diff options
| author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
| commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
| tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc3790.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3790.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc3790.txt | 2747 |
1 files changed, 2747 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3790.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3790.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..78c8d18 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3790.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2747 @@ + + + + + + +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. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 2. Document Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 3. Full Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 3.1. RFC 791 Internet Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 3.2. RFC 792 Internet Control Message Protocol . . . . . . 9 + 3.3. RFC 826 Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol. . . . . 9 + 3.4. RFC 891 DCN Local-Network Protocols . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3.5. RFC 894 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams + over Ethernet networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3.6. RFC 895 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams + over experimental Ethernet networks . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3.7. RFC 903 Reverse Address Resolution Protocol . . . . . 10 + 3.8. RFC 919 Broadcasting Internet Datagrams . . . . . . . 10 + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + + 3.9. RFC 922 Broadcasting Internet datagrams in the + presence of subnets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3.10. RFC 950 Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure. . . . 10 + 3.11. RFC 1034 Domain Names: Concepts and Facilities. . . . 10 + 3.12. RFC 1035 Domain Names: Implementation and + Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.13. RFC 1042 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams + over IEEE 802 networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 3.14. RFC 1044 Internet Protocol on Network System's + HYPERchannel: Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . 13 + 3.15. RFC 1055 Nonstandard for transmission of IP datagrams + over serial lines: SLIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 3.16. RFC 1088 Standard for the transmission of IP + datagrams over NetBIOS networks . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 3.17. RFC 1112 Host Extensions for IP Multicasting. . . . . 13 + 3.18. RFC 1132 Standard for the transmission of 802.2 + packets over IPX networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 3.19. RFC 1201 Transmitting IP traffic over ARCNET + networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 3.20. RFC 1209 The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the + SMDS Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 3.21. RFC 1390 Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI + Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 3.22. RFC 1661 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP). . . . . . 14 + 3.23. RFC 1662 PPP in HDLC-like Framing . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 3.24. RFC 2427 Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay. 14 + 4. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 4.1. RFC 951 Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP). . . . . . . . . . 14 + 4.2. RFC 1188 Proposed Standard for the Transmission of IP + Datagrams over FDDI Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 4.3. RFC 1191 Path MTU discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 4.4. RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN. 15 + 4.5. RFC 1534 Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP. . . . 16 + 4.6. RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for the + Bootstrap Protocol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.7. RFC 1629 Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the + Internet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.8. RFC 1762 The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol + (DNCP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.9. RFC 1989 PPP Link Quality Monitoring. . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.10. RFC 1990 The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP). . . . . . . 16 + 4.11. RFC 1994 PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication + Protocol (CHAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.12. RFC 2067 IP over HIPPI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.13. RFC 2131 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. . . . . 17 + 4.14. RFC 2132 DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions . . 17 + 4.15. RFC 2390 Inverse Address Resolution Protocol. . . . . 17 + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + + 4.16. RFC 2460 Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) + Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.17. RFC 2461 Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6) . 18 + 4.18. RFC 2462 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration . . 18 + 4.19. RFC 2463 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) + for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) + Specification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 4.20. RFC 3596 DNS Extensions to support IP version 6 . . . 18 + 5. Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 5.1. RFC 1234 Tunneling IPX traffic through IP networks. . 18 + 5.2. RFC 1256 ICMP Router Discovery Messages . . . . . . . 19 + 5.3. RFC 1277 Encoding Network Addresses to Support + Operation over Non-OSI Lower Layers . . . . . . . . . 19 + 5.4. RFC 1332 The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol + (IPCP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 5.5. RFC 1377 The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol + (OSINLCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5.6. RFC 1378 The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP). . 20 + 5.7. RFC 1469 IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area + Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5.8. RFC 1552 The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange + Control Protocol (IPXCP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5.9. RFC 1570 PPP LCP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5.10. RFC 1598 PPP in X.25 PPP-X25. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5.11. RFC 1618 PPP over ISDN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5.12. RFC 1663 PPP Reliable Transmission. . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5.13. RFC 1752 The Recommendation for the IP Next + Generation Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5.14. RFC 1755 ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM. . . . 20 + 5.15. RFC 1763 The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP) 21 + 5.16. RFC 1764 The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP) . . 21 + 5.17. RFC 1973 PPP in Frame Relay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 5.18. RFC 1981 Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6. . . . . 21 + 5.19. RFC 1982 Serial Number Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 5.20. 5.21 RFC 1995 Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS. . . . 21 + 5.21. RFC 1996 A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone + Changes (DNS NOTIFY). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 5.22. RFC 2003 IP Encapsulation within IP . . . . . . . . . 21 + 5.23. RFC 2004 Minimal Encapsulation within IP. . . . . . . 21 + 5.24. RFC 2005 Applicability Statement for IP Mobility + Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 5.25. RFC 2022 Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based + ATM Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 5.26. RFC 2043 The PPP SNA Control Protocol (SNACP) . . . . 22 + 5.27. RFC 2097 The PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol + (NBFCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 5.28. RFC 2113 IP Router Alert Option . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + + 5.29. RFC 2125 The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Protocol (BAP) + / The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Control Protocol + (BACP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 5.30. RFC 2136 Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System + (DNS UPDATE). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 5.31. RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification. . . 22 + 5.32. RFC 2225 Classical IP and ARP over ATM. . . . . . . . 22 + 5.33. RFC 2226 IP Broadcast over ATM Networks . . . . . . . 23 + 5.34. RFC 2241 DHCP Options for Novell Directory Services . 23 + 5.35. RFC 2242 NetWare/IP Domain Name and Information . . . 23 + 5.36. RFC 2290 Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for PPP + IPCP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 5.37. RFC 2308 Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE) 24 + 5.38. RFC 2331 ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM - UNI + Signaling 4.0 Update. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 5.39. RFC 2332 NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) . . 24 + 5.40. RFC 2333 NHRP Protocol Applicability. . . . . . . . . 24 + 5.41. RFC 2335 A Distributed NHRP Service Using SCSP. . . . 24 + 5.42. RFC 2363 PPP Over FUNI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 5.43. RFC 2364 PPP Over AAL5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 5.44. RFC 2371 Transaction Internet Protocol Version 3.0 + (TIPV3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 5.45. RFC 2464 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet + Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 5.46. RFC 2467 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI + Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 5.47. RFC 2470 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring + Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 5.48. RFC 2472 IP Version 6 over PPP. . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 5.49. RFC 2473 Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 + Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 5.50. RFC 2484 PPP LCP Internationalization Configuration + Option. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 5.51. RFC 2485 DHCP Option for The Open Group's User + Authentication Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 5.52. RFC 2486 The Network Access Identifier. . . . . . . . 27 + 5.53. RFC 2491 IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access + (NBMA) Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 5.54. RFC 2492 IPv6 over ATM Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 5.55. RFC 2497 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet + Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 5.56. RFC 2507 IP Header Compression. . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 5.57. RFC 2526 Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses . . . 27 + 5.58. RFC 2529 Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains + without Explicit Tunnels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 5.59. RFC 2563 DHCP Option to Disable Stateless + Auto-Configuration in IPv4 Clients. . . . . . . . . . 27 + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + + 5.60. RFC 2590 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame + Relay Networks Specification. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 5.61. RFC 2601 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for ATMARP . . . 28 + 5.62. RFC 2602 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for MARS . . . . 28 + 5.63. RFC 2603 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for NHRP . . . . 28 + 5.64. RFC 2610 DHCP Options for Service Location Protocol . 28 + 5.65. RFC 2615 PPP over SONET/SDH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 5.66. RFC 2625 IP and ARP over Fibre Channel. . . . . . . . 28 + 5.67. RFC 2661 Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP). . . . . 28 + 5.68. RFC 2671 Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) . . . . 28 + 5.69. RFC 2672 Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection. . . . . . 29 + 5.70. RFC 2673 Binary Labels in the Domain Name System. . . 29 + 5.71. RFC 2675 IPv6 Jumbograms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 5.72. RFC 2684 Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM + Adaptation Layer 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 5.73. RFC 2685 Virtual Private Networks Identifier. . . . . 29 + 5.74. RFC 2686 The Multi-Class Extension to Multi-Link PPP. 29 + 5.75. RFC 2687 PPP in a Real-time Oriented HDLC-like + Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 5.76. RFC 2688 Integrated Services Mappings for Low Speed + Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 5.77. RFC 2710 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6. 29 + 5.78. RFC 2711 IPv6 Router Alert Option . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 5.79. RFC 2728 The Transmission of IP Over the Vertical + Blanking Interval of a Television Signal. . . . . . . 30 + 5.80. RFC 2734 IPv4 over IEEE 1394. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 5.81. RFC 2735 NHRP Support for Virtual Private Networks. . 30 + 5.82. RFC 2765 Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm + (SIIT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 5.83. RFC 2766 Network Address Translation - Protocol + Translation (NAT-PT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 5.84. RFC 2776 Multicast-Scope Zone Announcement Protocol + (MZAP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 5.85. RFC 2782 A DNS RR for specifying the location of + services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 5.86. RFC 2794 Mobile IP Network Access Identifier + Extension for IPv4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 5.87. RFC 2834 ARP and IP Broadcast over HIPPI-800. . . . . 31 + 5.88. RFC 2835 IP and ARP over HIPPI-6400 . . . . . . . . . 33 + 5.89. RFC 2855 DHCP for IEEE 1394 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 5.90. RFC 2874 DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address + Aggregation and Renumbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 5.91. RFC 2893 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and + Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 5.92. RFC 2916 E.164 number and DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 5.93. RFC 2937 The Name Service Search Option for DHCP. . . 33 + 5.94. RFC 3004 The User Class Option for DHCP . . . . . . . 33 + 5.95. RFC 3011 The IPv4 Subnet Selection Option for DHCP. . 33 + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + + 5.96. RFC 3021 Using 31-Bit Prefixes for IPv4 P2P Links . . 33 + 5.97. RFC 3024 Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP, revised . . 34 + 5.98. RFC 3046 DHCP Relay Agent Information Option. . . . . 34 + 5.99. RFC 3056 Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds . 34 + 5.100. RFC 3068 An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers . . 34 + 5.101. RFC 3070 Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) over + Frame Relay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + 5.102. RFC 3074 DHC Load Balancing Algorithm . . . . . . . . 34 + 5.103. RFC 3077 A Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism for + Unidirectional Links. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + 5.104. RFC 3115 Mobile IP Vendor/Organization-Specific + Extensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + 5.105. RFC 3145 L2TP Disconnect Cause Information. . . . . . 34 + 5.106. RFC 3344 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 . . . . . . . . 34 + 5.107. RFC 3376 Internet Group Management Protocol, + Version 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 5.108. RFC 3402 Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) + Part Two: The Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 5.109. RFC 3403 Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) + Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database. . 35 + 5.110. RFC 3513 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture . . . . 35 + 5.111. RFC 3518 Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Bridging + Control Protocol (BCP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 6. Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 6.1. RFC 1149 Standard for the transmission of IP + datagrams on avian carriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 6.2. RFC 1183 New DNS RR Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 6.3. RFC 1226 Internet protocol encapsulation of AX.25 + frames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + 6.4. RFC 1241 Scheme for an internet encapsulation + protocol: Version 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + 6.5. RFC 1307 Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol . 36 + 6.6. RFC 1393 Traceroute Using an IP Option. . . . . . . . 36 + 6.7. RFC 1433 Directed ARP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + 6.8. RFC 1464 Using the Domain Name System To Store + Arbitrary String Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 + 6.9. RFC 1475 TP/IX: The Next Internet . . . . . . . . . . 37 + 6.10. RFC 1561 Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments . . . . 37 + 6.11. RFC 1712 DNS Encoding of Geographical Location. . . . 37 + 6.12. RFC 1735 NBMA Address Resolution Protocol (NARP). . . 37 + 6.13. RFC 1768 Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting. 38 + 6.14. RFC 1788 ICMP Domain Name Messages. . . . . . . . . . 38 + 6.15. RFC 1797 Class A Subnet Experiment. . . . . . . . . . 38 + 6.16. RFC 1819 Internet Stream Protocol Version 2 (ST2) + Protocol Specification - Version ST2+ . . . . . . . . 39 + 6.17. RFC 1868 ARP Extension - UNARP. . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + 6.18. RFC 1876 A Means for Expressing Location Information + in the Domain Name System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + + 6.19. RFC 1888 OSI NSAPs and IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + 6.20. RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressin and Routing. . . . . . . 39 + 6.21. RFC 2143 Encapsulating IP with the SCSI . . . . . . . 39 + 6.22. RFC 2345 Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval. . . 40 + 6.23. RFC 2443 A Distributed MARS Service Using SCSP. . . . 40 + 6.24. RFC 2471 IPv6 Testing Address Allocation. . . . . . . 40 + 6.25. RFC 2520 NHRP with Mobile NHCs. . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 6.26. RFC 2521 ICMP Security Failures Messages. . . . . . . 40 + 6.27. RFC 2540 Detached Domain Name System (DNS) + Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 6.28. RFC 2823 PPP over Simple Data Link (SDL) using + SONET/SDH with ATM-like framing . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 6.29. RFC 3123 A DNS RR Type for Lists of Address Prefixes. 40 + 6.30. RFC 3168 The Addition of Explicit Congestion + Notification (ECN) to IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 6.31. RFC 3180 GLOP Addressing in 233/8 . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 7. Summary of the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 + 7.1. Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 + 7.1.1. RFC 791 Internet Protocol . . . . . . . . . . 41 + 7.1.2. RFC 792 Internet Control Message Protocol . . 41 + 7.1.3. RFC 891 DCN Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 + 7.1.4. RFC 894 IP over Ethernet. . . . . . . . . . . 41 + 7.1.5. RFC 895 IP over experimental Ethernets. . . . 41 + 7.1.6. RFC 922 Broadcasting Internet Datagrams in + the Presence of Subnets . . . . . . . . . . . 41 + 7.1.7. RFC 950 Internet Standard Subnetting + Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 7.1.8. RFC 1034 Domain Names: Concepts and + Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 7.1.9. RFC 1035 Domain Names: Implementation and + Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 7.1.10. RFC 1042 IP over IEEE 802 . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 7.1.11. RFC 1044 IP over HyperChannel . . . . . . . . 42 + 7.1.12. RFC 1088 IP over NetBIOS. . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 7.1.13. RFC 1112 Host Extensions for IP Multicast . . 42 + 7.1.14. RFC 1122 Requirements for Internet Hosts. . . 42 + 7.1.15. RFC 1201 IP over ARCNET . . . . . . . . . . . 42 + 7.1.16. RFC 1209 IP over SMDS . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 7.1.17. RFC 1390 Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI + Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 7.2. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 7.2.1. RFC 951 Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP). . . . . . 43 + 7.2.2. RFC 1191 Path MTU Discovery . . . . . . . . . 43 + 7.2.3. RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 + and ISDN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 7.2.4. RFC 1990 The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP). . . 43 + 7.2.5. RFC 2067 IP over HIPPI. . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 7.2.6. RFC 2131 DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + + 7.3. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 7.3.1. RFC 1234 Tunneling IPX over IP. . . . . . . . 44 + 7.3.2. RFC 1256 ICMP Router Discovery. . . . . . . . 44 + 7.3.3. RFC 1277 Encoding Net Addresses to Support + Operation Over Non OSI Lower Layers . . . . . 44 + 7.3.4. RFC 1332 PPP Internet Protocol Control + Protocol (IPCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 7.3.5. RFC 1469 IP Multicast over Token Ring . . . . 44 + 7.3.6. RFC 2003 IP Encapsulation within IP . . . . . 44 + 7.3.7. RFC 2004 Minimal Encapsulation within IP. . . 44 + 7.3.8. RFC 2022 Support for Multicast over UNI + 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks. . . . . . . . . . 44 + 7.3.9. RFC 2113 IP Router Alert Option . . . . . . . 45 + 7.3.10. RFC 2165 SLP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 + 7.3.11. RFC 2225 Classical IP & ARP over ATM. . . . . 45 + 7.3.12. RFC 2226 IP Broadcast over ATM. . . . . . . . 45 + 7.3.13. RFC 2371 Transaction IPv3 . . . . . . . . . . 45 + 7.3.14. RFC 2625 IP and ARP over Fibre Channel. . . . 45 + 7.3.15. RFC 2672 Non-Terminal DNS Redirection . . . . 45 + 7.3.16. RFC 2673 Binary Labels in DNS . . . . . . . . 45 + 7.3.17. IP over Vertical Blanking Interval of a TV + Signal (RFC 2728) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 + 7.3.18. RFC 2734 IPv4 over IEEE 1394. . . . . . . . . 45 + 7.3.19. RFC 2834 ARP & IP Broadcasts Over HIPPI 800 . 46 + 7.3.20. RFC 2835 ARP & IP Broadcasts Over HIPPI 6400. 46 + 7.3.21. RFC 3344 Mobility Support for IPv4. . . . . . 46 + 7.3.22. RFC 3376 Internet Group Management Protocol, + Version 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 + 7.4. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 + 7.4.1. RFC 1307 Dynamically Switched Link Control + Protocol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 + 7.4.2. RFC 1393 Traceroute using an IP Option. . . . 46 + 7.4.3. RFC 1735 NBMA Address Resolution Protocol + (NARP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 + 7.4.4. RFC 1788 ICMP Domain Name Messages. . . . . . 46 + 7.4.5. RFC 1868 ARP Extension - UNARP. . . . . . . . 47 + 7.4.6. RFC 2143 IP Over SCSI . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 + 7.4.7. RFC 3180 GLOP Addressing in 233/8 . . . . . . 47 + 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 + 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 + 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 + 10.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 + 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 + 11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 + 12. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +1. Introduction + + 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. + +2. Document Organization + + 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. + +3. Full Standards + + Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as + "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely + implemented and used throughout the Internet. + +3.1. RFC 791 Internet Protocol + + This specification defines IPv4; IPv6 has been specified in separate + documents. + +3.2. RFC 792 Internet Control Message Protocol + + This specification defines ICMP, and is inherently IPv4 dependent. + +3.3. RFC 826 Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +3.4. RFC 891 DCN Local-Network Protocols + + There are many implicit assumptions about the use of IPv4 addresses + in this document. + +3.5. RFC 894 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over + Ethernet networks + + This specification specifically deals with the transmission of IPv4 + packets over Ethernet. + +3.6. RFC 895 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over + experimental Ethernet networks + + This specification specifically deals with the transmission of IPv4 + packets over experimental Ethernet. + +3.7. RFC 903 Reverse Address Resolution Protocol + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +3.8. RFC 919 Broadcasting Internet Datagrams + + This specification defines broadcasting for IPv4; IPv6 uses multicast + so this is not applicable. + +3.9. RFC 922 Broadcasting Internet datagrams in the presence of subnets + + This specification defines how broadcasts should be treated in the + presence of subnets. IPv6 uses multicast so this is not applicable. + +3.10. RFC 950 Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure + + This specification defines IPv4 subnetting; similar functionality is + part of IPv6 addressing architecture to begin with. + +3.11. RFC 1034 Domain Names: Concepts and Facilities + + 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: + + +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ + | ADDRESS | + +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ + + where: + + ADDRESS A 32 bit Internet address. + + 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 + + + And Section 3.4.2, "WKS RDATA", format is: + + +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ + | ADDRESS | + +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ + | PROTOCOL | | + +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | + | | + / <BIT MAP> / + + / / + +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ + + where: + + ADDRESS An 32 bit Internet address + + PROTOCOL An 8 bit IP protocol number + + <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. + +3.17. RFC 1112 Host Extensions for IP Multicasting + + 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. + +3.22. RFC 1661 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +3.23. RFC 1662 PPP in HDLC-like Framing + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +3.24. RFC 2427 Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +4. Draft Standards + + 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. + +4.1. RFC 951 Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) + + This protocol is designed specifically for use with IPv4, for + example: + + Section 3. Packet Format + + 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. + +4.3. RFC 1191 Path MTU discovery + + 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 3.2 defines an NLPID for IP as follows: + + The value hex CC (binary 11001100, decimal 204) is IP. + Conformance with this specification requires that IP be supported. + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 15] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + + See section 5.1 for a diagram of the packet formats. + + Clearly a new NLPID would need to be defined for IPv6 packets. + +4.5. RFC 1534 Interoperation Between DHCP and BOOTP + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +4.6. RFC 1542 Clarifications and Extensions for the Bootstrap Protocol + + There are no new issues other than those presented in Section 4.1. + +4.7. RFC 1629 Guidelines for OSI NSAP Allocation in the Internet + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +4.8. RFC 1762 The PPP DECnet Phase IV Control Protocol (DNCP) + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +4.9. RFC 1989 PPP Link Quality Monitoring + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +4.10. RFC 1990 The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP) + + 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: + + 0 Null Class + + 1 Locally Assigned Address + + 2 Internet Protocol (IP) Address + + 3 IEEE 802.1 Globally Assigned MAC Address + + 4 PPP Magic-Number Block + + 5 Public Switched Network Directory Number + + A new class field needs to be defined by the IANA for IPv6 addresses. + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 16] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +4.11. RFC 1994 PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP) + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +4.12. RFC 2067 IP over HIPPI + + Section 5.1, "Packet Formats", contains the following excerpt: + + EtherType (16 bits) SHALL be set as defined in Assigned Numbers: IP + = 2048 ('0800'h), ARP = 2054 ('0806'h), RARP = 32,821 ('8035'h). + + Section 5.5, "MTU", has the following definition: + + The MTU for HIPPI-SC LANs is 65280 bytes. + + 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. + +4.13. RFC 2131 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol + + This version of DHCP is highly predicated of IPv4. It is not + compatible with IPv6. + +4.14. RFC 2132 DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions + + This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification. + +4.15. RFC 2390 Inverse Address Resolution Protocol + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +4.16. RFC 2460 Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification + + This document defines IPv6 and has no IPv4 issues. + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 17] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +4.17. RFC 2461 Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6) + + This document defines an IPv6 related specification and has no IPv4 + issues. + +4.18. RFC 2462 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration + + 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. + +5.2. RFC 1256 ICMP Router Discovery Messages + + 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. + +5.9. RFC 1570 PPP LCP Extensions + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.10. RFC 1598 PPP in X.25 PPP-X25 + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.11. RFC 1618 PPP over ISDN + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.12. RFC 1663 PPP Reliable Transmission + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.13. RFC 1752 The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol + + This document defines a road map for IPv6 development and is not + relevant to this discussion. + +5.14. RFC 1755 ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 20] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +5.15. RFC 1763 The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP) + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.16. RFC 1764 The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP) + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.17. RFC 1973 PPP in Frame Relay + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.18. RFC 1981 Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6 + + This specification describes an IPv6 related specification and is not + discussed in this document. + +5.19. RFC 1982 Serial Number Arithmetic + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.20. RFC 1995 Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS + + 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. + +5.22. RFC 2003 IP Encapsulation within IP + + 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. + +5.23. RFC 2004 Minimal Encapsulation within IP + + 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. + +5.26. RFC 2043 The PPP SNA Control Protocol (SNACP) + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.27. RFC 2097 The PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol (NBFCP) + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.28. RFC 2113 IP Router Alert Option + + 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. + +5.32. RFC 2225 Classical IP and ARP over ATM + + 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. + +5.33. RFC 2226 IP Broadcast over ATM Networks + + 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. + +5.40. RFC 2333 NHRP Protocol Applicability + + 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. + +5.41. RFC 2335 A Distributed NHRP Service Using SCSP + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.42. RFC 2363 PPP Over FUNI + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.43. RFC 2364 PPP Over AAL5 + + 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. + + And further along it states: + + A TIP URL takes the form: + + tip://<transaction manager address>?<transaction string> + + 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. + +5.48. RFC 2472 IP Version 6 over PPP + + This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets + over PPP and is not considered in this discussion. + +5.49. RFC 2473 Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification + + This specification documents an IPv6 aware specification and is not + considered in this discussion. + +5.50. RFC 2484 PPP LCP Internationalization Configuration Option + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 26] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +5.51. RFC 2485 DHCP Option for The Open Group's User Authentication + Protocol + + This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification. + +5.52. RFC 2486 The Network Access Identifier + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.53. RFC 2491 IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Networks + + This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets + over NBMA networks and is not considered in this discussion. + +5.54. RFC 2492 IPv6 over ATM Networks + + This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets + over ATM networks and is not considered in this discussion. + +5.55. RFC 2497 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet Networks + + This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets + over ARCnet networks and is not considered in this discussion. + +5.56. RFC 2507 IP Header Compression + + This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. + +5.57. RFC 2526 Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses + + This specification documents IPv6 addressing and is not discussed in + this document. + +5.58. RFC 2529 Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains without Explicit + Tunnels + + This specification documents IPv6 transmission methods and is not + discussed in this document. + +5.59. RFC 2563 DHCP Option to Disable Stateless Auto-Configuration in + IPv4 Clients + + This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification. + + + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 27] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +5.60. RFC 2590 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks + Specification + + This specification documents IPv6 transmission method over Frame + Relay and is not discussed in this document. + +5.61. RFC 2601 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for ATMARP + + This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. + +5.62. RFC 2602 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for MARS + + This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. + +5.63. RFC 2603 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for NHRP + + This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. + +5.64. RFC 2610 DHCP Options for Service Location Protocol + + This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification. + +5.65. RFC 2615 PPP over SONET/SDH + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.66. RFC 2625 IP and ARP over Fibre Channel + + This document states: + + Objective and Scope: + + 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 is incompatible with IPv6. + +5.67. RFC 2661 Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.68. RFC 2671 Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 28] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +5.69. RFC 2672 Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection + + This document is only defined for IPv4 addresses. An IPv6 + specification may be needed. + +5.70. RFC 2673 Binary Labels in the Domain Name System + + This document is only defined for IPv4 addresses. An IPv6 + specification may be needed. + +5.71. RFC 2675 IPv6 Jumbograms + + This document defines a IPv6 packet format and is therefore not + discussed in this document. + +5.72. RFC 2684 Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5 + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.73. RFC 2685 Virtual Private Networks Identifier + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.74. RFC 2686 The Multi-Class Extension to Multi-Link PPP + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.75. RFC 2687 PPP in a Real-time Oriented HDLC-like Framing + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.76. RFC 2688 Integrated Services Mappings for Low Speed Networks + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.77. RFC 2710 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 + + This document defines an IPv6 specific specification and is not + discussed in this document. + +5.78. RFC 2711 IPv6 Router Alert Option + + This document defines an IPv6 specific specification and is not + discussed in this document. + + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 29] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +5.79. RFC 2728 The Transmission of IP Over the Vertical Blanking + Interval of a Television Signal + + The following data format is defined: + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |0| group | uncompressed IP header (20 bytes) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + | | + : .... : + + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | uncompressed UDP header (8 bytes) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + | | + + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | payload (<1472 bytes) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + | | + : .... : + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | CRC | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + This is incompatible with IPv6. + +5.80. RFC 2734 IPv4 over IEEE 1394 + + This specification is IPv4 only. + +5.81. RFC 2735 NHRP Support for Virtual Private Networks + + This specification implies only IPv4 operations, but does not seem to + present any reason that it would not function for IPv6. + +5.82. RFC 2765 Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (SIIT) + + This specification defines a method for IPv6 transition and is not + discussed in this document. + +5.83. RFC 2766 Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation + (NAT-PT) + + This specification defines a method for IPv6 transition and is not + discussed in this document. + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 30] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +5.84. RFC 2776 Multicast-Scope Zone Announcement Protocol (MZAP) + + This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. + +5.85. RFC 2782 A DNS RR for specifying the location of services + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.86. RFC 2794 Mobile IP Network Access Identifier Extension for IPv4 + + This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification. + +5.87. RFC 2834 ARP and IP Broadcast over HIPPI-800 + + 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 + + + And later: + + 31 28 23 21 15 10 7 2 0 + +-----+---------+-+-+-----------+---------+-----+---------+-----+ + 0 | 04 |1|0| 000 | 03 | 0 | + +---------------+-+-+---------------------+---------------+-----+ + 1 | 45 | + +-----+-+-------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ + 2 |[LA] |W|MsgT= 0| 000 | Dest. Switch Addr | + +-----+-+-------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ + 3 | 2 | 2 | 000 | Source Switch Addr | + +---------------+---------------+-------+-----------------------+ + 4 | 00 00 | | + +-------------------------------+ | + 5 | Destination ULA | + +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ + 6 | [LA] | | + +-------------------------------+ | + 7 | Source ULA | + +===============+===============+===============+===============+ + 8 | AA | AA | 03 | 00 | + +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ + 9 | 00 | 00 | Ethertype (2054) | + +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+ +10 | hrd (28) | pro (2048) | + +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ +11 | op (ar$op) | pln (6) | rhl (q) | + +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ +12 | thl = (x) | Requester IP Address upper (24 bits) | + +---------------------------------------------------------------+ +13 | Req. IP lower | Target IP Address upper (24 bits) | + +---------------+-----------------------------------------------+ +14 | Tgt. IP lower | Requester HIPPI Hardware Address bytes 0 - 2 | + +---------------+-----------------------------------------------+ +15 | Requester HIPPI Hardware Address bytes 3 - 6 | + +-----------------------------------------------+---------------+ +16 | Requester HW Address bytes 7 - q | Tgt HW byte 0 | + +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ +17 | Target HIPPI Hardware Address bytes 1 - 4 | + +---------------------------------------------------------------+ +18 | Target HIPPI Hardware Address bytes 5 - 8 | + +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ +19 |Tgt HW byte 9-x| FILL | FILL | FILL | + +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ + HARP - InHARP Message + + This is incompatible with IPv6. + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 32] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +5.88. RFC 2835 IP and ARP over HIPPI-6400 + + This document states: + + 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. + +5.89. RFC 2855 DHCP for IEEE 1394 + + This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification. + +5.90. RFC 2874 DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and + Renumbering + + This document defines a specification to interact with IPv6 and is + not considered in this document. + +5.91. RFC 2893 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers + + This document defines a transition mechanism for IPv6 and is not + considered in this document. + +5.92. RFC 2916 E.164 number and DNS + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.93. RFC 2937 The Name Service Search Option for DHCP + + This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification. + +5.94. RFC 3004 The User Class Option for DHCP + + 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. + +5.98. RFC 3046 DHCP Relay Agent Information Option + + This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification. + +5.99. RFC 3056 Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds + + This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this + document. + +5.100. RFC 3068 An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers + + This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this + document. + +5.101. RFC 3070 Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) over Frame Relay + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.102. RFC 3074 DHC Load Balancing Algorithm + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.103. RFC 3077 A Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism for Unidirectional + Links + + This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. + +5.104. RFC 3115 Mobile IP Vendor/Organization-Specific Extensions + + This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification. + +5.105. RFC 3145 L2TP Disconnect Cause Information + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.106. RFC 3344 IP Mobility Support for IPv4 + + There are IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 34] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +5.107. RFC 3376 Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3 + + This document describes of version of IGMP used for IPv4 multicast. + This is not compatible with IPv6. + +5.108. RFC 3402 Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Two: + The Algorithm + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.109. RFC 3403 Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three: + The Domain Name System (DNS) Database + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +5.110. RFC 3513 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture + + This specification documents IPv6 addressing and is not discussed in + this document. + +5.111. RFC 3518 Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Bridging Control + Protocol (BCP) + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +6. Experimental RFCs + + 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. + +6.2. RFC 1183 New DNS RR Definitions + + 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: + + 3.1 Control Message Format + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +| Identifier | Total length | ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +| Function | Event Status | ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +| Endpoint 1 | ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +| Endpoint 2 | ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +| Message | ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +| Body | ++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +Endpoint addresses: 32 bits each + + The internet addresses of the two communicating parties for which the + link is being prepared. + +6.6. RFC 1393 Traceroute Using an IP Option + + This document uses an IPv4 option. It is therefore limited to IPv4 + networks, and is incompatible with IPv6. + +6.7. RFC 1433 Directed ARP + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 36] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +6.8. RFC 1464 Using the Domain Name System To Store Arbitrary String + Attributes + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +6.9. RFC 1475 TP/IX: The Next Internet + + This document defines IPv7 and has been abandoned by the IETF as a + feasible design. It is not considered in this document. + +6.10. RFC 1561 Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments + + This document defines the use of NSAP addressing and does not use any + version of IP, so there are no IPv4 dependencies in this + specification. + +6.11. RFC 1712 DNS Encoding of Geographical Location + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +6.12. RFC 1735 NBMA Address Resolution Protocol (NARP) + + This document defines a specification that is IPv4 specific, for + example: + + 4. Packet Formats + + NARP requests and replies are carried in IP packets as protocol type + 54. This section describes the packet formats of NARP requests and + replies: + + NARP Request + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Version | Hop Count | Checksum | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Type | Code | Unused | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination IP address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Source IP address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | NBMA length | NBMA address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | + | (variable length) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 37] + +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. + + And: + + NARP Reply + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Version | Hop Count | Checksum | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Type | Code | Unused | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Destination IP address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Source IP address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | NBMA length | NBMA address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | + | (variable length) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + 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. + +6.14. RFC 1788 ICMP Domain Name Messages + + This specification is used for updates to the in-addr.arpa reverse + DNS maps, and is limited to IPv4. + +6.15. RFC 1797 Class A Subnet Experiment + + 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. + +6.17. RFC 1868 ARP Extension - UNARP + + This specification defines an extension to IPv4 ARP to delete entries + from ARP caches on a link. + +6.18. RFC 1876 A Means for Expressing Location Information in the + Domain Name System + + This document defines a methodology for applying this technology + which is IPv4 dependent. The specification itself has no IPv4 + dependencies. + +6.19. RFC 1888 OSI NSAPs and IPv6 + + This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this + document. + +6.20. RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing + + The document states: + + 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. + +6.21. RFC 2143 Encapsulating IP with the SCSI + + This specification will only operate using IPv4. As stated in the + document: + + It was decided that the ten byte header offers the greatest + flexibility for encapsulating version 4 IP datagrams for the + following reasons: [...] + + This is incompatible with IPv6. + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 39] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +6.22. RFC 2345 Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +6.23. RFC 2443 A Distributed MARS Service Using SCSP + + 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. + +6.24. RFC 2471 IPv6 Testing Address Allocation + + This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this + document. + +6.25. RFC 2520 NHRP with Mobile NHCs + + This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. + +6.26. RFC 2521 ICMP Security Failures Messages + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +6.27. RFC 2540 Detached Domain Name System (DNS) Information + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +6.28. RFC 2823 PPP over Simple Data Link (SDL) using SONET/SDH with + ATM-like framing + + There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. + +6.29. RFC 3123 A DNS RR Type for Lists of Address Prefixes + + This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. + +6.30. RFC 3168 The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) + to IP + + This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. + +6.31. RFC 3180 GLOP Addressing in 233/8 + + This document is specific to IPv4 multicast addressing. + + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 40] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +7. Summary of the Results + + 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. + +7.1. Standards + +7.1.1. RFC 791 Internet Protocol + + RFC 791 has been updated in the definition of IPv6 in RFC 2460. + +7.1.2. RFC 792 Internet Control Message Protocol + + RFC 792 has been updated in the definition of ICMPv6 in RFC 2463. + +7.1.3. RFC 891 DCN Networks + + DCN has long since been ceased to be used, so this specification is + no longer relevant. + +7.1.4. RFC 894 IP over Ethernet + + This problem has been fixed by RFC 2464, A Method for the + Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks. + +7.1.5. RFC 895 IP over experimental Ethernets + + It is believed that experimental Ethernet networks are not being used + anymore, so the specification is no longer relevant. + +7.1.6. RFC 922 Broadcasting Internet Datagrams in the Presence of + Subnets + + Broadcasting is not used in IPv6, but similar functionality has been + included in RFC 3513, IPv6 Addressing Architecture. + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 41] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +7.1.7. RFC 950 Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure + + Broadcasting is not used in IPv6, but similar functionality has been + included in RFC 3513, IPv6 Addressing Architecture. + +7.1.8. RFC 1034 Domain Names: Concepts and Facilities + + The problems have been fixed by defining new resource records for + IPv6 addresses. + +7.1.9. RFC 1035 Domain Names: Implementation and Specification + + The problems have been fixed by defining new resource records for + IPv6 addresses. + +7.1.10. RFC 1042 IP over IEEE 802 + + This problem has been fixed by RFC 2470, Transmission of IPv6 Packets + over Token Ring Networks. + +7.1.11. RFC 1044 IP over HyperChannel + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.1.12. RFC 1088 IP over NetBIOS + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.1.13. RFC 1112 Host Extensions for IP Multicast + + The IPv4-specific parts of RFC 1112 have been updated in RFC 2710, + Multicast Listener Discovery for IPv6. + +7.1.14. RFC 1122 Requirements for Internet Hosts + + RFC 1122 is essentially a requirements document for IPv4 hosts. + Similar work is in progress [2]. + +7.1.15. RFC 1201 IP over ARCNET + + This problem has been fixed by RFC 2497, A Method for the + Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet Networks. + + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 42] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +7.1.16. RFC 1209 IP over SMDS + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.1.17. RFC 1390 Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks + + This problem has been fixed by RFC 2467, Transmission of IPv6 Packets + over FDDI Networks. + +7.2. Draft Standards + +7.2.1. RFC 951 Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) + + This problem has been fixed by RFC 2462, IPv6 Stateless Address + Autoconfiguration, and RFC 3315, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol + for IPv6 (DHCPv6). + +7.2.2. RFC 1191 Path MTU Discovery + + 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. + +7.2.4. RFC 1990 The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP) + + A new class identifier ("6") for IPv6 packets has been registered + with the IANA by the original author, fixing this problem. + +7.2.5. RFC 2067 IP over HIPPI + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.2.6. RFC 2131 DHCP + + 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 + + +7.3. Proposed Standards + +7.3.1. RFC 1234 Tunneling IPX over IP + + 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. + +7.3.2. RFC 1256 ICMP Router Discovery + + 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. + +7.3.5. RFC 1469 IP Multicast over Token Ring + + The functionality of this specification has been essentially covered + in RFC 2470, Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks. + +7.3.6. RFC 2003 IP Encapsulation within IP + + This problem has been fixed by defining different IP-in-IP + encapsulation, for example, RFC 2473, Generic Packet Tunneling in + IPv6 Specification. + +7.3.7. RFC 2004 Minimal Encapsulation within IP + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.3.8. RFC 2022 Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM + Networks + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 44] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +7.3.9. RFC 2113 IP Router Alert Option + + This problem has been fixed in RFC 2711, IPv6 Router Alert Option. + +7.3.10. RFC 2165 SLP + + The problems have been addressed in RFC 3111, Service Location + Protocol Modifications for IPv6. + +7.3.11. RFC 2225 Classical IP & ARP over ATM + + The problems have been resolved in RFC 2492, IPv6 over ATM Networks. + +7.3.12. RFC 2226 IP Broadcast over ATM + + The problems have been resolved in RFC 2492, IPv6 over ATM Networks. + +7.3.13. RFC 2371 Transaction IPv3 + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.3.14. RFC 2625 IP and ARP over Fibre Channel + + There is work in progress to fix these problems + +7.3.15. RFC 2672 Non-Terminal DNS Redirection + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.3.16. RFC 2673 Binary Labels in DNS + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.3.17. IP over Vertical Blanking Interval of a TV Signal (RFC 2728) + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.3.18. RFC 2734 IPv4 over IEEE 1394 + + This problem has been fixed by RFC 3146, Transmission of IPv6 Packets + Over IEEE 1394 Networks. + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 45] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +7.3.19. RFC 2834 ARP & IP Broadcasts Over HIPPI 800 + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.3.20. RFC 2835 ARP & IP Broadcasts Over HIPPI 6400 + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.3.21. RFC 3344 Mobility Support for IPv4 + + 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]. + +7.4. Experimental RFCs + +7.4.1. RFC 1307 Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.4.2. RFC 1393 Traceroute using an IP Option + + This specification relies on the use of an IPv4 option. No + replacement document exists, and it is unclear whether one is needed. + +7.4.3. RFC 1735 NBMA Address Resolution Protocol (NARP) + + 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). + +7.4.4. RFC 1788 ICMP Domain Name Messages + + 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 + + +7.4.5. RFC 1868 ARP Extension - UNARP + + This mechanism defined a mechanism to purge ARP caches on a link. + That functionality already exists in RFC 2461, Neighbor Discovery for + IPv6. + +7.4.6. RFC 2143 IP Over SCSI + + No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear + whether one is needed. + +7.4.7. RFC 3180 GLOP Addressing in 233/8 + + Similar functionality is provided by RFC 3306, Unicast-Prefix-based + IPv6 Multicast Addresses, and no action is necessary. + +8. Security Considerations + + This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does + not have security considerations in itself. + +9. Acknowledgements + + 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. + +10. References + +10.1. Normative References + + [1] Nesser II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the + Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", + RFC 3789, June 2004. + + + + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 47] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +10.2 Informative References + + [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. + +11. Authors' Addresses + + Cleveland Mickles, Editor + Reston, VA 20191 + USA + + EMail: cmickles.ee88@gtalumni.org + + + Philip J. Nesser II + Nesser & Nesser Consulting + 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 + Kirkland, WA 98034 + USA + + EMail: phil@nesser.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 48] + +RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004 + + +12. Full Copyright Statement + + 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. + + + + + + + + + +Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 49] + |