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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 RFC 3791

Network Working Group                                         C. Olvera
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt                  Consulintel
Internet Draft                                          P. J. Nesser II
Expires April 2004                           Nesser & Nesser Consulting
                                                          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-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                            [Page 1]


Internet Draft                                          December 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.................................................4


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


   5. Proposed Standards.............................................4


   6. Experimental RFCs..............................................9


   7. Summary of Results............................................11


   8. Security Considerations.......................................14


   9. Acknowledgements..............................................15


   10. References...................................................15


   11. Authors' Addresses...........................................16


   Copyright........................................................16


   Intellectual Property............................................17




















               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                            [Page 2]


Internet Draft                                          December 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
   in an effort to have the information in a manageable form, it has
   subsequently been split into 7 documents conforming to the current
   IETF main areas (Application[2], Internet[3], Operations & Management
   [4], Routing[this document], Security[5], Sub-IP[6] and
   Transport[7]).


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


   It is important to mention that to perform this study the following
   classes of IETF standards are investigated: Full, Draft, and
   Proposed, as well as Experimental. Informational, BCP and Historic
   RFCs are not addressed.  RFCs that have been obsoleted by either
   newer versions or as they have transitioned through the standards
   process are also not covered.



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, Proposed Standards and Experimental RFCs.  Each RFC is
   discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending (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.






               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                            [Page 3]


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



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 1722 (STD 57) RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement


   RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks.



3.2   RFC 2328 (STD 54) OSPF Version 2


   This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing.  It is highly
   assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in nature.



3.3   RFC 2453 (STD 56) RIP Version 2


   RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks.



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 as is defined.



4.2   RFC 1772 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet


   This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP-4 on the Internet.


4.3   RFC 3392 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4


   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
   base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only.


5.  Proposed Standards


   Proposed Standards are introductory level documents.  There are no
   requirements for even a single implementation.  In many cases


               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                            [Page 4]


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



   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


   This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing
   information.



5.2   RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF


   This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4.



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


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



5.4   RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing


   The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies.



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


   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.



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


   This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.



5.7   RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR



               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                            [Page 5]


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



   This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.



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


   This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.



5.9   RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits


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



5.10    RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF


   This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 only
   routing protocol.



5.11    RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits


   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.



5.12    RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute


   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
   base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only.



5.13    RFC 2080 RIPng for IPv6


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



5.14    RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits


   This RFC defines an enhancement for an IPv4 routing protocol and
   while it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherently limited to IPv4.




               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                            [Page 6]


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



5.15    RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)


   This protocol is IPv4 specific, there are numerous references to 32-
   bit IP addresses.



5.16    RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option


   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.



5.17    RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping


   The protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, even though the
   base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.



5.18    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.



5.19    RFC 2740 OSPF for IPv6


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



5.20    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


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



5.21    RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP



               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                            [Page 7]


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



   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
   base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This
   specification updates but does not obsolete RFC 1966.



5.22    RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4


   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 doesn't support the extensions.


   The document is therefore not examined further in this document.



5.23    RFC 2890 Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE


   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.



5.24    RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6


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



5.25    RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4


   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
   base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.



5.26    RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP


   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
   base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.



5.27    RFC 3101 The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option


   This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol.



               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                            [Page 8]


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



5.28    RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4


   There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.



5.29    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 wide
   scale 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 (DVMRP)


   This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing.



6.2   RFC 1383 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing


   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, A cost indicator, and An IP
   address.


   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|
    |_________________________|________|__________|___________________|




               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                            [Page 9]


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



   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


   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


   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.



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


   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


   Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the
   base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This
   specification has been updated by RFC 2796.



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


   The document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast.
   There are many packet formats defined that show IPv4 usage.



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.


               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                           [Page 10]


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



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.



7.  Summary of Results


   In the initial survey of RFCs, 22 positives were identified out of a
   total of 45, broken down as follows:


   Standards                      3 of  3 or 100%


   Draft Standards                1 of  3 or 33.33%


   Proposed Standards            13 of 29 or 44.83%


   Experimental RFCs              6 of 11 or 54.54%


   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 57 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement (RFC
   1722)


   This problem has been fixed by RFC 2081, RIPng Protocol Applicability
   Statement.



               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                           [Page 11]


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



   7.1.2  STD 54 OSPF Version 2 (RFC 2328)


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


   7.1.3  STD 56 RIP Version 2 (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 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for
   BGP-4, RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-
   Domain Routing, and some IDs as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-02.txt.


   RFC 2858 extends BGP to support multi-protocol extensions that allows
   routing information for other address families to be exchanged. RFC
   2545 further extends RFC 2858 for full support of exchanging IPv6
   routing information and additionally clarifies support of the
   extended BGP-4 protocol using TCP+IPv6 as a transport mechanism. RFC
   1771, 2858 & 2545 must be supported in order to provide full IPv6
   support.


   Note also that all the BGP extensions analyzed previously in this
   memo function without changes with the updated version of BGP-4.



7.3   Proposed Standards


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


   This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG, and an ID is
   currently available: draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-05.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 3513 & 3587.



               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                           [Page 12]


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



   7.3.4  CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518)


   The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6
   addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587.


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


   The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6
   addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587.


   7.3.6  RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582)


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


   7.3.7  OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584)


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


   7.3.8  OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793)


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


   7.3.9  RIP Triggered Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 2091)


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


   7.3.10  Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)(RFC 2338)


   The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG and there
   is an ID: draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-05.txt.


   7.3.11  OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370)


   This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. Opaque
   options support is an inbuilt functionality in OSPFv3.


   7.3.12  Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)(RFC 2784)


   Even trough GRE tunneling over IPv6 has been implemented and used,
   its use has not been formally specified. Clarifications are required.


   7.3.13  OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 3101)


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



               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                           [Page 13]


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



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 need not be redefined.


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


   This protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR, but is no longer relevant has
   never seen much use; no action is necessary.


   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. However, the multicast routing protocol has
   never been in much use and is no longer relevant; no action is
   necessary.


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


   See previous Section for the limitation in this protocol.


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


   This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast. However, Intra-LIS IP
   multicast among routers over ATM is not believed to be relevant
   anymore. A new mechanism may be defined for IPv6 multicast.


   7.4.6  QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676)


   QoS extensions for OSPF were never used for OSPFv2, and there seems
   to be little need for them in OSPFv3.


   However, if necessary, an update to this document could simply define
   the use of the IPv6 Traffic Class field since it is defined to be
   exactly the same as the IPv4 TOS field.



8.  Security Considerations


   This document examines the IPv6-readiness of routing specification;
   this does not have security considerations in itself.



               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                           [Page 14]


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




9.  Acknowledgements


   The original author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to acknowledge
   the support of the Internet Society in the research and production of
   this document.


   He also would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M.
   Nesser.


   Cesar Olvera would like to thanks Pekka Savola for an extended
   guidance and comments for the edition of this document, and Jordi
   Palet for his support and reviews.


   Additionally, he would further like to thank Andreas Bergstrom, Brian
   Carpenter, Jeff Haas, Vishwas Manral, Gabriela Medina, Venkata Naidu,
   Jeff Parker and Curtis Villamizar for valuable feedback.



10.   References


   Normative References


   [1]   Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom "Introduction to the
   Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-03.txt, IETF Internet Draft, August
   2003.


   [2]   Philip J. Nesser II, Rute Sofia. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
   Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards", draft-ietf-
   v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-02.txt, IETF work in progress, September 2003.


   [3]   Philip J. Nesser II, Cleveland Mickles. "Internet Area: Survey
   of IPv4 Addresses Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-
   v6ops-ipv4survey-int-01.txt, IETF work in progress, June 2003.


   [4]   Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4
   addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area
   Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-03.txt IETF work in
   progress, September 2003.


   [5]   Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4
   Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards", draft-
   ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-02.txt, IETF work in progress, September
   2003.



               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                           [Page 15]


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



   [6]   Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4
   Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards", draft-
   ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-02.txt, IETF work in progress, August
   2003.


   [7]   Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom "Survey of IPv4
   Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards",
   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-02.txt IETF work in progress,
   September 2003.



11.   Authors' Addresses


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


   Cesar Olvera Morales
   Researcher
   Consulintel
   San Jose Artesano, 1
   28108 - Alcobendas
   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


               draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                           [Page 16]


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



   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.


   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
   IETF's 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-03.txt
Expires April 2004                                           [Page 17]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.120, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/