Skip to main content

Hierarchical IPv4 Framework

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IRSG <>
Cc: The IESG <>, <>, <>, <>
Subject: Re: Experimental RFC to be: <draft-frejborg-hipv4-14.txt>

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Hierarchical IPv4
Framework' <draft-frejborg-hipv4-14.txt> as an Experimental RFC.

The IESG would also like the IRSG to review the comments in
the datatracker (
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot
and the comment log.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

The process for such documents is described at

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   (From the Abstract)

   This document describes a framework for how the current IPv4 address
   space can be divided into two new address categories: a core address
   space (Area Locators, ALOC) that is globally unique, and an edge
   address space (Endpoint Locators, ELOC) that is regionally unique. In
   the future the ELOC space will only be significant in a private
   network or in a service provider domain. Therefore, a 32x32 bit
   addressing scheme and a hierarchical routing architecture are
   achieved. The hierarchical IPv4 framework is backwards compatible
   with the current IPv4 Internet.

   This document also discusses a method for decoupling the location and
   identifier functions - future applications can make use of the
   separation. The framework requires extensions to the existing Domain
   Name System, the existing IPv4 stack of the endpoints, middleboxes,
   and to routers in the Internet. The framework can be implemented
   incrementally for endpoints, DNS, middleboxes, and routers.

Working Group Summary

   N/A - IRTF submission

Document Quality

   This document is one of the proposals from RRG.

   The group did not reach consensus on this proposal, but did agree that it
   should be published. A consensus check showed 4 members in favor of
   publication, none opposed, and one bad ballot.


   Ralph Droms <> is managing the IESG review
   (RFC 5742).


   From RFC 5742:

   1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this
      document and IETF work.

RFC Editor Note