[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 RFC 3791

Network Working Group                                C. Olvera (Editor)
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt                  Consulintel
Internet Draft                                          P. J. Nesser II
                                             Nesser & Nesser Consulting
                                                              June 2003
                                                  Expires December 2003



              Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
                        IETF Routing Area Standards


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed
   athttp://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


Abstract

   This investigation work seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses
   in currently deployed IETF Routing 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.


               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                         [Page 1]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards



Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3

   2. Document Organization..........................................3

   3. Full Standards.................................................3

   4. Draft Standards................................................5

   5. Proposed Standards.............................................5

   6. Experimental RFCs.............................................12

   7. Summary of Results............................................16

   8. Security Considerations.......................................19

   9. Acknowledgements..............................................19

   10. References...................................................19

   11. Authors' Addresses...........................................20

   Copyright........................................................20

   Intellectual Property............................................21


















               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                         [Page 2]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards



1. Introduction

   This work aims to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently
   deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. Also, throughout
   this document there are discussions on how routing protocols might be
   updated to support IPv6 addresses.

   This material was originally presented within a single document, but
   has subsequently been split into 7 documents conforming to the
   current IETF main areas (Application, Internet, Operations &
   Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).

   The general overview, methodology and scope of the investigation for
   the whole 7 documents can be found in the introduction of this set of
   documents [1].


2. Document Organization

   The main Sections of this document 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 RFC 3247.
   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.


3.1  RFC 904 Exterior Gateway Protocol

   This RFC has been depreciated to Historic status and is not
   considered.

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                         [Page 3]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


3.2  RFC 1009 Gateway Requirements

   It is pointless to attempt to try and quantify the IPv4 references in
   this document.  The document specifies operations of IPv4
   routers/gateways.  Hence, it makes numerous references that are IPv4
   specific.

   Like RFC 1122, it is necessary to rewrite this document and create a
   "IPv6 Gateway Requirements" standard.


3.3  RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol

   This RFC has been reclassified as historic and replace by STD 56. See
   Section 3.6 for its further discussion.


3.4  Interface Message Processor: Specifications for the Interconnection
    of a Host and an IMP

   This standard STD 39 has been reclassified as historic and is not
   considered in this discussion.


3.5  RFC 2328 OSPF Version 2

   This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing.  It is highly
   assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in nature.  A new version
   of OSPF must be created to support IPv6.


3.6  RFC 2453 RIP Version 2

   RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks.  IPv6 routing functionality
   is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2080.


3.7  RFC 1722 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement

   RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks.  IPv6 routing functionality
   is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2081.






               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                         [Page 4]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


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.


4.1  RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)

   This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing
   information and does not support IPv6.  A new EGP must be defined for
   the exchange of IPv6 routing information.


4.2  RFC 1772 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet
    (BGP-4-APP)

   This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP4 on the Internet.  Since
   BGP4 is limited to IPv4 addresses, it is expected that a similar
   document will be created to be paired with the definition of the next
   generation BGP.


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.


5.1  RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual
    environments (IS-IS)

   This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing
   information.  It is incompatible with IPv6.  There are substantial
   work being done on a newer version of IS-IS that should include IPv6
   routing.




               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                         [Page 5]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


5.2  RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF

   This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4.
   It is expected that a similar document be assigned for when a version
   of OSPF that supports IPv6 is established.


5.3  RFC 1397 Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of The
    Border Gateway Protocol

   BGP2 and BGP3 are both depreciated and therefore are not discussed in
   this document.


5.4  RFC 1403 BGP OSPF Interaction (BGP-OSPF)

   This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols
   and how they exchange IPv4 information.  A similar document should be
   produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6.


5.5  RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing (IDPR-ARCH)

   The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies.


5.6  RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version
    1 (IDPR)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.


5.7  RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless
    Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) (CIDR)

   This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.


5.8  RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR (CIDR-
    ARCH)

   This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.


5.9  RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
    Assignment and Aggregation Strategy (CIDR-STRA)

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                         [Page 6]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


   This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.


5.10   RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits (RIP-DC)

   This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4
   routing information.

   In Section 3 of RFC 1582, IP Routing Information Protocol Version 1
   shows:

   Followed by up to 25 routing entries (each 20 octets)


    0                   1                   2                   3 3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | address family identifier (2) |      must be zero (2)         |
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   |                         IP address (4)                        |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                        must be zero (4)                       |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                        must be zero (4)                       |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                          metric (4)                           |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
                                   .
                                   .

   The format of an IP RIP datagram in octets, with each tick mark
   representing one bit.    All fields are in network order.

   The four octets: sequence number (2), fragment number (1) and number
   of fragments (1) are not present in the original RIP specification.
   They are only present if command takes the values 7 or 8.

         Figure 2.   IP Routing Information Protocol packet format

   The Section referencing RIPv2 refers back to the above text.


5.11   RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF (OSPF-Multi)

   This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 routing
   protocol.  A similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6.

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                         [Page 7]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


5.12   RFC 1587 The OSPF NSSA Option (OSPF-NSSA)

   This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol and it
   is assumed that any updated version of OSPF to support IPv6 will
   contain an appropriate update for this option.


5.13   RFC 1745 BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction (BGP4/IDRP)

   This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols
   and how they exchange IPv4 information.  A similar document should be
   produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6.


5.14   RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits (OSPF-DC)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact
   that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only
   supports IPv4 networks.  It is assumed that a future update to OSPF
   to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.


5.15   RFC 1812 Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers

   This document is only intended to describe requirements for IPv4
   implementations in router. A similar document should be produced for
   IPv6.


5.16   RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute (BGP-COMM)

   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
   an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol.  It is expected that a
   newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
   enhancement.


5.17   RFC 2080 RIPng for IPv6 (RIPNG-IPV6)

   This RFC documents a protocol for exchanging IPv6 routing information
   and is not discussed in this document.


5.18   RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits
    (RIP-TRIG)


               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                         [Page 8]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


   This RFC defines an enhancement for an IPv4 routing protocol and
   while it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherintely limited to IPv4.
   It is expected that a similar mechanism will be implemented in RIPng.


5.19   RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)

   This protocol is IPv4 specific.  See the following from RFC 2338:

   5.1   VRRP Packet Format. This Section defines the format of the VRRP
   packet and the relevant fields in the IP header.


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Version| Type  | Virtual Rtr ID|   Priority    | Count IP Addrs|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Auth Type   |   Adver Int   |          Checksum             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         IP Address (1)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            .                                  |
   |                            .                                  |
   |                            .                                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         IP Address (n)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Authentication Data (1)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Authentication Data (2)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   5.2   IP Field Descriptions

   5.2.1 Source Address

   The primary IP address of the interface the packet is being sent
   from.

   5.2.2 Destination Address

   The IP multicast address as assigned by the IANA for VRRP is:

      224.0.0.18


               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                         [Page 9]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


   This is a link local scope multicast address.  Routers MUST NOT
   forward a datagram with this destination address regardless of its
   TTL.

   There are numerous other references to 32-bit IP addresses.  There
   does not seem to be any reason that a new version of this protocol
   could be straightforwardly be developed for IPv6.


5.20   RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option (OSPF-LSA)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact
   that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only
   supports IPv4 networks.  It is assumed that a future update to OSPF
   to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.


5.21   RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping

   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
   an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol.  It is expected that a
   newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
   enhancement.


5.22   RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-
    Domain Routing

   This RFC documents IPv6 routing methods and is not discussed in this
   document.


5.23   RFC 2740 OSPF for IPv6

   This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and is not discussed
   in this document.


5.24   RFC 2784 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)

   This protocol is only defined for IPv4.  The document states in the
   Appendix:

   o IPv6 as Delivery and/or Payload Protocol



               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 10]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


   This specification describes the intersection of GRE currently
   deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery and/or payload
   protocol is not included.

   Therefore, a new version must be defined for IPv6.


5.25   RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh (IBGP)

   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
   an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol.  It is expected that a
   newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
   enhancement.

   Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in
   and IPv6 aware BGP.


5.26   RFC 2842 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4

   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
   an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol.  It is expected that a
   newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
   enhancement.

   Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in
   and IPv6 aware BGP.


5.27   RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 (MEXT-BGP4)

   In the Abstract:

   Currently BGP-4 [BGP-4] is capable of carrying routing information
   only for IPv4 [IPv4]. This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to
   enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer
   protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward
   compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate
   with a router that doesnÆt support the extensions.

   The document is therefore no examined further in this document.


5.28   RFC 2890 Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 11]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


5.29   RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6

   The RFC defines an IPv6 only document and is not concerned in this
   document.


5.30   RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.


5.31   RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP (BGP-ASC)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.


5.32   RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 (SDP)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.


5.33   RFC 3122 Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse
    Discovery Specification

   This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this
   document.


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.


6.1  RFC 1075 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (IP-DVMRP)

   This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing.  A
   similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6 multicast routing (or the
   functionality must be included in other "standard" IPv6 routing
   protocols.)


               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 12]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


6.2  RFC 1383 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (DNS-IP)

   This proposal is IPv4 limited:

   This record is designed for easy general purpose extensions in the
   DNS, and its content is a text string. The RX record will contain
   three fields:

   -  A record identifier composed of the two characters "RX". This is
   used to disambiguate from other experimental uses of the "TXT"
   record.

   -  A cost indicator, encoded on up to 3 numerical digits. The
   corresponding positive integer value should be less that 256, in
   order to preserve future evolutions.

   -  An IP address, encoded as a text string following the "dot"
   notation.

   The three strings will be separated by a single comma. An example of
   record would thus be:
    ___________________________________________________________________
    |         domain          |   type |   record |   value           |
    |            -            |        |          |                   |
    |*.27.32.192.in-addr.arpa |   IP   |    TXT   |   RX, 10, 10.0.0.7|
    |_________________________|________|__________|___________________|


   which means that for all hosts whose IP address starts by the three
   octets "192.32.27" the IP host "10.0.0.7" can be used as a gateway,
   and that the preference value is 10.


6.3  RFC 1476 RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol (RAP)

   This document defines an IPv7 routing protocol and has been abandoned
   by the IETF as a feasible design.  It is not considered in this
   document.


6.4  RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow (OSPF-OVFL)

   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact
   that it is a new functionality for a routing protocol that only
   supports IPv4 networks.  It is assumed that a future update to OSPF
   to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.

               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 13]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


6.5  RFC 1863 A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing
    (BGP-IDRP)

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


6.6  RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP (BGP-
    RR)

   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is
   an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol.  It is expected that a
   newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this
   enhancement.

   Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in
   and IPv6 aware BGP.


6.7  RFC 2189 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing

   The document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast.  It
   is expected that it could easily be updated to support IPv6
   multicasting.

   From Section 7.3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format:


    0               1               2               3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    CBT Control Packet Header                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          group address                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          target router                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        originating router                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  option type  |  option len   |        option value           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format

   JOIN_REQUEST Field Definitions



               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 14]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


   o  group address: multicast group address of the group being joined.
   For a "wildcard" join (see [5]), this field contains the value of
   INADDR_ANY.

   o  target router: target (core) router for the group.

   o  originating router: router that originated this JOIN_REQUEST.

   There are many other packet formats defined in the document that show
   this limitation as well.


6.8  RFC 2201 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture

   See previous Section for the IPv4 limitation in this protocol.


6.9  RFC 2337 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse
    Mode PIM

   This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism must
   be defined for IPv6 multicasting.


6.10   RFC 2362 Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
    Protocol Specification

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


6.11   RFC 2676 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions

   There are IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.  It requires the use of
   the IPv4 TOS header field.  It is assumed that a future update to
   OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality.












               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 15]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards



7. Summary of Results

   In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a
   total of 53, broken down as follows:

   Standards                 2 of  7 or 28.57%

   Draft Standards           1 of  2 or 50.00%

   Proposed Standards       17 of 33 or 51.52%

   Experimental RFCs         5 of 11 or 45.45%

   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.

   The authors have attempted to organize the results in a format that
   allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The assignment of
   statements has been based entirely on the authors perceived needs for
   updates and should not be taken as an official statement.


7.1  Standards

   7.1.1 STD 54 OSPF (RFC 2328)

   This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.1.2  STD 56 RIPv2 (RFC 2453)

   This problem has been fixed by RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.


7.2  Draft Standards

   7.2.1 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (RFC 1771)

   This problem has been fixed in RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for
   BGP-4.



               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 16]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


7.3  Proposed Standards

   7.3.1 IS-IS (RFC 1195)

   This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG and a ID is currently
   available (draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-02.txt)

   7.3.2 Applicability Statement for OSPFv2 (RFC 1370)

   This problem has been resolved in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.3.3 Applicability of CIDR (RFC 1517)

   The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6
   addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374.

   7.3.4 CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518)

   The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6
   addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374.

   7.3.5 RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582)

   This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.

   7.3.6 OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584)

   This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.3.7 OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 1587)

   This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.3.8 BGP4/IDRP OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745)

   The problems are addressed in the combination of RFC2283,
   Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 and RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.3.9 OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793)

   This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.3.10   IPv4 Router Requirements (RFC 1812)

   This document should be updated to include IPv6 Routing Requirements.


               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 17]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


   7.3.11   RIP Triggered Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 2091)

   This functionality is provided in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.

   7.3.12   VRRP (RFC 2338)

   The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG and there
   is an ID (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-02.txt).

   7.3.13   OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370)

   This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.

   7.3.14   BGP Route Flap Dampening (RFC 2439)

   These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283,
   Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.

   7.3.15   GRE (RFC 2784)

   The problems have not been addressed and a new protocol should be
   defined.

   7.3.16   BGP Route Reflector (RFC 2796)

   These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283,
   Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.

   7.3.17   Capabilities Advertisement in BGP4 (RFC 2842)

   These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283,
   Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4.


7.4  Experimental RFCs

   7.4.1 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (RFC 1075)

   This protocol is a routing protocol for IPv4 multicast routing.  It
   is no longer in use and should not be redefined.

   7.4.2 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (RFC 1383)

   This protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR and a new protocol standard
   should not be produced.


               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 18]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


   7.4.3 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing (RFC 2189)

   This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol
   standard may be produced.

   7.4.4 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676)

   An update to this document can be simply define the use of the IPv6
   Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the
   IPv4 TOS field.

   7.4.5 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse Mode
   PIM (RFC 2337)

   This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism must
   be defined for IPv6 multicast.


8. Security Considerations

   This document examines the IPv6-readiness of routing specification;
   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.

   The support of IETF IPv6 Operations (v6ops) WG is appreciate also.

   Philip J. Nesser II would like to thanks his partner in all ways,
   Wendy M. Nesser.

   Cesar Olvera would like to thanks to Jordi Palet (Consulintel) his
   support and review of this document.


10.  References

   Normative References

   [1]   Nesser II, P. J., "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses
   in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-
   intro-01.txt, IETF Internet Draft, June 2003.


               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 19]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards



11.  Authors' Addresses

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

   Cesar Olvera Morales
   Researcher
   Consulintel
   San Jose Artesano, 1
   Alcobendas 28108
   Madrid, Spain
   Email: cesar.olvera@consulintel.es
   Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
   Fax:   +34 91 151 81 98

   Philip J. Nesser II
   Principal
   Nesser & Nesser Consulting
   13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
   Kirkland, WA 98034
   Email: phil@nesser.com
   Phone: +1 425 481 4303


Copyright

   The following Full Copyright Statement from RFC 2026, Section 10.4,
   describes the applicable copyright for this document.

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society June, 2003. All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.


               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 20]


Internet Draft                                              June 2003
                 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently
                  Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards


   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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 following notice from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, describes the
   position of the IETF concerning intellectual property claims made
   against this document.

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use other technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETFÆs procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication 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 Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.











               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
Expires December 2003                                        [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/