[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-v6ops-...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

INFORMATIONAL

Network Working Group                                      P. Nesser, II
Request for Comments: 3793                    Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Category: Informational                                A. Bergstrom, Ed.
                                              Ostfold University College
                                                                May 2004


            Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
      IETF Sub-IP Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in
   currently deployed IETF Sub-IP Area documented standards.  In order
   to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6
   Internet, many interim steps will be taken.  One of these steps is
   the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies.  It
   is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be
   redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will
   at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6.  To this end, all Standards
   (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be
   surveyed and any dependencies will be documented.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  Document Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   3.  Full Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   4.  Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   5.  Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   6.  Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   7.  Summary of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
       7.01. Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
       7.02. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
       7.03. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
       7.04. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   9.  Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4



Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 3793         IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Sub-IP Area         May 2004


   10. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   11. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   12. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.  Introduction

   This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage
   of IPv4 addresses in IETF standards.  In an effort to have the
   information in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents
   conforming to the current IETF areas (Application,  Internet,
   Operations & Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).

   For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1].

2.  Document Organization

   The rest of the document sections are described below.

   Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full,
   Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs.  Each RFC is
   discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with (around)
   RFC 3100. The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature.  That is,
   each RFC is discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do
   not "look ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed.

   Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5,
   and 6.  It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole
   and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are
   correlated.

3.  Full Standards

   Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as
   "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely
   implemented and used throughout the Internet.

   There are no full standards within the scope of this document.

4.  Draft Standards

   Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF.
   A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple,
   independent, interoperable implementations.  Draft Standards are
   usually quite mature and widely used.

   There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.





Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 3793         IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Sub-IP Area         May 2004


5.  Proposed Standards

   Proposed Standards are introductory level documents.  There are no
   requirements for even a single implementation.  In many cases
   Proposed are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards
   process.  They therefore are often just proposed ideas that are
   presented to the Internet community.  Sometimes flaws are exposed or
   they are one of many competing solutions to problems.  In these later
   cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose
   of this discussion.

   5.01.  RFC 3031 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.02.  RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.

   5.03.  RFC 3034 Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks
         Specification

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.04.  RFC 3035 MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.05.  RFC 3036 LDP Specification

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.

   5.06.  RFC 3038 VCID Notification over ATM link for LDP

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

6.  Experimental RFCs

   Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have
   widescale implementation or usage on the Internet.  They are often
   propriety in nature or used in limited arenas.  They are documented
   to the Internet community in order to allow potential
   interoperability or some other potential useful scenario.  In a few
   cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution
   to an acknowledged problem.




Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 3793         IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Sub-IP Area         May 2004


   6.01.  RFC 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

7.  Summary of Results

   In the initial survey of RFCs 0 positives were identified out of a
   total of 7, broken down as follows:

         Standards:                         0 out of  0 or  0.00%
         Draft Standards:                   0 out of  0 or  0.00%
         Proposed Standards:                0 out of  6 or  0.00%
         Experimental RFCs:                 0 out of  1 or  0.00%

   Of those identified many require no action because they document
   outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols
   that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups.
   Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be
   updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not
   updated.  The remaining instances are documented below.

   7.01.  Standards

      There are no standards within the scope of this document.

   7.02.  Draft Standards

      There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.

   7.03.  Proposed Standards

      There are no proposed standards with recommendations in this
      document.

   7.04.  Experimental RFCs

      There are no experimental standards with recommendations in this
      document.

8.  Security Considerations

   This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does
   not have security considerations in itself.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet
   Society in the research and production of this document.



Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 3793         IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Sub-IP Area         May 2004


   Additionally the author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to thank his
   partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.

   The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola for
   guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this document.

10.  Normative Reference

   [1]  Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the
        Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
        RFC 3789, May 2004.

11.  Authors' Addresses

   Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or
   suggestions at:

   Philip J. Nesser II
   Principal
   Nesser & Nesser Consulting
   13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
   Kirkland, WA 98034

   Phone:  +1 425 481 4303
   Fax:    +1 425 48
   EMail:  phil@nesser.com


   Andreas Bergstrom, Editor
   Ostfold University College
   Rute 503 Buer
   N-1766 Halden
   Norway

   EMail: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
















Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 3793         IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Sub-IP Area         May 2004


12.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
   INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
   IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
   described in this document or the extent to which any license
   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
   such rights.  Information on the procedures with respect to
   rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
   any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
   proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
   to implement this standard.  Please address the information to the
   IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.









Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/