datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic
RFC 4223

Document type: RFC - Informational (October 2005)
Obsoletes RFC 1863
Document stream: IETF
Last updated: 2013-03-02
Other versions: plain text, pdf, html

IETF State: (None)
Consensus: Unknown
Document shepherd: No shepherd assigned

IESG State: RFC 4223 (Informational)
Responsible AD: Bill Fenner
Send notices to: No addresses provided

Network Working Group                                          P. Savola
Request for Comments: 4223                                     CSC/FUNET
Obsoletes: 1863                                             October 2005
Category: Informational

                Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This memo reclassifies RFC 1863, A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative
   to a full mesh routing, to Historic status.  This memo also obsoletes
   RFC 1863.

1.  Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic

   RFC 1863 [1] describes the use of route servers as an alternative to
   BGP/IDRP full mesh routing.

   In the context of this document, the term "RFC 1863 route server" is
   used to refer to a route server as specified in RFC 1863.  Other uses
   of the term "route server" are outside the scope of this document.

   Implementations of RFC 1863 route servers do not exist and are not
   used as an alternative to full mesh routing.  Therefore, RFC 1863 is
   reclassified to Historic status.

   Current techniques that serve as an alternative to full mesh routing
   include BGP Route Reflectors [2], BGP Confederedations [3], and the
   use of private AS numbers.  IDRP for IP has never been standardized
   by the IETF and can be considered obsolete.

   Other uses of (non-RFC1863) route servers, rather than as an
   alternative to full mesh routing as described by RFC 1863, are
   expected to continue to be used for multiple purposes, but are out of
   the scope of this memo.

Savola                       Informational                      [Page 1]
RFC 4223        Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic    October 2005

2.  Acknowledgements

   Jeffrey Haas, John Scudder, Paul Jakma, and Yakov Rekhter provided
   useful background information for the creation of this memo.  Scott
   Bradner, Jeffrey Haas, and Yakov Rekhter provided substantial
   feedback during the WG last call.

3.  Security Considerations

   Reclassifying RFC 1863 has no security considerations.

4.  References

4.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh
        routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.

4.2.  Informative References

   [2]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An
        Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000.

   [3]  Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System
        Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001.

Author's Address

   Pekka Savola
   CSC/FUNET
   Espoo
   Finland

   EMail: psavola@funet.fi

Savola                       Informational                      [Page 2]
RFC 4223        Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic    October 2005

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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 IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 on-line IPR repository at

[include full document text]