idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 17 longer pages, the longest (page 4) being 79 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 17 pages 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 are 6 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. == There are 1 instance of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 6890 (or successor): 192.0.2.x, 198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 (December 2003) is 7431 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'BGP-4' on line 311 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'IPv4' on line 312 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-03 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro (ref. '1') == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-02 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps (ref. '2') == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-int-01 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-int (ref. '3') == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-03 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops (ref. '4') == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-02 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec (ref. '5') == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-02 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip (ref. '6') == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-02 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans (ref. '7') Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 11 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group C. Olvera 2 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt Consulintel 3 Internet Draft P. J. Nesser II 4 Expires April 2004 Nesser & Nesser Consulting 5 December 2003 7 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed 8 IETF Routing Area Standards 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 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 26 athttp://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 investigation work seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses 34 in currently deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. In 35 order to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all 36 IPv6 Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps 37 is the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. 38 It is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be 39 redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will 40 at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards 41 (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be 42 surveyed and any dependencies will be documented. 44 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 45 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 46 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction...................................................3 52 2. Document Organization..........................................3 54 3. Full Standards.................................................4 56 4. Draft Standards................................................4 58 5. Proposed Standards.............................................4 60 6. Experimental RFCs..............................................9 62 7. Summary of Results............................................11 64 8. Security Considerations.......................................14 66 9. Acknowledgements..............................................15 68 10. References...................................................15 70 11. Authors' Addresses...........................................16 72 Copyright........................................................16 74 Intellectual Property............................................17 76 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 77 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 78 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 80 1. Introduction 82 This work aims to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently 83 deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. Also, throughout 84 this document there are discussions on how routing protocols might be 85 updated to support IPv6 addresses. 87 This material was originally presented within a single document, but 88 in an effort to have the information in a manageable form, it has 89 subsequently been split into 7 documents conforming to the current 90 IETF main areas (Application[2], Internet[3], Operations & Management 91 [4], Routing[this document], Security[5], Sub-IP[6] and 92 Transport[7]). 94 The general overview, methodology used during documentation and scope 95 of the investigation for the whole 7 documents can be found in the 96 introduction of this set of documents[1]. 98 It is important to mention that to perform this study the following 99 classes of IETF standards are investigated: Full, Draft, and 100 Proposed, as well as Experimental. Informational, BCP and Historic 101 RFCs are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by either 102 newer versions or as they have transitioned through the standards 103 process are also not covered. 105 2. Document Organization 107 The main Sections of this document are described below. 109 Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, 110 Draft, Proposed Standards and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is 111 discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending (around) RFC 112 3100. The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each 113 RFC is discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not 114 "look ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed. 116 Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, 117 and 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole 118 and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are 119 correlated. 121 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 122 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 123 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 125 3. Full Standards 127 Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as 128 "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely 129 implemented and used throughout the Internet. 131 3.1 RFC 1722 (STD 57) RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement 133 RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. 135 3.2 RFC 2328 (STD 54) OSPF Version 2 137 This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing. It is highly 138 assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in nature. 140 3.3 RFC 2453 (STD 56) RIP Version 2 142 RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. 144 4. Draft Standards 146 Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF. 147 A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple, 148 independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are 149 usually quite mature and widely used. 151 4.1 RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) 153 This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing 154 information and does not support IPv6 as is defined. 156 4.2 RFC 1772 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet 158 This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP-4 on the Internet. 160 4.3 RFC 3392 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 162 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the 163 base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only. 165 5. Proposed Standards 167 Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no 168 requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases 170 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 171 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 172 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 174 Proposed are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards 175 process. They therefore are often just proposed ideas that are 176 presented to the Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or 177 they are one of many competing solutions to problems. In these later 178 cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose 179 of this discussion. 181 5.1 RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual 182 environments 184 This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing 185 information. 187 5.2 RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF 189 This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4. 191 5.3 RFC 1397 Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of The 192 Border Gateway Protocol 194 BGP2 and BGP3 are both deprecated and therefore are not discussed in 195 this document. 197 5.4 RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing 199 The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies. 201 5.5 RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version 202 1 (IDPR) 204 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 206 5.6 RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless 207 Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) 209 This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 211 5.7 RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR 213 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 214 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 215 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 217 This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 219 5.8 RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address 220 Assignment and Aggregation Strategy 222 This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 224 5.9 RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits 226 This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4 227 routing information. 229 5.10 RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF 231 This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 only 232 routing protocol. 234 5.11 RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits 236 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact 237 that it is a new functionality for a routing protocol that only 238 supports IPv4 networks. 240 5.12 RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute 242 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the 243 base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only. 245 5.13 RFC 2080 RIPng for IPv6 247 This RFC documents a protocol for exchanging IPv6 routing information 248 and is not discussed in this document. 250 5.14 RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits 252 This RFC defines an enhancement for an IPv4 routing protocol and 253 while it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherently limited to IPv4. 255 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 256 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 257 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 259 5.15 RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) 261 This protocol is IPv4 specific, there are numerous references to 32- 262 bit IP addresses. 264 5.16 RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option 266 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact 267 that it is a new functionality for a routing protocol that only 268 supports IPv4 networks. 270 5.17 RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping 272 The protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, even though the 273 base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. 275 5.18 RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter- 276 Domain Routing 278 This RFC documents IPv6 routing methods and is not discussed in this 279 document. 281 5.19 RFC 2740 OSPF for IPv6 283 This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and is not discussed 284 in this document. 286 5.20 RFC 2784 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) 288 This protocol is only defined for IPv4. The document states in the 289 Appendix: 291 o IPv6 as Delivery and/or Payload Protocol 293 This specification describes the intersection of GRE currently 294 deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery and/or payload 295 protocol is not included. 297 5.21 RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP 299 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 300 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 301 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 303 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the 304 base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This 305 specification updates but does not obsolete RFC 1966. 307 5.22 RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 309 In the Abstract: 311 Currently BGP-4 [BGP-4] is capable of carrying routing information 312 only for IPv4 [IPv4]. This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to 313 enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer 314 protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward 315 compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate 316 with a router that doesn't support the extensions. 318 The document is therefore not examined further in this document. 320 5.23 RFC 2890 Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE 322 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 324 5.24 RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6 326 The RFC defines an IPv6 only document and is not concerned in this 327 survey. 329 5.25 RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 331 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the 332 base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. 334 5.26 RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP 336 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the 337 base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. 339 5.27 RFC 3101 The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option 341 This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol. 343 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 344 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 345 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 347 5.28 RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 349 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 351 5.29 RFC 3122 Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse 352 Discovery Specification 354 This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this 355 document. 357 6. Experimental RFCs 359 Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have wide 360 scale implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often 361 propriety in nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented 362 to the Internet community in order to allow potential 363 interoperability or some other potential useful scenario. In a few 364 cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution 365 to an acknowledged problem. 367 6.1 RFC 1075 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP) 369 This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. 371 6.2 RFC 1383 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing 373 This proposal is IPv4 limited: 375 This record is designed for easy general purpose extensions in the 376 DNS, and its content is a text string. The RX record will contain 377 three fields: A record identifier, A cost indicator, and An IP 378 address. 380 The three strings will be separated by a single comma. An example of 381 record would thus be: 382 ___________________________________________________________________ 383 | domain | type | record | value | 384 | - | | | | 385 |*.27.32.192.in-addr.arpa | IP | TXT | RX, 10, 10.0.0.7| 386 |_________________________|________|__________|___________________| 388 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 389 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 390 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 392 which means that for all hosts whose IP address starts by the three 393 octets "192.32.27" the IP host "10.0.0.7" can be used as a gateway, 394 and that the preference value is 10. 396 6.3 RFC 1476 RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol 398 This document defines an IPv7 routing protocol and has been abandoned 399 by the IETF as a feasible design. It is not considered in this 400 document. 402 6.4 RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow 404 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact 405 that it is a new functionality for a routing protocol that only 406 supports IPv4 networks. 408 6.5 RFC 1863 A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing 410 This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 412 6.6 RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP 414 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the 415 base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This 416 specification has been updated by RFC 2796. 418 6.7 RFC 2189 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing 420 The document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast. 421 There are many packet formats defined that show IPv4 usage. 423 6.8 RFC 2201 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture 425 See previous Section for the IPv4 limitation in this protocol. 427 6.9 RFC 2337 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse 428 Mode PIM 430 This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast. 432 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 433 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 434 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 436 6.10 RFC 2362 Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): 437 Protocol Specification 439 This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 441 6.11 RFC 2676 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions 443 There are IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. It requires the use of 444 the IPv4 TOS header field. 446 7. Summary of Results 448 In the initial survey of RFCs, 22 positives were identified out of a 449 total of 45, broken down as follows: 451 Standards 3 of 3 or 100% 453 Draft Standards 1 of 3 or 33.33% 455 Proposed Standards 13 of 29 or 44.83% 457 Experimental RFCs 6 of 11 or 54.54% 459 Of those identified many require no action because they document 460 outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols 461 that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups. 462 Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be 463 updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not 464 updated. The remaining instances are documented below. 466 The authors have attempted to organize the results in a format that 467 allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The assignment of 468 statements has been based entirely on the authors perceived needs for 469 updates and should not be taken as an official statement. 471 7.1 Standards 473 7.1.1 STD 57 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement (RFC 474 1722) 476 This problem has been fixed by RFC 2081, RIPng Protocol Applicability 477 Statement. 479 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 480 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 481 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 483 7.1.2 STD 54 OSPF Version 2 (RFC 2328) 485 This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 487 7.1.3 STD 56 RIP Version 2 (RFC 2453) 489 This problem has been fixed by RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 491 7.2 Draft Standards 493 7.2.1 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (RFC 1771) 495 This problem has been fixed in RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for 496 BGP-4, RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter- 497 Domain Routing, and some IDs as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-02.txt. 499 RFC 2858 extends BGP to support multi-protocol extensions that allows 500 routing information for other address families to be exchanged. RFC 501 2545 further extends RFC 2858 for full support of exchanging IPv6 502 routing information and additionally clarifies support of the 503 extended BGP-4 protocol using TCP+IPv6 as a transport mechanism. RFC 504 1771, 2858 & 2545 must be supported in order to provide full IPv6 505 support. 507 Note also that all the BGP extensions analyzed previously in this 508 memo function without changes with the updated version of BGP-4. 510 7.3 Proposed Standards 512 7.3.1 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments 513 (RFC 1195) 515 This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG, and an ID is 516 currently available: draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-05.txt. 518 7.3.2 Applicability Statement for OSPFv2 (RFC 1370) 520 This problem has been resolved in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 522 7.3.3 Applicability of CIDR (RFC 1517) 524 The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 525 addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587. 527 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 528 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 529 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 531 7.3.4 CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518) 533 The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 534 addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587. 536 7.3.5 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment 537 and Aggregation Strategy (RFC 1519) 539 The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 540 addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587. 542 7.3.6 RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582) 544 This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 546 7.3.7 OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584) 548 This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 550 7.3.8 OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793) 552 This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 554 7.3.9 RIP Triggered Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 2091) 556 This functionality is provided in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 558 7.3.10 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)(RFC 2338) 560 The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG and there 561 is an ID: draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-05.txt. 563 7.3.11 OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370) 565 This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. Opaque 566 options support is an inbuilt functionality in OSPFv3. 568 7.3.12 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)(RFC 2784) 570 Even trough GRE tunneling over IPv6 has been implemented and used, 571 its use has not been formally specified. Clarifications are required. 573 7.3.13 OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 3101) 575 This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 577 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 578 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 579 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 581 7.4 Experimental RFCs 583 7.4.1 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (RFC 1075) 585 This protocol is a routing protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. It 586 is no longer in use and need not be redefined. 588 7.4.2 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (RFC 1383) 590 This protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR, but is no longer relevant has 591 never seen much use; no action is necessary. 593 7.4.3 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing (RFC 2189) 595 This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol 596 standard may be produced. However, the multicast routing protocol has 597 never been in much use and is no longer relevant; no action is 598 necessary. 600 7.4.4 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture (RFC 601 2201) 603 See previous Section for the limitation in this protocol. 605 7.4.5 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse 606 Mode PIM (RFC 2337) 608 This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast. However, Intra-LIS IP 609 multicast among routers over ATM is not believed to be relevant 610 anymore. A new mechanism may be defined for IPv6 multicast. 612 7.4.6 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676) 614 QoS extensions for OSPF were never used for OSPFv2, and there seems 615 to be little need for them in OSPFv3. 617 However, if necessary, an update to this document could simply define 618 the use of the IPv6 Traffic Class field since it is defined to be 619 exactly the same as the IPv4 TOS field. 621 8. Security Considerations 623 This document examines the IPv6-readiness of routing specification; 624 this does not have security considerations in itself. 626 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 627 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 628 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 630 9. Acknowledgements 632 The original author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to acknowledge 633 the support of the Internet Society in the research and production of 634 this document. 636 He also would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. 637 Nesser. 639 Cesar Olvera would like to thanks Pekka Savola for an extended 640 guidance and comments for the edition of this document, and Jordi 641 Palet for his support and reviews. 643 Additionally, he would further like to thank Andreas Bergstrom, Brian 644 Carpenter, Jeff Haas, Vishwas Manral, Gabriela Medina, Venkata Naidu, 645 Jeff Parker and Curtis Villamizar for valuable feedback. 647 10. References 649 Normative References 651 [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom "Introduction to the 652 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", 653 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-03.txt, IETF Internet Draft, August 654 2003. 656 [2] Philip J. Nesser II, Rute Sofia. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in 657 Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards", draft-ietf- 658 v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-02.txt, IETF work in progress, September 2003. 660 [3] Philip J. Nesser II, Cleveland Mickles. "Internet Area: Survey 661 of IPv4 Addresses Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf- 662 v6ops-ipv4survey-int-01.txt, IETF work in progress, June 2003. 664 [4] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 665 addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area 666 Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-03.txt IETF work in 667 progress, September 2003. 669 [5] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 670 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards", draft- 671 ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-02.txt, IETF work in progress, September 672 2003. 674 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 675 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 676 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 678 [6] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 679 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards", draft- 680 ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-02.txt, IETF work in progress, August 681 2003. 683 [7] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom "Survey of IPv4 684 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards", 685 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-02.txt IETF work in progress, 686 September 2003. 688 11. Authors' Addresses 690 Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or 691 suggestions at: 693 Cesar Olvera Morales 694 Researcher 695 Consulintel 696 San Jose Artesano, 1 697 28108 - Alcobendas 698 Madrid, Spain 699 Email: cesar.olvera@consulintel.es 700 Phone: +34 91 151 81 99 701 Fax: +34 91 151 81 98 703 Philip J. Nesser II 704 Principal 705 Nesser & Nesser Consulting 706 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 707 Kirkland, WA 98034 708 Email: phil@nesser.com 709 Phone: +1 425 481 4303 711 Copyright 713 The following Full Copyright Statement from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, 714 describes the applicable copyright for this document. 716 Copyright (C) The Internet Society June, 2003. All Rights Reserved. 718 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 719 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 720 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 721 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 723 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt 724 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 725 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 727 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 728 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 729 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 730 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 731 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 732 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 733 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 734 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 735 English. 737 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 738 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. 740 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 741 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 742 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 743 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 744 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 745 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 747 Intellectual Property 749 The following notice from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, describes the 750 position of the IETF concerning intellectual property claims made 751 against this document. 753 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 754 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 755 pertain to the implementation or use other technology described in 756 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 757 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 758 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 759 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 760 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 761 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 762 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 763 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 764 proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can 765 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 767 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 768 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 769 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 770 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 771 Director. 773 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt