1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
|
Network Working Group P. Savola
Request for Comments: 4223 CSC/FUNET
Obsoletes: 1863 October 2005
Category: Informational
Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic
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 (2005).
Abstract
This memo reclassifies RFC 1863, A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative
to a full mesh routing, to Historic status. This memo also obsoletes
RFC 1863.
1. Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic
RFC 1863 [1] describes the use of route servers as an alternative to
BGP/IDRP full mesh routing.
In the context of this document, the term "RFC 1863 route server" is
used to refer to a route server as specified in RFC 1863. Other uses
of the term "route server" are outside the scope of this document.
Implementations of RFC 1863 route servers do not exist and are not
used as an alternative to full mesh routing. Therefore, RFC 1863 is
reclassified to Historic status.
Current techniques that serve as an alternative to full mesh routing
include BGP Route Reflectors [2], BGP Confederedations [3], and the
use of private AS numbers. IDRP for IP has never been standardized
by the IETF and can be considered obsolete.
Other uses of (non-RFC1863) route servers, rather than as an
alternative to full mesh routing as described by RFC 1863, are
expected to continue to be used for multiple purposes, but are out of
the scope of this memo.
Savola Informational [Page 1]
^L
RFC 4223 Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic October 2005
2. Acknowledgements
Jeffrey Haas, John Scudder, Paul Jakma, and Yakov Rekhter provided
useful background information for the creation of this memo. Scott
Bradner, Jeffrey Haas, and Yakov Rekhter provided substantial
feedback during the WG last call.
3. Security Considerations
Reclassifying RFC 1863 has no security considerations.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[1] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh
routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.
4.2. Informative References
[2] Bates, T., Chandra, R., and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An
Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000.
[3] Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System
Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001.
Author's Address
Pekka Savola
CSC/FUNET
Espoo
Finland
EMail: psavola@funet.fi
Savola Informational [Page 2]
^L
RFC 4223 Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic October 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
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.
Savola Informational [Page 3]
^L
|
