idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.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? == There are 2 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard 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 1 character in excess of 72. == There are 1 instance 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 == 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. ** 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 397: '...e multicast address. Routers MUST NOT...' 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 7437 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 471 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'IPv4' on line 472 == Missing Reference: '5' is mentioned on line 627, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-01 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro (ref. '1') Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group C. Olvera (Editor) 2 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Consulintel 3 Internet Draft P. J. Nesser II 4 Nesser & Nesser Consulting 5 June 2003 6 Expires December 2003 8 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed 9 IETF Routing 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 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 19 Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed 27 athttp://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 Abstract 34 This investigation work seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses 35 in currently deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. In 36 order to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all 37 IPv6 Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps 38 is the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. 39 It is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be 40 redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will 41 at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards 42 (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be 43 surveyed and any dependencies will be documented. 45 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 46 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 47 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction...................................................3 53 2. Document Organization..........................................3 55 3. Full Standards.................................................3 57 4. Draft Standards................................................5 59 5. Proposed Standards.............................................5 61 6. Experimental RFCs.............................................12 63 7. Summary of Results............................................16 65 8. Security Considerations.......................................19 67 9. Acknowledgements..............................................19 69 10. References...................................................19 71 11. Authors' Addresses...........................................20 73 Copyright........................................................20 75 Intellectual Property............................................21 77 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 78 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 79 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 81 1. Introduction 83 This work aims to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently 84 deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. Also, throughout 85 this document there are discussions on how routing protocols might be 86 updated to support IPv6 addresses. 88 This material was originally presented within a single document, but 89 has subsequently been split into 7 documents conforming to the 90 current IETF main areas (Application, Internet, Operations & 91 Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). 93 The general overview, methodology and scope of the investigation for 94 the whole 7 documents can be found in the introduction of this set of 95 documents [1]. 97 2. Document Organization 99 The main Sections of this document are described below. 101 Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, 102 Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is 103 discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. 104 The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is 105 discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look 106 ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed. 108 Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, 109 and 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole 110 and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are 111 correlated. 113 3. Full Standards 115 Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as 116 "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely 117 implemented and used throughout the Internet. 119 3.1 RFC 904 Exterior Gateway Protocol 121 This RFC has been depreciated to Historic status and is not 122 considered. 124 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 125 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 126 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 128 3.2 RFC 1009 Gateway Requirements 130 It is pointless to attempt to try and quantify the IPv4 references in 131 this document. The document specifies operations of IPv4 132 routers/gateways. Hence, it makes numerous references that are IPv4 133 specific. 135 Like RFC 1122, it is necessary to rewrite this document and create a 136 "IPv6 Gateway Requirements" standard. 138 3.3 RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol 140 This RFC has been reclassified as historic and replace by STD 56. See 141 Section 3.6 for its further discussion. 143 3.4 Interface Message Processor: Specifications for the Interconnection 144 of a Host and an IMP 146 This standard STD 39 has been reclassified as historic and is not 147 considered in this discussion. 149 3.5 RFC 2328 OSPF Version 2 151 This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing. It is highly 152 assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in nature. A new version 153 of OSPF must be created to support IPv6. 155 3.6 RFC 2453 RIP Version 2 157 RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality 158 is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2080. 160 3.7 RFC 1722 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement 162 RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality 163 is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2081. 165 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 166 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 167 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 169 4. Draft Standards 171 Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF. 172 A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple, 173 independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are 174 usually quite mature and widely used. 176 4.1 RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) 178 This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing 179 information and does not support IPv6. A new EGP must be defined for 180 the exchange of IPv6 routing information. 182 4.2 RFC 1772 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet 183 (BGP-4-APP) 185 This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP4 on the Internet. Since 186 BGP4 is limited to IPv4 addresses, it is expected that a similar 187 document will be created to be paired with the definition of the next 188 generation BGP. 190 5. Proposed Standards 192 Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no 193 requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases 194 Proposed are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards 195 process. They therefore are often just proposed ideas that are 196 presented to the Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or 197 they are one of many competing solutions to problems. In these later 198 cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose 199 of this discussion. 201 5.1 RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual 202 environments (IS-IS) 204 This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing 205 information. It is incompatible with IPv6. There are substantial 206 work being done on a newer version of IS-IS that should include IPv6 207 routing. 209 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 210 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 211 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 213 5.2 RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF 215 This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4. 216 It is expected that a similar document be assigned for when a version 217 of OSPF that supports IPv6 is established. 219 5.3 RFC 1397 Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of The 220 Border Gateway Protocol 222 BGP2 and BGP3 are both depreciated and therefore are not discussed in 223 this document. 225 5.4 RFC 1403 BGP OSPF Interaction (BGP-OSPF) 227 This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols 228 and how they exchange IPv4 information. A similar document should be 229 produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6. 231 5.5 RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing (IDPR-ARCH) 233 The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies. 235 5.6 RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version 236 1 (IDPR) 238 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 240 5.7 RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless 241 Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) (CIDR) 243 This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 245 5.8 RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR (CIDR- 246 ARCH) 248 This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 250 5.9 RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address 251 Assignment and Aggregation Strategy (CIDR-STRA) 253 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 254 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 255 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 257 This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 259 5.10 RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits (RIP-DC) 261 This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4 262 routing information. 264 In Section 3 of RFC 1582, IP Routing Information Protocol Version 1 265 shows: 267 Followed by up to 25 routing entries (each 20 octets) 269 0 1 2 3 3 270 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 1 271 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 272 | address family identifier (2) | must be zero (2) | 273 +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ 274 | IP address (4) | 275 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 276 | must be zero (4) | 277 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 278 | must be zero (4) | 279 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 280 | metric (4) | 281 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 282 . 283 . 285 The format of an IP RIP datagram in octets, with each tick mark 286 representing one bit. All fields are in network order. 288 The four octets: sequence number (2), fragment number (1) and number 289 of fragments (1) are not present in the original RIP specification. 290 They are only present if command takes the values 7 or 8. 292 Figure 2. IP Routing Information Protocol packet format 294 The Section referencing RIPv2 refers back to the above text. 296 5.11 RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF (OSPF-Multi) 298 This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 routing 299 protocol. A similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6. 301 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 302 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 303 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 305 5.12 RFC 1587 The OSPF NSSA Option (OSPF-NSSA) 307 This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol and it 308 is assumed that any updated version of OSPF to support IPv6 will 309 contain an appropriate update for this option. 311 5.13 RFC 1745 BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction (BGP4/IDRP) 313 This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols 314 and how they exchange IPv4 information. A similar document should be 315 produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6. 317 5.14 RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits (OSPF-DC) 319 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact 320 that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only 321 supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF 322 to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. 324 5.15 RFC 1812 Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers 326 This document is only intended to describe requirements for IPv4 327 implementations in router. A similar document should be produced for 328 IPv6. 330 5.16 RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute (BGP-COMM) 332 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is 333 an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a 334 newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this 335 enhancement. 337 5.17 RFC 2080 RIPng for IPv6 (RIPNG-IPV6) 339 This RFC documents a protocol for exchanging IPv6 routing information 340 and is not discussed in this document. 342 5.18 RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits 343 (RIP-TRIG) 345 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 346 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 347 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 349 This RFC defines an enhancement for an IPv4 routing protocol and 350 while it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherintely limited to IPv4. 351 It is expected that a similar mechanism will be implemented in RIPng. 353 5.19 RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) 355 This protocol is IPv4 specific. See the following from RFC 2338: 357 5.1 VRRP Packet Format. This Section defines the format of the VRRP 358 packet and the relevant fields in the IP header. 360 0 1 2 3 361 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 1 362 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 363 |Version| Type | Virtual Rtr ID| Priority | Count IP Addrs| 364 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 365 | Auth Type | Adver Int | Checksum | 366 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 367 | IP Address (1) | 368 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 369 | . | 370 | . | 371 | . | 372 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 373 | IP Address (n) | 374 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 375 | Authentication Data (1) | 376 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 377 | Authentication Data (2) | 378 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 380 5.2 IP Field Descriptions 382 5.2.1 Source Address 384 The primary IP address of the interface the packet is being sent 385 from. 387 5.2.2 Destination Address 389 The IP multicast address as assigned by the IANA for VRRP is: 391 224.0.0.18 393 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 394 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 395 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 397 This is a link local scope multicast address. Routers MUST NOT 398 forward a datagram with this destination address regardless of its 399 TTL. 401 There are numerous other references to 32-bit IP addresses. There 402 does not seem to be any reason that a new version of this protocol 403 could be straightforwardly be developed for IPv6. 405 5.20 RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option (OSPF-LSA) 407 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact 408 that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only 409 supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF 410 to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. 412 5.21 RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping 414 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is 415 an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a 416 newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this 417 enhancement. 419 5.22 RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter- 420 Domain Routing 422 This RFC documents IPv6 routing methods and is not discussed in this 423 document. 425 5.23 RFC 2740 OSPF for IPv6 427 This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and is not discussed 428 in this document. 430 5.24 RFC 2784 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) 432 This protocol is only defined for IPv4. The document states in the 433 Appendix: 435 o IPv6 as Delivery and/or Payload Protocol 437 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 438 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 439 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 441 This specification describes the intersection of GRE currently 442 deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery and/or payload 443 protocol is not included. 445 Therefore, a new version must be defined for IPv6. 447 5.25 RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh (IBGP) 449 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is 450 an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a 451 newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this 452 enhancement. 454 Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in 455 and IPv6 aware BGP. 457 5.26 RFC 2842 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 459 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is 460 an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a 461 newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this 462 enhancement. 464 Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in 465 and IPv6 aware BGP. 467 5.27 RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 (MEXT-BGP4) 469 In the Abstract: 471 Currently BGP-4 [BGP-4] is capable of carrying routing information 472 only for IPv4 [IPv4]. This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to 473 enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer 474 protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward 475 compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate 476 with a router that doesn�t support the extensions. 478 The document is therefore no examined further in this document. 480 5.28 RFC 2890 Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE 482 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 484 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 485 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 486 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 488 5.29 RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6 490 The RFC defines an IPv6 only document and is not concerned in this 491 document. 493 5.30 RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 495 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 497 5.31 RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP (BGP-ASC) 499 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 501 5.32 RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 (SDP) 503 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 505 5.33 RFC 3122 Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse 506 Discovery Specification 508 This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this 509 document. 511 6. Experimental RFCs 513 Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have 514 widescale implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often 515 propriety in nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented 516 to the Internet community in order to allow potential 517 interoperability or some other potential useful scenario. In a few 518 cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution 519 to an acknowledged problem. 521 6.1 RFC 1075 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (IP-DVMRP) 523 This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. A 524 similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6 multicast routing (or the 525 functionality must be included in other "standard" IPv6 routing 526 protocols.) 528 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 529 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 530 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 532 6.2 RFC 1383 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (DNS-IP) 534 This proposal is IPv4 limited: 536 This record is designed for easy general purpose extensions in the 537 DNS, and its content is a text string. The RX record will contain 538 three fields: 540 - A record identifier composed of the two characters "RX". This is 541 used to disambiguate from other experimental uses of the "TXT" 542 record. 544 - A cost indicator, encoded on up to 3 numerical digits. The 545 corresponding positive integer value should be less that 256, in 546 order to preserve future evolutions. 548 - An IP address, encoded as a text string following the "dot" 549 notation. 551 The three strings will be separated by a single comma. An example of 552 record would thus be: 553 ___________________________________________________________________ 554 | domain | type | record | value | 555 | - | | | | 556 |*.27.32.192.in-addr.arpa | IP | TXT | RX, 10, 10.0.0.7| 557 |_________________________|________|__________|___________________| 559 which means that for all hosts whose IP address starts by the three 560 octets "192.32.27" the IP host "10.0.0.7" can be used as a gateway, 561 and that the preference value is 10. 563 6.3 RFC 1476 RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol (RAP) 565 This document defines an IPv7 routing protocol and has been abandoned 566 by the IETF as a feasible design. It is not considered in this 567 document. 569 6.4 RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow (OSPF-OVFL) 571 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact 572 that it is a new functionality for a routing protocol that only 573 supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF 574 to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. 576 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 577 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 578 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 580 6.5 RFC 1863 A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing 581 (BGP-IDRP) 583 This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 585 6.6 RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP (BGP- 586 RR) 588 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is 589 an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a 590 newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this 591 enhancement. 593 Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in 594 and IPv6 aware BGP. 596 6.7 RFC 2189 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing 598 The document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast. It 599 is expected that it could easily be updated to support IPv6 600 multicasting. 602 From Section 7.3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format: 604 0 1 2 3 605 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 1 606 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 607 | CBT Control Packet Header | 608 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 609 | group address | 610 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 611 | target router | 612 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 613 | originating router | 614 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 615 | option type | option len | option value | 616 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 618 Figure 3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format 620 JOIN_REQUEST Field Definitions 622 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 623 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 624 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 626 o group address: multicast group address of the group being joined. 627 For a "wildcard" join (see [5]), this field contains the value of 628 INADDR_ANY. 630 o target router: target (core) router for the group. 632 o originating router: router that originated this JOIN_REQUEST. 634 There are many other packet formats defined in the document that show 635 this limitation as well. 637 6.8 RFC 2201 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture 639 See previous Section for the IPv4 limitation in this protocol. 641 6.9 RFC 2337 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse 642 Mode PIM 644 This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism must 645 be defined for IPv6 multicasting. 647 6.10 RFC 2362 Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): 648 Protocol Specification 650 This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 652 6.11 RFC 2676 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions 654 There are IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. It requires the use of 655 the IPv4 TOS header field. It is assumed that a future update to 656 OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. 658 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 659 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 660 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 662 7. Summary of Results 664 In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a 665 total of 53, broken down as follows: 667 Standards 2 of 7 or 28.57% 669 Draft Standards 1 of 2 or 50.00% 671 Proposed Standards 17 of 33 or 51.52% 673 Experimental RFCs 5 of 11 or 45.45% 675 Of those identified many require no action because they document 676 outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols 677 that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups. 678 Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be 679 updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not 680 updated. The remaining instances are documented below. 682 The authors have attempted to organize the results in a format that 683 allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The assignment of 684 statements has been based entirely on the authors perceived needs for 685 updates and should not be taken as an official statement. 687 7.1 Standards 689 7.1.1 STD 54 OSPF (RFC 2328) 691 This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 693 7.1.2 STD 56 RIPv2 (RFC 2453) 695 This problem has been fixed by RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 697 7.2 Draft Standards 699 7.2.1 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (RFC 1771) 701 This problem has been fixed in RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for 702 BGP-4. 704 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 705 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 706 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 708 7.3 Proposed Standards 710 7.3.1 IS-IS (RFC 1195) 712 This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG and a ID is currently 713 available (draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-02.txt) 715 7.3.2 Applicability Statement for OSPFv2 (RFC 1370) 717 This problem has been resolved in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 719 7.3.3 Applicability of CIDR (RFC 1517) 721 The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 722 addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374. 724 7.3.4 CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518) 726 The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 727 addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374. 729 7.3.5 RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582) 731 This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 733 7.3.6 OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584) 735 This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 737 7.3.7 OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 1587) 739 This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 741 7.3.8 BGP4/IDRP OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745) 743 The problems are addressed in the combination of RFC2283, 744 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 and RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 746 7.3.9 OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793) 748 This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 750 7.3.10 IPv4 Router Requirements (RFC 1812) 752 This document should be updated to include IPv6 Routing Requirements. 754 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 755 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 756 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 758 7.3.11 RIP Triggered Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 2091) 760 This functionality is provided in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 762 7.3.12 VRRP (RFC 2338) 764 The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG and there 765 is an ID (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-02.txt). 767 7.3.13 OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370) 769 This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 771 7.3.14 BGP Route Flap Dampening (RFC 2439) 773 These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, 774 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. 776 7.3.15 GRE (RFC 2784) 778 The problems have not been addressed and a new protocol should be 779 defined. 781 7.3.16 BGP Route Reflector (RFC 2796) 783 These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, 784 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. 786 7.3.17 Capabilities Advertisement in BGP4 (RFC 2842) 788 These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, 789 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. 791 7.4 Experimental RFCs 793 7.4.1 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (RFC 1075) 795 This protocol is a routing protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. It 796 is no longer in use and should not be redefined. 798 7.4.2 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (RFC 1383) 800 This protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR and a new protocol standard 801 should not be produced. 803 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 804 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 805 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 807 7.4.3 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing (RFC 2189) 809 This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol 810 standard may be produced. 812 7.4.4 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676) 814 An update to this document can be simply define the use of the IPv6 815 Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the 816 IPv4 TOS field. 818 7.4.5 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse Mode 819 PIM (RFC 2337) 821 This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism must 822 be defined for IPv6 multicast. 824 8. Security Considerations 826 This document examines the IPv6-readiness of routing specification; 827 this does not have security considerations in itself. 829 9. Acknowledgements 831 The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet 832 Society in the research and production of this document. 834 The support of IETF IPv6 Operations (v6ops) WG is appreciate also. 836 Philip J. Nesser II would like to thanks his partner in all ways, 837 Wendy M. Nesser. 839 Cesar Olvera would like to thanks to Jordi Palet (Consulintel) his 840 support and review of this document. 842 10. References 844 Normative References 846 [1] Nesser II, P. J., "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses 847 in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey- 848 intro-01.txt, IETF Internet Draft, June 2003. 850 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 851 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 852 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 854 11. Authors' Addresses 856 Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or 857 suggestions at: 859 Cesar Olvera Morales 860 Researcher 861 Consulintel 862 San Jose Artesano, 1 863 Alcobendas 28108 864 Madrid, Spain 865 Email: cesar.olvera@consulintel.es 866 Phone: +34 91 151 81 99 867 Fax: +34 91 151 81 98 869 Philip J. Nesser II 870 Principal 871 Nesser & Nesser Consulting 872 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 873 Kirkland, WA 98034 874 Email: phil@nesser.com 875 Phone: +1 425 481 4303 877 Copyright 879 The following Full Copyright Statement from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, 880 describes the applicable copyright for this document. 882 Copyright (C) The Internet Society June, 2003. All Rights Reserved. 884 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 885 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 886 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 887 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 888 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 889 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 890 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 891 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 892 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 893 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 894 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 895 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 896 English. 898 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt 899 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently 900 Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 902 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 903 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. 905 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 906 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 907 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 908 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 909 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 910 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 912 Intellectual Property 914 The following notice from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, describes the 915 position of the IETF concerning intellectual property claims made 916 against this document. 918 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 919 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 920 pertain to the implementation or use other technology described in 921 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 922 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 923 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 924 IETF�s procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 925 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 926 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 927 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 928 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 929 proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can 930 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 932 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 933 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 934 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 935 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 936 Director. 938 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt