Internet Engineering Task Force Rute Sofia
Internet Draft Philip J. Nesser II
Expiration Date: August 2003 Nesser & Nesser Consulting
February 2003
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Application Area Standards
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt
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 at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
The transition from an all IPv4 network to an all IPv6 network
requires several interim steps, being one of them the evolution of
current IPv4 dependent protocols to protocols that are independent
of the type of IP addresses used. Hence, it is hoped that protocols
will be redesigned and re-implemented to become network address
independent, or at least to dually support IPv4 and IPv6.
To achieve that step, it is necessary to survey and document all IPv4
dependencies experienced by current standards - Full, Draft, and
Proposed - and Experimental RFCs. Hence, this document describes
IPv4 addressing dependencies that deployed IETF Application Area
documented Standards may experience.
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
Contents
1 Introduction 15
2 Document Organization 15
3 Full Standards 15
3.1 RFC821, RFC1869: SMTP Service Extensions . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.1 RFC 821 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.2 RFC 1869 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 RFC 822: Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
text messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 RFC854, RFC855: Telnet Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3.1 RFC 854 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3.2 RFC 855 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4 RFC 856: Binary Transmission Telnet Option . . . . . . . . . 17
3.5 RFC 857: Echo Telnet Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6 RFC 858: Suppress Go Ahead Telnet Option . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7 RFC 859: Status Telnet Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.8 RFC 860: Timing Mark Telnet Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.9 RFC 861: Extended Options List Telnet Option . . . . . . . . 18
3.10 RFC 862: Echo Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.11 RFC 863: Discard Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.12 RFC 864: Character Generator Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.13 RFC 865: Quote of the Day Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.14 RFC 866: Active Users Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.15 RFC 867: Daytime Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.16 RFC 868: Time Server Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.17 RFC 959: File Transfer Protocol (FTP) . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.18 RFC 974: Mail Routing and the Domain System . . . . . . . . 19
3.19 RFC 1350: Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) . . . . . . 19
3.20 RFC 1939: Post Office Protocol - Version 3 (POP3) . . . . . 19
3.21 RFC 2920: SMTP Service Extension for Command
Pipelining (SMTP-pipe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 2]
Internet Draft draf-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
4 Draft Standards 19
4.1 RFC 954: NICNAME/WHOIS (NICNAME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2 RFC 1184: Telnet Linemode Option (TOPT-LINE) . . . . . . . . 20
4.3 RFC 1288: The Finger User Information Protocol
(FINGER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.4 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
Specification, Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.5 RFC 1575: An Echo Function for CLNP (ISO 8473)
(ISO-TS-ECH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.6 RFC 1652: SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIME
Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.7 RFC 1777: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.8 RFC 1778: The String Representation of Standard
Attribute Syntaxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.9 RFC 1832: eXternal Data Representation Standard
(XDR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.10 RFC 2045: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(MIME), Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies (MIME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.11 RFC 2046 MIME, Part Two: Media Types (MIME-
MEDIA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.12 RFC 2047: MIME, Part Three: Message Header
Extensions for Non-ASCII Text (MIME-MSG) . . . . . . . 22
4.13 RFC 2049: MIME Part Five: Conformance Criteria
and Examples (MIME-CONF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.14 RFC 2279: UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646 (UTF-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.15 RFC 2347: TFTP Option Extension (TFTP-Ext) . . . . . . . . 23
4.16 RFC 2348: TFTP Blocksize Option (TFTP-Blk) . . . . . . . . 23
4.17 RFC 2349: TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer Size
Options (TFTP-Opt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.18 RFC 2355: TN3270 Enhancements (TN3270E) . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.19 RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI):
Generic Syntax (URI-GEN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.20 RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol ¡ HTTP/1.1
(HTTP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 3]
Internet Draft draf-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5 Proposed Standards 24
5.1 RFC 698: Telnet extended ASCII option (TOPT-EXT) . . . . . 25
5.2 RFC 726: Remote Controlled Transmission and
Echoing Telnet option (TOPT-REM) . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3 RFC 727: Telnet logout option (TOPT-LOGO) . . . . . . . . . 25
5.4 RFC 735: Revised Telnet byte macro option (TOPT-
BYTE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.5 RFC 736: Telnet SUPDUP option (TOPT-SUP) . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.6 RFC 749: Telnet SUPDUP-Output option (TOPT-
SUPO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.7 RFC 779: Telnet send-location option (TOPT-SNDL) . . . . . . 25
5.8 RFC 885: Telnet end of record option (TOPT-EOR) . . . . . . 25
5.9 RFC 927: TACACS user identification Telnet option
(TOPT-TACAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.10 RFC 933: Output marking Telnet option (TOPT-OM) . . . . . . 26
5.11 RFC 946: Telnet terminal location number option
(TOPT-TLN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.12 RFC 977: Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) 26
5.13 RFC 1041: Telnet 3270 regime option (TOPT-3270) . . . . . . 26
5.14 RFC 1043: Telnet Data Entry Terminal option:
DODIIS implementation (TOPT-DATA) . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.15 RFC 1053: Telnet X.3 PAD option (TOPT-X.3) . . . . . . . . 26
5.16 RFC 1073: Telnet window size option (TOPT-NAWS) . . . . . . 27
5.17 RFC 1079: Telnet terminal speed option (TOPT-TS) . . . . . 27
5.18 RFC 1091: Telnet terminal-type option (TOPT-TERM) . . . . . 27
5.19 RFC 1096: Telnet X display location option (TOPT-
XDL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.20 RFC 1274: The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema . . . . . . 27
5.21 RFC 1276: Replication and Distributed Operationsi extensions
to provide an Internet Directory using X.500 . . . . . 27
5.22 RFC 1314: A File Format for the Exchange of
Images in the Internet (NETFAX) . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.23 RFC 1328: X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading . . . . . . . . . 27
5.24 RFC 1372: Telnet Remote Flow Control Option
(TOPT-RFC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 4]
Internet Draft draf-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.25 RFC 1415: FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification
(FTP-FTAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.26 RFC 1494: Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and
RFC-822 Message Bodies (Equiv) . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.27 RFC 1496: Rules for downgrading messages from
X.400/88 to X.400/84 when MIME content-types are
present in the messages (HARPOON) . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.28 RFC 1502: X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets . . . . . . 28
5.29 RFC 1572: Telnet Environment Option (TOPT-
ENVIR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.30 RFC 1648: Postmaster Convention for X.400
Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.31 RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL) (URL) 28
5.32 RFC 1740: MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files
- MacMIME (MacMIME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.33 RFC 1767: MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects
(MIME-EDI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.34 RFC 1781: Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User
Friendly Naming (OSI-Dir) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.35 RFC 1798: Connection-less Lightweight X.500
Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.36 RFC 1808: Relative Uniform Resource Locators (URL) 30
5.37 RFC 1835: Architecture of the WHOIS++ service
(WHOIS++) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.38 RFC 1891: SMTP Service Extension for Delivery
Status Notifications (SMTP-DSN) . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.39 RFC 1892: The Multipart/Report Content Type
for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative
Messages (MIME-RPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.40 RFC 1893: Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
(EMS-CODE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.41 RFC 1894: An Extensible Message Format for
Delivery Status Notifications (DSN) . . . . . . . . . 30
5.42 RFC 1913: Architecture of the Whois++ Index
Service,WHOIS++A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.43 RFC 1914: How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh
(WHOIS++) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.44 RFC 1985: SMTP Service Extension for Remote
Message Queue Starting (SMTP-ETRN) . . . . . . . . . 32
5.45 RFC 2017: Definition of the URL MIME External-
Body Access-Type (URL-ACC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.46 RFC 2034: SMTP Service Extension for Returning
Enhanced Error Codes (SMTP-ENH) . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.47 RFC 2056: Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50
(URLZ39.50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.48 RFC 2060: Internet Message Access Protocol -
Version 4rev1 (IMAPV4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.49 RFC 2077: The Model Primary Content Type
for Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME-
MODEL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.50 RFC 2079: Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type
and an Object Class to Hold Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs) (URI-ATT) . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.51 RFC 2086: IMAP4 ACL extension (IMAP4-ACL) . . . . . . . . 33
5.52 RFC 2087: IMAP4 QUOTA extension (IMAP4-QUO) . . . . . . . 33
5.53 RFC 2088: IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals
(IMAP4-LIT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.54 RFC 2122: VEMMI URL Specification (VEMMI-
URL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.55 RFC 2141: URN Syntax (URN-SYNTAX) . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.56 RFC 2142 "Mailbox Names for Common Services,
Roles and Functions" (MAIL-SERV) . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.57 RFC 2156: MIXER (Mime Internet X.400
Enhanced Relay): Mapping between X.400 and
RFC 822/MIME (MIXER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.58 RFC 2157: Mapping between X.400 and RFC-
822/MIME Message Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.59 RFC 2158: X.400 Image Body Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.60 RFC 2159: A MIME Body Part for FAX . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.61 RFC 2160: Carrying PostScript in X.400 and MIME 35
5.62 RFC 2163: Using the Internet DNS to Distribute
MIXER Conformant Global Address Mapping
(MCGAM) (DNS-MCGAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.63 RFC 2164: Use of an X.500/LDAP directory to
support MIXER address mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.64 RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol (SLP) . . . . . . . . 35
5.65 RFC 2177: IMAP4 IDLE command (IMAP4-IDLE) 37
5.66 RFC 2183: Communicating Presentation
Information in Internet Messages: The Content-
Disposition Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.67 RFC 2192: IMAP URL Scheme (IMAP-URL) . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.68 RFC 2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals (IMAP4MAIL) . . . . . . . 37
5.69 RFC 2218: A Common Schema for the Internet
White Pages Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.70 RFC 2221: IMAP4 Login Referrals (IMAP4LOGIN) . . . . . . . 38
5.71 RFC 2227: Simple Hit-Metering and Usage-
Limiting for HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.72 RFC 2231: MIME Parameter Value and Encoded
Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
Continuations (MIME-EXT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.73 RFC 2234: Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF (ABNF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.74 RFC 2244: Application Configuration Access
Protocol (ACAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.75 RFC 2254 The String Representation of LDAP
Search Filters (STR-LDAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.76 RFC 2255: The LDAP URL Format (LDAP-URL) . . . . . . . . . 39
5.77 RFC 2247 Using Domains in LDAP/X.500
Distinguished Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.78 RFC 2251 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3) (LDAPV3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.79 RFC 2252: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions (LDAP3-ATD) . . . . 39
5.80 RFC 2253: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3): UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished
Names (LDAP3-UTF8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.81 RFC 2256: A Summary of the X.500(96) User
Schema for use with LDAPv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.82 RFC 2293: Representing Tables and Subtrees in the
X.500 Directory (SUBTABLE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.83 RFC 2294: Representing the O/R Address hierarchy
in the X.500 Directory Information Tree (OR-ADD) . . . 40
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.84 RFC 2298: An Extensible Message Format for
Message Disposition Notifications (EMF-MDN) . . . . . 40
5.85 RFC 2301: File Format for Internet Fax (FFIF) . . . . . . . 40
5.86 RFC 2302: Tag Image File Format (TIFF) -
image/tiff MIME Sub-type Registration (TIFF) . . . . . 40
5.87 RFC 2303: Minimal PSTN address format in Internet
Mail (MIN-PSTN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.88 RFC 2304: Minimal FAX address format in Internet
Mail (MINFAX-IM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.89 RFC 2305: A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using
Internet Mail (SMFAX-IM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.90 RFC 2334: Server Cache Synchronization Protocol
(SCSP) (SCSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.91 RFC 2342: IMAP4 Namespace (IMAP4NAME) . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.92 RFC 2359: IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension
(IMAP4UIDPL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.93 RFC 2368: The mailto URL scheme (URLMAILTO) 41
5.94 RFC 2369: The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax
for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport
through Message Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.95 RFC 2384: POP URL Scheme (POP-URL) . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.96 RFC 2387: The MIME Multipart/Related Content-
type (MIME-RELAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.97 RFC 2388: Returning Values from Forms:
multipart/form-data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.98 RFC 2389: Feature negotiation mechanism for the
File Transfer Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.99 RFC 2392: Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform
Resource Locators (CIDMID-URL) . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.100 RFC 2397: The "data" URL scheme (DATA-URL) . . . . . . . . 42
5.101 RFC 2421: Voice Profile for Internet Mail - version
2 (MIME-VP2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.102 RFC 2422: Toll Quality Voice - 32 kbit/s ADPCM
MIME Sub-type Registration (MIME-ADPCM) . . . . . . . 43
5.103 RFC 2423 VPIM Voice Message MIME Sub-type
Registration (MIME-VPIM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.104 RFC 2424: Content Duration MIME Header
Definition (CONT-DUR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.105 RFC 2425: A MIME Content-Type for Directory
Information (TXT-DIR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.106 RFC 2426: vCard MIME Directory Profile (MIME-
VCARD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.107 RFC 2428: FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs . . . . . . . . 43
5.108 RFC 2445: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling
Core Object Specification (iCalendar) (ICALENDAR) . . 43
5.109 RFC 2446: iCalendar Transport-Independent
Interoperability Protocol (iTIP) Scheduling Events,
BusyTime, To-dos and Journal Entries (ITIP) . . . . . 44
5.110 RFC 2447: iCalendar Message-Based
Interoperability Protocol (iMIP) (IMIP) . . . . . . . 45
5.111 RFC 2449: POP3 Extension Mechanism (POP3-EXT) . . . . . . 45
5.112 RFC 2476: Message Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.113 RFC 2480: Gateways and MIME Security Multiparts . . . . . 45
5.114 RFC 2518: HTTP Extensions for Distributed
Authoring ¡ WEBDAV (WEBDAV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.115 RFC 2530: Indicating Supported Media Features
Using Extensions to DSN and MDN . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.116 RFC 2532: Extended Facsimile Using Internet Mail . . . . . 45
5.117 RFC 2533: A Syntax for Describing Media Feature
Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.118 RFC 2534: Media Features for Display, Print, and Fax . . . 46
5.119 RFC 2554: SMTP Service Extension for
Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.120 RFC 2557: MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate
Documents, such as HTML (MHTML) (MHTML) . . . . . . . 46
5.121 RFC 2589: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3): Extensions for Dynamic Directory Services
(LDAPv3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.122 RFC 2595: Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP . . . . . . . 46
5.123 RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.124 RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol, Version 2 (SLP) . . . 47
5.125 RFC 2609: Service Templates and Service: Schemes . . . . . 48
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.126 RFC 2640: Internationalization of the File Transfer
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.127 RFC 2645: ON-DEMAND MAIL RELAY (ODMR)
SMTP with Dynamic IP Addresses (ODMR-SMTP) . . . . . . 48
5.128 RFC 2646: The Text/Plain Format Parameter . . . . . . . . 48
5.129 RFC 2651: The Architecture of the Common
Indexing Protocol (CIP) (CIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.130 RFC 2652: MIME Object Definitions for the
Common Indexing Protocol (CIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.131 RFC 2653: CIP Transport Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.132 RFC 2732: Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's . . . 49
5.133 RFC 2738: Corrections to "A Syntax for Describing
Media Feature Sets" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.134 RFC 2739: Calendar Attributes for vCard and LDAP 49
5.135 RFC 2806: URLs for Telephone Calls . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.136 RFC 2846: GSTN Address Element Extensions in
E-mail Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.137 RFC 2849: The LDAP Data Interchange Format
(LDIF) - Technical Specification (LDIF) . . . . . . . 49
5.138 RFC 2852: Deliver By SMTP Service Extension . . . . . . . 49
5.139 RFC 2879: Content Feature Schema for Internet Fax
(V2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.140 RFC 2891: LDAP Control Extension for Server Side
Sorting of Search Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.141 RFC 2910: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Encoding
and Transport (IPP-E-T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.142 RFC 2911: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model
and Semantics (IPP-M-S) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.143 RFC 2912: Indicating Media Features for MIME
Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.144 RFC 2913: MIME Content Types in Media Feature
Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.145 RFC 2919: List-Id: A Structured Field and
Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists . . 50
5.146 RFC 2938: Identifying Composite Media Features . . . . . . 50
5.147 RFC 2965: HTTP State Management Mechanism . . . . . . . . 50
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.148 RFC 2971: IMAP4 ID extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.149 RFC 2987: Registration of Charset and Languages
Media Features Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.150 RFC 3009: Registration of parityfec MIME types . . . . . . 51
5.151 RFC 3017: XML DTD for Roaming Access Phone
Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.152 RFC 3023: XML Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.153 RFC 3028: Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language . . . . . . . . 52
5.154 RFC 3030: SMTP Service Extensions for
Transmission of Large and Binary MIME Messages . . . . 52
5.155 RFC 3049: TN3270E Service Location and Session
Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.156 RFC 3059: Attribute List Extension for the Service
Location Protocol (SLPv2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.157 RFC 3080: The Blocks Extensible Exchange
Protocol Core (BEEP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.158 RFC 3081: Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP . . . . . . . . . 52
5.159 RFC 3111: Service Location Protocol Modifications
for IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6 Experimental RFCs 53
6.1 RFC 909: Loader Debugger Protocol (LDP) . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.2 RFC 1143: The Q Method of Implementing
TELNET Option Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.3 RFC 1153: Digest message format (DMF-MAIL) . . . . . . . . . 53
6.4 RFC 1159: Message Send Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.5 RFC 1165: Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the
OSI Remote Operations Service (NTP-OSI) . . . . . . . 53
6.6 RFC 1176: Interactive Mail Access Protocol:
Version 2 (IMAP2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.7 RFC 1204: Message Posting Protocol (MPP) (MPP) . . . . . . . 54
6.8 RFC 1235: Coherent File Distribution Protocol (CFDP) . . . . 54
6.9 RFC 1279: X.500 and Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.10 RFC 1312: Message Send Protocol 2 (MSP2) . . . . . . . . . 55
6.11 RFC 1339: Remote Mail Checking Protocol (RMCP) . . . . . . 55
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
6.12 RFC 1440: SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited
File Transfer (SIFT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.13 RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol (IRCP) . . . . . . . 55
6.14 RFC 1465: Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS
Services Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network
Environment Table Format V3 for Static Routing . . . . 56
6.15 RFC 1505: Encoding Header Field for Internet
Messages (EHF-MAIL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.16 RFC 1528: Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT
Subdomain: Remote Printing ¡ Technical Procedures
(REM-PRINT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.17 RFC 1608: Representing IP Information in the X.500
Directory (X500-DIR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.18 RFC 1609: Charting Networks in the X.500
Directory (X500-CHART) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.19 RFC 1639: FTP Operation Over Big Address
Records (FOOBAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.20 RFC 1641 Using Unicode with MIME (MIME-UNI) . . . . . . . . 56
6.21 RFC 1756: Remote Write Protocol - Version 1.0 (RWP) . . . . 56
6.22 RFC 1801: MHS use of the X.500 Directory to
support MHS Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.23 RFC 1804: Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory . . . . . . 57
6.24 RFC 1806: Communicating Presentation
Information in Internet Messages: The Content-
Disposition Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.25 RFC 1845: SMTP Service Extension for
Checkpoint/Restart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.26 RFC 1846: SMTP 521 Reply Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.27 RFC 1873: Message/External-Body Content-ID
Access Type (CONT-MT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.28 RFC 1874: SGML Media Types (SGML-MT) . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.29 RFC 1986: Experiments with a Simple File Transfer
Protocol for Radio Links using Enhanced Trivial File
Transfer Protocol (ETFTP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.30 RFC 2016: Uniform Resource Agents (URAs) (URAS) 58
6.31 RFC 2066: TELNET CHARSET Option (TOPT-
CHARS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
6.32 RFC 2075: IP Echo Host Service (IP-Echo) . . . . . . . . . 58
6.33 RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option (TFTP-MULTI) . . . . . . . 58
6.34 RFC 2120: Managing the X.500 Root Naming
Context (X.500-NAME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.35 RFC 2161: A MIME Body Part for ODA (MIME-
ODA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.36 RFC 2162: MaXIM-11 - Mapping between X.400 /
Internet mail and Mail-11 mail (MAP-MAIL) . . . . . . 59
6.37 RFC 2168: Resolution of Uniform Resource
Identifiers using the Domain Name System . . . . . . . 59
6.38 RFC 2169: A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in
URN Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.39 RFC 2217: Telnet Com Port Control Option (TOPT-
COMPO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.40 RFC 2295: Transparent Content Negotiation in
HTTP (TCN-HTTP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.41 RFC 2296: HTTP Remote Variant Selection
Algorithm ¡ RVSA/1.0 (HTTP-RVSA) . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.42 RFC 2307: An Approach for Using LDAP as a
Network Information Service (LDAP-NIS) . . . . . . . . 59
6.43 RFC 2310: The Safe Response Header Field . . . . . . . . . 60
6.44 RFC 2483: URI Resolution Services Necessary for
URN Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.45 RFC 2567: Design Goals for an Internet Printing
Protocol (IPP-DG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.46 RFC 2568: Rationale for the Structure of the Model
and Protocol for the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP-
RAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.47 RFC 2569: Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols . . . . . . 61
6.48 RFC 2649: An LDAP Control and Schema for
Holding Operation Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.49 RFC 2654: A Tagged Index Object for use in the
Common Indexing Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.50 RFC 2655: CIP Index Object Format for SOIF Objects 61
6.51 RFC 2656: Registration Procedures for SOIF
Template Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.52 RFC 2657: LDAPv2 Client vs. the Index Mesh . . . . . . . . 61
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
6.53 RFC 2756: Hyper Text Caching Protocol
(HTCP/0.0) (HTCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.54 RFC 2774: An HTTP Extension Framework . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.55 RFC 2974: Session Announcement Protocol (SAP) . . . . . . . 62
6.56 RFC 3018: Unified Memory Space Protocol
Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.57 RFC 3082: Notification and Subscription for SLP . . . . . . 62
6.58 RFC 3088: OpenLDAP Root Service An
experimental LDAP referral service . . . . . . . . . . 63
7 Summary of Results 63
7.1 Full Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
7.1.1 RFC 959: STD 9 File Transfer Protocol . . . . . 63
7.1.2 RFC 821: STD 10 Simple Mail Transfer
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
7.1.3 RFC 822: STD 11 Standard for the format of
ARPA Internet Text Messages . . . . . . . . . . 64
7.1.4 RFC 1305: STD 12 Network Time Protocol . . . . . 64
7.2 Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
7.2.1 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (NTP) . . . . . 64
7.2.2 RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URI) Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
7.2.3 RFC 2616: HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
7.3 Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
7.3.1 RFC 946: Telnet Terminal LOC . . . . . . . . . . 64
7.3.2 RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL) . . . 65
7.3.3 RFC 2384: POP3 URL Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.3.4 RFC 2608:SLP v2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.3.5 RFC 3017: XML DTP For Roaming Access
Phone Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.4 Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.4.1 RFC 1235:The Coherent File Distribution
Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.4.2 RFC 1459: IRC Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
7.4.3 RFC 1986: Simple File Transfer Using
Enhanced TFTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.4.4 RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option . . . . . . . . 65
7.4.5 RFC 2307: Using LDAP as a NIS (RFC 2307) . . . 66
8 Acknowledgements 66
9 Security Considerations 66
1 Introduction
The exhaustive documentation of IPv4 addresses usage in currently
deployed IETF documented standards has now been broken
into seven documents conforming to current IETF main areas -
Applications, Internet, Operations and Management, Routing, Sub-
IP, and Transport. A general overview of the documentation, as well
as followed methodology and historical perspective can be found in
[1].
This document represents one of the seven blocks, and its scope
is limited to the use of IPv4 addresses in IETF Application Area
documented Standards.
2 Document Organization
The remainder sections are organized as follows. Sections 3, 4, 5, and
6 describe, respectively, the raw analysis of Internet Standards [3]:
Full, Draft and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. For
each section, standards are analysed by their RFC sequential order,
i.e., from RFC 1 to RFC 3247. Also, the comments presented for
each RFC are raw in their nature, i.e., each RFC is simply analysed
in terms of possible IPv4 addressing dependencies. Finally, Section
7 presents a global overview of the data described in the previous
sections, and suggests possible future steps.
3 Full Standards
Internet Full Standards attain the highest level of maturity on
the standards track process. They are commonly referred to as
"Standards", and represent fully technical mature specifications,
widely implemented and used throughout the Internet.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
3.1 RFC821, RFC1869: SMTP Service Extensions
3.1.1 RFC 821
Section 4.1.2 "Command Syntax" contains the following clear IPv4
reference:
"<dotnum> ::= <snum> "." <snum> "." <snum> "." <snum>"
Also, the following paragraph needs to be re-written, to eliminate
the explicit reference to a 32-bit ARPA Internet Address in four
8-bit fields:
"Sometimes a host is not known to the translation function and
communication is blocked. To bypass this barrier two numeric forms
are also allowed for host 'names'. One form is a decimal integer
prefixed by a pound sign, "#", which indicates the number is the
address of the host. Another form is four small decimal integers
separated by dots and enclosed by brackets, e.g., "[123.255.37.2]".
3.1.2 RFC 1869
There are no IPv4 dependencies in RFC 1869.
3.2 RFC 822: Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
text messages
There are some IPv4 dependencies in RFC 822, which needs to be
re-written. Section 6.2.3. (Domain Terms) contains the following
text:
"A domain-ref must be THE official name of a registry, network,
or host. It is a symbolic reference, within a name sub-domain. At
times, it is necessary to bypass standard mechanisms for resolving
such references, using more primitive information, such as a network
host address rather than its associated host name.
To permit such references, this standard provides the domain-literal
construct. Its contents must conform with the needs of the sub-
domain in which it is interpreted.
Domain-literals which refer to domains within the ARPA Internet
specify 32-bit Internet addresses, in four 8-bit fields noted in
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
decimal, as described in Request for Comments #820,"Assigned Numbers."
For example:
[10.0.3.19]
Note: THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY
DISCOURAGED.
It is permitted only as a means of bypassing temporary system
limitations,
such as name tables which are not complete."
3.3 RFC854, RFC855: Telnet Protocol
3.3.1 RFC 854
There are no IPv4 dependencies in RFC 854.
3.3.2 RFC 855
There are no IPv4 dependencies in RFC 855.
3.4 RFC 856: Binary Transmission Telnet Option
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.5 RFC 857: Echo Telnet Option
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.6 RFC 858: Suppress Go Ahead Telnet Option
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.7 RFC 859: Status Telnet Option
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.8 RFC 860: Timing Mark Telnet Option
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
3.9 RFC 861: Extended Options List Telnet Option
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.10 RFC 862: Echo Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.11 RFC 863: Discard Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.12 RFC 864: Character Generator Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.13 RFC 865: Quote of the Day Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.14 RFC 866: Active Users Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.15 RFC 867: Daytime Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.16 RFC 868: Time Server Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.17 RFC 959: File Transfer Protocol (FTP)
Section 4.1.2 (TRANSFER PARAMETER COMMANDS) describes
the port command using the following format:
"A port command would be:
PORT h1,h2,h3,h4,p1,p2
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
where h1 is the high order 8 bits of the internet host address."
This is a clear reference to an IPv4 address. In sections 4.2.1 and
4.2.2, on reply codes, the code:
"227 Entering Passive Mode (h1,h2,h3,h4,p1,p2)"
also needs to be reworked for IPv6 addressing. Also, Section 5.3.2
(FTP COMMAND ARGUMENTS) contains:
"<host-number> ::= <number>,<number>,<number>,<number>
<port-number> ::= <number>,<number><number> ::= any decimal
integer 1 through 255"
This needs to be solved to transition to IPv6.
3.18 RFC 974: Mail Routing and the Domain System
Section Examples uses the well established A records, whose clear
IPv4 dependency has already been investigated in [2].
3.19 RFC 1350: Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.20 RFC 1939: Post Office Protocol - Version 3 (POP3)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
3.21 RFC 2920: SMTP Service Extension for Command
Pipelining (SMTP-pipe)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4 Draft Standards
Draft Standards is the nomenclature given to specifications that are
on the penultimate maturity level of the IETF standards track process.
They are considered to be final specifications, which may only
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
experience changes to solve specific problems found. A specification
is only considered to be a Draft Standard if there are at least two
known independent and interoperable implementations. Hence, Draft
Standards are usually quite mature and widely used.
4.1 RFC 954: NICNAME/WHOIS (NICNAME)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.2 RFC 1184: Telnet Linemode Option (TOPT-LINE)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.3 RFC 1288: The Finger User Information Protocol
(FINGER)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.4 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
Specification, Implementation
Section 3.2.1 (Common Variables) provides the following variable
definitions:
"Peer Address (peer.peeraddr, pkt.peeraddr), Peer Port
(peer.peerport,pkt.peerport). These are the 32-bit Internet address
and 16-bit port number of the peer.
Host Address (peer.hostaddr, pkt.hostaddr), Host Port (peer.hostport,
pkt.hostport). These are the 32-bit Internet address and 16-bit port
number of the host. They are included among the state variables to
support multi-homing."
Section 3.4.3 (Receive Procedure) defines the following procedure:
"The source and destination Internet addresses and ports in the IP
and UDP headers are matched to the correct peer. If there is no
match a new instantiation of the protocol machine is created and the
association mobilized."
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
Section 3.6 (Access Control Issues) proposes a simple authentication
scheme in the following way:
"If a more comprehensive trust model is required, the design can
be based on an access-control list with each entry consisting of
a 32-bit Internet address, 32-bit mask and three-bit mode. If the
logical AND of the source address (pkt.peeraddr) and the mask in an
entry matches the corresponding address in the entry and the mode
(pkt.mode) matches the mode in the entry, the access is allowed;
otherwise an ICMP error message is returned to the requestor. Through
appropriate choice of mask, it is possible to restrict requests
by mode to individual addresses, a particular subnet or net addresses,
or have no restriction at all. The access-control list would then
serve as a filter controlling which peers could create associations."
Appendix B Section 3 (B.3 Commands) defines the following
command:
"Set Trap Address/Port (6): The command association identifier,
status and data fields are ignored. The address and port number for
subsequent trap messages are taken from the source address and
port of the control message itself. The initial trap counter for trap
response messages is taken from the sequence field of the command.
The response association identifier, status and data fields are not
significant. Implementations should include sanity timeouts which
prevent trap transmissions if the monitoring program does not renew
this information after a lengthy interval."
The address clearly assumes an IPv4 address. Also, there are
numerous places in sample code and in algorithms that use the above
mentioned variables. It seems that there is no reason to modify the
actual protocol. A small number of text changes and an update
to implementations, so they can understand both IPv4 and IPv6
addresses, will suffice to have a NTP version that works on both
network layer protocols.
4.5 RFC 1575: An Echo Function for CLNP (ISO 8473)
(ISO-TS-ECH)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
4.6 RFC 1652: SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIME
Transport
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.7 RFC 1777: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.8 RFC 1778: The String Representation of Standard
Attribute Syntaxes
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.9 RFC 1832: eXternal Data Representation Standard
(XDR)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.10 RFC 2045: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
(MIME), Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies (MIME)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.11 RFC 2046 MIME, Part Two: Media Types (MIME-
MEDIA)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.12 RFC 2047: MIME, Part Three: Message Header
Extensions for Non-ASCII Text (MIME-MSG)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.13 RFC 2049: MIME Part Five: Conformance Criteria
and Examples (MIME-CONF)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 22]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
4.14 RFC 2279: UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646 (UTF-8)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.15 RFC 2347: TFTP Option Extension (TFTP-Ext)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.16 RFC 2348: TFTP Blocksize Option (TFTP-Blk)
Section "Blocksize Option Specification" gives the following
example:
"For example:
+---+--¡+-+--¡+-+--¡+-+--¡+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | foobar | 0 | octet | 0 | blksize| 0 | 1428 | 0 |
+---+--¡+-+--¡+-+--¡+-+--¡+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
is a Read Request, for the file named "foobar", in octet (binary)
transfer mode, with a block size of 1428 octets (Ethernet MTU, less
the TFTP, UDP and IP header lengths)."
Clearly, the given blocksize example would not work with IPv6
header sizes, but it has no practical implications, since larger
blocksizes are also available.
4.17 RFC 2349: TFTP Timeout Interval and Transfer
Size Options (TFTP-Opt)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.18 RFC 2355: TN3270 Enhancements (TN3270E)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
4.19 RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI):
Generic Syntax (URI-GEN)
Section 3.2.2. (Server-based Naming Authority) states:
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 23]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
"The host is a domain name of a network host, or its IPv4 address
as a set of four decimal digit groups separated by ".". Literal IPv6
addresses are not supported.
...
Note: A suitable representation for including a literal IPv6 address
as the host part of a URL is desired, but has not yet been determined
or implemented in practice."
4.20 RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol ¡ HTTP/1.1
(HTTP)
Section 3.2.2 (http URL) states:
"The "http" scheme is used to locate network resources via the
HTTP protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific syntax and
semantics for http URLs.
http_URL = "http:" "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path [ "?" query ]]
If the port is empty or not given, port 80 is assumed. The semantics
are that the identified resource is located at the server listening
for TCP connections on that port of that host, and the Request-URI for
the resource is abs_path (section 5.1.2). The use of IP addresses
in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever possible (see RFC 1900
[24]). "
The text is version neutral, but it is unclear whether individual
implementations will support IPv6 addresses. In fact, the use
of the ":"separator in IPv6 addresses will cause misinterpretation
when parsing URI's. There are other discussions regarding a
server recognizing its own IP addresses, spoofing DNS/IP address
combinations, as well as issues regarding multiple HTTP servers
running on a single IP interface. Again, the text is version neutral,
but clearly, such statements represent implementation issues.
5 Proposed Standards
Proposed Standards represent initial level documents in the IETF
standards track. They are stable in terms of design, but do not
require the existence of implementations. In several cases, these
specifications are simply proposed as solid technical ideas, to be
analysed by the Internet community, but are never implemented or
advanced in the IETF standards' process.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 24]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.1 RFC 698: Telnet extended ASCII option (TOPT-EXT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.2 RFC 726: Remote Controlled Transmission and
Echoing Telnet option (TOPT-REM)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.3 RFC 727: Telnet logout option (TOPT-LOGO)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.4 RFC 735: Revised Telnet byte macro option (TOPT-
BYTE)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.5 RFC 736: Telnet SUPDUP option (TOPT-SUP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.6 RFC 749: Telnet SUPDUP-Output option (TOPT-
SUPO)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.7 RFC 779: Telnet send-location option (TOPT-SNDL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.8 RFC 885: Telnet end of record option (TOPT-EOR)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.9 RFC 927: TACACS user identification Telnet option
(TOPT-TACAC)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 25]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.10 RFC 933: Output marking Telnet option (TOPT-OM)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.11 RFC 946: Telnet terminal location number option
(TOPT-TLN)
Section "TTYLOC Number" states:
"The TTYLOC number is a 64-bit number composed of two (2)
32-bit numbers: The 32-bit official ARPA Internet host address (may
be any one of the addresses for multi-homed hosts) and a 32-bit
number representing the terminal on the specified host. The host
address of [0.0.0.0] is defined to be "unknown", the terminal number
of FFFFFFFF (hex, r or-1 in decimal) is defined to be "unknown"
and the terminal number of FFFFFFFE (hex, or -2 in decimal) is
defined to be "detached" for processes that are not attached to a
terminal."
Although there is a dependency here, it is unlikely to be of any major
significance.
5.12 RFC 977: Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.13 RFC 1041: Telnet 3270 regime option (TOPT-3270)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.14 RFC 1043: Telnet Data Entry Terminal option:
DODIIS implementation (TOPT-DATA)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.15 RFC 1053: Telnet X.3 PAD option (TOPT-X.3)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 26]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.16 RFC 1073: Telnet window size option (TOPT-
NAWS)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.17 RFC 1079: Telnet terminal speed option (TOPT-TS)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.18 RFC 1091: Telnet terminal-type option (TOPT-
TERM)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.19 RFC 1096: Telnet X display location option (TOPT-
XDL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.20 RFC 1274: The COSINE and Internet X.500 Schema
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.21 RFC 1276: Replication and Distributed Operations
extensions to provide an Internet Directory using
X.500
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.22 RFC 1314: A File Format for the Exchange of
Images in the Internet (NETFAX)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.23 RFC 1328: X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.24 RFC 1372: Telnet Remote Flow Control Option
(TOPT-RFC)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 27]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.25 RFC 1415: FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification
(FTP-FTAM)
Since this document defines a gateway for interaction between FTAM
and FTP, the only possible IPv4 dependencies are associated with
FTP, which has already been investigated above, in section 3.2.
5.26 RFC 1494: Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and
RFC-822 Message Bodies (Equiv)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.27 RFC 1496: Rules for downgrading messages from
X.400/88 to X.400/84 when MIME content-types are
present in the messages (HARPOON)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.28 RFC 1502: X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.29 RFC 1572: Telnet Environment Option (TOPT-
ENVIR)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.30 RFC 1648: Postmaster Convention for X.400
Operations
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.31 RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL)
(URL)
Section 3.1. (Common Internet Scheme Syntax) states:
"host
The fully qualified domain name of a network host, or its IP address
as a set of four decimal digit groups separated by ".". Fully qualified
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 28]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
domain names take the form as described in Section 3.5 of RFC
1034 [13] and Section 2.1 of RFC 1123 [5]: a sequence of domain
labels separated by ".", each domain label starting and ending
with an alphanumerical character and possibly also containing "-"
characters. The rightmost domain label will never start with a digit,
though, which syntactically distinguishes all domain names from the
IP addresses."
Clearly, this is only valid when using IPv4 addresses. Later in
Section 5. (BNF for specific URL schemes), there is the following
text:
"; URL schemeparts for ip based protocols:
ip-schemepart = "//" login [ "/" urlpath ]
login = [ user [ ":" password ] "@" ] hostport
hostport = host [ ":" port ]
host = hostname | hostnumber"
Again, this has also implications in terms of network neutrality.
5.32 RFC 1740: MIME Encapsulation of Macintosh Files
- MacMIME (MacMIME)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.33 RFC 1767: MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects
(MIME-EDI)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.34 RFC 1781: Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User
Friendly Naming (OSI-Dir)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.35 RFC 1798: Connection-less Lightweight X.500
Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP)
Section 5.2. (Client Implementations) presents the following
observation, which needs to be re-written:
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 29]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
"For simple lookup applications, use of a retry algorithm with
multiple servers similar to that commonly used in DNS stub resolver
implementations is recommended. The location of a CLDAP server
or servers may be better specified using IP addresses (simple or
broadcast) rather than names that must first be looked up in another
directory such as DNS."
5.36 RFC 1808: Relative Uniform Resource Locators
(URL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.37 RFC 1835: Architecture of the WHOIS++ service
(WHOIS++)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.38 RFC 1891: SMTP Service Extension for Delivery
Status Notifications (SMTP-DSN)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.39 RFC 1892: The Multipart/Report Content Type
for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative
Messages (MIME-RPT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.40 RFC 1893: Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
(EMS-CODE)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.41 RFC 1894: An Extensible Message Format for
Delivery Status Notifications (DSN)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 30]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.42 RFC 1913: Architecture of the Whois++ Index
Service,WHOIS++A
Section 6.5. (Query referral) makes the following statement:
"When referrals are included in the body of a response to a query,
each referral is listed in a separate SERVER-TO-ASK block as shown
below.
# SERVER-TO-ASK
Version-number: // version number of index software, used to insure
compatibility
Body-of-Query: // the original query goes here
Server-Handle: // WHOIS++ handle of the referred server
Host-Name: // DNS name or IP address of the referred server
Port-Number: // Port number to which to connect, if different from
the
// WHOIS++ port number"
The syntax used does not present specific IPv4 dependencies, but
implementations should be modified to check, in incoming packets,
which IP version was used by the original request, so they can
determine whether or not to to return an IPv6 address.
5.43 RFC 1914: How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh
(WHOIS++)
Section 4 (Caching) states the following:
"A client can cache all information it gets from a server for some
time. For example records, IP-addresses of Whois++ servers, the
Directory of Services server etc.
A client can itself choose for how long it should cache the
information. The IP-address of the Directory of Services server
might not change for a day or two, and neither might any other
information."
Also, subsection 4.1. (Caching a Whois++ servers hostname)
contains:
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 31]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
"An example of cached information that might change is the cached
hostname, IP-address and portnumber which a client gets back
in a servers-to-ask response. That information is cached in the
server since the last poll, which might occurred several weeks ago.
Therefore, when such a connection fails, the client should fall back
to use the serverhandle instead, which means that it contacts the
Directory of Services server and queries for a server with that
serverhandle. By doing this, the client should always get the last
known hostname. An algorithm for this might be:
response := servers-to-ask response from server A
IP-address := find ip-address for response.hostname in DNS
connect to ip-address at port response.portnumber
if connection fails {
connect to Directory of Services server
query for host with serverhandle response.serverhandle
response := response from Directory of Services server
IP-address := find ip-address for response.hostname in DNS
connect to ip-address at port response.portnumber
if connection fails {
exit with error message
}
}
Query this new server"
The paragraph does not contain IPv4 specific syntax. Hence, IPv6
compliance will be implementation dependent.
5.44 RFC 1985: SMTP Service Extension for Remote
Message Queue Starting (SMTP-ETRN)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.45 RFC 2017: Definition of the URL MIME External-
Body Access-Type (URL-ACC)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 32]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.46 RFC 2034: SMTP Service Extension for Returning
Enhanced Error Codes (SMTP-ENH)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.47 RFC 2056: Uniform Resource Locators for Z39.50
(URLZ39.50)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.48 RFC 2060: Internet Message Access Protocol -
Version 4rev1 (IMAPV4)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.49 RFC 2077: The Model Primary Content Type
for Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME-
MODEL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.50 RFC 2079: Definition of an X.500 Attribute Type
and an Object Class to Hold Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs) (URI-ATT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.51 RFC 2086: IMAP4 ACL extension (IMAP4-ACL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.52 RFC 2087: IMAP4 QUOTA extension (IMAP4-
QUO)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.53 RFC 2088: IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals
(IMAP4-LIT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 33]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.54 RFC 2122: VEMMI URL Specification (VEMMI-
URL)
Section 3 (Description of the VEMMI scheme) states:
"The VEMMI URL scheme is used to designate multimedia
interactive services conforming to the VEMMI standard (ITU/T
T.107 and ETS 300 709).
A VEMMI URL takes the form:
vemmi://<host>:<port>/<vemmiservice>;
<attribute>=<value>
as specified in Section 3.1. of RFC 1738. If :<port> is omitted,
the port defaults to 575 (client software may choose to ignore
the optional port number in order to increase security). The
<vemmiservice> part is optional and may be omitted."
IPv4 dependencies may relate to the possibility of the <host> portion
to contain an IPv4 address, as defined in RFC 1738 (see section 5.31.
above). Once the problem is solved in the context of RFC 1738, this
issue will be automatically solved.
5.55 RFC 2141: URN Syntax (URN-SYNTAX)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.56 RFC 2142 "Mailbox Names for Common Services,
Roles and Functions" (MAIL-SERV)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.57 RFC 2156: MIXER (Mime Internet X.400
Enhanced Relay): Mapping between X.400 and
RFC 822/MIME (MIXER)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.58 RFC 2157: Mapping between X.400 and RFC-
822/MIME Message Bodies
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 34]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.59 RFC 2158: X.400 Image Body Parts
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.60 RFC 2159: A MIME Body Part for FAX
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.61 RFC 2160: Carrying PostScript in X.400 and MIME
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.62 RFC 2163: Using the Internet DNS to Distribute
MIXER Conformant Global Address Mapping
(MCGAM) (DNS-MCGAM)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.63 RFC 2164: Use of an X.500/LDAP directory to
support MIXER address mapping
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.64 RFC 2165: Service Location Protocol (SLP)
Section 7. (Service Type Request Message Format) and Section 9.
(Service Registration Message Format) have an 80 bit field from
addr-spec (see below) which cannot not support IPv6 addresses.
Also, Section 20.1. (Previous Responders' Address Specification)
states:
"The previous responders' Address Specification is specified as:
<Previous Responders' Address Specification> ::= <addr-spec>
|<addr-spec>,
<Previous Responders' Address Specification> i.e., a list separated
by commas with no intervening white space. The Address
Specification is the address of the Directory Agent or Service Agent
which supplied the previous response. The format for Address
Specifications in Service Location is defined in section 20.4. The
comma delimiter is required between each <addr-spec>. The use
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 35]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
of dotted decimal IP address notation should only be used in
environments which have no Domain Name Service.
Example:
RESOLVO.NEATO.ORG,128.127.203.63"
Later, in Section 20.4. (Address Specification in Service Location)
there is also the following reference to addr-spec:
"The address specification used in Service Location is:
<addr-spec> ::= [<user>:<password>@]<host>[:<port>]
<host> ::= Fully qualified domain name | dotted decimal IP address
notation
When no Domain Name Server is available, SAs and DAs must
use dotted decimal conventions for IP addresses. Otherwise, it is
preferable to use a fully qualified domain name wherever possible as
renumbering of host addresses will make IP addresses invalid over
time."
The whole Section 21. (Protocol Requirements) defines the
requirements for each of the elements of this protocol. Several IPv4
statements are made, but the syntax used is sufficiently neutral to
apply to the use of IPv6.
Section 22. (Configurable Parameters and Default Values) states:
"There are several configuration parameters for Service Location.
Default values are chosen to allow protocol operation without the
need for selection of these configuration parameters, but other
values may be selected by the site administrator. The configurable
parameters will allow an implementation of Service Location to be
more useful in a variety of scenarios.
Multicast vs. Broadcast
All Service Location entities must use multicast by default. The
ability to use broadcast messages must be configurable for UAs and
SAs. Broadcast messages are to be used in environments where
not all Service Location entities have hardware or software which
supports multicast.
Multicast Radius
Multicast requests should be sent to all subnets in a site. The
default multicast radius for a site is 32. This value must be
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 36]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
configurable. The value for the site's multicast TTL may be obtained
DHCP using an option which is currently unassigned."
Once again, nothing here precludes IPv6. Section 23. (Non-
configurable Parameters) states:
"IP Port number for unicast requests to Directory Agents:
UDP and TCP Port Number: 427
Multicast Addresses
Service Location General Multicast Address: 224.0.1.22
Directory Agent Discovery Multicast Address: 224.0.1.35
A range of 1024 contiguous multicast addresses for use as Service
Specific Discovery Multicast Addresses will be assigned by IANA."
Clearly, the statements above require specifications related to the
use of IPv6 multicast addresses with equivalent functionality.
5.65 RFC 2177: IMAP4 IDLE command (IMAP4-IDLE)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.66 RFC 2183: Communicating Presentation
Information in Internet Messages: The Content-
Disposition Header Field
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.67 RFC 2192: IMAP URL Scheme (IMAP-URL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.68 RFC 2193: IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals
(IMAP4MAIL)
Section 6. (Formal Syntax) presents the following statement:
"referral_response_code = "[" "REFERRAL" 1*(SPACE <url>) "]";
See [RFC-1738] for <url> definition"
The above presents dependencies on RFC 1738 URL definitions,
which have already been mentioned in this document, section 5.31.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 37]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.69 RFC 2218: A Common Schema for the Internet
White Pages Service
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.70 RFC 2221: IMAP4 Login Referrals
(IMAP4LOGIN)
Section 4.1. (LOGIN and AUTHENTICATE Referrals) provides the
following example:
"Example: C: A001 LOGIN MIKE PASSWORD
S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://MIKE@SERVER2/] Specified
user is invalid on this server. Try SERVER2."
Even though the syntax "user@SERVER2" is presented often, there
are no specifications related to the format of "SERVER2". Hence, it
is up to individual implementations to decide acceptable values for
the hostname. This may or not include explicit IPv6 addresses.
5.71 RFC 2227: Simple Hit-Metering and Usage-
Limiting for HTTP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.72 RFC 2231: MIME Parameter Value and Encoded
Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
Continuations (MIME-EXT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.73 RFC 2234: Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF (ABNF)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.74 RFC 2244: Application Configuration Access
Protocol (ACAP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 38]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.75 RFC 2254 The String Representation of LDAP
Search Filters (STR-LDAP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.76 RFC 2255: The LDAP URL Format (LDAP-URL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.77 RFC 2247 Using Domains in LDAP/X.500
Distinguished Names
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.78 RFC 2251: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)
(LDAPV3)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.79 RFC 2252: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
Attribute Syntax Definitions (LDAP3-ATD)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.80 RFC 2253: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
UTF-8 String Representation of Distinguished
Names (LDAP3-UTF8)
Section 7.1. (Disclosure) states:
"Distinguished Names typically consist of descriptive information
about the entries they name, which can be people, organizations,
devices or other real-world objects. This frequently includes some
of the following kinds of information:
- the common name of the object (i.e. a person's full name)
- an email or TCP/IP address
- its physical location (country, locality, city, street address)
- organizational attributes (such as department name or affiliation)"
If the caveat "Without putting any limitations on the version of the
IP address.", then are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 39]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.81 RFC 2256: A Summary of the X.500(96) User
Schema for use with LDAPv3
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.82 RFC 2293: Representing Tables and Subtrees in the
X.500 Directory (SUBTABLE)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.83 RFC 2294: Representing the O/R Address hierarchy
in the X.500 Directory Information Tree (OR-ADD)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.84 RFC 2298: An Extensible Message Format for
Message Disposition Notifications (EMF-MDN)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.85 RFC 2301: File Format for Internet Fax (FFIF)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.86 RFC 2302: Tag Image File Format (TIFF) -
image/tiff MIME Sub-type Registration (TIFF)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.87 RFC 2303: Minimal PSTN address format in
Internet Mail (MIN-PSTN)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.88 RFC 2304: Minimal FAX address format in Internet
Mail (MINFAX-IM)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 40]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.89 RFC 2305: A Simple Mode of Facsimile Using
Internet Mail (SMFAX-IM)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.90 RFC 2334: Server Cache Synchronization Protocol
(SCSP) (SCSP)
Appendix B, part 2.0.1 (Mandatory Common Part) states:
"Cache Key
This is a database lookup key that uniquely identifies a piece of
data which the originator of a CSA Record wishes to synchronize
with its peers for a given "Protocol ID/Server Group ID" pair. This
key will generally be a small opaque byte string which SCSP will
associate with a given piece of data in a cache. Thus, for example,
an originator might assign a particular 4 byte string to the binding
of an IP address with that of an ATM address. Generally speaking, the
originating server of a CSA record is responsible for generating a
Cache Key for every element of data that the given server originates
and which the server wishes to synchronize with its peers in the SG."
The statemente above is simply meant as an example. Hence, any
IPv4 possible dependency of this protocol is an implementation issue.
5.91 RFC 2342: IMAP4 Namespace (IMAP4NAME)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.92 RFC 2359: IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension
(IMAP4UIDPL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.93 RFC 2368: The mailto URL scheme (URLMAILTO)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.94 RFC 2369: The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for
Core Mail List Commands and their Transport
through Message Header Fields
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 41]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.95 RFC 2384: POP URL Scheme (POP-URL)
Section 3. (POP Scheme) states:
"A POP URL is of the general form:
pop://<user>;auth=<auth>@<host>:<port>
Where <user>, <host>, and <port> are as defined in RFC 1738, and
some or all of the elements, except "pop://" and <host>, may be
omitted."
RFC 1738 (please refer to section 5.31) has a potential IPv4
limitation.Hence, RFC2384 will only be IPv6 compliant when RFC
1738 becomes properly updated.
5.96 RFC 2387: The MIME Multipart/Related Content-
type (MIME-RELAT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.97 RFC 2388: Returning Values from Forms:
multipart/form-data
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.98 RFC 2389: Feature negotiation mechanism for the
File Transfer Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.99 RFC 2392: Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform
Resource Locators (CIDMID-URL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.100 RFC 2397: The "data" URL scheme (DATA-URL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 42]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.101 RFC 2421: Voice Profile for Internet Mail - version
2 (MIME-VP2)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.102 RFC 2422: Toll Quality Voice - 32 kbit/s ADPCM
MIME Sub-type Registration (MIME-ADPCM)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.103 RFC 2423 VPIM Voice Message MIME Sub-type
Registration (MIME-VPIM)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.104 RFC 2424: Content Duration MIME Header
Definition (CONT-DUR)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.105 RFC 2425: A MIME Content-Type for Directory
Information (TXT-DIR)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.106 RFC 2426: vCard MIME Directory Profile
(MIME-VCARD)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.107 RFC 2428: FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs
This RFC documents an IPv6 extension and hence, it is not
considered in the context of the current discussion.
5.108 RFC 2445: Internet Calendaring and
Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar)
(ICALENDAR)
Section 4.8.4.7 (Unique Identifier) states:
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 43]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
"Property Name: UID
Purpose: This property defines the persistent, globally unique
identifier for the calendar component.
Value Type: TEXT
Property Parameters: Non-standard property parameters can be
specified on this property.
Conformance: The property MUST be specified in the
"VEVENT", "VTODO", "VJOURNAL" or "VFREEBUSY"
calendar components.
Description: The UID itself MUST be a globally unique identifier.
The generator of the identifier MUST guarantee that the identifier is
unique. There are several algorithms that can be used to accomplish
this. The identifier is RECOMMENDED to be the identical syntax
to the [RFC 822] addr-spec. A good method to assure uniqueness
is to put the domain name or a domain literal IP address of the host
on which the identifier was created on the right hand side of the
"@", and on the left hand side, put a combination of the current
calendar date and time of day (i.e., formatted in as a DATE-TIME
value) along with some other currently unique (perhaps sequential)
identifier available on the system (for example, a process id number).
Using a date/time value on the left hand side and a domain name or
domain literal on the right hand side makes it possible to guarantee
uniqueness since no two hosts should be using the same domain
name or IP address at the same time. Though other algorithms will
work, it is RECOMMENDED that the right hand side contain some
domain identifier (either of the host itself or otherwise) such that
the generator of the message identifier can guarantee the uniqueness
of the left hand side within the scope of that domain."
Although the above does not explicitly state the use of IPv4
addresses, it addresses the explicit use of RFC 822, which is IPv4
dependent, as already described in section 3.4. To be IPv6 compliant
it should instead explicitly disallow the use of IPv4 addresses.
5.109 RFC 2446: iCalendar Transport-Independent
Interoperability Protocol (iTIP) Scheduling Events,
BusyTime, To-dos and Journal Entries (ITIP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 44]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.110 RFC 2447: iCalendar Message-Based
Interoperability Protocol (iMIP) (IMIP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.111 RFC 2449: POP3 Extension Mechanism (POP3-
EXT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.112 RFC 2476: Message Submission
This RFC contains several discussions on the usage of IP Address
authorization schemes, but it does not limit those addresses to IPv4.
5.113 RFC 2480: Gateways and MIME Security
Multiparts
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.114 RFC 2518: HTTP Extensions for Distributed
Authoring ¡ WEBDAV (WEBDAV)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.115 RFC 2530: Indicating Supported Media Features
Using Extensions to DSN and MDN
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.116 RFC 2532: Extended Facsimile Using Internet
Mail
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.117 RFC 2533: A Syntax for Describing Media Feature
Sets
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 45]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.118 RFC 2534: Media Features for Display, Print, and
Fax
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.119 RFC 2554: SMTP Service Extension for
Authentication
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.120 RFC 2557: MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate
Documents, such as HTML (MHTML) (MHTML)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.121 RFC 2589: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3): Extensions for Dynamic Directory Services
(LDAPv3)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.122 RFC 2595: Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and
ACAP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.123 RFC 2596 Use of Language Codes in LDAP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 46]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.124 RFC 2608: Service Location Protocol, Version 2
(SLP)
Section 8.1. (Service Request) contains the following:
"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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Service Location header (function = SrvRqst = 1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| length of <PRList> | <PRList> String \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| length of <service-type> | <service-type> String \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| length of <scope-list> | <scope-list> String \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| length of predicate string | Service Request <predicate> \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| length of <SLP SPI> string | <SLP SPI> String \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<PRList> is the Previous Responder List. This <string-list> contains
dotted decimal notation IP (v4) addresses, and is iteratively
multicast to obtain all possible results (see Section 6.3). UAs SHOULD
implement this discovery algorithm. SAs MUST use this to discover
all available DAs in their scope, if they are not already configured
with DA addresses by some other means."
And later:
"A SA silently drops all requests which include the SA's address in
the <PRList>. An SA which has multiple network interfaces MUST
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 47]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
check if any of the entries in the <PRList> equal any of its
interfaces. An entry in the PRList which does not conform to an
IPv4 dotted decimal address is ignored: The rest of the <PRList>
is processed normally and an error is not returned."
To become IPv6 compliant, this protocol requires a new version.
5.125 RFC 2609: Service Templates and Service:
Schemes
Section 2.1. (Service URL Syntax) defines:
"The ABNF for a service: URL is:
hostnumber = ipv4-number
ipv4-number = 1*3DIGIT 3("." 1*3DIGIT)"
This document presents many other references to hostnumber, which
requires an update to support IPv6.
5.126 RFC 2640: Internationalization of the File
Transfer Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.127 RFC 2645: ON-DEMAND MAIL RELAY
(ODMR) SMTP with Dynamic IP Addresses
(ODMR-SMTP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.128 RFC 2646: The Text/Plain Format Parameter
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.129 RFC 2651: The Architecture of the Common
Indexing Protocol (CIP) (CIP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.130 RFC 2652: MIME Object Definitions for the
Common Indexing Protocol (CIP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 48]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.131 RFC 2653: CIP Transport Protocols
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.132 RFC 2732: Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in
URL's
This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and hence, it is not
discussed in this document.
5.133 RFC 2738: Corrections to "A Syntax for
Describing Media Feature Sets"
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.134 RFC 2739: Calendar Attributes for vCard and
LDAP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.135 RFC 2806: URLs for Telephone Calls
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.136 RFC 2846: GSTN Address Element Extensions in
E-mail Services
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.137 RFC 2849: The LDAP Data Interchange Format
(LDIF) - Technical Specification (LDIF)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.138 RFC 2852: Deliver By SMTP Service Extension
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.139 RFC 2879: Content Feature Schema for Internet
Fax (V2)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 49]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.140 RFC 2891: LDAP Control Extension for Server
Side Sorting of Search Results
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.141 RFC 2910: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1:
Encoding and Transport (IPP-E-T)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.142 RFC 2911: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model
and Semantics (IPP-M-S)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.143 RFC 2912: Indicating Media Features for MIME
Content
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.144 RFC 2913: MIME Content Types in Media Feature
Expressions
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.145 RFC 2919: List-Id: A Structured Field and
Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.146 RFC 2938: Identifying Composite Media Features
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.147 RFC 2965: HTTP State Management Mechanism
This document includes several references to host IP addresses.
However, there is no explicit mention to a particular protocol
version. A caveat similar to "Without putting any limitations on
the version of the IP address." should be added, so that there will
remain no doubts about possible IPv4 dependencies.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 50]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
5.148 RFC 2971: IMAP4 ID extension
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.149 RFC 2987: Registration of Charset and Languages
Media Features Tags
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.150 RFC 3009: Registration of parityfec MIME types
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.151 RFC 3017: XML DTD for Roaming Access Phone
Book
Section 6.21. (DNS Server Address) states:
"The dnsServerAddress element represents the IP address of the
Domain Name Service (DNS) server which should be used when
connected to this POP. The address is represented in the form of a
string in dotted-decimal notation (e.g., 192.168.101.1).
Syntax:
<!¡ Domain Name Server IP address ¡>
<!ELEMENT dnsServerAddress (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST dnsServerAddress
value NOTATION (IPADR) #IMPLIED>"
Additionally, it is stated in Section 6.2.9. (Default Gateway
Address):
"The defaulttGatewayAddress element represents the address of the
default gateway which should be used when connected to this POP.
The address is represented in the form of a string in dotted-decimal
notation (e.g., 192.168.101.1).
Syntax:
<!¡ Default Gateway IP address (in dotted decimal notation) ¡>
<!ELEMENT defaultGatewayAddress (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST defaultGatewayAddress
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 51]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
value NOTATION (IPADR) #IMPLIED>"
It should be straightforward to implement elements that are IPv6
aware.
5.152 RFC 3023: XML Media Types
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.153 RFC 3028: Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.154 RFC 3030: SMTP Service Extensions for
Transmission of Large and Binary MIME Messages
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.155 RFC 3049: TN3270E Service Location and Session
Balancing
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.156 RFC 3059: Attribute List Extension for the Service
Location Protocol (SLPv2)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.157 RFC 3080: The Blocks Extensible Exchange
Protocol Core (BEEP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.158 RFC 3081: Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
5.159 RFC 3111: Service Location Protocol
Modifications for IPv6
This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this
document.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 52]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
6 Experimental RFCs
Experimental RFCs belong to the category of "non-standard"
specifications. This group involves specifications considered "off-
track", e.g., specifications that haven't yet reach an adequate
standardization level, or that have been superseded by more recent
specifications.
Experimental RFCs represent specifications that are currently part of
some research effort, and that 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 of an acknowledged problem.
6.1 RFC 909: Loader Debugger Protocol (LDP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.2 RFC 1143: The Q Method of Implementing TELNET
Option Negotiation
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.3 RFC 1153: Digest message format (DMF-MAIL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.4 RFC 1159: Message Send Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.5 RFC 1165: Network Time Protocol (NTP) over the
OSI Remote Operations Service (NTP-OSI)
The only dependency this protocol presents is included in Appendix
A (ROS Header Format):
"ClockIdentifier ::= CHOICE {
referenceClock[0] PrintableString,
inetaddr[1] OCTET STRING,
psapaddr[2] OCTET STRING
}"
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 53]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
6.6 RFC 1176: Interactive Mail Access Protocol: Version
2 (IMAP2)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.7 RFC 1204: Message Posting Protocol (MPP) (MPP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.8 RFC 1235: Coherent File Distribution Protocol
(CFDP)
Section "Protocol Specification" provides the following example,
for the Initial Handshake:
"The ticket server replies with a "This is Your Ticket" (TIYT) packet
containing the ticket. Figure 2 shows the format of this packet.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 'T' | 'I' | 'Y' | 'T' |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| "ticket" |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BLKSZ (by default 512) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FILSZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP address of CFDP server (network order) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| client UDP port# (cfdpcln) | server UDP port# (cfdpsrv) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 54]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
Fig. 2: "This Is Your Ticket" packet."
This protocol assumes IPv4 multicast, but could be converted to IPv6
multicast with a little effort.
6.9 RFC 1279: X.500 and Domains
This protocol specifies a protocol that assumes IPv4 but does not
actually have any limitations which would limit its operation in an
IPv6 environment.
6.10 RFC 1312: Message Send Protocol 2 (MSP2)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.11 RFC 1339: Remote Mail Checking Protocol (RMCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.12 RFC 1440: SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited
File Transfer (SIFT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.13 RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol (IRCP)
There are only two specific IPv4 addressing references. The first is
presented in Section 6.2. (Command Response):
"203 RPL_TRACEUNKNOWN
"???? <class> [<client IP address in dot form>]""
The second appears in Section 8.12 (Configuration File):
"In specifying hostnames, both domain names and use of the 'dot'
notation (127.0.0.1) should both be accepted."
After correcting the above, IPv6 support can be straightforward
added.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 55]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
6.14 RFC 1465: Routing Coordination for X.400 MHS
Services Within a Multi Protocol / Multi Network
Environment Table Format V3 for Static Routing
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.15 RFC 1505: Encoding Header Field for Internet
Messages (EHF-MAIL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.16 RFC 1528: Principles of Operation for the
TPC.INT Subdomain: Remote Printing ¡ Technical
Procedures (REM-PRINT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.17 RFC 1608: Representing IP Information in the
X.500 Directory (X500-DIR)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.18 RFC 1609: Charting Networks in the X.500
Directory (X500-CHART)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.19 RFC 1639: FTP Operation Over Big Address
Records (FOOBAR)
This document defines a method for overcoming FTP IPv4
limitations and is therefore both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
6.20 RFC 1641 Using Unicode with MIME (MIME-UNI)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.21 RFC 1756: Remote Write Protocol - Version 1.0
(RWP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 56]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
6.22 RFC 1801: MHS use of the X.500 Directory to
support MHS Routing
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.23 RFC 1804: Schema Publishing in X.500 Directory
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.24 RFC 1806: Communicating Presentation
Information in Internet Messages: The Content-
Disposition Header
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.25 RFC 1845: SMTP Service Extension for
Checkpoint/Restart
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.26 RFC 1846: SMTP 521 Reply Code
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.27 RFC 1873: Message/External-Body Content-ID
Access Type (CONT-MT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.28 RFC 1874: SGML Media Types (SGML-MT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.29 RFC 1986: Experiments with a Simple File Transfer
Protocol for Radio Links using Enhanced Trivial File
Transfer Protocol (ETFTP)
This protocol is IPv4 dependent, as can be seen from the segment
presented bellow, and taken from Section 2. (PROTOCOL
DESCRIPTION):
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 57]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
"Table 3: ETFTP Data Encapsulation
+------------+------------+------------+------------+---¡--------+
|Ethernet(14)| | |ETFTP/ | |
|SLIP(2) |IP(20) |UDP(8) |NETBLT(24) |DATA(1448) |
|AX.25(20) | | | | |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+---¡--------+
"
6.30 RFC 2016: Uniform Resource Agents (URAs)
(URAS)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.31 RFC 2066: TELNET CHARSET Option (TOPT-
CHARS)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.32 RFC 2075: IP Echo Host Service (IP-Echo)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.33 RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option (TFTP-MULTI)
This protocol is limited to IPv4 multicast. It is expected that a
similar functionality could be implemented on top of IPv6 multicast.
6.34 RFC 2120: Managing the X.500 Root Naming
Context (X.500-NAME)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.35 RFC 2161: A MIME Body Part for ODA (MIME-
ODA)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 58]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
6.36 RFC 2162: MaXIM-11 - Mapping between X.400 /
Internet mail and Mail-11 mail (MAP-MAIL)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.37 RFC 2168: Resolution of Uniform Resource
Identifiers using the Domain Name System
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.38 RFC 2169: A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in
URN Resolution
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.39 RFC 2217: Telnet Com Port Control Option (TOPT-
COMPO)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.40 RFC 2295: Transparent Content Negotiation in
HTTP (TCN-HTTP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.41 RFC 2296: HTTP Remote Variant Selection
Algorithm ¡ RVSA/1.0 (HTTP-RVSA)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.42 RFC 2307: An Approach for Using LDAP as a
Network Information Service (LDAP-NIS)
This protocol assumes IPv4 addressing in its schema, as shown in
Section 3. (Attribute definitions):
"( nisSchema.1.19 NAME 'ipHostNumber'
DESC 'IP address as a dotted decimal, eg. 192.168.1.1,
omitting leading zeros'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 59]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' )
( nisSchema.1.20 NAME 'ipNetworkNumber'
DESC 'IP network as a dotted decimal, eg. 192.168,
omitting leading zeros'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' SINGLE-VALUE )
( nisSchema.1.21 NAME 'ipNetmaskNumber'
DESC 'IP netmask as a dotted decimal, eg. 255.255.255.0,
omitting leading zeros'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
SYNTAX 'IA5String{128}' SINGLE-VALUE )"
The document does try to provide some IPv6 support as in Section
5.4. (Interpreting Hosts and Networks):
"Hosts with IPv6 addresses MUST be written in their "preferred"
form as defined in section 2.2.1 of [RFC1884], such that all
components of the address are indicated and leading zeros are
omitted. This provides a consistent means of resolving ipHosts by
address."
However, the defined format mentioned above has been replaced,
hence it is no longer valid.
6.43 RFC 2310: The Safe Response Header Field
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.44 RFC 2483: URI Resolution Services Necessary for
URN Resolution
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.45 RFC 2567: Design Goals for an Internet Printing
Protocol (IPP-DG)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 60]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
6.46 RFC 2568: Rationale for the Structure of the Model
and Protocol for the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP-
RAT)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.47 RFC 2569: Mapping between LPD and IPP
Protocols
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.48 RFC 2649: An LDAP Control and Schema for
Holding Operation Signatures
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.49 RFC 2654: A Tagged Index Object for use in the
Common Indexing Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.50 RFC 2655: CIP Index Object Format for SOIF
Objects
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.51 RFC 2656: Registration Procedures for SOIF
Template Types
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.52 RFC 2657: LDAPv2 Client vs. the Index Mesh
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.53 RFC 2756: Hyper Text Caching Protocol
(HTCP/0.0) (HTCP)
This protocol claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but in Section
2.8. (An HTCP/0.0 AUTH has the following structure), it does make
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 61]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
the following statement:
"SIGNATURE is a COUNTSTR [3.1] which holds the HMAC-MD5
digest (see
[RFC 2104]), with a B value of 64, of the following elements, each
of which is digested in its "on the wire" format, including
transmitted padding if any is covered by a field's associated LENGTH:
IP SRC ADDR [4 octets]
IP SRC PORT [2 octets]
IP DST ADDR [4 octets]
IP DST PORT [2 octets]
HTCP MAJOR version number [1 octet]
HTCP MINOR version number [1 octet]
SIG-TIME [4 octets]
SIG-EXPIRE [4 octets]
HTCP DATA [variable]
KEY-NAME (the whole COUNTSTR [3.1]) [variable]"
The given SIGNATURE calculation should be expanded to support
IPv6 16 byte addresses.
6.54 RFC 2774: An HTTP Extension Framework
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
6.55 RFC 2974: Session Announcement Protocol (SAP)
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
6.56 RFC 3018: Unified Memory Space Protocol
Specification
This protocol seems to support IPv6 but, however, the specification
has definitions for IPv4 addresses.
6.57 RFC 3082: Notification and Subscription for SLP
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, and thus, it requires no
changes.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 62]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
6.58 RFC 3088: OpenLDAP Root Service An
experimental LDAP referral service
Section 5. (Using the Service) states:
"The service supports LDAPv3 and LDAPv2+ [LDAPv2+] clients
over
TCP/IPv4. Future incarnations of this service may support TCP/IPv6
or other transport/internet protocols."
7 Summary of Results
From the initial survey of 262 RFCs, 17 were identified as having
some form of IPv4 dependency. Results are broken down as follows:
Standards: 4 of 24, or 16.67%
Draft Standards: 3 of 20, or 15.00%
Proposed Standards: 5 of 160, or 3.13%
Experimental RFCs: 5 of 58, or 8.62%
Of the 17 identified, several require no action, either because they
document outdated and unused protocols, or because they document
protocols that are still 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. The remaining instances are documented below.
The author has attempted to organize the results in a format
that allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The
following recommendations uses the documented terms "MUST",
"MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" described in RFC 2119. They should only be
interpreted in the context of RFC 2119 when they appear in all
caps. That is, the word "should" in the previous SHOULD NOT be
interpreted as in RFC 2119. The assignment of these terms has been
based entirely on the authors perceived needs for updates and should
not be taken as an official statement.
7.1 Full Standards
7.1.1 RFC 959: STD 9 File Transfer Protocol
Problems have already been fixed in [6].
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 63]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
7.1.2 RFC 821: STD 10 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
The use of literal IP addresses as part of email addresses,
i.e., phil@10.10.10.10, is depreciated and therefore additional
specifications for using literal IPv6 addresses SHOULD NOT be
defined.
7.1.3 RFC 822: STD 11 Standard for the format of ARPA
Internet Text Messages
See section 3.2.
7.1.4 RFC 1305: STD 12 Network Time Protocol
As documented in Section 3.19. above, there are too many
specific references to the use of 32-bit IPv4 addresses. An updated
specification to support NTP over IPv6 packets MUST be created.
7.2 Draft Standards
7.2.1 RFC 1305: Network Time Protocol (NTP)
See Section 7.1.4.
7.2.2 RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Syntax
URI's allow the literal use of IPv4 addresses but have no specific
recommendations on how to represent literal IPv6 addresses. This
problem has already been addressed in [4].
7.2.3 RFC 2616: HTTP
HTTP allows the literal use of IPv4 addresses, but has no specific
recommendations on how to represent literal IPv6 addresses. This
problem has already been addressed in [4].
7.3 Proposed Standards
7.3.1 RFC 946: Telnet Terminal LOC
There is a dependency in the definition of the TTYLOC Number
which would require an updated version of the protocol. However,
since this functionality is of marginal value today, a newer version
MAY be created.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 64]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
7.3.2 RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL)
URL's IPv4 dependencies have already been addressed in [4].
7.3.3 RFC 2384: POP3 URL Scheme
POP URL IPv4 dependencies have already been addressed in [4].
7.3.4 RFC 2608:SLP v2
The problems of this specification have already been addressed in
[5].
7.3.5 RFC 3017: XML DTP For Roaming Access Phone Books
Extensions SHOULD be defined to support IPv6 addresses.
7.4 Experimental RFCs
7.4.1 RFC 1235:The Coherent File Distribution Protocol
This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard SHOULD
NOT be produced.
7.4.2 RFC 1459: IRC Protocol
This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard SHOULD
be produced.
7.4.3 RFC 1986: Simple File Transfer Using Enhanced TFTP
This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard MAY be
produced.
7.4.4 RFC 2090: TFTP Multicast Option
This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol
standard MAY be produced.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 65]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
7.4.5 RFC 2307: Using LDAP as a NIS (RFC 2307)
This document tries to provide IPv6 support but it relies on an
outdated format for IPv6 addresses. A new specification MAY be
produced.
8 Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the support of the
Internet Society in the research and production of this document.
Additionally, the author would like to thanks his partner in all ways,
Wendy M. Nesser.
9 Security Considerations
This document provides an exhaustive documentation of current
IETF documented standards IPv4 address dependencies. Such
process does not have security implications in itself.
References
[1] P. Nesser II, "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Standards", Internet Draft (Work in
Progress), February 2003.
[2] Crawford, C. and C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to Support IPv6
Address Aggregation and Renumbering", RFC 2874, July 2000.
[3] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process - version 3", RFC
2026, October 1996.
[4] Hinden., R., Carpenter, B., L. Masinter, "Format For Literal
Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.
[5] E. Guttman, "Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6",
RFC 3111, May 2001.
[6] Allman, M., Ostermann, S., Metz C., "FTP Extensions for IPv6
and NATs", RFC 2428, September 1998.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 66]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
Authors' Addresses
Editor: Rute Sofia
FCCN
Av. Brasil, 101
1700 Lisboa
Portugal
Email: rsofia@fccn.pt
Phone: +351 91 2507273
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
Fax: +1 425 482 9721
This draft expires in August 2003.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 67]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
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 of the 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 implementors 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.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (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
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 68]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt February 2003
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.
Nesser II Expires August 2003 [Page 69]