Hierarchical IPv4 Framework
RFC 6306
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2018-12-20
|
14 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes a framework for how the current IPv4 address space can be divided into … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes a framework for how the current IPv4 address space can be divided into two new address categories: a core address space (Area Locators, ALOCs) that is globally unique, and an edge address space (Endpoint Locators, ELOCs) that is regionally unique. In the future, the ELOC space will only be significant in a private network or in a service provider domain. Therefore, a 32x32 bit addressing scheme and a hierarchical routing architecture are achieved. The hierarchical IPv4 framework is backwards compatible with the current IPv4 Internet. This document also discusses a method for decoupling the location and identifier functions -- future applications can make use of the separation. The framework requires extensions to the existing Domain Name System (DNS), the existing IPv4 stack of the endpoints, middleboxes, and routers in the Internet. The framework can be implemented incrementally for endpoints, DNS, middleboxes, and routers. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.') |
|
2015-10-14
|
14 | (System) | Notify list changed from pfrejborg@gmail.com, draft-frejborg-hipv4@ietf.org, tony.li@tony.li to tony.li@tony.li |
|
2012-08-22
|
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko |
|
2012-08-22
|
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
|
2011-11-28
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Setting stream while adding document to the tracker |
|
2011-11-28
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Stream changed to IRTF from ISE |
|
2011-07-11
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.<br>RFC 6306 |
|
2011-07-08
|
14 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2011-05-02
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
|
2011-04-26
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2011-04-26
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2011-04-26
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-04-26
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text changed |
|
2011-04-26
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
|
2011-04-26
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-04-26
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2011-04-26
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2011-04-26
|
14 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-04-26
|
14 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-04-22
|
14 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-04-20
|
14 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-04-19
|
14 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-04-19
|
14 | Amanda Baber | No IANA actions. |
|
2011-04-19
|
14 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-14.txt |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation. |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot discuss] Holding a DISCUSS for IANA: The document refers to having to DNS extension. IANA would like to know whether that indicates an IANA … [Ballot discuss] Holding a DISCUSS for IANA: The document refers to having to DNS extension. IANA would like to know whether that indicates an IANA action might be needed. |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Discuss from No Objection |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document as Experimental. I note that RFC 3032 is given as the eference for … |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] I support the publication of this document as an IRTF RFC. However, it has been our policy before that all submissions around the … [Ballot discuss] I support the publication of this document as an IRTF RFC. However, it has been our policy before that all submissions around the topic of routing and addressing scalability need to clearly document their downsides, even if they come from the independent or other streams. This is to set a level playing field for all submissions. In the case of this document, I wonder if Section 10 should better highlight a couple of additional issues: 1. That this model require a modification of a large number of end hosts 2. That as far as I can tell, the document does not describe an incremental deployment model that would explain what happens when one part of the Internet supports the new model but others do not There may also be other issues, e.g., I'm not an expert in geographical addressing but my understanding was that it has issues. Maybe those should be highlighted. Finally, I think the "carry IP addresses" issue from Section 10.3 is actually a more general referral problem. What about applications that store the client's IP address to contact/compare it later? Its not just an issue of protocols carrying addresses. |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, and I plan to change it into a No-Objection or an Abstain after the telechat. I would like to … [Ballot discuss] This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, and I plan to change it into a No-Objection or an Abstain after the telechat. I would like to make sure that we are all OK to approve this document as Experimental and that no IESG note is required. My question marks relate to the nature of the experiment and the transition plans that are discussed in the document in the conditions that IPv4 address depletion is a reality today. Another issue is that some of the text in Appendix C makes the case that a transition to hipv4 is to be preferred to the current IPv4 to IPv6 transition plans - are we OK with the 'green' and economical arguments brought up here? |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, and I plan to change it into a No-Objection or an Abstain after the telechat. I would like to … [Ballot discuss] This is a DISCUSS-DISCUSS, and I plan to change it into a No-Objection or an Abstain after the telechat. I would like to make sure that we are all OK to approve this document as Experimental and that no IESG note is required. My question marks relate to the nature of the experiment and the transition plans that discussed in the document in the conditions that IPv4 address depletion is a reality today. Another issue is that some of the text in Appendix makes the case that a transition to hipv4 is to be preferred to the current IPv4 to IPv6 transition plans - are we OK with the 'green' and economical arguments brought up here? |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I thought the IRTF process called for something about document status to be in the abstract as well? |
|
2011-04-14
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-04-13
|
14 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] As an IRTF submission, I'm only evaluating on the basis of conflict with IETF stuff. To that end, though it could be argued … [Ballot comment] As an IRTF submission, I'm only evaluating on the basis of conflict with IETF stuff. To that end, though it could be argued that using "hIPv4" as an abbreviation of the protocol name "could potentially disrupt the IETF work done in" HIP, I don't feel strongly enough to say that we should file an objection with the RFC Editor just because of that. This work is certainly related to work going on in LISP, but I don't think it's conflicting. |
|
2011-04-13
|
14 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-04-13
|
14 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-04-13
|
14 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-04-12
|
14 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot comment] The Security Considerations section appears to be a bit light, and I would suggest improving this section. I have no objections to publishing … [Ballot comment] The Security Considerations section appears to be a bit light, and I would suggest improving this section. I have no objections to publishing this, but here are some editorial nits: page 5, 3rd to last paragraph: should "three areas: area" be "three types of areas: stub area"? should note during first occurrence of "LSR" that this does *not* refer to an MPLS Label Switching Router, since this is overloading an already well-known acronym page 10 - "in Internet" -> "in the Internet" page 11 - how can the ALOC prefix (which is a prefix, not an address) be assigned as the locator for the LSRs or announced as an anycast *address* as it says on this page? The wording choices might be clarified here. page 12 - "since the destination address is the remote ALOC prefix" this text seems to have the same address/prefix confusion as above; should this really say "is within the remote ALOC prefix?" If the bare prefix itself is used as an address, doesn't this severely limit the number of ALOCs available? |
|
2011-04-12
|
14 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-04-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-04-12
|
14 | Ralph Droms | State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation. |
|
2011-04-12
|
14 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
|
2011-04-12
|
14 | Ralph Droms | Ballot has been issued |
|
2011-04-12
|
14 | Ralph Droms | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-04-12
|
14 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2011-04-12
|
14 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2011-04-12
|
14 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2011-04-12
|
14 | Ralph Droms | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested. |
|
2011-04-08
|
14 | Russ Housley | Responsible AD has been changed to Ralph Droms from Russ Housley |
|
2011-03-24
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Subject: Request for RFC5742 review of draft-frejborg-hipv4-13 From: Aaron Falk <falk@bbn.com> This is a request for the IESG to perform a RFC5742 review … Subject: Request for RFC5742 review of draft-frejborg-hipv4-13 From: Aaron Falk <falk@bbn.com> This is a request for the IESG to perform a RFC5742 review of draft-frejborg-hipv4-13 [1] to be published an an Experimental IRTF RFC. The document has been approved for publication by the IRSG. See [2] for details on prior reviews. Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>. --aaron IRTF Chair [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-frejborg-hipv4 [2] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/43 |
|
2011-03-24
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
|
2011-03-24
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-04-14 |
|
2011-03-24
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'IRSG submission. Tony Li (tony.li@tony.li) is the document shepherd.' added |
|
2011-03-13
|
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-13.txt |
|
2011-02-07
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-12.txt |
|
2011-02-06
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-11.txt |
|
2010-10-07
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-10.txt |
|
2010-09-16
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-09.txt |
|
2010-08-26
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-08.txt |
|
2010-07-02
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-07.txt |
|
2010-03-23
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-06.txt |
|
2010-02-12
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-05.txt |
|
2009-11-24
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-04.txt |
|
2009-10-20
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-03.txt |
|
2009-05-28
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-02.txt |
|
2009-03-05
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-01.txt |
|
2009-02-24
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-frejborg-hipv4-00.txt |