate between hosts. Thus, an implementation
heuristically use the embedded Internet address to locate an entity but can heuristically use the embedded Internet address to locate
should be prepared to maintain a cache of redirects for migrated an entity but should be prepared to maintain a cache of
entities, plus accept Notify operations indicating that migration has redirects for migrated entities, plus accept Notify operations
occurred. indicating that migration has occurred.
Entity group identifiers in Domain 1 are structured in one of two forms, Entity group identifiers in Domain 1 are structured in one of
depending on whether they are well-known or dynamically allocated two forms, depending on whether they are well-known or
identifiers. A well-known entity identifier is structured as: dynamically allocated identifiers. A well-known entity
identifier is structured as:
+-----------+----------------+------------------------+ +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
| TypeFlags | Discriminator |Internet Host Group Addr| | TypeFlags | Discriminator |Internet Host Group Addr|
+-----------+----------------+------------------------+ +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
4 bits 28 bits 32 bits 4 bits 28 bits 32 bits
with the second high-order bit (GRP) set to 1. This form of entity with the second high-order bit (GRP) set to 1. This form of
identifier is mapped to the Internet host group address specified in the entity identifier is mapped to the Internet host group address
low-order 32 bits. The Discriminator distinguishes group identifiers specified in the low-order 32 bits. The Discriminator
using the same Internet host group. Well-known entity group identifiers distinguishes group identifiers using the same Internet host
should be allocated to correspond to the basic services provided by group. Well-known entity group identifiers should be allocated
hosts that are members of the group, not specifically because that to correspond to the basic services provided by hosts that are
service is provided by VMTP. For example, the well-known entity group members of the group, not specifically because that service is
identifier for the domain name service should contain as its embedded provided by VMTP. For example, the well-known entity group
Internet host group address the host group for Domain Name servers. identifier for the domain name service should contain as its
embedded Internet host group address the host group for Domain
Name servers.
A dynamically allocated entity identifier is structured as: A dynamically allocated entity identifier is structured as:
+-----------+----------------+------------------------+ +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
| TypeFlags | Discriminator | Internet Host Addr | | TypeFlags | Discriminator | Internet Host Addr |
+-----------+----------------+------------------------+ +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
4 bits 28 bits 32 bits 4 bits 28 bits 32 bits
with the second high-order bit (GRP) set to 1. The Internet address in with the second high-order bit (GRP) set to 1. The Internet
the low-order 32 bits is a Internet address assigned to the host that address in the low-order 32 bits is a Internet address assigned
dynamically allocates this entity group identifier. A dynamically to the host that dynamically allocates this entity group
allocated entity group identifier is mapped to Internet host group identifier. A dynamically allocated entity group identifier is
address 232.X.X.X where X.X.X are the low-order 24 bits of the mapped to Internet host group address 232.X.X.X where X.X.X are
Discriminator subfield of the entity group identifier. the low-order 24 bits of the Discriminator subfield of the
entity group identifier.
We use the following notation for Domain 1 entity identifiers <10> and We use the following notation for Domain 1 entity identifiers
propose it use as a standard convention. <10> and propose it use as a standard convention.
<flags>-<discriminator>-<Internet address> <flags>-<discriminator>-<Internet address>
where <flags> are [X]{BE,LE,RG,UG}[A] where <flags> are [X]{BE,LE,RG,UG}[A]
X = reserved X = reserved
BE = big-endian entity BE = big-endian entity
LE = little-endian entity LE = little-endian entity
RG = restricted group RG = restricted group
UG = unrestricted group UG = unrestricted group
A = alias A = alias
and <discriminator> is a decimal integer and <Internet address> is in and <discriminator> is a decimal integer and <Internet address> is
standard dotted decimal IP address notation. in standard dotted decimal IP address notation.
V.1. Authentication Domain 1 V.1. Authentication Domain 1
A principal identifier is structured as follows. A principal identifier is structured as follows.
+---------------------------+------------------------+ +---------------------------+------------------------+
| Internet Address | Local User Identifier | | Internet Address | Local User Identifier |
+---------------------------+------------------------+ +---------------------------+------------------------+
32 bits 32 bits 32 bits 32 bits
VI. IP Implementation VI. IP Implementation
VMTP is designed to be implemented on the DoD IP Internet Datagram VMTP is designed to be implemented on the DoD IP Internet
Protocol (although it may also be implemented as a local network Datagram Protocol (although it may also be implemented as a
protocol directly in "raw" network packets.) local network protocol directly in "raw" network packets.)
The well-known entity identifiers specified to date are: The well-known entity identifiers specified to date are:
VMTP_MANAGER_GROUP RG-1-224.0.1.0 VMTP_MANAGER_GROUP RG-1-224.0.1.0
Managers for VMTP operations. Managers for VMTP operations.
VMTP_DEFAULT_BECLIENT BE-1-224.0.1.0 VMTP_DEFAULT_BECLIENT BE-1-224.0.1.0
Client entity identifier to use when a (big-endian) host Client entity identifier to use when a (big-
has not determined or been allocated any client entity endian) host has not determined or been allocated
identifiers. any client entity 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-
host has not determined or been allocated any client endian) host has not determined or been allocated
entity identifiers. any client 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
which all VMTP hosts belong. to which all VMTP hosts belong.
6.05 RFC 1146 TCP alternate checksum options 6.05. RFC 1146 TCP alternate checksum options
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.06 RFC 1151 Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP) 6.06. RFC 1151 Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.07 RFC 1644 T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional 6.07. RFC 1644 T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional
Specification Specification
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.08 RFC 1693 An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service 6.08. RFC 1693 An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
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 specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.10 RFC 2343 RTP Payload Format for Bundled MPEG 6.10. RFC 2343 RTP Payload Format for Bundled MPEG
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.11 RFC 2582 The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery 6.11. RFC 2582 The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery
Algorithm Algorithm
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.12 RFC 2762 Sampling of the Group Membership in RTP 6.12. RFC 2762 Sampling of the Group Membership in RTP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.13 RFC 2859 A Time Sliding Window Three Colour Marker (TSWTCM) 6.13. RFC 2859 A Time Sliding Window Three Colour Marker (TSWTCM)
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
6.14 RFC 2861 TCP Congestion Window Validation 6.14. RFC 2861 TCP Congestion Window Validation
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
changes.
6.15 RFC 2909 The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol 6.15. RFC 2909 The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. This specification 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 25 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 24 positives were identified out of a
total of 104, broken down as follows: total of 104, broken down as follows:
Standards 3 of 5 or 60.00% Standards: 3 out of 5 or 60.00%
Draft Standards 0 of 3 or 0.00% Draft Standards: 0 out of 2 or 0.00%
Proposed Standards 17 of 81 or 20.99% Proposed Standards: 17 out of 82 or 20.73%
Experimental RFCs 4 of 15 or 26.67% Experimental RFCs: 4 out of 15 or 26.67%
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 7.1. 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
uses the 32 bit source and destination IPv4 addresses. This problem is that uses the 32 bit source and destination IPv4 addresses. This
addressed in RFC 2460 Section 8.1. problem is 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
protocols must be defined. of 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. 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 RTSP (RFC 2326) 7.3.03. 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.
7.3.04 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. These problems are solved by documents from Proposed to Draft. These problems are solved by documents
currently in Auth48 or IESG discuss. currently in Auth48 or IESG discuss.
7.3.05 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.
7.3.06 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
(draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-03.txt). available (draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-03.txt).
7.3.07 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.
7.3.09 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.
7.3.08 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 specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4
Once these limitations are fixed, then this protocol should support dependencies. Once these limitations are fixed, then this
IPv6. protocol should support IPv6.
7.3.09 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. The problems are not being addressed.
7.3.10 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.
7.3.11 SDP For ATM Bearer Connections (RFC 3108) 7.3.11. SDP For ATM Bearer Connections (RFC 3108)
The problems are not being addressed, but it is unclear whether The problems are not being addressed, but it is unclear whether
the specification is being used. the specification is being used.
7.3.12 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
Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the IPv6 Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the
IPv4 TOS field. same as the 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 specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may
produced. be 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 specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may
produced. be produced.
7.4.3 NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol (RFC 998) 7.4.3. NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol (RFC 998)
This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may
produced. be produced.
7.4.4 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (RFC 1045) 7.4.4. VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (RFC 1045)
This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may
produced. be produced.
7.4.5 OSPF over ATM and Proxy-PAR (RFC 2844) 7.4.5. OSPF over ATM and Proxy-PAR (RFC 2844)
This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may
produced. be produced.
8.0 Security Consideration 8.0. 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 9.0. 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
for guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this document.
document. He would further like to thank Allison Mankin, Magnus Westerlund and He would further like to thank Allison Mankin, Magnus Westerlund and
Colin Perkins for valuable feedback on some points of this document. Colin Perkins for valuable feedback on some points of this document.
10.0 References 10.0. Normative Reference
10.1 Normative
[1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey [1] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the
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, June 2004.
November 2003
11.0 Authors' Addresses 11.0. 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
Rute 503 Buer
Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
Address: Rute 503 Buer
N-1766 Halden N-1766 Halden
Norway Norway
12.0 Intellectual Property Statement EMail: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
12.0. 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 to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 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 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
Director. ipr@ietf.org.
13.0 Full Copyright Statement
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/