path: root/doc/rfc/rfc3794.txt

Network Working Group                                      P. Nesser, II
Request for Comments: 3794                    Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Category: Informational                                A. Bergstrom, Ed.
                                              Ostfold University College
                                                               June 2004


            Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
     IETF Transport 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 Transport 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

   1.0.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.0.  Document Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   3.0.  Full Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   4.0.  Draft Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.0.  Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.0.  Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   7.0.  Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
         7.1.  Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
         7.2.  Draft Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
         7.3.  Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
         7.4.  Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   8.0.  Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   9.0.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30



Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 1]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   10.0. Normative Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   11.0. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   12.0. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1.0.  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,
   Operations & Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).

   For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1].

2.0.  Document Organization

   The rest of the document sections are described below.

   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 its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with (around)
   RFC 3100. The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature.  That is,
   each RFC is discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do
   not "look ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed.

   Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5,
   and 6.  It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole
   and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are
   correlated.

3.0.  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 768 User Datagram Protocol

   Although UDP is a transport protocol there is one reference to the
   UDP/IP interface that states;  "The UDP module must be able to
   determine the source and destination internet addresses and the
   protocol field from the internet header."  This does not force a
   rewrite of the protocol but will clearly cause changes in
   implementations.







Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 2]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


3.2.  RFC 793 Transmission Control Protocol

   Section 3.1 which specifies the header format for TCP.  The TCP
   header is free from IPv4 references but there is an inconsistency in
   the computation of checksums.  The text says:  "The checksum also
   covers a 96 bit pseudo header conceptually prefixed to the TCP
   header.  This pseudo header contains the Source Address, the
   Destination Address, the Protocol, and TCP length."  The first and
   second 32-bit words are clearly meant to specify 32-bit IPv4
   addresses.  While no modification of the TCP protocol is necessitated
   by this problem, an alternate needs to be specified as an update
   document, or as part of another IPv6 document.

3.3.  RFC 907 Host Access Protocol specification

   This is a layer 3 protocol, and has as such no IPv4 dependencies.

3.4.  NetBIOS Service Protocols.  RFC1001, RFC1002

   3.4.1.   RFC 1001 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A
            TCP/UDP TRANSPORT: CONCEPTS AND METHODS

      Section 15.4.1.  RELEASE BY B NODES defines:

         A NAME RELEASE DEMAND contains the following information:

           -  NetBIOS name
           -  The scope of the NetBIOS name
           -  Name type: unique or group
           -  IP address of the releasing node
           -  Transaction ID

      Section 15.4.2.  RELEASE BY P NODES defines:

         A NAME RELEASE REQUEST contains the following information:

           -  NetBIOS name
           -  The scope of the NetBIOS name
           -  Name type: unique or group
           -  IP address of the releasing node
           -  Transaction ID










Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 3]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


         A NAME RELEASE RESPONSE contains the following information:

           -  NetBIOS name
           -  The scope of the NetBIOS name
           -  Name type: unique or group
           -  IP address of the releasing node
           -  Transaction ID
           -  Result:
                -  Yes: name was released
                -  No: name was not released, a reason code is provided

      Section 16.  NetBIOS SESSION SERVICE states:

         The NetBIOS session service begins after one or more IP
         addresses have been found for the target name.  These addresses
         may have been acquired using the NetBIOS name query
         transactions or by other means, such as a local name table or
         cache.

      Section 16.1.  OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS SESSION SERVICE

         Session service has three phases:

         Session establishment - it is during this phase that the IP
            address and TCP port of the called name is determined, and a
            TCP connection is established with the remote party.

      6.1.1.  SESSION ESTABLISHMENT PHASE OVERVIEW

         An end-node begins establishment of a session to another node
         by somehow acquiring (perhaps using the name query transactions
         or a local cache) the IP address of the node or nodes purported
         to own the destination name.

         Once the TCP connection is open, the calling node sends session
         service request packet.  This packet contains the following
         information:

           -  Calling IP address (see note)
           -  Calling NetBIOS name
           -  Called IP address (see note)
           -  Called NetBIOS name

         NOTE: The IP addresses are obtained from the TCP service
               interface.






Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 4]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


         If a compatible LISTEN exists, and there are adequate
         resources, then the session server may transform the existing
         TCP connection into the NetBIOS data session.  Alternatively,
         the session server may redirect, or "retarget" the caller to
         another TCP port (and IP address).

         If the caller is redirected, the caller begins the session
         establishment anew, but using the new IP address and TCP port
         given in the retarget response.  Again a TCP connection is
         created, and again the calling and called node exchange
         credentials.  The called party may accept the call, reject the
         call, or make a further redirection.

      17.1.  OVERVIEW OF NetBIOS DATAGRAM SERVICE

         Every NetBIOS datagram has a named destination and source.  To
         transmit a NetBIOS datagram, the datagram service must perform
         a name query operation to learn the IP address and the
         attributes of the destination NetBIOS name.  (This information
         may be cached to avoid the overhead of name query on subsequent
         NetBIOS datagrams.)

      17.1.1.  UNICAST, MULTICAST, AND BROADCAST

         NetBIOS datagrams may be unicast, multicast, or broadcast.  A
         NetBIOS datagram addressed to a unique NetBIOS name is unicast.
         A NetBIOS datagram addressed to a group NetBIOS name, whether
         there are zero, one, or more actual members, is multicast.  A
         NetBIOS datagram sent using the NetBIOS "Send Broadcast
         Datagram" primitive is broadcast.

      17.1.2.  FRAGMENTATION OF NetBIOS DATAGRAMS

         When the header and data of a NetBIOS datagram exceeds the
         maximum amount of data allowed in a UDP packet, the NetBIOS
         datagram must be fragmented before transmission and reassembled
         upon receipt.

         A NetBIOS Datagram is composed of the following protocol
         elements:

           -  IP header of 20 bytes (minimum)
           -  UDP header of 8 bytes
           -  NetBIOS Datagram Header of 14 bytes
           -  The NetBIOS Datagram data.






Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 5]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


      18.  NODE CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS

         -  B NODES:
              -  Node's permanent unique name
              -  Whether IGMP is in use
              -  Broadcast IP address to use
              -  Whether NetBIOS session keep-alives are needed
              -  Usable UDP data field length (to control fragmentation)
         -  P NODES:
              -  Node's permanent unique name
              -  IP address of NBNS
              -  IP address of NBDD
              -  Whether NetBIOS session keep-alives are needed
              -  Usable UDP data field length (to control fragmentation)
         -  M NODES:
              -  Node's permanent unique name
              -  Whether IGMP is in use
              -  Broadcast IP address to use
              -  IP address of NBNS
              -  IP address of NBDD
              -  Whether NetBIOS session keep-alives are needed
              -  Usable UDP data field length (to control fragmentation)

   All of the proceeding sections make implicit use of IPv4 addresses
   and a new specification should be defined for use of IPv6 underlying
   addresses.

   3.4.2.  RFC 1002 PROTOCOL STANDARD FOR A NetBIOS SERVICE ON A
           TCP/UDP TRANSPORT: DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS

      Section 4.2.1.3.  RESOURCE RECORD defines

         RESOURCE RECORD RR_TYPE field definitions:

         Symbol      Value   Description:

         A          0x0001   IP address Resource Record (See
                             REDIRECT NAME QUERY RESPONSE)

         Sections 4.2.2.  NAME REGISTRATION REQUEST,  4.2.3.  NAME
         OVERWRITE REQUEST & DEMAND,  4.2.4.  NAME REFRESH REQUEST,
         4.2.5.  POSITIVE NAME REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.6.  NEGATIVE
         NAME REGISTRATION RESPONSE, 4.2.7.  END-NODE CHALLENGE
         REGISTRATION RESPONSE,  4.2.9.  NAME RELEASE REQUEST & DEMAND,
         4.2.10.  POSITIVE NAME RELEASE RESPONSE, 4.2.11.  NEGATIVE NAME
         RELEASE RESPONSE and Sections 4.2.13.  POSITIVE NAME QUERY





Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 6]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


         RESPONSE all contain 32 bit fields labeled "NB_ADDRESS" clearly
         defined for IPv4 addresses Sections 4.2.15.  REDIRECT NAME
         QUERY RESPONSE contains a field "NSD_IP_ADDR" which also is
         designed for a IPv4 address.

      Section 4.3.5.  SESSION RETARGET RESPONSE PACKET

                     1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      TYPE     |     FLAGS     |            LENGTH             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                      RETARGET_IP_ADDRESS                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|           PORT                |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      Section 4.4.1.  NetBIOS DATAGRAM HEADER

                     1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   MSG_TYPE    |     FLAGS     |           DGM_ID              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                           SOURCE_IP                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          SOURCE_PORT          |          DGM_LENGTH           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|         PACKET_OFFSET         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




















Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 7]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


      Section 4.4.2.  DIRECT_UNIQUE, DIRECT_GROUP, & BROADCAST
                      DATAGRAM

                     1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   MSG_TYPE    |     FLAGS     |           DGM_ID              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                           SOURCE_IP                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          SOURCE_PORT          |          DGM_LENGTH           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|         PACKET_OFFSET         |                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
|                                                               |
/                          SOURCE_NAME                          /
/                                                               /
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
/                       DESTINATION_NAME                        /
/                                                               /
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
/                           USER_DATA                           /
/                                                               /
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      Section 4.4.3.  DATAGRAM ERROR PACKET

                     1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   MSG_TYPE    |     FLAGS     |           DGM_ID              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                           SOURCE_IP                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          SOURCE_PORT          |  ERROR_CODE   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+









Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 8]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


      Section 4.4.4.  DATAGRAM QUERY REQUEST

                     1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   MSG_TYPE    |     FLAGS     |           DGM_ID              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                           SOURCE_IP                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          SOURCE_PORT          |                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
|                                                               |
/                       DESTINATION_NAME                        /
/                                                               /
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      4.4.5.  DATAGRAM POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE QUERY RESPONSE

                     1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|   MSG_TYPE    |     FLAGS     |           DGM_ID              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                           SOURCE_IP                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          SOURCE_PORT          |                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
|                                                               |
/                       DESTINATION_NAME                        /
/                                                               /
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      5.3.  NetBIOS DATAGRAM SERVICE PROTOCOLS

         The following are GLOBAL variables and should be NetBIOS user
         configurable:

         -  BROADCAST_ADDRESS: the IP address B-nodes use to send
            datagrams with group name destinations and broadcast
            datagrams.  The default is the IP broadcast address for a
            single IP network.






Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                      [Page 9]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


      There is also a large amount of pseudo code for most of the
      protocols functionality that make no specific reference to IPv4
      addresses. However they assume the use of the above defined
      packets.  The pseudo code may be valid for IPv6 as long as the
      packet formats are updated.

3.5.  RFC 1006 ISO Transport Service on top of the TCP (Version: 3)

      Section 5.  The Protocol defines a mapping specification

         Mapping parameters is also straight-forward:

            network service             TCP
                    -------             ---
                        CONNECTION RELEASE

              Called address          server's IP address
                                      (4 octets)

              Calling address         client's IP address
                                      (4 octets)

4.0.  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 3530 Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   4.2.  RFC 3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   4.3.  RFC 3551 RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with
         Minimal Control.

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.










Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 10]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


5.0.  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.

   5.01.  RFC 1144 Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial
          links

      This RFC is specifically oriented towards TCP/IPv4 packet headers
      and will not work in it's current form.  Significant work has
      already been done on similar algorithms for TCP/IPv6 headers.

   5.02.  RFC 1323 TCP Extensions for High Performance

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.03.  RFC 1553 Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX)

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.04.  RFC 1692 Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)

      Section 6.  Implementation Notes is states:

         Because the TMux mini-header does not contain a TOS field, only
         segments with the same IP TOS field should be contained in a
         single TMux message.  As most systems do not use the TOS
         feature, this is not a major restriction.  Where the TOS field
         is used, it may be desirable to hold several messages under
         construction for a host, one for each TOS value.

         Segments containing IP options should not be multiplexed.

      This is clearly IPv4 specific, but a simple restatement in IPv6
      terms will allow complete functionality.

   5.05.  RFC 1831 RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
          Specification Version 2 RPC

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.





Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 11]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   5.06.  RFC 1833 Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2

      In Section 2.1 RPCBIND Protocol Specification (in RPC Language)
      there is the following code fragment:

       * Protocol family (r_nc_protofmly):
       *   This identifies the family to which the protocol belongs.
       *   The following values are defined:
       *     NC_NOPROTOFMLY   "-"
       *     NC_LOOPBACK      "loopback"
       *     NC_INET          "inet"
       *     NC_IMPLINK       "implink"
       *     NC_PUP           "pup"
       *     NC_CHAOS         "chaos"
       *     NC_NS            "ns"
       *     NC_NBS           "nbs"
       *     NC_ECMA          "ecma"
       *     NC_DATAKIT       "datakit"
       *     NC_CCITT         "ccitt"
       *     NC_SNA           "sna"
       *     NC_DECNET        "decnet"
       *     NC_DLI           "dli"
       *     NC_LAT           "lat"
       *     NC_HYLINK        "hylink"
       *     NC_APPLETALK     "appletalk"
       *     NC_NIT           "nit"
       *     NC_IEEE802       "ieee802"
       *     NC_OSI           "osi"
       *     NC_X25           "x25"
       *     NC_OSINET        "osinet"
       *     NC_GOSIP         "gosip"

      It is clear that the value for NC_INET is intended for the IP
      protocol and is seems clear that it is IPv4 dependent.

   5.07.  RFC 1962 The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.08.  RFC 2018 TCP Selective Acknowledgement Options

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.09.  RFC 2029 RTP Payload Format of Sun's CellB Video Encoding

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.





Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 12]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   5.10.  RFC 2032 RTP Payload Format for H.261 Video Streams

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.11.  RFC 2126 ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT)

      This specification is IPv6 aware and has no issues.

   5.12.  RFC 2190 RTP Payload Format for H.263 Video Streams

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.13.  RFC 2198 RTP Payload for Redundant Audio Data

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.14.  RFC 2205 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
          Version 1 Functional Specification

      In Section 1.  Introduction the statement is made:

         RSVP operates on top of IPv4 or IPv6, occupying the place of a
         transport protocol in the protocol stack.

      Appendix A defines all of the header formats for RSVP and there
      are multiple formats for both IPv4 and IPv6.

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.15.  RFC 2207 RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows

      The defined IPsec extensions are valid for both IPv4 & IPv6.
      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.16.  RFC 2210 The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.17.  RFC 2211 Specification of the Controlled-Load Network
          Element Service

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.18.  RFC 2212 Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.





Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 13]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   5.19.  RFC 2215 General Characterization Parameters for
          Integrated Service Network Elements

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.20.  RFC 2250 RTP Payload Format for MPEG1/MPEG2 Video

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.21.  RFC 2326 Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)

      Section 3.2 RTSP URL defines:

         The "rtsp" and "rtspu" schemes are used to refer to network
         resources via the RTSP protocol.  This section defines the
         scheme-specific syntax and semantics for RTSP URLs.

            rtsp_URL  =   ( "rtsp:" | "rtspu:" )
                          "//" host [ ":" port ] [ abs_path ]
            host      =   <A legal Internet host domain name of IP
                          address (in dotted decimal form), as defined
                          by Section 2.1 of RFC 1123 \cite{rfc1123}>
            port      =   *DIGIT

         Although later in that section the following text is added:

            The use of IP addresses in URLs SHOULD be avoided whenever
            possible (see RFC 1924 [19]).

            Some later examples show:

            Example:

            C->S: DESCRIBE rtsp://server.example.com/fizzle/foo RTSP/1.0
                  CSeq: 312
                  Accept: application/sdp, application/rtsl,
                          application/mheg

            S->C: RTSP/1.0 200 OK
                  CSeq: 312
                  Date: 23 Jan 1997 15:35:06 GMT
                  Content-Type: application/sdp
                  Content-Length: 376

                  v=0
                  o=mhandley 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 126.16.64.4
                  s=SDP Seminar
                  i=A Seminar on the session description protocol



Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 14]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


                  u=http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/M.Handley/sdp.03.ps
                  e=mjh@isi.edu (Mark Handley)
                  c=IN IP4 224.2.17.12/127
                  t=2873397496 2873404696
                  a=recvonly
                  m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
                  m=video 2232 RTP/AVP 31
                  m=whiteboard 32416 UDP WB
                  a=orient:portrait


      which implies the use of the "IP4" tag and it should be possible
      to use an "IP6" tag.  There are also numerous other similar
      examples using the "IP4" tag.

      RTSP is also dependent on IPv6 support in a protocol capable of
      describing media configurations, for example SDP RFC 2327.

      RTSP can be used over IPv6 as long as the media description
      protocol supports IPv6, but only for certain restricted use cases.
      For full functionality there is need for IPv6 support.  The amount
      of updates needed are small.

   5.22.  RFC 2327 SDP: Session Description Protocol (SDP)

      This specification is under revision, and IPv6 support was added
      in RFC 3266 which updates this specification.

   5.23.  RFC 2380 RSVP over ATM Implementation Requirements

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.

   5.24.  RFC 2381 Interoperation of Controlled-Load Service and
          Guaranteed Service with ATM

      There does not seem any inherent IPv4 limitations in this
      specification, but it assumes work of other standards that have
      IPv4 limitations.


   5.25.  RFC 2429 RTP Payload Format for the 1998 Version of ITU-T
          Rec. H.263 Video (H.263+)

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.26.  RFC 2431 RTP Payload Format for BT.656 Video Encoding

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.



Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 15]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   5.27.  RFC 2435 RTP Payload Format for JPEG-compressed Video

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.28.  RFC 2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services Field
          (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.

   5.29.  RFC 2508 Compressing IP/UDP/RTP Headers for Low-Speed
          Serial Links

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.

   5.30.  RFC 2581 TCP Congestion Control

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.31.  RFC 2597 Assured Forwarding PHB Group

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.

   5.32.  RFC 2658 RTP Payload Format for PureVoice(tm) Audio

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.33.  RFC 2678 IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity

      This specification only supports IPv4.

   5.34.  RFC 2679 A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM

      This specification only supports IPv4.

   5.35.  RFC 2680 A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM

      This specification only supports IPv4.

   5.36.  RFC 2681 A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM

      This specification only supports IPv4.

   5.37.  RFC 2730 Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol
          (MADCAP)

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.




Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 16]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   5.38.  RFC 2733 An RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error
          Correction

      This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4
      dependencies.  Once that limitation is fixed, then this
      specification should support IPv6.

   5.39.  RFC 2745 RSVP Diagnostic Messages

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.

   5.40.  RFC 2746 RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.

   5.41.  RFC 2750 RSVP Extensions for Policy Control

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.42.  RFC 2793 RTP Payload for Text Conversation

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.43.  RFC 2814 SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol for
          RSVP-based Admission Control over IEEE 802-style networks

      This specification claims to be both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but  all
      of the examples are given with IPv4 addresses.  That, by itself is
      not a telling point but the following statement is made:

         a) LocalDSBMAddrInfo -- current DSBM's IP address (initially,
         0.0.0.0) and priority.  All IP addresses are assumed to be in
         network byte order.  In addition, current DSBM's L2 address is
         also stored as part of this state information.

      which could just be sloppy wording.  Perhaps a short document
      clarifying the text is appropriate.

   5.44.  RFC 2815 Integrated Service Mappings on IEEE 802 Networks

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.45.  RFC 2833 RTP Payload for DTMF Digits, Telephony Tones
          and Telephony Signals

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.



Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 17]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   5.46.  RFC 2848 The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and
          SDP for IP Access to Telephone Call Services

      This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4
      dependencies.  Once these limitations are fixed, then this
      specification should support IPv6.

   5.47.  RFC 2862 RTP Payload Format for Real-Time Pointers

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.48.  RFC 2872 Application and Sub Application Identity Policy
          Element for Use with RSVP

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.49.  RFC 2873 TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field

      This specification documents a technique using IPv4 headers.  A
      similar technique, if needed, will need to be defined for IPv6.

   5.50.  RFC 2883 An Extension to the Selective Acknowledgement (SACK)
          Option for TCP

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.51.  RFC 2907 MADCAP Multicast Scope Nesting State Option

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.

   5.52.  RFC 2960 Stream Control Transmission Protocol

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.

   5.53.  RFC 2961 RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.

   5.54.  RFC 2976 The SIP INFO Method

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.55.  RFC 2988 Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.



Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 18]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   5.56.  RFC 2996 Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.57.  RFC 2997 Specification of the Null Service Type

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.58.  RFC 3003 The audio/mpeg Media Type

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.59.  RFC 3006 Integrated Services in the Presence of
          Compressible Flows

      This document defines a protocol that discusses compressible
      flows, but only in an IPv4 context.  When IPv6 compressible flows
      are defined, a similar technique should also be defined.

   5.60.  RFC 3016 RTP Payload Format for MPEG-4 Audio/Visual
          Streams

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.61.  RFC 3033 The Assignment of the Information Field and
          Protocol Identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and
          Q.2957 User-to-user Signaling for the Internet Protocol

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.

   5.62.  RFC 3042 Enhancing TCP's Loss Recovery Using Limited Transmit

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.63.  RFC 3047 RTP Payload Format for ITU-T Recommendation G.722.1

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.64.  RFC 3057 ISDN Q.921-User Adaptation Layer

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.









Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 19]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   5.65.  RFC 3095 Robust Header Compression (ROHC): Framework and four
          profiles

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.

   5.66.  RFC 3108 Conventions for the use of the Session Description
          Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer Connections

      This specification is currently limited to IPv4 as amplified
      below:

         The range and format of the <rtcpPortNum> and <rtcpIPaddr>
         subparameters is per [1].  The <rtcpPortNum> is a decimal
         number between 1024 and 65535.  It is an odd number.  If an
         even number in this range is specified, the next odd number is
         used.  The <rtcpIPaddr> is expressed in the usual dotted
         decimal IP address representation, from 0.0.0.0 to
         255.255.255.255.

      and

            <rtcpIPaddr>      IP address for  receipt  Dotted decimal,
                              7-15 chars of RTCP packets

   5.67.  RFC 3119 A More Loss-Tolerant RTP Payload Format for MP3 Audio

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.68.  RFC 3124 The Congestion Manager

      This document is IPv4 limited since it uses the IPv4 TOS header
      field.

   5.69.  RFC 3140 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.70.  RFC 3173 IP Payload Compression Protocol (IPComp)

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.71.  RFC 3181 Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.






Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 20]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   5.72.  RFC 3182 Identity Representation for RSVP

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.73.  RFC 3246 An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Behavior)

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.74.  RFC 3261 SIP: Session Initiation Protocol

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.75.  RFC 3262 Reliability of Provisional Responses in Session
          Initiation Protocol (SIP)

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.76.  RFC 3263 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP
          Servers

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.77.  RFC 3264 An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description
          Protocol (SDP)

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.78.  RFC 3265 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event
          Notification

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.79.  RFC 3390 Increasing TCP's Initial Window

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.80.  RFC 3525 Gateway Control Protocol Version 1

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   5.81.  RFC 3544 IP Header Compression over PPP

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.








Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 21]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


6.0.  Experimental RFCs

   Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have
   widescale 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 908 Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)

      This document is IPv4 limited as stated in the following section:

      4.1.  IP Header Format

         When used in the internet environment, RDP segments are sent
         using the version 4 IP header as described in RFC791, "Internet
         Protocol."  The RDP protocol number is ??? (decimal).  The
         time-to-live field should be set to a reasonable value for the
         network.

         All other fields should be set as specified in RFC-791.

      A new protocol specification would be needed to support IPv6.

   6.02.  RFC 938 Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and
          interface specification (IRTP)

      This specification states:

      4.1.  State Variables

         Each IRTP is associated with a single internet address.  The
         synchronization mechanism of the IRTP depends on the
         requirement that each IRTP module knows the internet addresses
         of all modules with which it will communicate.  For each remote
         internet address, an IRTP module must maintain the following
         information (called the connection table):

         rem_addr     (32 bit remote internet address)

      A new specification that is IPv6 aware would need to be created.








Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 22]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   6.03.  RFC 998 NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol

      This RFC states:

         The active end specifies a passive client through a client-
         specific "well-known" 16 bit port number on which the passive
         end listens.  The active end identifies itself through a 32 bit
         Internet address and a unique 16 bit port number.

      Clearly, this is IPv4 dependent, but could easily be modified to
      support IPv6 addressing.

   6.04.  RFC 1045 VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol

      This specification has many IPv4 dependencies in its
      implementation appendices.  For operations over IPv6 a similar
      implementation procedure must be defined.  The IPv4 specific
      information is show below.

      IV.1.  Domain 1

         For initial use of VMTP, we define the domain with Domain
         identifier 1 as follows:

         +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
         | TypeFlags | Discriminator  |    Internet Address    |
         +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
            4 bits          28 bits                32 bits

         The Internet address is the Internet address of the host on
         which this entity-id is originally allocated.  The
         Discriminator is an arbitrary value that is unique relative to
         this Internet host address.  In addition, the host must
         guarantee that this identifier does not get reused for a long
         period of time after it becomes invalid.  ("Invalid" means that
         no VMTP module considers in bound to an entity.)  One technique
         is to use the lower order bits of a 1 second clock.  The clock
         need not represent real-time but must never be set back after a
         crash.  In a simple implementation, using the low order bits of
         a clock as the time stamp, the generation of unique identifiers
         is overall limited to no more than 1 per second on average.
         The type flags were described in Section 3.1.

         An entity may migrate between hosts.  Thus, an implementation
         can heuristically use the embedded Internet address to locate
         an entity but should be prepared to maintain a cache of
         redirects for migrated entities, plus accept Notify operations
         indicating that migration has occurred.



Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 23]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


         Entity group identifiers in Domain 1 are structured in one of
         two forms, depending on whether they are well-known or
         dynamically allocated identifiers.  A well-known entity
         identifier is structured as:

         +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
         | TypeFlags |  Discriminator |Internet Host Group Addr|
         +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
            4 bits          28 bits                32 bits

         with the second high-order bit (GRP) set to 1.  This form of
         entity identifier is mapped to the Internet host group address
         specified in the low-order 32 bits.  The Discriminator
         distinguishes group identifiers using the same Internet host
         group.  Well-known entity group identifiers should be allocated
         to correspond to the basic services provided by hosts that are
         members of the group, not specifically because that service is
         provided by VMTP.  For example, the well-known entity group
         identifier for the domain name service should contain as its
         embedded Internet host group address the host group for Domain
         Name servers.

         A dynamically allocated entity identifier is structured as:

         +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
         | TypeFlags |  Discriminator |   Internet Host Addr   |
         +-----------+----------------+------------------------+
            4 bits          28 bits             32 bits

         with the second high-order bit (GRP) set to 1.  The Internet
         address in the low-order 32 bits is a Internet address assigned
         to the host that dynamically allocates this entity group
         identifier.  A dynamically allocated entity group identifier is
         mapped to Internet host group address 232.X.X.X where X.X.X are
         the low-order 24 bits of the Discriminator subfield of the
         entity group identifier.

         We use the following notation for Domain 1 entity identifiers
         <10> and propose it use as a standard convention.

         <flags>-<discriminator>-<Internet address>










Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 24]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


      where <flags> are [X]{BE,LE,RG,UG}[A]

         X = reserved
         BE = big-endian entity
         LE = little-endian entity
         RG = restricted group
         UG = unrestricted group
         A  = alias

      and <discriminator> is a decimal integer and <Internet address> is
      in standard dotted decimal IP address notation.

      V.1.  Authentication Domain 1

         A principal identifier is structured as follows.

         +---------------------------+------------------------+
         |     Internet Address      | Local User Identifier  |
         +---------------------------+------------------------+
                     32 bits                    32 bits

      VI.  IP Implementation

         VMTP is designed to be implemented on the DoD IP Internet
         Datagram Protocol (although it may also be implemented as a
         local network protocol directly in "raw" network packets.)

         The well-known entity identifiers specified to date are:

      VMTP_MANAGER_GROUP   RG-1-224.0.1.0
                      Managers for VMTP operations.

      VMTP_DEFAULT_BECLIENT  BE-1-224.0.1.0
                      Client entity identifier to use when a (big-
                      endian) host has not determined or been allocated
                      any client entity identifiers.

      VMTP_DEFAULT_LECLIENT  LE-1-224.0.1.0
                      Client entity identifier to use when a (little-
                      endian) host has not determined or been allocated
                      any client entity identifiers.

      Note that 224.0.1.0 is the host group address assigned to VMTP and
      to which all VMTP hosts belong.

   6.05.  RFC 1146 TCP alternate checksum options

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.



Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 25]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   6.06.  RFC 1151 Version 2 of the Reliable Data Protocol (RDP)

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   6.07.  RFC 1644 T/TCP -- TCP Extensions for Transactions Functional
          Specification

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   6.08.  RFC 1693 An Extension to TCP : Partial Order Service

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   6.09.  RFC 1791 TCP And UDP Over IPX Networks With Fixed Path MTU

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   6.10.  RFC 2343 RTP Payload Format for Bundled MPEG

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   6.11.  RFC 2582 The NewReno Modification to TCP's Fast Recovery
          Algorithm

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   6.12.  RFC 2762 Sampling of the Group Membership in RTP

      There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

   6.13.  RFC 2859 A Time Sliding Window Three Colour Marker (TSWTCM)

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.

   6.14.  RFC 2861 TCP Congestion Window Validation

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.

   6.15.  RFC 2909 The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol

      This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
      changes.







Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 26]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


7.0.  Summary of Results

   In the initial survey of RFCs 24 positives were identified out of a
   total of 104, broken down as follows:

         Standards:                         3 out of  5 or 60.00%
         Draft Standards:                   0 out of  2 or  0.00%
         Proposed Standards:               17 out of 82 or 20.73%
         Experimental RFCs:                 4 out of 15 or 26.67%

   Of those identified many require no action because they document
   outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols
   that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups.
   Additionally there are many instances of standards that SHOULD be
   updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not
   updated.  The remaining instances are documented below.

7.1.  Standards

   7.1.1.  STD 7 Transmission Control Protocol (RFC 793)

      Section 3.1 defines the technique for computing the TCP checksum
      that uses the 32 bit source and destination IPv4 addresses.  This
      problem is addressed in RFC 2460 Section 8.1.

   7.1.2.  STD 19 Netbios over TCP/UDP (RFCs 1001 & 1002)

      These two RFCs have many inherent IPv4 assumptions and a new set
      of protocols must be defined.

   7.1.3.  STD 35 ISO Transport over TCP (RFC 1006)

      This problem has been fixed in RFC 2126, ISO Transport Service on
      top of TCP.

7.2.  Draft Standards

   There are no draft standards within the scope of this document.

7.3.  Proposed Standards

   7.3.01.  TCP/IP Header Compression over Slow Serial Links (RFC 1144)

      This problem has been resolved in RFC2508, Compressing IP/UDP/RTP
      Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links.  See also RFC 2507 & RFC 2509.






Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 27]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   7.3.02.  ONC RPC v2 (RFC 1833)

      The problems can be resolved with a definition of the NC_INET6
      protocol family.

   7.3.03.  RTSP (RFC 2326)

      Problem has been acknowledged by the RTSP developer group and will
      be addressed in the move from Proposed to Draft Standard.  This
      problem is also addressed in RFC 2732, IPv6 Literal Addresses in
      URL's.

   7.3.04.  SDP (RFC 2327)

      One problem is addressed in RFC 2732, IPv6 Literal Addresses in
      URL's.  The other problem can be addressed with a minor textual
      clarification.  This must be done if the document is to transition
      from Proposed to Draft.  These problems are solved by documents
      currently in Auth48 or IESG discuss.

   7.3.05.  IPPM Metrics (RFC 2678)

      The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues.

   7.3.06.  IPPM One Way Delay Metric for IPPM (RFC 2679)

      The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues.  An ID is
      available (draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-03.txt).

   7.3.07.  IPPM One Way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM (RFC 2680)

      The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues.

   7.3.09.  Round Trip Delay Metric for IPPM (RFC 2681)

      The IPPM WG is working to resolve these issues.

   7.3.08.  The PINT Service Protocol: Extensions to SIP and SDP for IP
            Access to Telephone Call Services(RFC 2848)

      This specification is dependent on SDP which has IPv4
      dependencies.  Once these limitations are fixed, then this
      protocol should support IPv6.

   7.3.09.  TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field (RFC 2873)

      The problems are not being addressed.




Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 28]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


   7.3.10.  Integrated Services in the Presence of Compressible Flows
            (RFC 3006)

      This document defines a protocol that discusses compressible
      flows, but only in an IPv4 context.  When IPv6 compressible flows
      are defined, a similar technique should also be defined.

   7.3.11.  SDP For ATM Bearer Connections  (RFC 3108)

      The problems are not being addressed, but it is unclear whether
      the specification is being used.

   7.3.12.  The Congestion Manager (RFC 3124)

      An update to this document can be simply define the use of the
      IPv6 Traffic Class field since it is defined to be exactly the
      same as the IPv4 TOS field.

7.4.  Experimental RFCs

   7.4.1.  Reliable Data Protocol (RFC 908)

      This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may
      be produced.

   7.4.2.  Internet Reliable Transaction Protocol functional and
           interface specification (RFC 938)

      This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may
      be produced.

   7.4.3.  NETBLT: A bulk data transfer protocol (RFC 998)

      This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may
      be produced.

   7.4.4.  VMTP: Versatile Message Transaction Protocol (RFC 1045)

      This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may
      be produced.

   7.4.5.  OSPF over ATM and Proxy-PAR (RFC 2844)

      This specification relies on IPv4 and a new protocol standard may
      be produced.






Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 29]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


8.0.  Security Considerations

   This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does
   not have security considerations in itself.

9.0.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet
   Society in the research and production of this document.
   Additionally the author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to thanks
   his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.

   The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola for
   guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this document.
   He would further like to thank Allison Mankin, Magnus Westerlund and
   Colin Perkins for valuable feedback on some points of this document.

10.0.  Normative Reference

   [1]  Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the
        Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
        RFC 3789, June 2004.

11.0.  Authors' Addresses

   Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or
   suggestions at:

   Philip J. Nesser II
   Principal
   Nesser & Nesser Consulting
   13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
   Kirkland, WA 98034

   Phone:  +1 425 481 4303
   Fax:    +1 425 48
   EMail:  phil@nesser.com


   Andreas Bergstrom, Editor
   Ostfold University College
   Rute 503 Buer
   N-1766 Halden
   Norway

   EMail: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no





Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 30]
^L
RFC 3794       IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area       June 2004


12.0.  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.









Nesser II & Bergstrom        Informational                     [Page 31]
^L