Network Working Group C. Olvera (Editor) draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Consulintel Internet Draft P. J. Nesser II Nesser & Nesser Consulting June 2003 Expires December 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed athttp://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This investigation work seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. In order to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6 Internet, many interim steps will be taken. One of these steps is the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies. It is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6. To this end, all Standards (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be surveyed and any dependencies will be documented. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 1]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................3 2. Document Organization..........................................3 3. Full Standards.................................................3 4. Draft Standards................................................5 5. Proposed Standards.............................................5 6. Experimental RFCs.............................................12 7. Summary of Results............................................16 8. Security Considerations.......................................19 9. Acknowledgements..............................................19 10. References...................................................19 11. Authors' Addresses...........................................20 Copyright........................................................20 Intellectual Property............................................21 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 2]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 1. Introduction This work aims to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently deployed IETF Routing Area documented standards. Also, throughout this document there are discussions on how routing protocols might be updated to support IPv6 addresses. This material was originally presented within a single document, but has subsequently been split into 7 documents conforming to the current IETF main areas (Application, Internet, Operations & Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). The general overview, methodology and scope of the investigation for the whole 7 documents can be found in the introduction of this set of documents [1]. 2. Document Organization The main Sections of this document are described below. Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with RFC 3247. The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed. Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6. It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated. 3. Full Standards Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely implemented and used throughout the Internet. 3.1 RFC 904 Exterior Gateway Protocol This RFC has been depreciated to Historic status and is not considered. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 3]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 3.2 RFC 1009 Gateway Requirements It is pointless to attempt to try and quantify the IPv4 references in this document. The document specifies operations of IPv4 routers/gateways. Hence, it makes numerous references that are IPv4 specific. Like RFC 1122, it is necessary to rewrite this document and create a "IPv6 Gateway Requirements" standard. 3.3 RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol This RFC has been reclassified as historic and replace by STD 56. See Section 3.6 for its further discussion. 3.4 Interface Message Processor: Specifications for the Interconnection of a Host and an IMP This standard STD 39 has been reclassified as historic and is not considered in this discussion. 3.5 RFC 2328 OSPF Version 2 This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing. It is highly assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in nature. A new version of OSPF must be created to support IPv6. 3.6 RFC 2453 RIP Version 2 RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2080. 3.7 RFC 1722 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2081. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 4]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 4. Draft Standards Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF. A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple, independent, interoperable implementations. Draft Standards are usually quite mature and widely used. 4.1 RFC 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing information and does not support IPv6. A new EGP must be defined for the exchange of IPv6 routing information. 4.2 RFC 1772 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet (BGP-4-APP) This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP4 on the Internet. Since BGP4 is limited to IPv4 addresses, it is expected that a similar document will be created to be paired with the definition of the next generation BGP. 5. Proposed Standards Proposed Standards are introductory level documents. There are no requirements for even a single implementation. In many cases Proposed are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards process. They therefore are often just proposed ideas that are presented to the Internet community. Sometimes flaws are exposed or they are one of many competing solutions to problems. In these later cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose of this discussion. 5.1 RFC 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments (IS-IS) This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing information. It is incompatible with IPv6. There are substantial work being done on a newer version of IS-IS that should include IPv6 routing. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 5]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 5.2 RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4. It is expected that a similar document be assigned for when a version of OSPF that supports IPv6 is established. 5.3 RFC 1397 Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of The Border Gateway Protocol BGP2 and BGP3 are both depreciated and therefore are not discussed in this document. 5.4 RFC 1403 BGP OSPF Interaction (BGP-OSPF) This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols and how they exchange IPv4 information. A similar document should be produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6. 5.5 RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing (IDPR-ARCH) The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies. 5.6 RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version 1 (IDPR) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 5.7 RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) (CIDR) This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 5.8 RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR (CIDR- ARCH) This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 5.9 RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy (CIDR-STRA) draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 6]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 5.10 RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits (RIP-DC) This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4 routing information. In Section 3 of RFC 1582, IP Routing Information Protocol Version 1 shows: Followed by up to 25 routing entries (each 20 octets) 0 1 2 3 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | address family identifier (2) | must be zero (2) | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | IP address (4) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | must be zero (4) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | must be zero (4) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | metric (4) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ . . The format of an IP RIP datagram in octets, with each tick mark representing one bit. All fields are in network order. The four octets: sequence number (2), fragment number (1) and number of fragments (1) are not present in the original RIP specification. They are only present if command takes the values 7 or 8. Figure 2. IP Routing Information Protocol packet format The Section referencing RIPv2 refers back to the above text. 5.11 RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF (OSPF-Multi) This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 routing protocol. A similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 7]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 5.12 RFC 1587 The OSPF NSSA Option (OSPF-NSSA) This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol and it is assumed that any updated version of OSPF to support IPv6 will contain an appropriate update for this option. 5.13 RFC 1745 BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction (BGP4/IDRP) This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols and how they exchange IPv4 information. A similar document should be produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6. 5.14 RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits (OSPF-DC) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. 5.15 RFC 1812 Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers This document is only intended to describe requirements for IPv4 implementations in router. A similar document should be produced for IPv6. 5.16 RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute (BGP-COMM) Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this enhancement. 5.17 RFC 2080 RIPng for IPv6 (RIPNG-IPV6) This RFC documents a protocol for exchanging IPv6 routing information and is not discussed in this document. 5.18 RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits (RIP-TRIG) draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 8]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards This RFC defines an enhancement for an IPv4 routing protocol and while it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherintely limited to IPv4. It is expected that a similar mechanism will be implemented in RIPng. 5.19 RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) This protocol is IPv4 specific. See the following from RFC 2338: 5.1 VRRP Packet Format. This Section defines the format of the VRRP packet and the relevant fields in the IP header. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Version| Type | Virtual Rtr ID| Priority | Count IP Addrs| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Auth Type | Adver Int | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP Address (1) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | . | | . | | . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP Address (n) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Authentication Data (1) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Authentication Data (2) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 5.2 IP Field Descriptions 5.2.1 Source Address The primary IP address of the interface the packet is being sent from. 5.2.2 Destination Address The IP multicast address as assigned by the IANA for VRRP is: 224.0.0.18 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 9]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards This is a link local scope multicast address. Routers MUST NOT forward a datagram with this destination address regardless of its TTL. There are numerous other references to 32-bit IP addresses. There does not seem to be any reason that a new version of this protocol could be straightforwardly be developed for IPv6. 5.20 RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option (OSPF-LSA) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. 5.21 RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this enhancement. 5.22 RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter- Domain Routing This RFC documents IPv6 routing methods and is not discussed in this document. 5.23 RFC 2740 OSPF for IPv6 This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and is not discussed in this document. 5.24 RFC 2784 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) This protocol is only defined for IPv4. The document states in the Appendix: o IPv6 as Delivery and/or Payload Protocol draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 10]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards This specification describes the intersection of GRE currently deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery and/or payload protocol is not included. Therefore, a new version must be defined for IPv6. 5.25 RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh (IBGP) Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this enhancement. Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in and IPv6 aware BGP. 5.26 RFC 2842 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this enhancement. Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in and IPv6 aware BGP. 5.27 RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 (MEXT-BGP4) In the Abstract: Currently BGP-4 [BGP-4] is capable of carrying routing information only for IPv4 [IPv4]. This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate with a router that doesnÆt support the extensions. The document is therefore no examined further in this document. 5.28 RFC 2890 Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 11]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 5.29 RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6 The RFC defines an IPv6 only document and is not concerned in this document. 5.30 RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 5.31 RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP (BGP-ASC) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 5.32 RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 (SDP) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 5.33 RFC 3122 Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse Discovery Specification This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this document. 6. Experimental RFCs Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem. 6.1 RFC 1075 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (IP-DVMRP) This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. A similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6 multicast routing (or the functionality must be included in other "standard" IPv6 routing protocols.) draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 12]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 6.2 RFC 1383 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (DNS-IP) This proposal is IPv4 limited: This record is designed for easy general purpose extensions in the DNS, and its content is a text string. The RX record will contain three fields: - A record identifier composed of the two characters "RX". This is used to disambiguate from other experimental uses of the "TXT" record. - A cost indicator, encoded on up to 3 numerical digits. The corresponding positive integer value should be less that 256, in order to preserve future evolutions. - An IP address, encoded as a text string following the "dot" notation. The three strings will be separated by a single comma. An example of record would thus be: ___________________________________________________________________ | domain | type | record | value | | - | | | | |*.27.32.192.in-addr.arpa | IP | TXT | RX, 10, 10.0.0.7| |_________________________|________|__________|___________________| which means that for all hosts whose IP address starts by the three octets "192.32.27" the IP host "10.0.0.7" can be used as a gateway, and that the preference value is 10. 6.3 RFC 1476 RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol (RAP) This document defines an IPv7 routing protocol and has been abandoned by the IETF as a feasible design. It is not considered in this document. 6.4 RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow (OSPF-OVFL) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact that it is a new functionality for a routing protocol that only supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 13]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 6.5 RFC 1863 A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing (BGP-IDRP) This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 6.6 RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP (BGP- RR) Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this enhancement. Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in and IPv6 aware BGP. 6.7 RFC 2189 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing The document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast. It is expected that it could easily be updated to support IPv6 multicasting. From Section 7.3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBT Control Packet Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | group address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | target router | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | originating router | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | option type | option len | option value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format JOIN_REQUEST Field Definitions draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 14]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards o group address: multicast group address of the group being joined. For a "wildcard" join (see [5]), this field contains the value of INADDR_ANY. o target router: target (core) router for the group. o originating router: router that originated this JOIN_REQUEST. There are many other packet formats defined in the document that show this limitation as well. 6.8 RFC 2201 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture See previous Section for the IPv4 limitation in this protocol. 6.9 RFC 2337 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse Mode PIM This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism must be defined for IPv6 multicasting. 6.10 RFC 2362 Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 6.11 RFC 2676 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions There are IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. It requires the use of the IPv4 TOS header field. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 15]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 7. Summary of Results In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a total of 53, broken down as follows: Standards 2 of 7 or 28.57% Draft Standards 1 of 2 or 50.00% Proposed Standards 17 of 33 or 51.52% Experimental RFCs 5 of 11 or 45.45% Of those identified many require no action because they document outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups. Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not updated. The remaining instances are documented below. The authors have attempted to organize the results in a format that allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The assignment of statements has been based entirely on the authors perceived needs for updates and should not be taken as an official statement. 7.1 Standards 7.1.1 STD 54 OSPF (RFC 2328) This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.1.2 STD 56 RIPv2 (RFC 2453) This problem has been fixed by RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 7.2 Draft Standards 7.2.1 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (RFC 1771) This problem has been fixed in RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 16]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3.1 IS-IS (RFC 1195) This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG and a ID is currently available (draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-02.txt) 7.3.2 Applicability Statement for OSPFv2 (RFC 1370) This problem has been resolved in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.3 Applicability of CIDR (RFC 1517) The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374. 7.3.4 CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518) The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374. 7.3.5 RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582) This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 7.3.6 OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584) This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.7 OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 1587) This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.8 BGP4/IDRP OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745) The problems are addressed in the combination of RFC2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 and RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.9 OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793) This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.10 IPv4 Router Requirements (RFC 1812) This document should be updated to include IPv6 Routing Requirements. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 17]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 7.3.11 RIP Triggered Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 2091) This functionality is provided in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 7.3.12 VRRP (RFC 2338) The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG and there is an ID (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-02.txt). 7.3.13 OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370) This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.14 BGP Route Flap Dampening (RFC 2439) These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. 7.3.15 GRE (RFC 2784) The problems have not been addressed and a new protocol should be defined. 7.3.16 BGP Route Reflector (RFC 2796) These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. 7.3.17 Capabilities Advertisement in BGP4 (RFC 2842) These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. 7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.4.1 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (RFC 1075) This protocol is a routing protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. It is no longer in use and should not be redefined. 7.4.2 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (RFC 1383) This protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR and a new protocol standard should not be produced. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 18]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 7.4.3 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing (RFC 2189) This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol standard may be produced. 7.4.4 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676) An update to this document can be simply define the use of the IPv6 Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the IPv4 TOS field. 7.4.5 Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse Mode PIM (RFC 2337) This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast and a new mechanism must be defined for IPv6 multicast. 8. Security Considerations This document examines the IPv6-readiness of routing specification; this does not have security considerations in itself. 9. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society in the research and production of this document. The support of IETF IPv6 Operations (v6ops) WG is appreciate also. Philip J. Nesser II would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser. Cesar Olvera would like to thanks to Jordi Palet (Consulintel) his support and review of this document. 10. References Normative References [1] Nesser II, P. J., "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey- intro-01.txt, IETF Internet Draft, June 2003. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 19]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards 11. Authors' Addresses Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or suggestions at: Cesar Olvera Morales Researcher Consulintel San Jose Artesano, 1 Alcobendas 28108 Madrid, Spain Email: cesar.olvera@consulintel.es Phone: +34 91 151 81 99 Fax: +34 91 151 81 98 Philip J. Nesser II Principal Nesser & Nesser Consulting 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 Kirkland, WA 98034 Email: phil@nesser.com Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Copyright The following Full Copyright Statement from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, describes the applicable copyright for this document. Copyright (C) The Internet Society June, 2003. All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 20]
Internet Draft June 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The following notice from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, describes the position of the IETF concerning intellectual property claims made against this document. The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use other technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETFÆs procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt Expires December 2003 [Page 21]
