Network Working Group C. Mickles, Ed. Request for Comments: 3790 Category: Informational P. Nesser, II Nesser & Nesser Consulting June 2004
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Internet Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents
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 (2004).
Abstract
This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently deployed IETF Internet 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.
This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in IETF standards. In an effort to have the information in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents conforming to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Management & Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
This specific document focuses on usage of IPv4 addresses within the Internet area.
For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1] document.
The following 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 turn starting with RFC 1 and ending in (about) 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 any of the issues raised 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.
In Section 3.6, "Resource Records", the definition of A record is:
RDATA which is the type and sometimes class dependent data which describes the resource:
A For the IN class, a 32 bit IP address
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 10]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
And Section 5.2.1, "Typical functions" defines:
1. Host name to host address translation.
This function is often defined to mimic a previous HOSTS.TXT based function. Given a character string, the caller wants one or more 32 bit IP addresses. Under the DNS, it translates into a request for type A RRs. Since the DNS does not preserve the order of RRs, this function may choose to sort the returned addresses or select the "best" address if the service returns only one choice to the client. Note that a multiple address return is recommended, but a single address may be the only way to emulate prior HOSTS.TXT services.
2. Host address to host name translation
This function will often follow the form of previous functions. Given a 32 bit IP address, the caller wants a character string. The octets of the IP address are reversed, used as name components, and suffixed with "IN-ADDR.ARPA". A type PTR query is used to get the RR with the primary name of the host. For example, a request for the host name corresponding to IP address 1.2.3.4 looks for PTR RRs for domain name "4.3.2.1.IN-ADDR.ARPA".
There are, of course, numerous examples of IPv4 addresses scattered throughout the document.
3.12.RFC 1035 Domain Names: Implementation and Specification
Section 3.4.1, "A RDATA format", defines the format for A records:
Hosts that have multiple Internet addresses will have multiple A records.
A records cause no additional section processing. The RDATA section of an A line in a master file is an Internet address expressed as four decimal numbers separated by dots without any embedded spaces (e.g.,"10.2.0.52" or "192.0.5.6").
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 11]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
<BIT MAP> A variable length bit map. The bit map must be a multiple of 8 bits long.
The WKS record is used to describe the well known services supported by a particular protocol on a particular internet address. The PROTOCOL field specifies an IP protocol number, and the bit map has one bit per port of the specified protocol. The first bit corresponds to port 0, the second to port 1, etc. If the bit map does not include a bit for a protocol of interest, that bit is assumed zero. The appropriate values and mnemonics for ports and protocols are specified in RFC1010.
For example, if PROTOCOL=TCP (6), the 26th bit corresponds to TCP port 25 (SMTP). If this bit is set, a SMTP server should be listening on TCP port 25; if zero, SMTP service is not supported on the specified address.
The purpose of WKS RRs is to provide availability information for servers for TCP and UDP. If a server supports both TCP and UDP, or has multiple Internet addresses, then multiple WKS RRs are used.
WKS RRs cause no additional section processing.
Section 3.5, "IN-ADDR.ARPA domain", describes reverse DNS lookups and is clearly IPv4 dependent.
There are, of course, numerous examples of IPv4 addresses scattered throughout the document.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 12]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
3.13.RFC 1042 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over IEEE 802 networks
This specification specifically deals with the transmission of IPv4 packets over IEEE 802 networks.
3.14.RFC 1044 Internet Protocol on Network System's HYPERchannel: Protocol Specification
There are a variety of methods used in this standard to map IPv4 addresses to 32 bits fields in the HYPERchannel headers. This specification does not support IPv6.
3.15.RFC 1055 Nonstandard for transmission of IP datagrams over serial lines: SLIP
This specification is more of an analysis of the shortcomings of SLIP which is unsurprising. The introduction of PPP as a general replacement of SLIP has made this specification essentially unused. No update need be considered.
3.16.RFC 1088 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over NetBIOS networks
This specification documents a technique to encapsulate IP packets inside NetBIOS packets.
The technique presented of using NetBIOS names of the form IP.XX.XX.XX.XX will not work for IPv6 addresses since the length of IPv6 addresses will not fit within the NetBIOS 15 octet name limitation.
This specification defines IP multicast. Parts of the document are IPv4 dependent.
3.18.RFC 1132 Standard for the transmission of 802.2 packets over IPX networks
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
3.19.RFC 1201 Transmitting IP traffic over ARCNET networks
The major concerns of this specification with respect to IPv4 addresses occur in the resolution of ARCnet 8bit addresses to IPv4 addresses in an "ARPlike" method. This is incompatible with IPv6.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 13]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
3.20.RFC 1209 The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service
This specification defines running IPv4 and ARP over SMDS. The methods described could easily be extended to support IPv6 packets.
3.21.RFC 1390 Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks
This specification defines the use of IPv4 address on FDDI networks. There are numerous IPv4 dependencies in the specification.
In particular the value of the Protocol Type Code (2048 for IPv4) and a corresponding Protocol Address length (4 bytes for IPv4) needs to be created. A discussion of broadcast and multicast addressing techniques is also included, and similarly must be updated for IPv6 networks. The defined MTU limitation of 4096 octets of data (with 256 octets reserved header space) should remain sufficient for IPv6.
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.
All numbers shown are decimal, unless indicated otherwise. The BOOTP packet is enclosed in a standard IP UDP datagram. For simplicity it is assumed that the BOOTP packet is never fragmented. Any numeric fields shown are packed in 'standard network byte order', i.e., high order bits are sent first.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 14]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
In the IP header of a bootrequest, the client fills in its own IP source address if known, otherwise zero. When the server address is unknown, the IP destination address will be the 'broadcast address' 255.255.255.255. This address means 'broadcast on the local cable, (I don't know my net number)'.
FIELD BYTES DESCRIPTION ----- ----- ---
[...] ciaddr 4 client IP address; filled in by client in bootrequest if known.
yiaddr 4 'your' (client) IP address; filled by server if client doesn't know its own address (ciaddr was 0).
siaddr 4 server IP address; returned in bootreply by server.
giaddr 4 gateway IP address, used in optional cross-gateway booting.
Since the packet format is a fixed 300 bytes in length, an updated version of the specification could easily accommodate an additional 48 bytes (4 IPv6 fields of 16 bytes to replace the existing 4 IPv4 fields of 4 bytes).
4.2.RFC 1188 Proposed Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over FDDI Networks
This document is clearly informally superseded by RFC 1390, "Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks", even though no formal deprecation has been done. Therefore, this specification is not considered further in this memo.
The entire process of PMTU discovery is predicated on the use of the DF bit in the IPv4 header, an ICMP message (also IPv4 dependent) and TCP MSS option. This is not compatible with IPv6.
4.4.RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN
Section 5.1.3, "Endpoint Discriminator Option", defines a Class header field:
Class The Class field is one octet and indicates the identifier address space. The most up-to-date values of the LCP Endpoint Discriminator Class field are specified in the most recent "Assigned Numbers" RFC. Current values are assigned as follows:
This value was selected because it allows the IP packet to fit in one 64K byte buffer with up to 256 bytes of overhead. The overhead is 40 bytes at the present time; there are 216 bytes of room for expansion.
HIPPI-FP Header 8 bytes HIPPI-LE Header 24 bytes IEEE 802.2 LLC/SNAP Headers 8 bytes Maximum IP packet size (MTU) 65280 bytes ------------ Total 65320 bytes (64K - 216)
This definition is not applicable for IPv6 packets since packets can be larger than the IPv4 limitation of 65280 bytes.
This document defines an IPv6 related specification and has no IPv4 issues.
4.19.RFC 2463 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
This document defines an IPv6 related specification and has no IPv4 issues.
4.20.RFC 3596 DNS Extensions to support IP version 6
This specification defines the AAAA record for IPv6 as well as PTR records using the ip6.arpa domain, and as such has no IPv6 issues.
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 1234 Tunneling IPX traffic through IP networks
The section "Unicast Address Mappings" has the following text:
For implementations of this memo, the first two octets of the host number will always be zero and the last four octets will be the node's four octet IP address. This makes address mapping trivial for unicast transmissions: the first two octets of the host number are discarded, leaving the normal four octet IP address. The encapsulation code should use this IP address as the destination address of the UDP/IP tunnel packet.
This mapping will not be able to work with IPv6 addresses.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 18]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
There are also numerous discussions on systems keeping a "peer list" to map between IP and IPX addresses. The specifics are not discussed in the document and are left to the individual implementation.
The section "Maximum Transmission Unit" also has some implications on IP addressing:
Although larger IPX packets are possible, the standard maximum transmission unit for IPX is 576 octets. Consequently, 576 octets is the recommended default maximum transmission unit for IPX packets being sent with this encapsulation technique. With the eight octet UDP header and the 20 octet IP header, the resulting IP packets will be 604 octets long. Note that this is larger than the 576 octet maximum size IP implementations are required to accept. Any IP implementation supporting this encapsulation technique must be capable of receiving 604 octet IP packets.
As improvements in protocols and hardware allow for larger, unfragmented IP transmission units, the 576 octet maximum IPX packet size may become a liability. For this reason, it is recommended that the IPX maximum transmission unit size be configurable in implementations of this memo.
This specification defines a mechanism very specific to IPv4.
5.3.RFC 1277 Encoding Network Addresses to Support Operation over Non-OSI Lower Layers
Section 4.5, "TCP/IP (RFC 1006) Network Specific Format" describes a structure that reserves 12 digits for the textual representation of an IP address.
This 12 octet field for decimal versions of IP addresses is insufficient for a decimal version of IPv6 addresses. It is possible to define a new encoding using the 20 digit long IP Address + Port + Transport Set fields in order to accommodate a binary version of an IPv6 address, port number and Transport Set. There are several schemes that could be envisioned.
5.4.RFC 1332 The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)
This specification defines a mechanism for devices to assign IPv4 addresses to PPP clients once PPP negotiation is completed. Section 3, "IPCP Configuration Options", defines IPCP option types which embed the IP address in 4-byte long fields. This is clearly not enough for IPv6.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 19]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
However, the specification is clearly designed to allow new Option Types to be added and Should offer no problems for use with IPv6 once appropriate options have been defined.
5.5.RFC 1377 The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.6.RFC 1378 The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.7.RFC 1469 IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks
This document defines the usage of IPv4 multicast over IEEE 802.5 Token Ring networks. This is not compatible with IPv6.
5.8.RFC 1552 The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol (IPXCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Although the examples used in this document use IPv4 addresses, (i.e., A records) there is nothing in the specification to preclude full and proper functionality using IPv6.
5.21.RFC 1996 A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
This document is designed for use in IPv4 networks. There are many references to a specified IP version number of 4 and 32-bit addresses. This is incompatible with IPv6.
This document is designed for use in IPv4 networks. There are many references to a specified IP version number of 4 and 32-bit addresses. This is incompatible with IPv6.
5.24.RFC 2005 Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support
This specification documents the interoperation of IPv4 Mobility Support; this is not relevant to this discussion.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 21]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.25.RFC 2022 Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks
This specification specifically maps IPv4 multicast in UNI based ATM networks. This is incompatible with IPv6.
This document provides a new mechanism for IPv4. This is incompatible with IPv6.
5.29.RFC 2125 The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Protocol (BAP) / The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Control Protocol (BACP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.30.RFC 2136 Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.31.RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. The only reference to IP addresses discuss the use of an anycast address, so but one can assume that these techniques are IPv6 operable.
From the many references in this document, it is clear that this document is designed for IPv4 only. It is only later in the document that it is implicitly stated, as in:
ar$spln - length in octets of the source protocol address. Value range is 0 or 4 (decimal). For IPv4 ar$spln is 4.
ar$tpln - length in octets of the target protocol address. Value range is 0 or 4 (decimal). For IPv4 ar$tpln is 4.
and:
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 22]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
For backward compatibility with previous implementations, a null IPv4 protocol address may be received with length = 4 and an allocated address in storage set to the value 0.0.0.0. Receiving stations must be liberal in accepting this format of a null IPv4 address. However, on transmitting an ATMARP or InATMARP packet, a null IPv4 address must only be indicated by the length set to zero and must have no storage allocated.
This document is limited to IPv4 multicasting. This is incompatible with IPv6.
5.34.RFC 2241 DHCP Options for Novell Directory Services
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.
5.35.RFC 2242 NetWare/IP Domain Name and Information
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification, for example:
PREFERRED_DSS (code 6)
Length is (n * 4) and the value is an array of n IP addresses, each four bytes in length. The maximum number of addresses is 5 and therefore the maximum length value is 20. The list contains the addresses of n NetWare Domain SAP/RIP Server (DSS).
NEAREST_NWIP_SERVER (code 7)
Length is (n * 4) and the value is an array of n IP addresses, each four bytes in length. The maximum number of addresses is 5 and therefore the maximum length value is 20. The list contains the addresses of n Nearest NetWare/IP servers.
PRIMARY_DSS (code 11)
Length of 4, and the value is a single IP address. This field identifies the Primary Domain SAP/RIP Service server (DSS) for this NetWare/IP domain. NetWare/IP administration utility uses this value as Primary DSS server when configuring a secondary DSS server.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 23]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.36.RFC 2290 Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for PPP IPCP
This document is designed for use with Mobile IPv4. There are numerous referrals to other IP "support" mechanisms (i.e., ICMP Router Discover Messages) that specifically refer to the IPv4 of ICMP.
5.37.RFC 2308 Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)
Although there are numerous examples in this document that use IPv4 "A" records, there is nothing in the specification that limits its effectiveness to IPv4.
5.38.RFC 2331 ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM - UNI Signaling 4.0 Update
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.39.RFC 2332 NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)
This document is very generic in its design and seems to be able to support numerous layer 3 addressing schemes and should include both IPv4 and IPv6.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 24]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.44.RFC 2371 Transaction Internet Protocol Version 3.0 (TIPV3)
This document states:
TIP transaction manager addresses take the form:
<hostport><path>
The <hostport> component comprises:
<host>[:<port>]
where <host> is either a <dns name> or an <ip address>; and <port> is a decimal number specifying the port at which the transaction manager (or proxy) is listening for requests to establish TIP connections. If the port number is omitted, the standard TIP port number (3372) is used.
A <dns name> is a standard name, acceptable to the domain name service. It must be sufficiently qualified to be useful to the receiver of the command.
An <ip address> is an IP address, in the usual form: four decimal numbers separated by period characters.
where <transaction manager address> identifies the TIP transaction manager (as defined in Section 7 above); and <transaction string> specifies a transaction identifier, which may take one of two forms (standard or non-standard):
i. "urn:" <NID> ":" <NSS>
A standard transaction identifier, conforming to the proposed Internet Standard for Uniform Resource Names (URNs), as specified by RFC2141; where <NID> is the Namespace Identifier, and <NSS> is the Namespace Specific String. The Namespace ID determines the syntactic interpretation of the Namespace Specific String. The Namespace Specific String is a sequence of characters representing a transaction identifier (as defined by <NID>). The rules for the contents of these fields are specified by RFC2141 (valid characters, encoding, etc.).
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 25]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
This format of <transaction string> may be used to express global transaction identifiers in terms of standard representations. Examples for <NID> might be <iso> or <xopen>, e.g.,
tip://123.123.123.123/?urn:xopen:xid
Note that Namespace Ids require registration.
ii. <transaction identifier>
A sequence of printable ASCII characters (octets with values in the range 32 through 126 inclusive (excluding ":") representing a transaction identifier. In this non-standard case, it is the combination of <transaction manager address> and <transaction identifier> which ensures global uniqueness, e.g.,
tip://123.123.123.123/?transid1
These are incompatible with IPv6.
5.45.RFC 2464 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets over Ethernet and is not considered in this discussion.
5.46.RFC 2467 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks
This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets over FDDI and is not considered in this discussion.
5.47.RFC 2470 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks
This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets over Token Ring and is not considered in this discussion.
The major objective of this specification is to promote interoperable implementations of IPv4 over FC. This specification describes a method for encapsulating IPv4 and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) packets over FC.
This document uses the generic term "IP Address" in the text but it also contains the text:
The HARP message has several fields that have the following format and values:
Data sizes and field meaning: ar$hrd 16 bits Hardware type ar$pro 16 bits Protocol type of the protocol fields below ar$op 16 bits Operation code (request, reply, or NAK) ar$pln 8 bits byte length of each protocol address ar$rhl 8 bits requester's HIPPI hardware address length (q) ar$thl 8 bits target's HIPPI hardware address length (x) ar$rpa 32 bits requester's protocol address ar$tpa 32 bits target's protocol address ar$rha qbytes requester's HIPPI Hardware address ar$tha xbytes target's HIPPI Hardware address
Where: ar$hrd - SHALL contain 28. (HIPARP)
ar$pro - SHALL contain the IP protocol code 2048 (decimal).
ar$op - SHALL contain the operational value (decimal): 1 for HARP_REQUESTs 2 for HARP_REPLYs 8 for InHARP_REQUESTs 9 for InHARP_REPLYs 10 for HARP_NAK ar$pln - SHALL contain 4.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 31]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
The Ethertype value SHALL be set as defined in Assigned Numbers:
IP 0x0800 2048 (16 bits)
This is limited to IPv4, and similar to the previous section, incompatible with IPv6. There are numerous other points in the documents that confirm this assumption.
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.
5.95.RFC 3011 The IPv4 Subnet Selection Option for DHCP
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.
5.96.RFC 3021 Using 31-Bit Prefixes for IPv4 P2P Links
This specification is specific to IPv4 address architecture, where a modification is needed to use both addresses of a 31-bit prefix. This is possible by IPv6 address architecture, but in most cases not
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 33]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
recommended; see RFC 3627, Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful.
5.97.RFC 3024 Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP, revised
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.
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.
6.1.RFC 1149 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. In fact the flexibility of this specification is such that all versions of IP should function within its boundaries, presuming that the packets remain small enough to be transmitted with the 256 milligrams weight limitations.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 35]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
6.3.RFC 1226 Internet protocol encapsulation of AX.25 frames
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.4.RFC 1241 Scheme for an internet encapsulation protocol: Version 1
This specification defines a specification that assumes IPv4 but does not actually have any limitations which would limit its operation in an IPv6 environment.
6.5.RFC 1307 Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol
This specification is IPv4 dependent, for example:
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
Source and Destination IP Addresses Respectively, these are the IP addresses of the NARP requester and the target terminal for which the NBMA address is desired.
Source and Destination IP Address Respectively, these are the IP addresses of the NARP requester and the target terminal for which the NBMA address is desired.
This is incompatible with IPv6.
6.13.RFC 1768 Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting
This specification defines multicasting for CLNP, which is not an IP protocol, and therefore has no IPv4 dependencies.
This document is specific to IPv4 address architecture, and as such, has no IPv6 dependencies.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 38]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
6.16.RFC 1819 Internet Stream Protocol Version 2 (ST2) Protocol Specification - Version ST2+
This specification is IPv4 limited. In fact it is the definition of IPv5. It has been abandoned by the IETF as feasible design, and is not considered in this discussion.
The future version of IP (IP v6) will certainly have a sufficient number of bits in its addressing space to provide an address for even smaller GPS addressable units. In this proposal, however, we assume the current version of IP (IP v4) and we make sure that we manage the addressing space more economically than that. We will call the smallest GPS addressable unit a GPS-square.
This specification does not seem to have real IPv4 dependencies.
This document gives default values for use on IPv4 networks, but is designed to be extensible so it will work with IPv6 with appropriate IANA definitions.
In the initial survey of RFCs 52 positives were identified out of a total of 186, broken down as follows:
Standards: 17 out of 24 or 70.83% Draft Standards: 6 out of 20 or 30.00% Proposed Standards: 22 out of 111 or 19.91% Experimental RFCs: 7 out of 31 or 22.58%
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.
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2462, IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration, and RFC 3315, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6).
This problem has been fixed in RFC 1981, Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6.
7.2.3.RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN
This problem can be fixed by defining a new NLPID for IPv6. Note that an NLPID has already been defined in RFC 2427, Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay.
This problem has been fixed in RFC 3315, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6).
Further, the consensus of the DHC WG has been that the options defined for DHCPv4 will not be automatically "carried forward" to DHCPv6. Therefore, any further analysis of additionally specified DHCPv4 Options has been omitted from this memo.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 43]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
No updated document exists for this specification. In practice, the similar effect can be achieved by the use of a layer 2 tunneling protocol. It is unclear whether an updated document is needed.
This problem has been resolved in RFC 2461, Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6).
7.3.3.RFC 1277 Encoding Net Addresses to Support Operation Over Non OSI Lower Layers
No updated document exists for this specification; the problem might be resolved by the creation of a new encoding scheme if necessary. It is unclear whether an update is needed.
7.3.4.RFC 1332 PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)
This problem has been resolved in RFC 2472, IP Version 6 over PPP.
The problems have been resolved by RFC 3775 and RFC 3776 [3, 4].
Since the first Mobile IPv4 specification in RFC 2002, a number of extensions to it have been specified. As all of these depend on MIPv4, they have been omitted from further analysis in this memo.
7.3.22.RFC 3376 Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3
This problem is being fixed by MLDv2 specification [5].
This functionality has been defined in RFC 2491, IPv6 over Non- Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks and RFC 2332, NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP).
No updated document exists for this specification. However, DNS Dynamic Updates should provide similar functionality, so an update does not seem necessary.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 46]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
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.
The editor, Cleveland Mickles, would like to thank Steve Bellovin and Russ Housley for their comments and Pekka Savola for his comments and guidance during the editing of this document. Additionally, he would like to thank his wife, Lesia, for her patient support.
Pekka Savola helped in editing the latest versions of the document.
[2] Loughney, J., Ed., "IPv6 Node Requirements", Work in Progress, January 2004.
[3] Johnson, D., Perkins, C. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[4] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.
[5] Vida, R. and L. Costa, Eds., "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
Copyright (C) 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.
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 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.