| draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-03.txt | draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-04.txt | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II | Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II | |||
| draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-03.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting | Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II | |||
| Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom | draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-04.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting | |||
| Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.) | ||||
| Ostfold University College | Ostfold University College | |||
| October 2003 | November 2003 | |||
| Expires March 2004 | Expires April 2004 | |||
| Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed | Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed | |||
| IETF Transport Area Standards | IETF Transport Area Standards | |||
| Status of this Memo | ||||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | |||
| all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. | all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. | |||
| Status of this Memo | ||||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other | |||
| groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. | groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six | |||
| months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at | months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at | |||
| any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| skipping to change at line 60 | skipping to change at line 61 | |||
| 5. Proposed Standards | 5. Proposed Standards | |||
| 6. Experimental RFCs | 6. Experimental RFCs | |||
| 7. Summary of Results | 7. Summary of Results | |||
| 7.1 Standards | 7.1 Standards | |||
| 7.2 Draft Standards | 7.2 Draft Standards | |||
| 7.3 Proposed Standards | 7.3 Proposed Standards | |||
| 7.4 Experimental RFCs | 7.4 Experimental RFCs | |||
| 8. Security Consideration | 8. Security Consideration | |||
| 9. Acknowledgements | 9. Acknowledgements | |||
| 10. References | 10. References | |||
| 11. Authors Address | 11. Authors' Addresses | |||
| 12. Intellectual Property Statement | 12. Intellectual Property Statement | |||
| 13. Full Copyright Statement | 13. Full Copyright Statement | |||
| 1.0 Introduction | 1.0 Introduction | |||
| This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage of | 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 | IPv4 addresses in IETF standards. In an effort to have the information | |||
| in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents conforming | in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents conforming | |||
| to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Manangement & | to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Management & | |||
| Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). | Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). | |||
| For a full introduction, please see the intro[1] draft. | For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1]. | |||
| 2.0 Document Organization | 2.0 Document Organization | |||
| The rest of the document sections are described below. | The rest of the document sections are described below. | |||
| Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full, Draft, | 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 | and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC is discussed in | |||
| its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with (around) RFC 3100. | its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with (around) RFC 3100. | |||
| The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature. That is, each RFC is | 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 | discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do not "look | |||
| ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed. | 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 | 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 | 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. | problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are correlated. | |||
| 3.0 Full Standards | 3.0 Full Standards | |||
| Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as " | Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as | |||
| Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely | "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely | |||
| implemented and used throughout the Internet. | implemented and used throughout the Internet. | |||
| 3.1 RFC 768 User Datagram Protocol | 3.1 RFC 768 User Datagram Protocol | |||
| Although UDP is a transport protocol there is one reference to the | Although UDP is a transport protocol there is one reference to the | |||
| UDP/IP interface that states; "The UDP module must be able to | UDP/IP interface that states; "The UDP module must be able to | |||
| determine the source and destination internet addresses and the | determine the source and destination internet addresses and the | |||
| protocol field from the internet header." This does not force a | protocol field from the internet header." This does not force a | |||
| rewrite of the protocol but will clearly cause changes in | rewrite of the protocol but will clearly cause changes in | |||
| implementations. | implementations. | |||
| skipping to change at line 119 | skipping to change at line 120 | |||
| 96 bit pseudo header conceptually prefixed to the TCP header. This | 96 bit pseudo header conceptually prefixed to the TCP header. This | |||
| pseudo header contains the Source Address, the Destination Address, | pseudo header contains the Source Address, the Destination Address, | |||
| the Protocol, and TCP length." The first and second 32-bit words are | the Protocol, and TCP length." The first and second 32-bit words are | |||
| clearly meant to specify 32-bit IPv4 addresses. While no modification | clearly meant to specify 32-bit IPv4 addresses. While no modification | |||
| of the TCP protocol is necessitated by this problem, an alternate needs | of the TCP protocol is necessitated by this problem, an alternate needs | |||
| to be specified as an update document, or as part of another IPv6 | to be specified as an update document, or as part of another IPv6 | |||
| document. | document. | |||
| 3.3 RFC 907 Host Access Protocol specification | 3.3 RFC 907 Host Access Protocol specification | |||
| FIXME: requires to be analyzed by subject matter experts. | This is a layer 3 protocol, and has as such no IPv4 dependencies. | |||
| This is a layer 3 protocol, and has no IPv4 dependencies. | ||||
| 3.4 NetBIOS Service Protocols. RFC1001, RFC1002 | 3.4 NetBIOS Service Protocols. RFC1001, RFC1002 | |||
| 3.4.1 RFC 1001 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP | 3.4.1 RFC 1001 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A TCP/UDP | |||
| TRANSPORT: | TRANSPORT: | |||
| CONCEPTS AND METHODS | CONCEPTS AND METHODS | |||
| Section 15.4.1. RELEASE BY B NODES defines: | Section 15.4.1. RELEASE BY B NODES defines: | |||
| A NAME RELEASE DEMAND contains the following information: | A NAME RELEASE DEMAND contains the following information: | |||
| skipping to change at line 455 | skipping to change at line 455 | |||
| 5.01 RFC 1144 Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial | 5.01 RFC 1144 Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial | |||
| links | links | |||
| This RFC is specifically oriented towards TCP/IPv4 packet headers | This RFC is specifically oriented towards TCP/IPv4 packet headers | |||
| and will not work in it's current form. Significant work has already | and will not work in it's current form. Significant work has already | |||
| been done on similar algorithms for TCP/IPv6 headers. | been done on similar algorithms for TCP/IPv6 headers. | |||
| 5.02 RFC 1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance | 5.02 RFC 1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.03 RFC 1553 Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX) | 5.03 RFC 1553 Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX) | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.04 RFC 1692 Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux) | 5.04 RFC 1692 Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux) | |||
| Section 6. Implementation Notes is states: | Section 6. Implementation Notes is states: | |||
| Because the TMux mini-header does not contain a TOS field, only | Because the TMux mini-header does not contain a TOS field, only | |||
| segments with the same IP TOS field should be contained in a single | segments with the same IP TOS field should be contained in a single | |||
| TMux message. As most systems do not use the TOS feature, this is | TMux message. As most systems do not use the TOS feature, this is | |||
| not a major restriction. Where the TOS field is used, it may be | not a major restriction. Where the TOS field is used, it may be | |||
| desirable to hold several messages under construction for a host, one | desirable to hold several messages under construction for a host, one | |||
| for each TOS value. | for each TOS value. | |||
| Segments containing IP options should not be multiplexed. | Segments containing IP options should not be multiplexed. | |||
| This is clearly IPv4 specific, but a simple restatement in IPv6 | This is clearly IPv4 specific, but a simple restatement in IPv6 | |||
| terms will allow complete functionality. | terms will allow complete functionality. | |||
| 5.05 RFC 1831 RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification | 5.05 RFC 1831 RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification | |||
| Version 2 RPC | Version 2 RPC | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.06 RFC 1833 Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2 | 5.06 RFC 1833 Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2 | |||
| In Section 2.1 RPCBIND Protocol Specification (in RPC Language) | In Section 2.1 RPCBIND Protocol Specification (in RPC Language) | |||
| there is the following code fragment: | there is the following code fragment: | |||
| * Protocol family (r_nc_protofmly): | * Protocol family (r_nc_protofmly): | |||
| * This identifies the family to which the protocol belongs. The | * This identifies the family to which the protocol belongs. The | |||
| * following values are defined: | * following values are defined: | |||
| * NC_NOPROTOFMLY "-" | * NC_NOPROTOFMLY "-" | |||
| skipping to change at line 519 | skipping to change at line 519 | |||
| * NC_OSI "osi" | * NC_OSI "osi" | |||
| * NC_X25 "x25" | * NC_X25 "x25" | |||
| * NC_OSINET "osinet" | * NC_OSINET "osinet" | |||
| * NC_GOSIP "gosip" | * NC_GOSIP "gosip" | |||
| It is clear that the value for NC_INET is intended for the IP protocol | It is clear that the value for NC_INET is intended for the IP protocol | |||
| and is seems clear that it is IPv4 dependent. | and is seems clear that it is IPv4 dependent. | |||
| 5.07 RFC 1962 The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP) | 5.07 RFC 1962 The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP) | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.08 RFC 2018 TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options | 5.08 RFC 2018 TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.09 RFC 2029 RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Video Encoding | 5.09 RFC 2029 RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Video Encoding | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.10 RFC 2032 RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams | 5.10 RFC 2032 RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.11 RFC 2126 ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT) | 5.11 RFC 2126 ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT) | |||
| This protocol is IPv6 aware and has no issues. | This specification is IPv6 aware and has no issues. | |||
| 5.12 RFC 2190 RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams | 5.12 RFC 2190 RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.13 RFC 2198 RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data | 5.13 RFC 2198 RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.14 RFC 2205 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- | 5.14 RFC 2205 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- | |||
| Version 1 Functional Specification | Version 1 Functional Specification | |||
| In Section 1. Introduction the statement is made: | In Section 1. Introduction the statement is made: | |||
| RSVP operates on top of IPv4 or IPv6, occupying the place of a | RSVP operates on top of IPv4 or IPv6, occupying the place of a | |||
| transport protocol in the protocol stack. | transport protocol in the protocol stack. | |||
| Appendix A defines all of the header formats for RSVP and there are | Appendix A defines all of the header formats for RSVP and there are | |||
| multiple formats for both IPv4 and IPv6. | multiple formats for both IPv4 and IPv6. | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.15 RFC 2207 RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows | 5.15 RFC 2207 RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows | |||
| The defined IPsec extensions are valid for both IPv4 & IPv6. | The defined IPsec extensions are valid for both IPv4 & IPv6. | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.16 RFC 2210 The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services | 5.16 RFC 2210 The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.17 RFC 2211 Specification of the Controlled-Load Network | 5.17 RFC 2211 Specification of the Controlled-Load Network | |||
| Element Service | Element Service | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.18 RFC 2212 Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service | 5.18 RFC 2212 Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.19 RFC 2215 General Characterization Parameters for | 5.19 RFC 2215 General Characterization Parameters for | |||
| Integrated Service Network Elements | Integrated Service Network Elements | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.20 RFC 2250 RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video | 5.20 RFC 2250 RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.21 RFC 2326 Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) | 5.21 RFC 2326 Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) | |||
| Section 3.2 RTSP URL defines: | Section 3.2 RTSP URL defines: | |||
| The "rtsp" and "rtspu" schemes are used to refer to network resources | The "rtsp" and "rtspu" schemes are used to refer to network resources | |||
| via the RTSP protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific | via the RTSP protocol. This section defines the scheme-specific | |||
| syntax and semantics for RTSP URLs. | syntax and semantics for RTSP URLs. | |||
| rtsp_URL = ( "rtsp:" | "rtspu:" ) | rtsp_URL = ( "rtsp:" | "rtspu:" ) | |||
| skipping to change at line 647 | skipping to change at line 647 | |||
| RTSP is also dependent on IPv6 support in a protocol capable of | RTSP is also dependent on IPv6 support in a protocol capable of | |||
| describing media configurations, for example SDP RFC 2327. | describing media configurations, for example SDP RFC 2327. | |||
| RTSP can be used over IPv6 as long as the media description protocol | RTSP can be used over IPv6 as long as the media description protocol | |||
| supports IPv6, but only for certain restricted use cases. For full | supports IPv6, but only for certain restricted use cases. For full | |||
| functionality there is need for IPv6 support. The amount of updates | functionality there is need for IPv6 support. The amount of updates | |||
| needed are small. | needed are small. | |||
| 5.22 RFC 2327 SDP: Session Description Protocol (SDP) | 5.22 RFC 2327 SDP: Session Description Protocol (SDP) | |||
| This protocol is under revision, and IPv6 support was addded in | This specification is under revision, and IPv6 support was added in | |||
| RFC 3236 which updates this protocol. | RFC 3266 which updates this specification. | |||
| 5.23 RFC 2380 RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements | 5.23 RFC 2380 RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. | |||
| 5.24 RFC 2381 Interoperation of Controlled-Load Service and | 5.24 RFC 2381 Interoperation of Controlled-Load Service and | |||
| Guaranteed Service with ATM | Guaranteed Service with ATM | |||
| There does not seem any inherent IPv4 limitations in this protocol, | There does not seem any inherent IPv4 limitations in this specification, | |||
| but it assumes work of other standards that have IPv4 limitations. | but it assumes work of other standards that have IPv4 limitations. | |||
| 5.25 RFC 2429 RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T | 5.25 RFC 2429 RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T | |||
| Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+) | Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+) | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.26 RFC 2431 RTP Payload Format for BT.656 Video Encoding | 5.26 RFC 2431 RTP Payload Format for BT.656 Video Encoding | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.27 RFC 2435 RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video | 5.27 RFC 2435 RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.28 RFC 2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services Field | 5.28 RFC 2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services Field | |||
| (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers | (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. | |||
| 5.29 RFC 2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for Low-Speed | 5.29 RFC 2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for Low-Speed | |||
| Serial Links | Serial Links | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. | |||
| 5.30 RFC 2581 TCP Congestion Control | 5.30 RFC 2581 TCP Congestion Control | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.31 RFC 2597 Assured Forwarding PHB Group | 5.31 RFC 2597 Assured Forwarding PHB Group | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. | |||
| 5.32 RFC 2658 RTP Payload Format for PureVoice(tm) Audio | 5.32 RFC 2658 RTP Payload Format for PureVoice(tm) Audio | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.33 RFC 2678 IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity | 5.33 RFC 2678 IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity | |||
| This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will | This specification only supports IPv4. | |||
| need to be defined. | ||||
| 5.34 RFC 2679 A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM | 5.34 RFC 2679 A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM | |||
| This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will | This specification only supports IPv4. | |||
| need to be defined. | ||||
| 5.35 RFC 2680 A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM | 5.35 RFC 2680 A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM | |||
| This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will | This specification only supports IPv4. | |||
| need to be defined. | ||||
| 5.36 RFC 2681 A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM | 5.36 RFC 2681 A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM | |||
| This protocol only supports IPv4. An updated protocol for IPv6 will | This specification only supports IPv4. | |||
| need to be defined. | ||||
| 5.37 RFC 2730 Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol | 5.37 RFC 2730 Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol | |||
| (MADCAP) | (MADCAP) | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | |||
| 5.38 RFC 2733 An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error | 5.38 RFC 2733 An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error | |||
| Correction | Correction | |||
| This protocol is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. Once | This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. | |||
| that limitation is fixed, then this protocol should support IPv6. | Once that limitation is fixed, then this specification should support | |||
| IPv6. | ||||
| 5.39 RFC 2745 RSVP Diagnostic Messages | 5.39 RFC 2745 RSVP Diagnostic Messages | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | |||
| 5.40 RFC 2746 RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels | 5.40 RFC 2746 RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | |||
| 5.41 RFC 2750 RSVP Extensions for Policy Control | 5.41 RFC 2750 RSVP Extensions for Policy Control | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.42 RFC 2793 RTP Payload for Text Conversation | 5.42 RFC 2793 RTP Payload for Text Conversation | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.42 RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol for | 5.43 RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol for | |||
| RSVP-based Admission Control over IEEE 802-style networks | RSVP-based Admission Control over IEEE 802-style networks | |||
| This protocol claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but all of | This specification claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but all of | |||
| the examples are given with IPv4 addresses. That, by itself is | the examples are given with IPv4 addresses. That, by itself is | |||
| not a telling point but the following statement is made: | not a telling point but the following statement is made: | |||
| a) LocalDSBMAddrInfo -- current DSBM's IP address (initially, | a) LocalDSBMAddrInfo -- current DSBM's IP address (initially, | |||
| 0.0.0.0) and priority. All IP addresses are assumed to be in | 0.0.0.0) and priority. All IP addresses are assumed to be in | |||
| network byte order. In addition, current DSBM's L2 address is | network byte order. In addition, current DSBM's L2 address is | |||
| also stored as part of this state information. | also stored as part of this state information. | |||
| which could just be sloppy wording. Perhaps a short document | which could just be sloppy wording. Perhaps a short document | |||
| clarifying the text is appropriate. | clarifying the text is appropriate. | |||
| 5.44 RFC 2815 Integrated Service Mappings on IEEE 802 Networks | 5.44 RFC 2815 Integrated Service Mappings on IEEE 802 Networks | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.45 RFC 2833 RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones | 5.45 RFC 2833 RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones | |||
| and Telephony Signals | and Telephony Signals | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.46 RFC 2848 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP | 5.46 RFC 2848 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP | |||
| for IP Access to Telephone Call Services | for IP Access to Telephone Call Services | |||
| This protocol is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. | This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. | |||
| Once these limitations are fixed, then this protocol should support | Once these limitations are fixed, then this specification should support | |||
| IPv6. | IPv6. | |||
| 5.47 RFC 2862 RTP Payload Format for Real-Time Pointers | 5.47 RFC 2862 RTP Payload Format for Real-Time Pointers | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.48 RFC 2872 Application and Sub Application Identity Policy Element | 5.48 RFC 2872 Application and Sub Application Identity Policy Element | |||
| for Use with RSVP | for Use with RSVP | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.49 RFC 2873 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field | 5.49 RFC 2873 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field | |||
| This protocol documents a technique using IPv4 headers. A similar | This specification documents a technique using IPv4 headers. A similar | |||
| technique, if needed, will need to be defined for IPv6. | technique, if needed, will need to be defined for IPv6. | |||
| 5.50 RFC 2883 An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) | 5.50 RFC 2883 An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK) | |||
| Option for TCP | Option for TCP | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.51 RFC 2907 MADCAP Multicast Scope Nesting State Option | 5.51 RFC 2907 MADCAP Multicast Scope Nesting State Option | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | |||
| 5.52 RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol | 5.52 RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | |||
| 5.53 RFC 2961 RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions | 5.53 RFC 2961 RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | |||
| 5.54 RFC 2976 The SIP INFO Method | 5.54 RFC 2976 The SIP INFO Method | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.55 RFC 2988 Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer | 5.55 RFC 2988 Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.56 RFC 2996 Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object | 5.56 RFC 2996 Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.57 RFC 2997 Specification of the Null Service Type | 5.57 RFC 2997 Specification of the Null Service Type | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.58 RFC 3003 The audio/mpeg Media Type | 5.58 RFC 3003 The audio/mpeg Media Type | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.59 RFC 3006 Integrated Services in the Presence of | 5.59 RFC 3006 Integrated Services in the Presence of | |||
| Compressible Flows | Compressible Flows | |||
| This document defines a protocol that discusses compressible | This document defines a protocol that discusses compressible | |||
| flows, but only in an IPv4 context. When IPv6 compressible flows | flows, but only in an IPv4 context. When IPv6 compressible flows | |||
| are defined, a similar technique should also be defined. | are defined, a similar technique should also be defined. | |||
| 5.60 RFC 3016 RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual | 5.60 RFC 3016 RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual | |||
| Streams | Streams | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.61 RFC 3033 The Assignment of the Information Field and Protocol | 5.61 RFC 3033 The Assignment of the Information Field and Protocol | |||
| Identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and Q.2957 | Identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and Q.2957 | |||
| User-to-user Signaling for the Internet Protocol | User-to-user Signaling for the Internet Protocol | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | |||
| 5.62 RFC 3042 Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit | 5.62 RFC 3042 Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.63 RFC 3047 RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.722.1 | 5.63 RFC 3047 RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.722.1 | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.64 RFC 3057 ISDN Q.921-User Adaptation Layer | 5.64 RFC 3057 ISDN Q.921-User Adaptation Layer | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.65 RFC 3095 Robust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four | 5.65 RFC 3095 Robust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four | |||
| profiles | profiles | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | |||
| 5.66 RFC 3108 Conventions for the use of the Session Description | 5.66 RFC 3108 Conventions for the use of the Session Description | |||
| Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer Connections | Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer Connections | |||
| This protocol is currently limited to IPv4 as amplified below: | This specification is currently limited to IPv4 as amplified below: | |||
| The range and format of the <rtcpPortNum> and <rtcpIPaddr> | The range and format of the <rtcpPortNum> and <rtcpIPaddr> | |||
| subparameters is per [1]. The <rtcpPortNum> is a decimal number | subparameters is per [1]. The <rtcpPortNum> is a decimal number | |||
| between 1024 and 65535. It is an odd number. If an even number in | between 1024 and 65535. It is an odd number. If an even number in | |||
| this range is specified, the next odd number is used. The | this range is specified, the next odd number is used. The | |||
| <rtcpIPaddr> is expressed in the usual dotted decimal IP address | <rtcpIPaddr> is expressed in the usual dotted decimal IP address | |||
| representation, from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255. | representation, from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255. | |||
| and | and | |||
| <rtcpIPaddr> IP address for receipt Dotted decimal, 7-15 chars | <rtcpIPaddr> IP address for receipt Dotted decimal, 7-15 chars | |||
| of RTCP packets | of RTCP packets | |||
| 5.67 RFC 3119 A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio | 5.67 RFC 3119 A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.68 RFC 3124 The Congestion Manager | 5.68 RFC 3124 The Congestion Manager | |||
| This document is IPv4 limited since it uses the IPv4 TOS header | This document is IPv4 limited since it uses the IPv4 TOS header | |||
| field. | field. | |||
| 5.69 RFC 3140 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes | 5.69 RFC 3140 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.70 RFC 3173 IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp) | 5.70 RFC 3173 IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp) | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.71 RFC 3181 Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element | 5.71 RFC 3181 Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.72 RFC 3182 Identity Representation for RSVP | 5.72 RFC 3182 Identity Representation for RSVP | |||
| skipping to change at line 930 | skipping to change at line 927 | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.78 RFC 3265 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event | 5.78 RFC 3265 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event | |||
| Notification | Notification | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.79 RFC 3390 Increasing TCP's Initial Window | 5.79 RFC 3390 Increasing TCP's Initial Window | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.80 RFC 3525 Gateway Control Protocol Version 1 | 5.80 RFC 3525 Gateway Control Protocol Version 1 | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.81 RFC 3544 IP Header Compression over PPP | 5.81 RFC 3544 IP Header Compression over PPP | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 5.82 RFC 3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications | 5.82 RFC 3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 6.0 Experimental RFCs | 6.0 Experimental RFCs | |||
| Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale | Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have widescale | |||
| implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in | implementation or usage on the Internet. They are often propriety in | |||
| nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet | nature or used in limited arenas. They are documented to the Internet | |||
| community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other | community in order to allow potential interoperability or some other | |||
| potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as | potential useful scenario. In a few cases they are presented as | |||
| alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem. | alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem. | |||
| skipping to change at line 972 | skipping to change at line 969 | |||
| to-live field should be set to a reasonable value for the | to-live field should be set to a reasonable value for the | |||
| network. | network. | |||
| All other fields should be set as specified in RFC-791. | All other fields should be set as specified in RFC-791. | |||
| A new protocol specification would be needed to support IPv6. | A new protocol specification would be needed to support IPv6. | |||
| 6.02 RFC 938 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and | 6.02 RFC 938 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and | |||
| interface specification (IRTP) | interface specification (IRTP) | |||
| This protocol specification states: | This specification specification states: | |||
| 4.1 State Variables | 4.1 State Variables | |||
| Each IRTP is associated with a single internet address. The | Each IRTP is associated with a single internet address. The | |||
| synchronization mechanism of the IRTP depends on the requirement | synchronization mechanism of the IRTP depends on the requirement | |||
| that each IRTP module knows the internet addresses of all modules | that each IRTP module knows the internet addresses of all modules | |||
| with which it will communicate. For each remote internet address, | with which it will communicate. For each remote internet address, | |||
| an IRTP module must maintain the following information (called the | an IRTP module must maintain the following information (called the | |||
| connection table): | connection table): | |||
| skipping to change at line 1001 | skipping to change at line 998 | |||
| The active end specifies a passive client through a client-specific | The active end specifies a passive client through a client-specific | |||
| "well-known" 16 bit port number on which the passive end listens. | "well-known" 16 bit port number on which the passive end listens. | |||
| The active end identifies itself through a 32 bit Internet address | The active end identifies itself through a 32 bit Internet address | |||
| and a unique 16 bit port number. | and a unique 16 bit port number. | |||
| Clearly, this is IPv4 dependent, but could easily be modified to support | Clearly, this is IPv4 dependent, but could easily be modified to support | |||
| IPv6 addressing. | IPv6 addressing. | |||
| 6.04 RFC 1045 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol | 6.04 RFC 1045 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol | |||
| This protocol has many IPv4 dependencies in its implementation | This specification has many IPv4 dependencies in its implementation | |||
| appendices. For operations over IPv6 a similar implementation | appendices. For operations over IPv6 a similar implementation | |||
| procedure must be defined. The IPv4 specific information is | procedure must be defined. The IPv4 specific information is | |||
| show below. | show below. | |||
| IV.1. Domain 1 | IV.1. Domain 1 | |||
| For initial use of VMTP, we define the domain with Domain identifier 1 | For initial use of VMTP, we define the domain with Domain identifier 1 | |||
| as follows: | as follows: | |||
| +-----------+----------------+------------------------+ | +-----------+----------------+------------------------+ | |||
| skipping to change at line 1120 | skipping to change at line 1117 | |||
| VMTP_DEFAULT_LECLIENT LE-1-224.0.1.0 | VMTP_DEFAULT_LECLIENT LE-1-224.0.1.0 | |||
| Client entity identifier to use when a (little-endian) | Client entity identifier to use when a (little-endian) | |||
| host has not determined or been allocated any client | host has not determined or been allocated any client | |||
| entity identifiers. | entity identifiers. | |||
| Note that 224.0.1.0 is the host group address assigned to VMTP and to | Note that 224.0.1.0 is the host group address assigned to VMTP and to | |||
| which all VMTP hosts belong. | which all VMTP hosts belong. | |||
| 6.05 RFC 1146 TCP alternate checksum options | 6.05 RFC 1146 TCP alternate checksum options | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 6.06 RFC 1151 Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP) | 6.06 RFC 1151 Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP) | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 6.07 RFC 1644 T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional | 6.07 RFC 1644 T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional | |||
| Specification | Specification | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 6.08 RFC 1693 An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service | 6.08 RFC 1693 An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 6.09 RFC 1791 TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU | 6.09 RFC 1791 TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 6.10 RFC 2343 RTP Payload Format for Bundled MPEG | 6.10 RFC 2343 RTP Payload Format for Bundled MPEG | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 6.11 RFC 2582 The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery | 6.11 RFC 2582 The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery | |||
| Algorithm | Algorithm | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 6.12 RFC 2762 Sampling of the Group Membership in RTP | 6.12 RFC 2762 Sampling of the Group Membership in RTP | |||
| There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. | |||
| 6.13 RFC 2859 A Time Sliding Window Three Colour Marker (TSWTCM) | 6.13 RFC 2859 A Time Sliding Window Three Colour Marker (TSWTCM) | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | |||
| 6.14 RFC 2861 TCP Congestion Window Validation | 6.14 RFC 2861 TCP Congestion Window Validation | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | |||
| 6.15 RFC 2909 The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol | 6.15 RFC 2909 The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol | |||
| This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. | |||
| 7.0 Summary of Results | 7.0 Summary of Results | |||
| In the initial survey of RFCs 24 positives were identified out of a | In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a | |||
| total of 100, broken down as follows: | total of 104, broken down as follows: | |||
| Standards 4 of 5 or 80.00% | Standards 3 of 5 or 60.00% | |||
| Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% | Draft Standards 0 of 2 or 0.00% | |||
| Proposed Standards 15 of 79 or 18.99% | Proposed Standards 17 of 82 or 20.73% | |||
| Experimental RFCs 5 of 16 or 31.25% | Experimental RFCs 4 of 15 or 26.67% | |||
| Of those identified many require no action because they document | Of those identified many require no action because they document | |||
| outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols | outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols | |||
| that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups. | that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups. | |||
| Additionally there are many instances of standards that SHOULD be | Additionally there are many instances of standards that SHOULD be | |||
| updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not | updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not | |||
| updated. The remaining instances are documented below. | updated. The remaining instances are documented below. | |||
| 7.1 Standards | 7.1 Standards | |||
| 7.1.1 STD 7 Transmission Control Protocol (RFC 793) | 7.1.1 STD 7 Transmission Control Protocol (RFC 793) | |||
| Section 3.1 defines the technique for computing the TCP checksum that | Section 3.1 defines the technique for computing the TCP checksum that | |||
| uses the 32 bit source and destination IPv4 addresses. This problem is | uses the 32 bit source and destination IPv4 addresses. This problem is | |||
| addressed in RFC 2460 Section 8.1. | addressed in RFC 2460 Section 8.1. | |||
| 7.1.2 RFC 907 Host Access Protocol specification | ||||
| FIXME: requires to be analyzed by subject matter experts. | ||||
| This is a layer 3 protocol, and as such has no IPv4 dependencies. | ||||
| 7.1.2 STD 19 Netbios over TCP/UDP (RFCs 1001 & 1002) | 7.1.2 STD 19 Netbios over TCP/UDP (RFCs 1001 & 1002) | |||
| These two RFCs have many inherent IPv4 assumptions and a new set of | These two RFCs have many inherent IPv4 assumptions and a new set of | |||
| protocols must be defined. | protocols must be defined. | |||
| 7.1.3 STD 35 ISO Transport over TCP (RFC 1006) | 7.1.3 STD 35 ISO Transport over TCP (RFC 1006) | |||
| This problem has been fixed in RFC 2126, ISO Transport Service on | This problem has been fixed in RFC 2126, ISO Transport Service on | |||
| top of TCP. | top of TCP. | |||
| skipping to change at line 1256 | skipping to change at line 1247 | |||
| The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. | The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. | |||
| 7.3.09 Round Trip Delay Metric for IPPM (RFC 2681) | 7.3.09 Round Trip Delay Metric for IPPM (RFC 2681) | |||
| The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. | The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues. | |||
| 7.3.08 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP for IP | 7.3.08 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP for IP | |||
| Access to Telephone Call Services(RFC 2848) | Access to Telephone Call Services(RFC 2848) | |||
| This protocol is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. | This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4 dependencies. | |||
| Once these limitations are fixed, then this protocol should support | Once these limitations are fixed, then this protocol should support | |||
| IPv6. | IPv6. | |||
| 7.3.09 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field (RFC 2873) | 7.3.09 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field (RFC 2873) | |||
| The problems are not being addressed and may be addressed in a new | The problems are not being addressed. | |||
| protocol. | ||||
| 7.3.10 Integrated Services in the Presence of Compressible Flows | 7.3.10 Integrated Services in the Presence of Compressible Flows | |||
| (RFC 3006) | (RFC 3006) | |||
| This document defines a protocol that discusses compressible | This document defines a protocol that discusses compressible | |||
| flows, but only in an IPv4 context. When IPv6 compressible flows | flows, but only in an IPv4 context. When IPv6 compressible flows | |||
| are defined, a similar technique should also be defined. | are defined, a similar technique should also be defined. | |||
| 7.3.11 SDP For ATM Bearer Connections (RFC 3108) | 7.3.11 SDP For ATM Bearer Connections (RFC 3108) | |||
| The problems are not being addressed and SHOULD be addressed in | The problems are not being addressed, but it is unclear whether | |||
| a new protocol. | the specification is being used. | |||
| 7.3.12 The Congestion Manager (RFC 3124) | 7.3.12 The Congestion Manager (RFC 3124) | |||
| An update to this document can be simply define the use of the IPv6 | 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 | Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the same as the | |||
| IPv4 TOS field. | IPv4 TOS field. | |||
| 7.4 Experimental RFCs | 7.4 Experimental RFCs | |||
| 7.4.1 Reliable Data Protocol (RFC 908) | 7.4.1 Reliable Data Protocol (RFC 908) | |||
| This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be | This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be | |||
| produced. | produced. | |||
| 7.4.2 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and | 7.4.2 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and | |||
| interface specification (RFC 938) | interface specification (RFC 938) | |||
| This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be | This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be | |||
| produced. | produced. | |||
| 7.4.3 NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol (RFC 998) | 7.4.3 NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol (RFC 998) | |||
| This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be | This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be | |||
| produced. | produced. | |||
| 7.4.4 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (RFC 1045) | 7.4.4 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (RFC 1045) | |||
| This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be | This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be | |||
| produced. | produced. | |||
| 7.4.5 OSPF over ATM and Proxy-PAR (RFC 2844) | 7.4.5 OSPF over ATM and Proxy-PAR (RFC 2844) | |||
| This protocol relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be | This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may be | |||
| produced. | produced. | |||
| 8.0 Security Consideration | 8.0 Security Consideration | |||
| This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does not | This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does not | |||
| have security considerations in itself. | have security considerations in itself. | |||
| 9.0 Acknowledgements | 9.0 Acknowledgements | |||
| The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet | The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet | |||
| skipping to change at line 1334 | skipping to change at line 1324 | |||
| for guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this | for guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this | |||
| document. He would further like to thank Allison Mankin, Magnus Westerlund and | document. He would further like to thank Allison Mankin, Magnus Westerlund and | |||
| Colin Perkins for valuable feedback on some points of this document. | Colin Perkins for valuable feedback on some points of this document. | |||
| 10.0 References | 10.0 References | |||
| 10.1 Normative | 10.1 Normative | |||
| [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey | [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey | |||
| of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", | of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", | |||
| draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-04.txt IETF work in progress, | draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05.txt IETF work in progress, | |||
| September 2003 | November 2003 | |||
| 11.0 Authors Address | 11.0 Authors' Addresses | |||
| Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions | Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions | |||
| at: | at: | |||
| Philip J. Nesser II | Philip J. Nesser II | |||
| Principal | Principal | |||
| Nesser & Nesser Consulting | Nesser & Nesser Consulting | |||
| 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 | 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 | |||
| Kirkland, WA 98034 | Kirkland, WA 98034 | |||
| Email: phil@nesser.com | Email: phil@nesser.com | |||
| Phone: +1 425 481 4303 | Phone: +1 425 481 4303 | |||
| Fax: +1 425 48 | Fax: +1 425 48 | |||
| Andreas Bergstrom | Andreas Bergstrom (Editor) | |||
| Ostfold University College | Ostfold University College | |||
| Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no | Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no | |||
| Address: Rute 503 Buer | Address: Rute 503 Buer | |||
| N-1766 Halden | N-1766 Halden | |||
| Norway | Norway | |||
| 12.0 Intellectual Property Statement | 12.0 Intellectual Property Statement | |||
| The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any | |||
| End of changes. | ||||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||