|
Network Working Group Request for Comments: 3791 Category: Informational |
C. Olvera Consulintel P. Nesser, II Nesser & Nesser Consulting June 2004 |
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 © The Internet Society (2004).
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.
1. Introduction
2. Document Organization
3. Full Standards
4. Draft Standards
5. Proposed Standards
6. Experimental RFCs
7. Summary of Results
8. Security Considerations
9. Acknowledgements
10. References
10.1. Normative References
10.2. Informative References
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 in an effort to have the information in a manageable form, it has subsequently been split into 7 documents conforming to the current IETF main areas (Application [2], Internet [3], Operations & Management [4], Routing [this document], Security [5], Sub-IP [6] and Transport [7]).
The general overview, methodology used during documentation and scope of the investigation for the whole 7 documents can be found in the introduction of this set of documents [1].
It is important to mention that to perform this study the following classes of IETF standards are investigated: Full, Draft, and Proposed, as well as Experimental. Informational, BCP and Historic RFCs are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by either newer versions or as they have transitioned through the standards process are also not covered.
The main Sections of this document are described below.
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft, Proposed Standards and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending (around) RFC 3100. 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.
Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely implemented and used throughout the Internet.
RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks.
This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing. It is highly assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in nature.
RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks.
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.
This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing information and does not support IPv6 as is defined.
This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP-4 on the Internet.
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only.
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.
This document specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing information.
This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4.
BGP2 and BGP3 are both deprecated and therefore are not discussed in this document.
The architecture described in this document has no IPv4 dependencies.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue.
This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4 routing information.
This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 only routing protocol.
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.
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only.
This RFC documents a protocol for exchanging IPv6 routing information and is not discussed in this document.
This RFC defines an enhancement for an IPv4 routing protocol and while it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherently limited to IPv4.
This protocol is IPv4 specific, there are numerous references to 32- bit IP addresses.
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.
The protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, even though the base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.
This RFC documents IPv6 routing methods and is not discussed in this document.
This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and is not discussed in this document.
This protocol is only defined for IPv4. The document states in the Appendix:
This specification describes the intersection of GRE currently deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery and/or payload protocol is not included.
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This specification updates but does not obsolete RFC 1966.
In the Abstract:
Currently BGP-4 is capable of carrying routing information only for 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 doesn't support the extensions.
The document is therefore not examined further in this document.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
The RFC defines an IPv6 only document and is not concerned in this survey.
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol.
This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol.
This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this document.
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have wide
scale 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.
This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing.
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, A cost indicator, and An IP address.
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.
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.
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.
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, the base protocol, BGP-4, is IPv4 only routing protocol. This specification has been updated by RFC 2796.
The document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast. There are many packet formats defined that show IPv4 usage.
See previous Section for the IPv4 limitation in this protocol.
This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast.
This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
There are IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. It requires the use of the IPv4 TOS header field.
In the initial survey of RFCs, 23 positives were identified out of a total of 46, broken down as follows:
Standards: 3 out of 3 or 100.00%
Draft Standards: 1 out of 3 or 33.33%
Proposed Standards: 13 out of 29 or 44.83%
Experimental RFCs: 6 out of 11 or 54.54%
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.
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2081, RIPng Protocol Applicability Statement.
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.
This problem has been fixed in RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4, RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing, and in [8].
RFC 2858 extends BGP to support multi-protocol extensions that allows routing information for other address families to be exchanged. RFC 2545 further extends RFC 2858 for full support of exchanging IPv6 routing information and additionally clarifies support of the extended BGP-4 protocol using TCP+IPv6 as a transport mechanism. RFC 1771, 2858 & 2545 must be supported in order to provide full IPv6 support.
Note also that all the BGP extensions analyzed previously in this memo function without changes with the updated version of BGP-4.
This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG [9].
This problem has been resolved in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587.
The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587.
The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 addressing architecture RFCs, see RFC 3513 & 3587.
This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.
This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
This functionality is provided in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6.
The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG [10].
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. Opaque options support is an inbuilt functionality in OSPFv3.
Even though GRE tunneling over IPv6 has been implemented and used, its use has not been formally specified. Clarifications are required.
This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6.
This protocol is a routing protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. It is no longer in use and need not be redefined.
This protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR, but is no longer relevant has never seen much use; no action is necessary.
This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol standard may be produced. However, the multicast routing protocol has never been in much use and is no longer relevant; no action is necessary.
See previous Section for the limitation in this protocol.
This protocol is designed for IPv4 multicast. However, Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM is not believed to be relevant anymore. A new mechanism may be defined for IPv6 multicast.
QoS extensions for OSPF were never used for OSPFv2, and there seems to be little need for them in OSPFv3.
However, if necessary, an update to this document could simply define the use of the IPv6 Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the IPv4 TOS field.
This document examines the IPv6-readiness of routing specification; this does not have security considerations in itself.
The original author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society in the research and production of this document.
He also would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.
Cesar Olvera would like to thanks Pekka Savola for an extended guidance and comments for the edition of this document, and Jordi Palet for his support and reviews.
Additionally, he would further like to thank Andreas Bergstrom, Brian Carpenter, Jeff Haas, Vishwas Manral, Gabriela Medina, Venkata Naidu, Jeff Parker and Curtis Villamizar for valuable feedback.
[1] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
RFC 3789, June 2004.
[2] Sofia, R. and P. Nesser, II, "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards", RFC 3795,
June 2004.
[3] Mickles, C. and P. Nesser, II, "Internet Area: Survey of IPv4
Addresses Currently Deployed IETF Standards", RFC 3790, June
2004.
[4] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, "Survey of IPv4 addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area
Standards", RFC 3796, June 2004.
[5] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards", RFC 3792,
June 2004.
[6] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards", RFC 3793, June
2004.
[7] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards", RFC 3794,
June 2004.
[8] Chen, E. and J. Yuan, "AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-
4", Work in Progress, December 2003.
[9] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", Work in Progress, January
2003.
[10] Hinden, R., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol for IPv6", Work in Progress, February 2004.
Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or suggestions at:
Cesar Olvera Morales
Researcher
Consulintel
San Jose Artesano, 1
28108 - Alcobendas
Madrid, Spain
Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
Fax: +34 91 151 81 98 EMail: cesar.olvera@consulintel.es
Philip J. Nesser II
Principal
Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone: +1 425 481 4303
EMail: phil@nesser.com
Copyright © The Internet Society (2004). 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.
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 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.