idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 1557 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 7 characters in excess of 72. ** There are 4 instances of lines with control characters in the document. == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. == There are 2 instances of lines with multicast IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed to use the 233.252.0.x range defined in RFC 5771 ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 605: '...ddresses in URLs SHOULD be avoided whe...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 1173: '... instances of standards that SHOULD be...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 745 has weird spacing: '...re, but all o...' == Line 873 has weird spacing: '...ess for recei...' == Line 956 has weird spacing: '... using the ...' == Line 957 has weird spacing: '...). The time-...' == Line 958 has weird spacing: '...to-live field...' -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 2004) is 7285 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: '19' is mentioned on line 606, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro (ref. '1') Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II 2 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-05.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting 3 Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.) 4 Ostfold University College 5 December 2003 6 Expires May 2004 8 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed 9 IETF Transport Area Standards 11 Status of this Memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 14 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 18 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 21 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at 22 any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 Abstract 33 This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently 34 deployed IETF Transport Area documented standards. In order to 35 successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6 36 Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is the 37 evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is hoped 38 that these protocols (and their implementations) will be redesigned to 39 be network address independent, but failing that will at least dually 40 support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full, Draft, and 41 Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and any 42 dependencies will be documented. 44 Table of Contents 46 1. Introduction 47 2. Document Organisation 48 3. Full Standards 49 4. Draft Standards 50 5. Proposed Standards 51 6. Experimental RFCs 52 7. Summary of Results 53 7.1 Standards 54 7.2 Draft Standards 55 7.3 Proposed Standards 56 7.4 Experimental RFCs 57 8. Security Consideration 58 9. Acknowledgements 59 10. References 60 11. Authors' Addresses 61 12. Intellectual Property Statement 62 13. Full Copyright Statement 64 1.0 Introduction 66 This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage of 67 IPv4 addresses in IETF standards. In an effort to have the information 68 in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents conforming 69 to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Management & 70 Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). 72 For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1]. 74 2.0 Document Organization 76 The rest of the document sections are described below. 78 Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft, 79 and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed in 80 its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with (around) RFC 3100. 81 The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is 82 discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look 83 ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed. 85 Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, and 86 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole and the 87 problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated. 89 3.0 Full Standards 91 Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as 92 "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely 93 implemented and used throughout the Internet. 95 3.1 RFC 768 User Datagram Protocol 97 Although UDP is a transport protocol there is one reference to the 98 UDP/IP interface that states; "The UDP module must be able to 99 determine the source and destination internet addresses and the 100 protocol field from the internet header." This does not force a 101 rewrite of the protocol but will clearly cause changes in 102 implementations. 104 3.2 RFC 793 Transmission Control Protocol 106 Section 3.1 which specifies the header format for TCP. The TCP header 107 is free from IPv4 references but there is an inconsistency in the 108 computation of checksums. The text says: "The checksum also covers a 109 96 bit pseudo header conceptually prefixed to the TCP header. This 110 pseudo header contains the Source Address, the Destination Address, 111 the Protocol, and TCP length." The first and second 32-bit words are 112 clearly meant to specify 32-bit IPv4 addresses. While no modification 113 of the TCP protocol is necessitated by this problem, an alternate needs 114 to be specified as an update document, or as part of another IPv6 115 document. 117 3.3 RFC 907 Host Access Protocol specification 119 This is a layer 3 protocol, and has as such no IPv4 dependencies. 121 3.4 NetBIOS Service Protocols. RFC1001, RFC1002 123 3.4.1 RFC 1001 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP 124 TRANSPORT: 125 CONCEPTS AND METHODS 127 Section 15.4.1. RELEASE BY B NODES defines: 129 A NAME RELEASE DEMAND contains the following information: 131 - NetBIOS name 132 - The scope of the NetBIOS name 133 - Name type: unique or group 134 - IP address of the releasing node 135 - Transaction ID 137 Section 15.4.2. RELEASE BY P NODES defines: 139 A NAME RELEASE REQUEST contains the following information: 141 - NetBIOS name 142 - The scope of the NetBIOS name 143 - Name type: unique or group 144 - IP address of the releasing node 145 - Transaction ID 147 A NAME RELEASE RESPONSE contains the following information: 149 - NetBIOS name 150 - The scope of the NetBIOS name 151 - Name type: unique or group 152 - IP address of the releasing node 153 - Transaction ID 154 - Result: 155 - Yes: name was released 156 - No: name was not released, a reason code is provided 158 Section 16. NetBIOS SESSION SERVICE states: 160 The NetBIOS session service begins after one or more IP addresses 161 have been found for the target name. These addresses may have been 162 acquired using the NetBIOS name query transactions or by other means, 163 such as a local name table or cache. 165 Section 16.1. OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS SESSION SERVICE 167 Session service has three phases: 169 Session establishment - it is during this phase that the IP 170 address and TCP port of the called name is determined, and a 171 TCP connection is established with the remote party. 173 16.1.1. SESSION ESTABLISHMENT PHASE OVERVIEW 175 An end-node begins establishment of a session to another node by 176 somehow acquiring (perhaps using the name query transactions or a 177 local cache) the IP address of the node or nodes purported to own the 178 destination name. 180 Once the TCP connection is open, the calling node sends session 181 service request packet. This packet contains the following 182 information: 184 - Calling IP address (see note) 185 - Calling NetBIOS name 186 - Called IP address (see note) 187 - Called NetBIOS name 189 NOTE: The IP addresses are obtained from the TCP service 190 interface. 192 If a compatible LISTEN exists, and there are adequate resources, then 193 the session server may transform the existing TCP connection into the 194 NetBIOS data session. Alternatively, the session server may 195 redirect, or "retarget" the caller to another TCP port (and IP 196 address). 198 If the caller is redirected, the caller begins the session 199 establishment anew, but using the new IP address and TCP port given 200 in the retarget response. Again a TCP connection is created, and 201 again the calling and called node exchange credentials. The called 202 party may accept the call, reject the call, or make a further 203 redirection. 205 17.1. OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS DATAGRAM SERVICE 207 Every NetBIOS datagram has a named destination and source. To 208 transmit a NetBIOS datagram, the datagram service must perform a name 209 query operation to learn the IP address and the attributes of the 210 destination NetBIOS name. (This information may be cached to avoid 211 the overhead of name query on subsequent NetBIOS datagrams.) 213 17.1.1. UNICAST, MULTICAST, AND BROADCAST 215 NetBIOS datagrams may be unicast, multicast, or broadcast. A NetBIOS 216 datagram addressed to a unique NetBIOS name is unicast. A NetBIOS 217 datagram addressed to a group NetBIOS name, whether there are zero, 218 one, or more actual members, is multicast. A NetBIOS datagram sent 219 using the NetBIOS "Send Broadcast Datagram" primitive is broadcast. 221 17.1.2. FRAGMENTATION OF NetBIOS DATAGRAMS 223 When the header and data of a NetBIOS datagram exceeds the maximum 224 amount of data allowed in a UDP packet, the NetBIOS datagram must be 225 fragmented before transmission and reassembled upon receipt. 227 A NetBIOS Datagram is composed of the following protocol elements: 229 - IP header of 20 bytes (minimum) 230 - UDP header of 8 bytes 231 - NetBIOS Datagram Header of 14 bytes 232 - The NetBIOS Datagram data. 234 18. NODE CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS 236 - B NODES: 237 - Node's permanent unique name 238 - Whether IGMP is in use 239 - Broadcast IP address to use 240 - Whether NetBIOS session keep-alives are needed 241 - Usable UDP data field length (to control fragmentation) 242 - P NODES: 243 - Node's permanent unique name 244 - IP address of NBNS 245 - IP address of NBDD 246 - Whether NetBIOS session keep-alives are needed 247 - Usable UDP data field length (to control fragmentation) 248 - M NODES: 249 - Node's permanent unique name 250 - Whether IGMP is in use 251 - Broadcast IP address to use 252 - IP address of NBNS 253 - IP address of NBDD 254 - Whether NetBIOS session keep-alives are needed 255 - Usable UDP data field length (to control fragmentation) 257 All of the proceeding sections make implicit use of IPv4 addresses and 258 a new specification should be defined for use of IPv6 underlying 259 addresses. 261 3.3.2 RFC 1002 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP 262 TRANSPORT: 263 DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS 265 Section 4.2.1.3. RESOURCE RECORD defines 267 RESOURCE RECORD RR_TYPE field definitions: 269 Symbol Value Description: 271 A 0x0001 IP address Resource Record (See REDIRECT NAME 272 QUERY RESPONSE) 274 Sections 4.2.2. NAME REGISTRATION REQUEST, 4.2.3. NAME OVERWRITE 275 REQUEST & DEMAND, 4.2.4. NAME REFRESH REQUEST, 4.2.5. POSITIVE NAME 276 REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.6. NEGATIVE NAME REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 277 4.2.7. END-NODE CHALLENGE REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.9. NAME RELEASE 278 REQUEST & DEMAND, 4.2.10. POSITIVE NAME RELEASE RESPONSE, 279 4.2.11. NEGATIVE NAME RELEASE RESPONSE and Sections 4.2.13. POSITIVE 280 NAME QUERY RESPONSEall contain 32 bit fields labeled "NB_ADDRESS" 281 clearly defined for IPv4 addresses 283 Sections 4.2.15. REDIRECT NAME QUERY RESPONSE contains a field 284 "NSD_IP_ADDR" 285 which also is designed for a IPv4 address. 287 Section 4.3.5. SESSION RETARGET RESPONSE PACKET 289 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 290 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 1 291 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 292 | TYPE | FLAGS | LENGTH | 293 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 294 | RETARGET_IP_ADDRESS | 295 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 296 | PORT | 297 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 299 Section 4.4.1. NetBIOS DATAGRAM HEADER 301 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 302 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 1 303 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 304 | MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID | 305 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 306 | SOURCE_IP | 307 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 308 | SOURCE_PORT | DGM_LENGTH | 309 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 310 | PACKET_OFFSET | 311 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 313 4.4.2. DIRECT_UNIQUE, DIRECT_GROUP, & BROADCAST DATAGRAM 315 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 316 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 1 317 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 318 | MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID | 319 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 320 | SOURCE_IP | 321 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 322 | SOURCE_PORT | DGM_LENGTH | 323 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 324 | PACKET_OFFSET | | 325 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 326 | | 327 / SOURCE_NAME / 328 / / 329 | | 330 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 331 | | 332 / DESTINATION_NAME / 333 / / 334 | | 335 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 336 | | 337 / USER_DATA / 338 / / 339 | | 340 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 342 Section 4.4.3. DATAGRAM ERROR PACKET 344 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 345 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 1 346 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 347 | MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID | 348 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 349 | SOURCE_IP | 350 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 351 | SOURCE_PORT | ERROR_CODE | 352 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 354 4.4.4. DATAGRAM QUERY REQUEST 356 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 357 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 1 358 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 359 | MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID | 360 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 361 | SOURCE_IP | 362 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 363 | SOURCE_PORT | | 364 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + 365 | | 366 / DESTINATION_NAME / 367 / / 368 | | 369 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 371 4.4.5. DATAGRAM POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE QUERY RESPONSE 373 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 374 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 1 375 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 376 | MSG_TYPE | FLAGS | DGM_ID | 377 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 378 | SOURCE_IP | 379 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 380 | SOURCE_PORT | | 381 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + 382 | | 383 / DESTINATION_NAME / 384 / / 385 | | 386 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 388 5.3. NetBIOS DATAGRAM SERVICE PROTOCOLS 390 The following are GLOBAL variables and should be NetBIOS user 391 configurable: 393 - BROADCAST_ADDRESS: the IP address B-nodes use to send datagrams 394 with group name destinations and broadcast datagrams. The 395 default is the IP broadcast address for a single IP network. 397 There is also a large amount of pseudo code for most of the protocols 398 functionality that make no specific reference to IPv4 addresses. 399 However they assume the use of the above defined packets. The pseudo 400 code may be valid for IPv6 as long as the packet formats are updated. 402 3.5 RFC 1006 ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (Version: 3) 404 Section 5. The Protocol defines a mapping specification 406 Mapping parameters is also straight-forward: 408 network service TCP 409 ------- --- 410 CONNECTION RELEASE 412 Called address server's IP address 413 (4 octets) 415 Calling address client's IP address 416 (4 octets) 418 4.0 Draft Standards 420 Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF. 421 A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple, 422 independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are usually 423 quite mature and widely used. 425 4.1 RFC 3530 Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol 427 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 429 4.2 RFC 3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications 431 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 433 4.3 RFC 3551 RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal 434 Control. 436 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 438 5.0 Proposed Standards 440 Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no 441 requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed 442 are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They 443 therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the 444 Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of 445 many competing solutions to problems. In these later cases, no 446 discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose of this 447 discussion. 449 5.01 RFC 1144 Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial 450 links 452 This RFC is specifically oriented towards TCP/IPv4 packet headers 453 and will not work in it's current form. Significant work has already 454 been done on similar algorithms for TCP/IPv6 headers. 456 5.02 RFC 1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance 458 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 460 5.03 RFC 1553 Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX) 462 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 464 5.04 RFC 1692 Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux) 466 Section 6. Implementation Notes is states: 468 Because the TMux mini-header does not contain a TOS field, only 469 segments with the same IP TOS field should be contained in a single 470 TMux message. As most systems do not use the TOS feature, this is 471 not a major restriction. Where the TOS field is used, it may be 472 desirable to hold several messages under construction for a host, one 473 for each TOS value. 475 Segments containing IP options should not be multiplexed. 477 This is clearly IPv4 specific, but a simple restatement in IPv6 478 terms will allow complete functionality. 480 5.05 RFC 1831 RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification 481 Version 2 RPC 483 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 485 5.06 RFC 1833 Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2 487 In Section 2.1 RPCBIND Protocol Specification (in RPC Language) 488 there is the following code fragment: 490 * Protocol family (r_nc_protofmly): 491 * This identifies the family to which the protocol belongs. The 492 * following values are defined: 493 * NC_NOPROTOFMLY "-" 494 * NC_LOOPBACK "loopback" 495 * NC_INET "inet" 496 * NC_IMPLINK "implink" 497 * NC_PUP "pup" 498 * NC_CHAOS "chaos" 499 * NC_NS "ns" 500 * NC_NBS "nbs" 501 * NC_ECMA "ecma" 502 * NC_DATAKIT "datakit" 503 * NC_CCITT "ccitt" 504 * NC_SNA "sna" 505 * NC_DECNET "decnet" 506 * NC_DLI "dli" 507 * NC_LAT "lat" 508 * NC_HYLINK "hylink" 509 * NC_APPLETALK "appletalk" 510 * NC_NIT "nit" 511 * NC_IEEE802 "ieee802" 512 * NC_OSI "osi" 513 * NC_X25 "x25" 514 * NC_OSINET "osinet" 515 * NC_GOSIP "gosip" 517 It is clear that the value for NC_INET is intended for the IP protocol 518 and is seems clear that it is IPv4 dependent. 520 5.07 RFC 1962 The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP) 522 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 524 5.08 RFC 2018 TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options 526 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 528 5.09 RFC 2029 RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Video Encoding 530 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 532 5.10 RFC 2032 RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams 534 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 536 5.11 RFC 2126 ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT) 538 This specification is IPv6 aware and has no issues. 540 5.12 RFC 2190 RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams 542 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 544 5.13 RFC 2198 RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data 546 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 548 5.14 RFC 2205 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- 549 Version 1 Functional Specification 551 In Section 1. Introduction the statement is made: 553 RSVP operates on top of IPv4 or IPv6, occupying the place of a 554 transport protocol in the protocol stack. 556 Appendix A defines all of the header formats for RSVP and there are 557 multiple formats for both IPv4 and IPv6. 559 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 561 5.15 RFC 2207 RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows 563 The defined IPsec extensions are valid for both IPv4 & IPv6. 564 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 566 5.16 RFC 2210 The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services 568 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 570 5.17 RFC 2211 Specification of the Controlled-Load Network 571 Element Service 573 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 575 5.18 RFC 2212 Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service 577 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 579 5.19 RFC 2215 General Characterization Parameters for 580 Integrated Service Network Elements 582 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 584 5.20 RFC 2250 RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video 586 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 588 5.21 RFC 2326 Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) 590 Section 3.2 RTSP URL defines: 592 The "rtsp" and "rtspu" schemes are used to refer to network resources 593 via the RTSP protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific 594 syntax and semantics for RTSP URLs. 596 rtsp_URL = ( "rtsp:" | "rtspu:" ) 597 "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path ] 598 host = 601 port = *DIGIT 603 Although later in that section the following text is added: 605 The use of IP addresses in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever possible 606 (see RFC 1924 [19]). 608 Some later examples show: 610 Example: 612 C->S: DESCRIBE rtsp://server.example.com/fizzle/foo RTSP/1.0 613 CSeq: 312 614 Accept: application/sdp, application/rtsl, application/mheg 616 S->C: RTSP/1.0 200 OK 617 CSeq: 312 618 Date: 23 Jan 1997 15:35:06 GMT 619 Content-Type: application/sdp 620 Content-Length: 376 622 v=0 623 o=mhandley 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 126.16.64.4 624 s=SDP Seminar 625 i=A Seminar on the session description protocol 626 u=http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/M.Handley/sdp.03.ps 627 e=mjh@isi.edu (Mark Handley) 628 c=IN IP4 224.2.17.12/127 629 t=2873397496 2873404696 630 a=recvonly 631 m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0 632 m=video 2232 RTP/AVP 31 633 m=whiteboard 32416 UDP WB 634 a=orient:portrait 636 which implies the use of the "IP4" tag and it should be possible to 637 use an "IP6" tag. There are also numerous other similar examples 638 using the "IP4" tag. 640 RTSP is also dependent on IPv6 support in a protocol capable of 641 describing media configurations, for example SDP RFC 2327. 643 RTSP can be used over IPv6 as long as the media description protocol 644 supports IPv6, but only for certain restricted use cases. For full 645 functionality there is need for IPv6 support. The amount of updates 646 needed are small. 648 5.22 RFC 2327 SDP: Session Description Protocol (SDP) 650 This specification is under revision, and IPv6 support was added in 651 RFC 3266 which updates this specification. 653 5.23 RFC 2380 RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements 655 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. 657 5.24 RFC 2381 Interoperation of Controlled-Load Service and 658 Guaranteed Service with ATM 660 There does not seem any inherent IPv4 limitations in this specification, 661 but it assumes work of other standards that have IPv4 limitations. 663 5.25 RFC 2429 RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T 664 Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+) 666 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 668 5.26 RFC 2431 RTP Payload Format for BT.656 Video Encoding 670 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 672 5.27 RFC 2435 RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video 674 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 676 5.28 RFC 2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services Field 677 (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers 679 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. 681 5.29 RFC 2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for Low-Speed 682 Serial Links 684 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. 686 5.30 RFC 2581 TCP Congestion Control 688 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 690 5.31 RFC 2597 Assured Forwarding PHB Group 692 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. 694 5.32 RFC 2658 RTP Payload Format for PureVoice(tm) Audio 696 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 698 5.33 RFC 2678 IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity 700 This specification only supports IPv4. 702 5.34 RFC 2679 A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM 704 This specification only supports IPv4. 706 5.35 RFC 2680 A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM 708 This specification only supports IPv4. 710 5.36 RFC 2681 A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM 712 This specification only supports IPv4. 714 5.37 RFC 2730 Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol 715 (MADCAP) 717 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 719 5.38 RFC 2733 An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error 720 Correction 722 This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. 723 Once that limitation is fixed, then this specification should support 724 IPv6. 726 5.39 RFC 2745 RSVP Diagnostic Messages 728 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 730 5.40 RFC 2746 RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels 732 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 734 5.41 RFC 2750 RSVP Extensions for Policy Control 736 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 738 5.42 RFC 2793 RTP Payload for Text Conversation 740 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 742 5.43 RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol for 743 RSVP-based Admission Control over IEEE 802-style networks 745 This specification claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but all of 746 the examples are given with IPv4 addresses. That, by itself is 747 not a telling point but the following statement is made: 749 a) LocalDSBMAddrInfo -- current DSBM's IP address (initially, 750 0.0.0.0) and priority. All IP addresses are assumed to be in 751 network byte order. In addition, current DSBM's L2 address is 752 also stored as part of this state information. 754 which could just be sloppy wording. Perhaps a short document 755 clarifying the text is appropriate. 757 5.44 RFC 2815 Integrated Service Mappings on IEEE 802 Networks 759 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 761 5.45 RFC 2833 RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones 762 and Telephony Signals 764 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 766 5.46 RFC 2848 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP 767 for IP Access to Telephone Call Services 769 This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. 770 Once these limitations are fixed, then this specification should support 771 IPv6. 773 5.47 RFC 2862 RTP Payload Format for Real-Time Pointers 775 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 777 5.48 RFC 2872 Application and Sub Application Identity Policy Element 778 for Use with RSVP 780 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 782 5.49 RFC 2873 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field 784 This specification documents a technique using IPv4 headers. A similar 785 technique, if needed, will need to be defined for IPv6. 787 5.50 RFC 2883 An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) 788 Option for TCP 790 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 792 5.51 RFC 2907 MADCAP Multicast Scope Nesting State Option 794 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 796 5.52 RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol 798 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 800 5.53 RFC 2961 RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions 802 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 804 5.54 RFC 2976 The SIP INFO Method 806 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 808 5.55 RFC 2988 Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer 810 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 812 5.56 RFC 2996 Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object 814 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 816 5.57 RFC 2997 Specification of the Null Service Type 818 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 820 5.58 RFC 3003 The audio/mpeg Media Type 822 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 824 5.59 RFC 3006 Integrated Services in the Presence of 825 Compressible Flows 827 This document defines a protocol that discusses compressible 828 flows, but only in an IPv4 context. When IPv6 compressible flows 829 are defined, a similar technique should also be defined. 831 5.60 RFC 3016 RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual 832 Streams 834 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 836 5.61 RFC 3033 The Assignment of the Information Field and Protocol 837 Identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and Q.2957 838 User-to-user Signaling for the Internet Protocol 840 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 842 5.62 RFC 3042 Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit 844 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 846 5.63 RFC 3047 RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.722.1 848 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 850 5.64 RFC 3057 ISDN Q.921-User Adaptation Layer 852 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 854 5.65 RFC 3095 Robust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four 855 profiles 857 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 859 5.66 RFC 3108 Conventions for the use of the Session Description 860 Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer Connections 862 This specification is currently limited to IPv4 as amplified below: 864 The range and format of the and 865 subparameters is per [1]. The is a decimal number 866 between 1024 and 65535. It is an odd number. If an even number in 867 this range is specified, the next odd number is used. The 868 is expressed in the usual dotted decimal IP address 869 representation, from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255. 871 and 873 IP address for receipt Dotted decimal, 7-15 chars 874 of RTCP packets 876 5.67 RFC 3119 A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio 878 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 880 5.68 RFC 3124 The Congestion Manager 882 This document is IPv4 limited since it uses the IPv4 TOS header 883 field. 885 5.69 RFC 3140 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes 887 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 889 5.70 RFC 3173 IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp) 891 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 893 5.71 RFC 3181 Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element 895 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 897 5.72 RFC 3182 Identity Representation for RSVP 899 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 901 5.73 RFC 3246 An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Behavior) 903 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 905 5.74 RFC 3261 SIP: Session Initiation Protocol 907 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 909 5.75 RFC 3262 Reliability of Provisional Responses in Session 910 Initiation Protocol (SIP) 912 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 914 5.76 RFC 3263 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers 916 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 918 5.77 RFC 3264 An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol 919 (SDP) 921 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 923 5.78 RFC 3265 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event 924 Notification 926 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 928 5.79 RFC 3390 Increasing TCP's Initial Window 930 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 932 5.80 RFC 3525 Gateway Control Protocol Version 1 934 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 936 5.81 RFC 3544 IP Header Compression over PPP 938 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 940 6.0 Experimental RFCs 942 Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale 943 implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in 944 nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet 945 community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other 946 potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as 947 alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem. 949 6.01 RFC 908 Reliable Data Protocol (RDP) 951 This document is IPv4 limited as stated in the following section: 953 4.1 IP Header Format 955 When used in the internet environment, RDP segments are sent 956 using the version 4 IP header as described in RFC791, "Internet 957 Protocol." The RDP protocol number is ??? (decimal). The time- 958 to-live field should be set to a reasonable value for the 959 network. 961 All other fields should be set as specified in RFC-791. 963 A new protocol specification would be needed to support IPv6. 965 6.02 RFC 938 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and 966 interface specification (IRTP) 968 This specification specification states: 970 4.1 State Variables 972 Each IRTP is associated with a single internet address. The 973 synchronization mechanism of the IRTP depends on the requirement 974 that each IRTP module knows the internet addresses of all modules 975 with which it will communicate. For each remote internet address, 976 an IRTP module must maintain the following information (called the 977 connection table): 979 rem_addr (32 bit remote internet address) 981 A new specification that is IPv6 aware would need to be created. 983 6.03 RFC 998 NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol 985 This RFC states: 987 The active end specifies a passive client through a client-specific 988 "well-known" 16 bit port number on which the passive end listens. 989 The active end identifies itself through a 32 bit Internet address 990 and a unique 16 bit port number. 992 Clearly, this is IPv4 dependent, but could easily be modified to support 993 IPv6 addressing. 995 6.04 RFC 1045 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol 997 This specification has many IPv4 dependencies in its implementation 998 appendices. For operations over IPv6 a similar implementation 999 procedure must be defined. The IPv4 specific information is 1000 show below. 1002 IV.1. Domain 1 1004 For initial use of VMTP, we define the domain with Domain identifier 1 1005 as follows: 1007 +-----------+----------------+------------------------+ 1008 | TypeFlags | Discriminator | Internet Address | 1009 +-----------+----------------+------------------------+ 1010 4 bits 28 bits 32 bits 1012 The Internet address is the Internet address of the host on which this 1013 entity-id is originally allocated. The Discriminator is an arbitrary 1014 value that is unique relative to this Internet host address. In 1015 addition, the host must guarantee that this identifier does not get 1016 reused for a long period of time after it becomes invalid. ("Invalid" 1017 means that no VMTP module considers in bound to an entity.) One 1018 technique is to use the lower order bits of a 1 second clock. The clock 1019 need not represent real-time but must never be set back after a crash. 1020 In a simple implementation, using the low order bits of a clock as the 1021 time stamp, the generation of unique identifiers is overall limited to 1022 no more than 1 per second on average. The type flags were described in 1023 Section 3.1. 1025 An entity may migrate between hosts. Thus, an implementation can 1026 heuristically use the embedded Internet address to locate an entity but 1027 should be prepared to maintain a cache of redirects for migrated 1028 entities, plus accept Notify operations indicating that migration has 1029 occurred. 1031 Entity group identifiers in Domain 1 are structured in one of two forms, 1032 depending on whether they are well-known or dynamically allocated 1033 identifiers. A well-known entity identifier is structured as: 1035 +-----------+----------------+------------------------+ 1036 | TypeFlags | Discriminator |Internet Host Group Addr| 1037 +-----------+----------------+------------------------+ 1038 4 bits 28 bits 32 bits 1040 with the second high-order bit (GRP) set to 1. This form of entity 1041 identifier is mapped to the Internet host group address specified in the 1042 low-order 32 bits. The Discriminator distinguishes group identifiers 1043 using the same Internet host group. Well-known entity group identifiers 1044 should be allocated to correspond to the basic services provided by 1045 hosts that are members of the group, not specifically because that 1046 service is provided by VMTP. For example, the well-known entity group 1047 identifier for the domain name service should contain as its embedded 1048 Internet host group address the host group for Domain Name servers. 1050 A dynamically allocated entity identifier is structured as: 1052 +-----------+----------------+------------------------+ 1053 | TypeFlags | Discriminator | Internet Host Addr | 1054 +-----------+----------------+------------------------+ 1055 4 bits 28 bits 32 bits 1057 with the second high-order bit (GRP) set to 1. The Internet address in 1058 the low-order 32 bits is a Internet address assigned to the host that 1059 dynamically allocates this entity group identifier. A dynamically 1060 allocated entity group identifier is mapped to Internet host group 1061 address 232.X.X.X where X.X.X are the low-order 24 bits of the 1062 Discriminator subfield of the entity group identifier. 1064 We use the following notation for Domain 1 entity identifiers <10> and 1065 propose it use as a standard convention. 1067 -- 1069 where are [X]{BE,LE,RG,UG}[A] 1071 X = reserved 1072 BE = big-endian entity 1073 LE = little-endian entity 1074 RG = restricted group 1075 UG = unrestricted group 1076 A = alias 1078 and is a decimal integer and is in 1079 standard dotted decimal IP address notation. 1081 V.1. Authentication Domain 1 1083 A principal identifier is structured as follows. 1085 +---------------------------+------------------------+ 1086 | Internet Address | Local User Identifier | 1087 +---------------------------+------------------------+ 1088 32 bits 32 bits 1090 VI. IP Implementation 1092 VMTP is designed to be implemented on the DoD IP Internet Datagram 1093 Protocol (although it may also be implemented as a local network 1094 protocol directly in "raw" network packets.) 1096 The well-known entity identifiers specified to date are: 1098 VMTP_MANAGER_GROUP RG-1-224.0.1.0 1099 Managers for VMTP operations. 1101 VMTP_DEFAULT_BECLIENT BE-1-224.0.1.0 1102 Client entity identifier to use when a (big-endian) host 1103 has not determined or been allocated any client entity 1104 identifiers. 1106 VMTP_DEFAULT_LECLIENT LE-1-224.0.1.0 1107 Client entity identifier to use when a (little-endian) 1108 host has not determined or been allocated any client 1109 entity identifiers. 1111 Note that 224.0.1.0 is the host group address assigned to VMTP and to 1112 which all VMTP hosts belong. 1114 6.05 RFC 1146 TCP alternate checksum options 1116 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 1118 6.06 RFC 1151 Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP) 1120 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 1122 6.07 RFC 1644 T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional 1123 Specification 1125 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 1127 6.08 RFC 1693 An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service 1129 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 1131 6.09 RFC 1791 TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU 1133 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 1135 6.10 RFC 2343 RTP Payload Format for Bundled MPEG 1137 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 1139 6.11 RFC 2582 The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery 1140 Algorithm 1142 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 1144 6.12 RFC 2762 Sampling of the Group Membership in RTP 1146 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 1148 6.13 RFC 2859 A Time Sliding Window Three Colour Marker (TSWTCM) 1150 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 1152 6.14 RFC 2861 TCP Congestion Window Validation 1154 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 1156 6.15 RFC 2909 The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol 1158 This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 1160 7.0 Summary of Results 1162 In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a 1163 total of 104, broken down as follows: 1165 Standards 3 of 5 or 60.00% 1166 Draft Standards 0 of 3 or 0.00% 1167 Proposed Standards 17 of 81 or 20.99% 1168 Experimental RFCs 4 of 15 or 26.67% 1170 Of those identified many require no action because they document 1171 outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols 1172 that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups. 1173 Additionally there are many instances of standards that SHOULD be 1174 updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not 1175 updated. The remaining instances are documented below. 1177 7.1 Standards 1179 7.1.1 STD 7 Transmission Control Protocol (RFC 793) 1181 Section 3.1 defines the technique for computing the TCP checksum that 1182 uses the 32 bit source and destination IPv4 addresses. This problem is 1183 addressed in RFC 2460 Section 8.1. 1185 7.1.2 STD 19 Netbios over TCP/UDP (RFCs 1001 & 1002) 1187 These two RFCs have many inherent IPv4 assumptions and a new set of 1188 protocols must be defined. 1190 7.1.3 STD 35 ISO Transport over TCP (RFC 1006) 1192 This problem has been fixed in RFC 2126, ISO Transport Service on 1193 top of TCP. 1195 7.2 Draft Standards 1197 There are no draft standards within the scope of this document. 1199 7.3 Proposed Standards 1201 7.3.01 TCP/IP Header Compression over Slow Serial Links (RFC 1144) 1203 This problem has been resolved in RFC2508, Compressing IP/UDP/RTP 1204 Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links. See also RFC 2507 & RFC 2509. 1206 7.3.02 ONC RPC v2 (RFC 1833) 1208 The problems can be resolved with a definition of the NC_INET6 1209 protocol family. 1211 7.3.03 RTSP (RFC 2326) 1213 Problem has been acknowledged by the RTSP developer group and will 1214 be addressed in the move from Proposed to Draft Standard. This 1215 problem is also addressed in RFC 2732, IPv6 Literal Addresses in 1216 URL's. 1218 7.3.04 SDP (RFC 2327) 1220 One problem is addressed in RFC 2732, IPv6 Literal Addresses in 1221 URL's. The other problem can be addressed with a minor textual 1222 clarification. This must be done if the document is to transition 1223 from Proposed to Draft. These problems are solved by documents 1224 currently in Auth48 or IESG discuss. 1226 7.3.05 IPPM Metrics (RFC 2678) 1228 The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. 1230 7.3.06 IPPM One Way Delay Metric for IPPM (RFC 2679) 1232 The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. An ID is available 1233 (draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-03.txt). 1235 7.3.07 IPPM One Way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM (RFC 2680) 1237 The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. 1239 7.3.09 Round Trip Delay Metric for IPPM (RFC 2681) 1241 The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. 1243 7.3.08 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP for IP 1244 Access to Telephone Call Services(RFC 2848) 1246 This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. 1247 Once these limitations are fixed, then this protocol should support 1248 IPv6. 1250 7.3.09 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field (RFC 2873) 1252 The problems are not being addressed. 1254 7.3.10 Integrated Services in the Presence of Compressible Flows 1255 (RFC 3006) 1257 This document defines a protocol that discusses compressible 1258 flows, but only in an IPv4 context. When IPv6 compressible flows 1259 are defined, a similar technique should also be defined. 1261 7.3.11 SDP For ATM Bearer Connections (RFC 3108) 1263 The problems are not being addressed, but it is unclear whether 1264 the specification is being used. 1266 7.3.12 The Congestion Manager (RFC 3124) 1268 An update to this document can be simply define the use of the IPv6 1269 Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the 1270 IPv4 TOS field. 1272 7.4 Experimental RFCs 1274 7.4.1 Reliable Data Protocol (RFC 908) 1276 This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be 1277 produced. 1279 7.4.2 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and 1280 interface specification (RFC 938) 1282 This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be 1283 produced. 1285 7.4.3 NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol (RFC 998) 1287 This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be 1288 produced. 1290 7.4.4 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (RFC 1045) 1292 This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be 1293 produced. 1295 7.4.5 OSPF over ATM and Proxy-PAR (RFC 2844) 1297 This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be 1298 produced. 1300 8.0 Security Consideration 1302 This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does not 1303 have security considerations in itself. 1305 9.0 Acknowledgements 1307 The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet 1308 Society in the research and production of this document. 1309 Additionally the author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to thanks 1310 his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser. 1312 The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola 1313 for guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this 1314 document. He would further like to thank Allison Mankin, Magnus Westerlund and 1315 Colin Perkins for valuable feedback on some points of this document. 1317 10.0 References 1319 10.1 Normative 1321 [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey 1322 of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", 1323 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05.txt IETF work in progress, 1324 November 2003 1326 11.0 Authors' Addresses 1328 Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions 1329 at: 1331 Philip J. Nesser II 1332 Principal 1333 Nesser & Nesser Consulting 1334 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 1335 Kirkland, WA 98034 1337 Email: phil@nesser.com 1338 Phone: +1 425 481 4303 1339 Fax: +1 425 48 1341 Andreas Bergstrom (Editor) 1342 Ostfold University College 1344 Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no 1345 Address: Rute 503 Buer 1346 N-1766 Halden 1347 Norway 1349 12.0 Intellectual Property Statement 1351 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 1352 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 1353 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 1354 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 1355 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 1356 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 1357 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 1358 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 1359 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 1360 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 1361 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 1362 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 1363 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 1365 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 1366 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 1367 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 1368 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 1369 Director. 1371 13.0 Full Copyright Statement 1373 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 1375 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 1376 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 1377 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 1378 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 1379 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 1380 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this docu- 1381 ment itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the 1382 copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 1383 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of develop- 1384 ing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights 1385 defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as 1386 required to translate it into languages other than English. The lim- 1387 ited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked 1388 by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document 1389 and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis 1390 and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DIS- 1391 CLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED 1392 TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT 1393 INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR 1394 FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.