Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.) Ostfold University College November 2003 Expires April 2004 Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document is a general overview and introduction to the v6ops IETF workgroup project of documenting all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently deployed IETF documented standards. It is broken into seven documents conforming to the current IETF areas. It also describes the methodology used during documentation, which type of RFCs that has been documented, and a concatenated summary of results. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Short Historical Perspective 1.2 An Observation on the Classification of Standards 2. Methodology 2.1 Scope 3. Summary of Results 3.1 Application Area Specifications 3.2 Internet Area Specifications 3.3 Operations & Management Area Specifications 3.4 Routing Area Specifications 3.5 Security Area Specifications 3.6 Sub-IP Area Specifications 3.7 Transport Area Specifications 4. Discussion of "Long Term" Stability of Addresses on Protocols 5. Security Consideration 6. Acknowledgements 7. References 7.1 Normative 8. Authors' Addresses 9. Intellectual Property Statement 10. Full Copyright Statement 1.0 Introduction This document is the introduction to 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[1], Internet[2], Management & Operations[3], Routing[4], Security[5], Sub-IP[6] and Transport[7]). It also describes the methodology used during documentation, which type of RFCs that has been documented, and a concatenated summary of results. 1.1 Short Historical Perspective There are many challenges that face the Internet Engineering community. The foremost of these challenges has been the scaling issue: how to grow a network that was envisioned to handle thousands of hosts to one that will handle tens of millions of networks with billions of hosts. Over the years this scaling problem has been managed, with varying degrees of succes, by changes to the network layer and to routing protocols. (Although largely ignored in the changes to network layer and routing protocols, the tremendous advances in computational hardware during the past two decades have been of significant benefit in managment of scaling problems encountered thus far.) The first "modern" transition to the network layer occurred in during the early 1980's from the Network Control Protocol (NCP) to IPv4. This culminated in the famous "flag day" of January 1, 1983. IP Version 4 originally specified an 8 bit network and 24 bit host addresses, as documented in RFC 760. A year later IPv4 was updated in RFC 791 to include the famous A, B, C, D, & E class system. Networks were growing in such a way that it was clear that a convention for breaking networks into smaller pieces was needed. In October of 1984 RFC 917 was published formalizing the practice of subnetting. By the late 1980's it was clear that the current exterior routing protocol used by the Internet (EGP) was insufficiently robudt to scale with the growth of the Internet. The first version of BGP was documented in 1989 in RFC 1105. Yet another scaling issue, exhaustion of the class B address space, became apparent in the early 1990s. The growth and commercialization of the Internet stimulated organisations requesting IP addresses in alarming numbers. By May of 1992 over 45% of the Class B space had been allocated. In early 1993 RFC 1466 was published directing assignment of blocks of Class C's be given out instead of Class B's. This temporarily circumvented the problem of address space exhaustion, but had significant impact of the routing infrastructure. The number of entries in the "core" routing tables began to grow exponentially as a result of RFC 1466. This led to the implementation of BGP4 and CIDR prefix addressing. This may have circumvented the problem for the present but there are still potential scaling issues. Growth in the population of Internet hosts since the mid-1980s would have long overwhelmed the IPv4 address space if industry had not supplied a circumvention in the form of Network Address Translators (NATs). To do this the Internet has sacrificed the underlying "End-to-End" principle. In the early 1990's the IETF was aware of these potential problems and began a long design process to create a successor to IPv4 that would address these issues. The outcome of that process was IPv6. The purpose of this document is not to discuss the merits or problems of IPv6. That is a debate that is still ongoing and will eventually be decided on how well the IETF defines transition mechanisms and how industry accepts the solution. The question is not "should," but "when." 1.2 An Observation on the Classification of Standards It has become clear during the course of this investigation that there has been little management of the status of standards over the years. Some attempt has been made by the introduction of the classification of standards into Full, Draft, Proposed, Experimental, and Historic. However, there has not been a concerted effort to actively manage the classification for older standards. Standards are only classified as Historic when either a newer version of the protocol is deployed, it is randomly noticed that an RFC describes a long dead protocol, or a serious flaw is discovered in a protocol. Another issue is the status of Proposed Standards. Since this is the entry level position for protocols entering the standards process, many old protocols or non- implemented protocols linger in this status indefinitely. This problem also exists for Experimental Standards. Similarly the problem exists for the Best Current Practices (BCP) and For You Information (FYI) series of documents. To exemplify this point, there are 61 Full Standards, only 4 of which have been reclassified to Historic. There are 65 Draft Standards, 611 Proposed Standards, and 150 Experimental RFCs, of which only 66 have been reclassified as Historic. That is a rate of less than 8%. It should be obvious that in the more that 30 years of protocol development and documentation there should be at least as many (if not a majority of) protocols that have been retired compared to the ones that are currently active. Please note that there is occasionally some confusion of the meaning of a "Historic" classification. It does NOT necessarily mean that the protocol is not being used. A good example of this concept is the Routing Information Protocol(RIP) version 1. There are many thousands of sites using this protocol even though it has Historic status. There are potentially hundreds of otherwise classified RFC's that should be reclassified. 2.0 Methodology To perform this study each class of IETF standards are investigated in order of maturity: Full, Draft, and Proposed, as well as Experimental. Informational and BCP RFCs are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by either newer versions or as they have transitioned through the standards process are not covered. RFCs which have been classified as Historic are also not included. Please note that a side effect of this choice of methodology is that some protocols that are defined by a series of RFC's that are of different levels of standards maturity are covered in different spots in the document. Likewise other natural groupings (i.e. MIBs, SMTP extensions, IP over FOO, PPP, DNS, etc.) could easily be imagined. 2.1 Scope The procedure used in this investigation is an exhaustive reading of the applicable RFC's. This task involves reading approximately 25000 pages of protocol specifications. To compound this, it was more than a process of simple reading. It was necessary to attempt to understand the purpose and functionality of each protocol in order to make a proper determination of IPv4 reliability. The author has made every effort to make this effort and the resulting document as complete as possible, but it is likely that some subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) dependence was missed. The author encourage those familiar (designers, implementers or anyone who has an intimate knowledge) with any protocol to review the appropriate sections and make comments. 3.0 Summary of Results In the initial survey of RFCs 175 positives were identified, out of a total of 871, broken down as follows: Standards 32 of 65 or 49.23% Draft Standards 14 of 59 or 23.73% Proposed Standards 107 of 602 or 17.77% Experimental RFCs 22 of 145 or 15.17% Of those identified many require no action because they document outdated and unused protocols (see STD 44/RFC 891 in Section 3.44 for example), while others are document protocols that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups (SNMP MIBs for example). Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be updated but do not cause any operational impact (STD 3/RFCs 1122 & 1123 for example) if they are not updated. In this statistical survey, a positive is defined as a RFC containing an IPv4 dependency, regardless of context. 3.1 Application Area Specifications In the initial survey of RFCs, 33 positives were identified out of a total of 257, broken down as follows: Standards: 1 out of 20, or 5.00% Draft Standards: 4 out of 25, or 16.00% Proposed Standards: 18 out of 155 or 11.61% Experimental RFCs: 10 out of 57 or 31.58% For more information, please look at [1]. 3.2 Internet Area Specifications In the initial survey of RFCs 52 positives were identified out of a total of 186, broken down as follows: Standards 17 of 24 or 70.83% Draft Standards 6 of 20 or 30.00% Proposed Standards 22 of 111 or 19.91% Experimental RFCs 7 of 31 or 22.58% For more information, please look at [2]. 3.3 Operations & Management Area Specifications In the initial survey of RFCs 36 positives were identified out of a total of 153, broken down as follows: Standards 6 of 15 or 40.00% Draft Standards 4 of 15 or 26.67% Proposed Standards 26 of 112 or 23.21% Experimental RFCs 0 of 11 or 0.00% For more information, please look at [3]. 3.4 Routing Area Specifications In the initial survey of RFCs, 22 positives were identified out of a total of 44, broken down as follows: Standards 3 of 3 or 100.00% Draft Standards 1 of 2 or 50.00% Proposed Standards 13 of 29 or 44.83% Experimental RFCs 6 of 11 or 54.54% For more information, please look at [4]. 3.5 Security Area Specifications In the initial survey of RFCs 4 positives were identified out of a total of 124, broken down as follows: Standards 0 of 1 or 0.00% Draft Standards 1 of 3 or 33.33% Proposed Standards 1 of 102 or 0.98% Experimental RFCs 2 of 18 or 11.11% For more information, please look at [5]. 3.6 Sub-IP Area Specifications In the initial survey of RFCs, 0 positives were identified out of a total of 7, broken down as follows: Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% Proposed Standards 0 of 6 or 0.00% Experimental RFCs 0 of 1 or 0.00% For information about the Sub-IP Area standards, please look at [6]. 3.7 Transport Area Specifications In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a total of 104, broken down as follows: Standards 3 of 5 or 60.00% Draft Standards 0 of 2 or 0.00% Proposed Standards 17 of 82 or 20.73% Experimental RFCs 4 of 15 or 26.67% For more information, please look at [7]. 4.0 Discussion of "Long Term" Stability of Addresses on Protocols In attempting this analysis it was determined that a full scale analysis is well beyond the scope of this document. Instead a short discussion is presented on how such a framework might be established. A suggested approach would be to do an analysis of protocols based on their overall function, similar (but not strictly) to the OSI network reference model. It might be more appropriate to frame the discussion in terms of the different Areas of the IETF. The problem is fundamental to the overall architecture of the Internet and its future. One of the stated goals of the IPng (now IPv6) was "automatic" and "easy" address renumbering. An additional goal is "stateless autoconfiguration." To these ends, a substantial amount of work has gone into the development of such protocols as DHCP and Dynamic DNS. This goes against the Internet age-old "end-to-end principle." Most protocol designs implicitly count on certain underlying principles that currently exist in the network. For example, the design of packet switched networks allows upper level protocols to ignore the underlying stability of packet routes. When paths change in the network, the higher level protocols are typically unaware and uncaring. This works well since whether the packet goes A-B-C-D-E-F or A-B-X-Y-Z-E-F is of little consequence. In a world where endpoints (i.e. A and F in the example above) change at a "rapid" rate, a new model for protocol developers should be considered. It seems that a logical development would be a change in the operation of the Transport layer protocols. The current model is essentially a choice between TCP and UDP, Neither of these protocols provides any mechanism for an orderly handoff of the connection if and when the network endpoint (IP) addresses changes. Perhaps a third major transport layer protocol should be developed, or perhaps updated TCP & UDP specifications that include this function might be a better solution. There are many, many variables that would need to go into a successful development of such a protocol. Some issues to consider are: timing principles; overlap periods as an endpoint moves from address A, to addresses A & B (answers to both), to only B; delays due to the recalculation of routing paths, etc... 5.0 Security Consideration This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does not have security considerations in itself. 6.0 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 Alan E. Beard, Jim Bound, Brian Carpenter and Itojun for valuable feedback on many points of this document. 7.0 References 7.1 Normative [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Rute Sofia. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt IETF work in progress, October 2003 [2] Philip J. Nesser II, Cleveland Mickles. "Internet Area: Survey of IPv4 Addresses Currently Deployed Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-int-02.txt IETF work in progress, October 2003 [3] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-04.txt IETF work in progress, November 2003 [4] Philip J. Nesser II, Cesar Olvera. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-02.txt IETF work in progress, October 2003 [5] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-03.txt IETF work in progress, November 2003 [6] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-04.txt IETF work in progress, November 2003 [7] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-04.txt IETF work in progress, November 2003 8.0 Authors' Addresses Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions at: Philip J. Nesser II Principal Nesser & Nesser Consulting 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 Kirkland, WA 98034 Email: phil@nesser.com Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Fax: +1 425 482 9721 Andreas Bergstrom (Editor) Ostfold University College Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no Address: Rute 503 Buer N-1766 Halden Norway 9.0 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 10.0 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this docu- ment itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of develop- ing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The lim- ited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DIS- CLAIMS 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. Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-04.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.) Ostfold University College November 2003 Expires April 2004 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area Standards This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Status of this Memo Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently deployed IETF Operations & Management 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 2. Document Organisation 3. Full Standards 4. Draft Standards 5. Proposed Standards 6. Experimental RFCs 7. Summary of Results 7.1 Standards 7.2 Draft Standards 7.3 Proposed Standards 7.4 Experimental RFCs 8. Security Consideration 9. Acknowledgements 10. References 11. Authors' Addresses 12. Intellectual Property Statement 13. Full Copyright Statement 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, Management & Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1]. 2.0 Document Organization The document is organized as 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 1155 Structure of Management Information Section 3.2.3.2. IpAddress defines the following: This application-wide type represents a 32-bit internet address. It is represented as an OCTET STRING of length 4, in network byte-order. There are several instances of the use of this definition in the rest of the document. 3.2 RFC 1212 Concise MIB definitions In section 4.1.6 IpAddress is defined as: (6) IpAddress-valued: 4 sub-identifiers, in the familiar a.b.c.d notation. 3.3 RFC 1213 Management Information Base There are far too many instances of IPv4 addresses is this document to enumerate here. The particular object groups that are affected are the IP group, the ICMP group, the TCP group, the UDP group, and the EGP group. 3.4 RFC 2578 Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2) Section 7.1.5 defines the IpAddress data type: The IpAddress type represents a 32-bit internet address. It is represented as an OCTET STRING of length 4, in network byte-order. Note that the IpAddress type is a tagged type for historical reasons. Network addresses should be represented using an invocation of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION macro. Note the deprecated status of this type; see RFC 3291 for details on the replacement TEXTUAL-CONVENTION definitions. 3.5 RFC 2579 Textual Conventions for SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 3.6 RFC 2580 Conformance Statements for SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 3.7 RFC 2819 Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 3.8 RFC 3411 An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 3.9 RFC 3412 Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 3.10 RFC 3413 SNMP Applications There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 3.11 RFC 3414 User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 3.12 RFC 3415 View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 3.13 RFC 3416 Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Section 4.2.2.1. Example of Table Traversal and Section 4.2.3.1. Another Example of Table Traversal both use objects from MIB2 whose data contains IPv4 addresses. Other than their use in these example sections there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 3.14 RFC 3417 Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Section 2 Definitions contains the following definition: SnmpUDPAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d/2d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Represents a UDP address: octets contents encoding 1-4 IP-address network-byte order 5-6 UDP-port network-byte order " SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (6)) Section 8.1, "Usage Example," also contains examples which uses IPv4 address, but it has no significance in the operation of the specification. 3.15 RFC 3418 Management Information Base for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 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. 4.01 RFC 1493 Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.02 RFC 1559 DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.03 RFC 1657 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2 The MIB defined in this RFC deals with objects in a BGP4 based routing system and therefore contain many objects that are limited by the IpAddress 32-bit value defined in MIB2. Clearly the values of this MIB are limited to IPv4 addresses. No update is needed, although a new MIB should be defined for BGP4+ to allow management of IPv6 addresses and routes. 4.04 RFC 1658 Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream Devices using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.05 RFC 1659 Definitions of Managed Objects for RS-232-like Hardware Devices using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.06 RFC 1660 Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like Hardware Devices using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.07 RFC 1694 Definitions of Managed Objects for SMDS Interfaces using SMIv2 This MIB module definition defines the following subtree: ipOverSMDS OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smdsApplications 1 } -- Although the objects in this group are read-only, at the -- agent's discretion they may be made read-write so that the -- management station, when appropriately authorized, may -- change the addressing information related to the -- configuration of a logical IP subnetwork implemented on -- top of SMDS. -- This table is necessary to support RFC1209 (IP-over-SMDS) -- and gives information on the Group Addresses and ARP -- Addresses used in the Logical IP subnetwork. -- One SMDS address may be associated with multiple IP -- addresses. One SNI may be associated with multiple LISs. ipOverSMDSTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF IpOverSMDSEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The table of addressing information relevant to this entity's IP addresses." ::= { ipOverSMDS 1 } ipOverSMDSEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IpOverSMDSEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The addressing information for one of this entity's IP addresses." INDEX { ipOverSMDSIndex, ipOverSMDSAddress } ::= { ipOverSMDSTable 1 } IpOverSMDSEntry ::= SEQUENCE { ipOverSMDSIndex IfIndex, ipOverSMDSAddress IpAddress, ipOverSMDSHA SMDSAddress, ipOverSMDSLISGA SMDSAddress, ipOverSMDSARPReq SMDSAddress } ipOverSMDSIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IfIndex MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of this object identifies the interface for which this entry contains management information. " ::= { ipOverSMDSEntry 1 } ipOverSMDSAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IpAddress MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The IP address to which this entry's addressing information pertains." ::= { ipOverSMDSEntry 2 } ipOverSMDSHA OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SMDSAddress MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMDS Individual address of the IP station." ::= { ipOverSMDSEntry 3 } ipOverSMDSLISGA OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SMDSAddress MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMDS Group Address that has been configured to identify the SMDS Subscriber-Network Interfaces (SNIs) of all members of the Logical IP Subnetwork (LIS) connected to the network supporting SMDS." ::= { ipOverSMDSEntry 4 } ipOverSMDSARPReq OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SMDSAddress MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The SMDS address (individual or group) to which ARP Requests are to be sent." ::= { ipOverSMDSEntry 5 } Although these object definitions are intended for IPv4 addresses, a similar MIB can be defined for IPv6 addressing. 4.08 RFC 1724 RIP Version 2 MIB Extension As might be expected, this RFC is filled with IPv4 dependencies since it defines a MIB module for an IPv4-only routing protocol. A new MIB for RIPng is required. 4.09 RFC 1748 IEEE 802.5 MIB using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.10 RFC 1850 OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base This MIB defines managed objects for OSPFv2 which is a protocol used to exchange IPv4 routing information. Since OSPFv2 is limited to IPv4 addresses a new MIB is required to support a new version of OSPF that is IPv6 aware. 4.11 RFC 2115 Management Information Base for Frame Relay DTEs Using SMIv2 This specification has several examples of how IPv4 addresses might be mapped to Frame Relay DLCIs. Other than those examples there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.12 RFC 2790 Host Resources MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.13 RFC 2863 The Interfaces Group MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There is some discussion in one object definition about an interface performing a self test, but the object itself is IP version independent. 4.14 RFC 3592 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.15 RFC 3593 Textual Conventions for MIB Modules Using Performance History Based on 15 Minute Intervals. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 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. 5.001 RFC 1239 Reassignment of experimental MIBs to standard MIBs There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.002 RFC 1269 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway Protocol: Version 3 The use of BGP3 has been deprecated and is not discussed. 5.003 RFC 1285 FDDI Management Information Base There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.004 RFC 1381 SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.005 RFC 1382 SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.006 RFC 1414 Identification MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.007 RFC 1418 SNMP over OSI There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.008 RFC 1419 SNMP over AppleTalk There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.009 RFC 1420 SNMP over IPX There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.010 RFC 1461 SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over X.25 The following objects are defined in Section 4 "Definitions": mioxPleLastFailedEnAddr OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE(2..128)) ACCESS read-only STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The last Encapsulated address that failed to find a corresponding X.121 address and caused mioxPleEnAddrToX121LkupFlrs to be incremented. The first octet of this object contains the encapsulation type, the remaining octets contain the address of that type that failed. Thus for an IP address, the length will be five octets, the first octet will contain 204 (hex CC), and the last four octets will contain the IP address. For a snap encapsulation, the first byte would be 128 (hex 80) and the rest of the octet string would have the snap header." ::= { mioxPleEntry 4 } mioxPeerEnAddr OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..128)) ACCESS read-write STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The Encapsulation address of the remote host mapped by this table entry. A length of zero indicates the remote IP address is unknown or unspecified for use as a PLE default. The first octet of this object contains the encapsulation type, the remaining octets contain an address of that type. Thus for an IP address, the length will be five octets, the first octet will contain 204 (hex CC), and the last four octets will contain the IP address. For a snap encapsulation, the first byte would be 128 (hex 80) and the rest of the octet string would have the snap header." DEFVAL { ''h } ::= { mioxPeerEntry 7 } mioxPeerEncType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER (0..256) ACCESS read-write STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The value of the encapsulation type. For IP encapsulation this will have a value of 204 (hex CC). For SNAP encapsulated packets, this will have a value of 128 (hex 80). For CLNP, ISO 8473, this will have a value of 129 (hex 81). For ES-ES, ISO 9542, this will have a value of 130 (hex 82). A value of 197 (hex C5) identifies the Blacker X.25 encapsulation. A value of 0, identifies the Null encapsulation. This value can only be written when the mioxPeerStatus object with the same mioxPeerIndex has a value of underCreation. Setting this object to a value of 256 deletes the entry. When deleting an entry, all other entries in the mioxPeerEncTable with the same mioxPeerIndex and with an mioxPeerEncIndex higher then the deleted entry, will all have their mioxPeerEncIndex values decremented by one." ::= { mioxPeerEncEntry 2 } Updated values of the first byte of these objects can be defined to support IPv6 addresses. 5.011 RFC 1471 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.012 RFC 1472 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.013 RFC 1473 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol This MIB module is targeted specifically at IPv4 over PPP. A new MIB moduld would need to be defined to support IPv6 over PPP. 5.014 RFC 1474 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.015 RFC 1512 FDDI Management Information Base There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.016 RFC 1513 Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.017 RFC 1525 Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.018 RFC 1628 UPS Management Information Base There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.019 RFC 1666 Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.020 RFC 1696 Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.021 RFC 1697 Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.022 RFC 1742 AppleTalk Management Information Base II The following OIDs are defined: KipEntry ::= SEQUENCE { kipNetStart ATNetworkNumber, kipNetEnd ATNetworkNumber, kipNextHop IpAddress, kipHopCount INTEGER, kipBCastAddr IpAddress, kipCore INTEGER, kipType INTEGER, kipState INTEGER, kipShare INTEGER, kipFrom IpAddress } kipNextHop OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IpAddress ACCESS read-write STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The IP address of the next hop in the route to this entry's destination network." ::= { kipEntry 3 } kipBCastAddr OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IpAddress ACCESS read-write STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The form of the IP address used to broadcast on this network." ::= { kipEntry 5 } kipFrom OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IpAddress ACCESS read-only STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The IP address from which the routing entry was learned via the AA protocol. If this entry was not created via the AA protocol, it should contain IP address 0.0.0.0." ::= { kipEntry 10 } 5.023 RFC 1747 Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control (SDLC) using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.024 RFC 1749 IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.025 RFC 1759 Printer MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.026 RFC 2006 The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility Support using SMIv2 This document defines a MIB for the Mobile IPv4. Without enumeration, let it be stated that a new MIB for IPv6 Mobility is required. 5.027 RFC 2011 SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol using SMIv2 Approximately 1/3 of the objects defined in this document are IPv4-dependent. New objects need to be defined to support IPv6. 5.028 RFC 2012 SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol using SMIv2 A number of object definitions in this MIB assumes IPv4 addresses, as is noted in the note reproduced below: IESG Note: The IP, UDP, and TCP MIB modules currently support only IPv4. These three modules use the IpAddress type defined as an OCTET STRING of length 4 to represent the IPv4 32-bit internet addresses. (See RFC 1902, SMI for SNMPv2.) They do not support the new 128-bit IPv6 internet addresses. 5.029 RFC 2013 SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the User Datagram Protocol using SMIv2 A number of OIDs in this MIB assumes IPv4 addresses, as is noted in the note reproduced below: IESG Note: The IP, UDP, and TCP MIB modules currently support only IPv4. These three modules use the IpAddress type defined as an OCTET STRING of length 4 to represent the IPv4 32-bit internet addresses. (See RFC 1902, SMI for SNMPv2.) They do not support the new 128-bit IPv6 internet addresses. 5.030 RFC 2020 IEEE 802.12 Interface MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.031 RFC 2021 Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base Version 2 using SMIv2 The following objects are defined: addressMapNetworkAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The network address for this relation. This is represented as an octet string with specific semantics and length as identified by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the index. For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address, in network byte order." ::= { addressMapEntry 2 } nlHostAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The network address for this nlHostEntry. This is represented as an octet string with specific semantics and length as identified by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the index. For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address, in network byte order." ::= { nlHostEntry 2 } nlMatrixSDSourceAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The network source address for this nlMatrixSDEntry. This is represented as an octet string with specific semantics and length as identified by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the index. For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address, in network byte order." ::= { nlMatrixSDEntry 2 } nlMatrixSDDestAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The network destination address for this nlMatrixSDEntry. This is represented as an octet string with specific semantics and length as identified by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the index. For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address, in network byte order." ::= { nlMatrixSDEntry 3 } nlMatrixDSSourceAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The network source address for this nlMatrixDSEntry. This is represented as an octet string with specific semantics and length as identified by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the index. For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address, in network byte order." ::= { nlMatrixDSEntry 2 } nlMatrixDSDestAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The network destination address for this nlMatrixDSEntry. This is represented as an octet string with specific semantics and length as identified by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the index. For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address, in network byte order." ::= { nlMatrixDSEntry 3 } nlMatrixTopNSourceAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The network layer address of the source host in this conversation. This is represented as an octet string with specific semantics and length as identified by the associated nlMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex. For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address, in network byte order." ::= { nlMatrixTopNEntry 3 } nlMatrixTopNDestAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The network layer address of the destination host in this conversation. This is represented as an octet string with specific semantics and length as identified by the associated nlMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex. For example, if the nlMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address, in network byte order." ::= { nlMatrixTopNEntry 4 } alMatrixTopNSourceAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The network layer address of the source host in this conversation. This is represented as an octet string with specific semantics and length as identified by the associated alMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex. For example, if the alMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address, in network byte order." ::= { alMatrixTopNEntry 3 } alMatrixTopNDestAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The network layer address of the destination host in this conversation. This is represented as an octet string with specific semantics and length as identified by the associated alMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex. For example, if the alMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address, in network byte order." ::= { alMatrixTopNEntry 4 } trapDestProtocol OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { ip(1), ipx(2) } MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The protocol with which to send this trap." ::= { trapDestEntry 3 } trapDestAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The address to send traps on behalf of this entry. If the associated trapDestProtocol object is equal to ip(1), the encoding of this object is the same as the snmpUDPAddress textual convention in [RFC1906]: -- for a SnmpUDPAddress of length 6: -- -- octets contents encoding -- 1-4 IP-address network-byte order -- 5-6 UDP-port network-byte order If the associated trapDestProtocol object is equal to ipx(2), the encoding of this object is the same as the snmpIPXAddress textual convention in [RFC1906]: -- for a SnmpIPXAddress of length 12: -- -- octets contents encoding -- 1-4 network-number network-byte order -- 5-10 physical-address network-byte order -- 11-12 socket-number network-byte order This object may not be modified if the associated trapDestStatus object is equal to active(1)." ::= { trapDestEntry 4 } All of the object definitions above (except trapDestProtocol) mention only IPv4 addresses but since they use a SYNTAX of OCTET STRING, they should work fine for IPv6 addresses. A new legitimate value of trapDestProtocol (i.e. SYNTAX addition of ipv6(3) should make this specification functional for IPv6. 5.032 RFC 2024 Definitions of Managed Objects for Data Link Switching using SMIv2 The following textual conventions are defined: TAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Denotes a transport service address. For dlswTCPDomain, a TAddress is 4 octets long, containing the IP-address in network-byte order." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255)) -- DLSw over TCP dlswTCPDomain OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { dlswDomains 1 } -- for an IP address of length 4: -- -- octets contents encoding -- 1-4 IP-address network-byte order -- DlswTCPAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Represents the IP address of a DLSw which uses TCP as a transport protocol." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)) Additionally there are many object definitions that use a SYNTAX of TAddress within the document. Interestingly the SYNTAX for TAddress is an OCTET string of up to 256 characters. It could easily accommodate a similar hybrid format for IPv6 addresses. A new OID to enhance functionality for DlswTCPAddress could be added to support IPv6 addresses. 5.033 RFC 2051 Definitions of Managed Objects for APPC using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.034 RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB The MIB module's main conceptual table ipCidrRouteTable uses IPv4 addresses as index objects and is therefore incapable of representing an IPv6 forwarding information base. A new conceptual table needs to be defined to support IPv6 addresses. 5.035 RFC 2108 Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater Devices using SMIv2 802 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.036 RFC 2127 ISDN Management Information Base using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.037 RFC 2128 Dial Control Management Information Base using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.038 RFC 2206 RSVP Management Information Base using SMIv2 All of the relevant object definitions in this MIB have options for both IPv4 and IPv6. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.039 RFC 2213 Integrated Services Management Information Base using SMIv2 This MIB is IPv6 aware and therefore there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.040 RFC 2214 Integrated Services Management Information Base Guaranteed Service Extensions using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.041 RFC 2232 Definitions of Managed Objects for DLUR using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.042 RFC 2238 Definitions of Managed Objects for HPR using SMIv2 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.043 RFC 2266 Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.12 Repeater Devices There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.044 RFC 2287 Definitions of System-Level Managed Objects for Applications There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.045 RFC 2320 Definitions of Managed Objects for Classical IP and ARP Over ATM Using SMIv2 (IPOA-MIB) This MIB is wholly dependent on IPv4. A new MIB for IPv6 is required to provide the same functionality. 5.046 RFC 2417 Definitions of Managed Objects for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks This MIB is wholly dependent on IPv4. A new MIB for IPv6 is required to provide the same functionality. 5.047 RFC 2452 IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol This RFC documents a soon to be obsoleted IPv6 MIB and is not considered in this discussion. 5.048 RFC 2454 IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the User Datagram Protocol This RFC documents a soon to be obsoleted IPv6 MIB and is not considered in this discussion. 5.049 RFC 2455 Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.050 RFC 2456 Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN TRAPS There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.051 RFC 2457 Definitions of Managed Objects for Extended Border Node There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.052 RFC 2465 Management Information Base for IP Version 6: Textual Conventions and General Group This RFC documents a soon to be obsolted IPv6 MIB and is not considered in this discussion. 5.053 RFC 2466 Management Information Base for IP Version 6: ICMPv6 Group This RFC documents a soon to be obsoleted IPv6 MIB and is not considered in this discussion. 5.054 RFC 2494 Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS0 and DS0 Bundle Interface Type There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.055 RFC 2495 Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1, E1, DS2 and E2 Interface Types There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.056 RFC 2496 Definitions of Managed Object for the DS3/E3 Interface Type There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.057 RFC 2512 Accounting Information for ATM Networks There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.058 RFC 2513 Managed Objects for Controlling the Collection and Storage of Accounting Information for Connection- Oriented Networks There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.059 RFC 2514 Definitions of Textual Conventions and OBJECT-IDENTITIES for ATM Management There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.060 RFC 2515 Definitions of Managed Objects for ATM Management This MIB defines the following objects: AtmInterfaceConfEntry ::= SEQUENCE { atmInterfaceMaxVpcs INTEGER, atmInterfaceMaxVccs INTEGER, atmInterfaceConfVpcs INTEGER, atmInterfaceConfVccs INTEGER, atmInterfaceMaxActiveVpiBits INTEGER, atmInterfaceMaxActiveVciBits INTEGER, atmInterfaceIlmiVpi AtmVpIdentifier, atmInterfaceIlmiVci AtmVcIdentifier, atmInterfaceAddressType INTEGER, atmInterfaceAdminAddress AtmAddr, atmInterfaceMyNeighborIpAddress IpAddress, atmInterfaceMyNeighborIfName DisplayString, atmInterfaceCurrentMaxVpiBits INTEGER, atmInterfaceCurrentMaxVciBits INTEGER, atmInterfaceSubscrAddress AtmAddr } atmInterfaceMyNeighborIpAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IpAddress MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The IP address of the neighbor system connected to the far end of this interface, to which a Network Management Station can send SNMP messages, as IP datagrams sent to UDP port 161, in order to access network management information concerning the operation of that system. Note that the value of this object may be obtained in different ways, e.g., by manual configuration, or through ILMI interaction with the neighbor system." ::= { atmInterfaceConfEntry 11 } atmInterfaceConfGroup2 OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { atmInterfaceMaxVpcs, atmInterfaceMaxVccs, atmInterfaceConfVpcs, atmInterfaceConfVccs, atmInterfaceMaxActiveVpiBits, atmInterfaceMaxActiveVciBits, atmInterfaceIlmiVpi, atmInterfaceIlmiVci, atmInterfaceMyNeighborIpAddress, atmInterfaceMyNeighborIfName, atmInterfaceCurrentMaxVpiBits, atmInterfaceCurrentMaxVciBits, atmInterfaceSubscrAddress } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A collection of objects providing configuration information about an ATM interface." ::= { atmMIBGroups 10 } Clearly a subsequent revision of this MIB module should define equivalent IPv6 objects. 5.061 RFC 2561 Base Definitions of Managed Objects for TN3270E Using SMIv2 The document states: The MIB defined by this memo supports use of both IPv4 and IPv6 addressing. This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. 5.062 RFC 2562 Definitions of Protocol and Managed Objects for TN3270E Response Time Collection Using SMIv2 This MIB module inherits IP version-independence by virtue of importing the appropriate definitions from RFC 2561. 5.063 RFC 2564 Application Management MIB The following textual convention is defined: ApplTAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Denotes a transport service address. For snmpUDPDomain, an ApplTAddress is 6 octets long, the initial 4 octets containing the IP-address in network-byte order and the last 2 containing the UDP port in network-byte order. Consult 'Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)' for further information on snmpUDPDomain." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255)) A new TC should be defined to handle IPv6 addresses. 5.064 RFC 2584 Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN/HPR in IP Networks Many of the object definitions described in this document assume the use of the IPv4 only TOS header bits. It is therefore IPv4-only in nature and will not support IPv6. 5.065 RFC 2594 Definitions of Managed Objects for WWW Services There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.066 RFC 2605 Directory Server Monitoring MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.067 RFC 2613 Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switched Networks Version 1.0 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.068 RFC 2618 RADIUS Authentication Client MIB This RFC defines the following OIDs: RadiusAuthServerEntry ::= SEQUENCE { radiusAuthServerIndex Integer32, radiusAuthServerAddress IpAddress, radiusAuthClientServerPortNumber Integer32, radiusAuthClientRoundTripTime TimeTicks, radiusAuthClientAccessRequests Counter32, radiusAuthClientAccessRetransmissions Counter32, radiusAuthClientAccessAccepts Counter32, radiusAuthClientAccessRejects Counter32, radiusAuthClientAccessChallenges Counter32, radiusAuthClientMalformedAccessResponses Counter32, radiusAuthClientBadAuthenticators Counter32, radiusAuthClientPendingRequests Gauge32, radiusAuthClientTimeouts Counter32, radiusAuthClientUnknownTypes Counter32, radiusAuthClientPacketsDropped Counter32 } radiusAuthServerAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IpAddress MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The IP address of the RADIUS authentication server referred to in this table entry." ::= { radiusAuthServerEntry 2 } There needs to be an update to allow an IPv6 based object for this value. 5.069 RFC 2619 RADIUS Authentication Server MIB This MIB defines the followings objects: RadiusAuthClientEntry ::= SEQUENCE { radiusAuthClientIndex Integer32, radiusAuthClientAddress IpAddress, radiusAuthClientID SnmpAdminString, radiusAuthServAccessRequests Counter32, radiusAuthServDupAccessRequests Counter32, radiusAuthServAccessAccepts Counter32, radiusAuthServAccessRejects Counter32, radiusAuthServAccessChallenges Counter32, radiusAuthServMalformedAccessRequests Counter32, radiusAuthServBadAuthenticators Counter32, radiusAuthServPacketsDropped Counter32, radiusAuthServUnknownTypes Counter32 } radiusAuthClientAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IpAddress MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The NAS-IP-Address of the RADIUS authentication client referred to in this table entry." ::= { radiusAuthClientEntry 2 } This object needs to be deprecated and replaced by one that supports both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. 5.070 RFC 2622 Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) The only objects in the version of RPSL that deal with IP addresses are defined as: An IPv4 address is represented as a sequence of four integers in the range from 0 to 255 separated by the character dot ".". For example, 128.9.128.5 represents a valid IPv4 address. In the rest of this document, we may refer to IPv4 addresses as IP addresses. An address prefix is represented as an IPv4 address followed by the character slash "/" followed by an integer in the range from 0 to 32. The following are valid address prefixes: 128.9.128.5/32, 128.9.0.0/16, 0.0.0.0/0; and the following address prefixes are invalid: 0/0, 128.9/16 since 0 or 128.9 are not strings containing four integers. There seems to be an awareness of IPv6 because of the terminology but it is not specifically defined. Therefore additional objects for IPv6 addresses and prefixes need to be defined. 5.071 RFC 2662 Definitions of Managed Objects for the ADSL Lines There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.072 RFC 2667 IP Tunnel MIB The Abstract of this document says: This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used for managing tunnels of any type over IPv4 networks. Extension MIBs may be designed for managing protocol-specific objects. Likewise, extension MIBs may be designed for managing security-specific objects. This MIB does not support tunnels over non-IPv4 networks (including IPv6 networks). Management of such tunnels may be supported by other MIBs. A similar MIB for tunneling over IPv6 should be defined. 5.073 RFC 2669 DOCSIS Cable Device MIB Cable Device Management Information Base for DOCSIS compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem Termination Systems This document states: Please note that the DOCSIS 1.0 standard only requires Cable Modems to implement SNMPv1 and to process IPv4 customer traffic. Design choices in this MIB reflect those requirements. Future versions of the DOCSIS standard are expected to require support for SNMPv3 and IPv6 as well. 5.074 RFC 2670 Radio Frequency (RF) Interface Management Information Base for MCNS/DOCSIS compliant RF interfaces This MIB defines the following objects: DocsIfCmtsCmStatusEntry ::= SEQUENCE { docsIfCmtsCmStatusIndex Integer32, docsIfCmtsCmStatusMacAddress MacAddress, docsIfCmtsCmStatusIpAddress IpAddress, docsIfCmtsCmStatusDownChannelIfIndex InterfaceIndexOrZero, docsIfCmtsCmStatusUpChannelIfIndex InterfaceIndexOrZero, docsIfCmtsCmStatusRxPower TenthdBmV, docsIfCmtsCmStatusTimingOffset Unsigned32, docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData OCTET STRING, docsIfCmtsCmStatusValue INTEGER, docsIfCmtsCmStatusUnerroreds Counter32, docsIfCmtsCmStatusCorrecteds Counter32, docsIfCmtsCmStatusUncorrectables Counter32, docsIfCmtsCmStatusSignalNoise TenthdB, docsIfCmtsCmStatusMicroreflections Integer32 } docsIfCmtsCmStatusIpAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IpAddress MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "IP address of this Cable Modem. If the Cable Modem has no IP address assigned, or the IP address is unknown, this object returns a value of 0.0.0.0. If the Cable Modem has multiple IP addresses, this object returns the IP address associated with the Cable interface." ::= { docsIfCmtsCmStatusEntry 3 } This object needs to be deprecated and replaced by one that supports both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. 5.075 RFC 2674 Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.076 RFC 2677 Definitions of Managed Objects for the NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.077 RFC 2720 Traffic Flow Measurement: Meter MIB This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 5.078 RFC 2725 Routing Policy System Security There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.079 RFC 2726 PGP Authentication for RIPE Database Updates There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.080 RFC 2737 Entity MIB (Version 2) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.081 RFC 2741 Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol Version 1 Although the examples in the document are for IPv4 transport only, there is no IPv4 dependency in the AgentX protocol itself. 5.082 RFC 2742 Definitions of Managed Objects for Extensible SNMP Agents There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.083 RFC 2748 The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 5.084 RFC 2749 COPS usage for RSVP There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.085 RFC 2769 Routing Policy System Replication There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.086 RFC 2787 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol As stated in the Overview section: Since the VRRP protocol is intended for use with IPv4 routers only, this MIB uses the SYNTAX for IP addresses which is specific to IPv4. Thus, changes will be required for this MIB to interoperate in an IPv6 environment. 5.087 RFC 2788 Network Services Monitoring MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.088 RFC 2789 Mail Monitoring MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.089 RFC 2837 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fabric Element in Fibre Channel Standard There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.090 RFC 2856 Textual Conventions for Additional High Capacity Data Types There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.091 RFC 2864 The Inverted Stack Table Extension to the Interfaces Group MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.092 RFC 2895 Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier Reference This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 5.093 RFC 2925 Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations This MIB mostly is IPv4 and IPv6 aware. There are a few assumptions that are problems, though. In the following object definitions: pingCtlDataSize OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65507) UNITS "octets" MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Specifies the size of the data portion to be transmitted in a ping operation in octets. A ping request is usually an ICMP message encoded into an IP packet. An IP packet has a maximum size of 65535 octets. Subtracting the size of the ICMP or UDP header (both 8 octets) and the size of the IP header (20 octets) yields a maximum size of 65507 octets." DEFVAL { 0 } ::= { pingCtlEntry 5 } traceRouteCtlDataSize OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65507) UNITS "octets" MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Specifies the size of the data portion of a traceroute request in octets. A traceroute request is essentially transmitted by encoding a UDP datagram into a IP packet. So subtracting the size of a UDP header (8 octets) and the size of a IP header (20 octets) yields a maximum of 65507 octets." DEFVAL { 0 } ::= { traceRouteCtlEntry 6 } The DESCRIPTION clauses need to be updated to remove the IPv4 dependencies. 5.094 RFC 2932 IPv4 Multicast Routing MIB This specification is only defined for IPv4 and a similar MIB must be defined for IPv6. 5.095 RFC 2933 Internet Group Management Protocol MIB As stated in this document: Since IGMP is specific to IPv4, this MIB does not support management of equivalent functionality for other address families, such as IPv6. 5.096 RFC 2940 Definitions of Managed Objects for Common Open Policy Service (COPS) Protocol Clients This MIB is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 5.097 RFC 2954 Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.098 RFC 2955 Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring and Controlling the Frame Relay/ATM PVC Service Interworking Function There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.099 RFC 2959 Real-Time Transport Protocol Management Information Base There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.100 RFC 2981 Event MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.101 RFC 2982 Distributed Management Expression MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.102 RFC 3014 Notification Log MIB There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.103 RFC 3019 IP Version 6 Management Information Base for The Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this document. 5.104 RFC 3020 Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring and Controlling the UNI/NNI Multilink Frame Relay Function There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.105 RFC 3055 Management Information Base for the PINT Services Architecture There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.106 RFC 3060 Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1 Specification (CIM) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.107 RFC 3084 COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR) This is an IPv4 only protocol. A version for IPv6 may need to be defined. 5.108 RFC 3165 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Delegation of Management Scripts. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.109 RFC 3231 Definitions of Managed Objects for Scheduling Management Operations. There are no IPv4 dependecies in this specification. 5.110 RFC 3291 Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.111 RFC 3635 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Types There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.112 RFC 3636 Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Medium Attachment Units (MAUs) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 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. 6.01 RFC 1187 Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.02 RFC 1224 Techniques for managing asynchronously generated alerts There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.03 RFC 1238 CLNS MIB for use with Connectionless Network Protocol (ISO 8473) and End System to Intermediate System (ISO 9542) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.04 RFC 1592 Simple Network Management Protocol Distributed Protocol Interface Version 2.0 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.05 RFC 1792 TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.06 RFC 2724 RTFM: New Attributes for Traffic Flow Measurement There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.07 RFC 2758 Definitions of Managed Objects for Service Level Agreements Performance Monitoring This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 6.08 RFC 2786 Diffie-Helman USM Key Management Information Base and Textual Convention There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.09 RFC 2903 Generic AAA Architecture There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.10 RFC 2934 Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4 This document is specific to IPv4. 6.11 RFC 3179 Script MIB Extensibility Protocol Version 1.1 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 7.0 Summary of Results In the initial survey of RFCs 36 positives were identified out of a total of 153, broken down as follows: Standards 6 of 15 or 40.00% Draft Standards 4 of 15 or 26.67% Proposed Standards 26 of 112 or 23.21% Experimental RFCs 0 of 11 or 0.00% 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 16, Structure of Management Information (RFCs 1155 and 1212) RFCs 1155 and RFCs 1212 (along with the informational document RFC 1215) define SMIv1. These documents have been superseded by RFCs 2578, 2579, and 2580 which define SMIv2. Since SMIv1 is no longer being used as the basis for new IETF MIB modules, the limitations identified in this Internet Standard do not require any action. 7.1.2 STD 17 Simple Network Management Protocol (RFC 1213) The limitations identified have been addressed, RFC1213 has been split into multiple modules which have been seen to. 7.2 Draft Standards 7.2.1 BGP4 MIB (RFC 1657) This problem is currently being addressed by the Inter Domain Routing (IDR) WG and an ID exists (draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mib-11.txt). 7.2.2 SMDS MIB (RFC 1694) See Internet Area standards. Once a specification for IPv6 over SMDS is created a new MIB must be defined. 7.2.3 RIPv2 MIB (RFC 1724) There is no updated MIB module to cover the problems outlined. A new MIB module should be defined. 7.2.4 OSPFv2 MIB (RFC 1850) This problem is currently being addressed by the OSPF WG and an ID exists (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-mib-07.txt). 7.2.5 Transport MIB (RFC 1906) RFC 1906 has been obsoleted by RFC 3417, Transport Mappings for SNMP, and the limitations of this specification have been addressed by that RFC, which defines TCs that can be used to specify transport domains in an IP version-independent way. RFC 3419 recommends that those TCs be used in place of SnmpUDPAddress when IPv6 support is required and for all new applications that are not SNMP-specific. 7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3.01 MIB for Multiprotocol Interconnect over X.25 (RFC 1461) This problem has not been addressed. If a user requirement for IPv6 over X.25 develops (which is thought to be unlikely) then this MIB module will need to be updated in order to accomodate it. 7.3.02 PPP IPCP MIB (RFC 1473) There is no updated MIB to cover the problems outlined. A new MIB should be defined. 7.3.03 Appletalk MIB (RFC 1742) This problem has not been addressed. If a user requirement for IPv6 over Appletalk develops (which is thought to be unlikely) then this MIB module will need to be updated (or a new MIB module will need to be created) in order to accomodate it. 7.3.04 The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility Support using SMIv2 (RFC 2006) The problems are being resolved by the MIP6 WG and there is an ID (draft-ietf-mip6-mipv6-mib-00.txt). 7.3.05 SMIv2 IP MIB (RFC 2011) This issue is being resolved by the IPv6 WG and there is an ID (draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update-04.txt). 7.3.06 SNMPv2 TCP MIB (RFC 2012) This issue is being resolved by the IPv6 WG and there is an ID (draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-04.txt). 7.3.07 SNMPv2 UDP MIB (RFC 2013) This issue is being resolved by the IPv6 WG and there is an ID (draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-01.txt). 7.3.08 RMON-II MIB (RFC 2021) This issue has been brought to the attention of the RMONMIB WG. Currently there is an ID (draft-ietf-rmonmib-rmon2-v2-00.txt) to update RFC 2021, but it does not address the problems that have been identified; it is expected that there will be a resolution in a future version of that ID. 7.3.09 DataLink Switching using SMIv2 MIB (RFC 2024) The problems have not been addressed and an updated MIB should be defined. 7.3.10 IP Forwarding Table MIB (RFC 2096) This issue is being worked on by the IPv6 WG and an ID exists to address this (draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2096-update-05.txt) 7.3.11 Classical IP & ARP over ATM MIB (RFC 2320) The current version of Classical IP and ARP over ATM (RFC 2225) does not support IPv6. If and when that protocol specification is updated to add IPv6 support, then new MIB objects to represent IPv6 addresses will need to be added to this MIB module. 7.3.12 Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 ATM MIB (RFC 2417) The current version of Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 ATM (RFC 2022) does not support IPv6. If and when that protocol specification is updated to add IPv6 support, then new MIB objects to represent IPv6 addresses will need to be added to this MIB module. 7.3.13 ATM MIB (RFC 2515) The AToM MIB WG is currently collecting implementation reports for RFC 2515 and is considering whether to advance, revise, or retire this specification. The problems identified have been brought to the attention of the WG. 7.3.14 TN3270 MIB (RFC 2562) The problems identified are not being addressed and a new MIB module may need to be defined. 7.3.15 Application MIB (RFC 2564) The problems identified are not being addressed and a new MIB module may need to be defined. One possible solution might be to use the RFC 3419 TCs. 7.3.16 Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN/HPR in IP Networks (RFC 2584) The problems identified are not addressed and a new MIB may be defined. 7.3.17 RADIUS MIB (RFC 2618) The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be defined. 7.3.18 RADIUS Authentication Server MIB (RFC 2619) The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB should be defined. 7.3.19 RPSL (RFC 2622) Additional objects must be defined for IPv6 addresses and prefixes. draft-blunk-rpslng-01.txt defines extensions to solve this issue, and it is being considered for publication. 7.3.20 IPv4 Tunnel MIB (RFC 2667) The issue is being resolved and and ID exists (draft-thaler-inet-tunnel-mib-00.txt). 7.3.21 DOCSIS MIB (RFC 2669) This problem is currently being addressed by the IPCDN WG and an ID is available (draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-05.txt). 7.3.22 RF MIB For DOCSIS (RFC 2670) This problem is currently being addressed by the IPCDN WG and an ID is available (draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-06.txt). 7.3.23 VRRP MIB (RFC 2787) The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB may need to be defined. 7.3.24 MIB For Traceroute, Pings and Lookups (RFC 2925) The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB may need to be defined. 7.3.25 IPv4 Multicast Routing MIB (RFC 2932) The problems have not been addressed a new MIB must be defined. 7.3.26 IGMP MIB (RFC 2933) This problem is currently being addressed by the MAGMA WG and an ID exists (draft-ietf-magma-mgmd-mib-01.txt). 7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.4.1 Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4 (RFC 2934) The problems have not been addressed and a new MIB may need to be defined. 8.0 Security Consideration 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 Juergen Schoenwaelder, Brian Carpenter, Bert Wijnen and especially C. M. Heard for feedback on many points of this document. 10.0 References 10.1 Normative [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05.txt IETF work in progress, November 2003 11.0 Authors' Addresses Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions at: Philip J. Nesser II Principal Nesser & Nesser Consulting 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 Kirkland, WA 98034 Email: phil@nesser.com Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Fax: +1 425 48 Andreas Bergstrom (Editor) Ostfold University College Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no Address: Rute 503 Buer N-1766 Halden Norway 12.0 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 13.0 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this docu- ment itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of develop- ing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The lim- ited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DIS- CLAIMS 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. Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-04.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.) Ostfold University College November 2003 Expires April 2004 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently deployed IETF Sub-IP 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 2. Document Organisation 3. Full Standards 4. Draft Standards 5. Proposed Standards 6. Experimental RFCs 7. Summary of Results 7.1 Standards 7.2 Draft Standards 7.3 Proposed Standards 7.4 Experimental RFCs 8. Security Consideration 9. Acknowledgements 10. References 11. Authors' Addresses 12. Intellectual Property Statement 13. Full Copyright Statement 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, Management & Operations, 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. There are no full standars within the scope of this document. 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. There are no draft standards within the scope of this document. 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 3031 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.02 RFC 3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 5.03 RFC 3034 Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks Specification There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.04 RFC 3035 MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.05 RFC 3036 LDP Specification This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 5.06 RFC 3038 VCID Notification over ATM link for LDP There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 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 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 7.0 Summary of Results In the initial survey of RFCs 0 positives were identified out of a total of 7, broken down as follows: Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% Proposed Standards 0 of 6 or 0.00% Experimental RFCs 0 of 1 or 0.00% 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 There are no standards within the scope of this document. 7.2 Draft Standards There are no draft standards within the scope of this document. 7.3 Proposed Standards There are no proposed standards with recommendations in this document. 7.4 Experimental RFCs There are no experimental standards with recommendations in this document. 8.0 Security Consideration 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. 10.0 References 10.1 Normative [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05.txt IETF work in progress, November 2003 11.0 Authors' Addresses Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions at: Philip J. Nesser II Principal Nesser & Nesser Consulting 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 Kirkland, WA 98034 Email: phil@nesser.com Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Fax: +1 425 48 Andreas Bergstrom (Editor) Ostfold University College Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no Address: Rute 503 Buer N-1766 Halden Norway 12.0 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 13.0 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this docu- ment itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of develop- ing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The lim- ited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DIS- CLAIMS 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. Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-03.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.) Ostfold University College November 2003 Expires April 2004 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in currently deployed IETF Security 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 2. Document Organisation 3. Full Standards 4. Draft Standards 5. Proposed Standards 6. Experimental RFCs 7. Summary of Results 7.1 Standards 7.2 Draft Standards 7.3 Proposed Standards 7.4 Experimental RFCs 8. Security Consideration 9. Acknowledgements 10. References 11. Authors' Addresses 12. Intellectual Property Statement 13. Full Copyright Statement 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, Management & Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1]. 2.0 Document Organization 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 2289 A One-Time Password System There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 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 1864 The Content-MD5 Header Field There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.2 RFC 2617 HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication Section 3.2.1 The WWW-Authenticate Response Header include he following text: (Note: including the IP address of the client in the nonce would appear to offer the server the ability to limit the reuse of the nonce to the same client that originally got it. However, that would break proxy farms, where requests from a single user often go through different proxies in the farm. Also, IP address spoofing is not that hard.) Section 4.5 Replay Attacks contains the text: Thus, for some purposes, it is necessary to protect against replay attacks. A good Digest implementation can do this in various ways. The server created "nonce" value is implementation dependent, but if it contains a digest of the client IP, a time-stamp, the resource ETag, and a private server key (as recommended above) then a replay attack is not simple. An attacker must convince the server that the request is coming from a false IP address and must cause the server to deliver the document to an IP address different from the address to which it believes it is sending the document. An attack can only succeed in the period before the time-stamp expires. Digesting the client IP and time-stamp in the nonce permits an implementation which does not maintain state between transactions. Both of these statements are IP version independent and must rely on the implementers discretion. 4.3 RFC 2865 Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Section 3. Packet Format has the following notes: Identifier The Identifier field is one octet, and aids in matching requests and replies. The RADIUS server can detect a duplicate request if it has the same client source IP address and source UDP port and Identifier within a short span of time. and A RADIUS server MUST use the source IP address of the RADIUS UDP packet to decide which shared secret to use, so that RADIUS requests can be proxied. This text is version neutral but implementers should allow for the use of both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. Section 5. Attributes defines a number of IP specific attributes: 4 NAS-IP-Address 8 Framed-IP-Address 9 Framed-IP-Netmask 10 Framed-Routing 14 Login-IP-Host 22 Framed-Route and definitions for the "value" field of the following type: address 32 bit value, most significant octet first. The attributes are further defined as follows: 5.4. NAS-IP-Address Description This Attribute indicates the identifying IP Address of the NAS which is requesting authentication of the user, and SHOULD be unique to the NAS within the scope of the RADIUS server. NAS-IP- Address is only used in Access-Request packets. Either NAS-IP- Address or NAS-Identifier MUST be present in an Access-Request packet. Note that NAS-IP-Address MUST NOT be used to select the shared secret used to authenticate the request. The source IP address of the Access-Request packet MUST be used to select the shared secret. A summary of the NAS-IP-Address Attribute format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Address +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Address (cont) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type 4 for NAS-IP-Address. Length 6 Address The Address field is four octets. 5.8. Framed-IP-Address Description This Attribute indicates the address to be configured for the user. It MAY be used in Access-Accept packets. It MAY be used in an Access-Request packet as a hint by the NAS to the server that it would prefer that address, but the server is not required to honor the hint. A summary of the Framed-IP-Address Attribute format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Address +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Address (cont) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type 8 for Framed-IP-Address. Length 6 Address The Address field is four octets. The value 0xFFFFFFFF indicates that the NAS Should allow the user to select an address (e.g. Negotiated). The value 0xFFFFFFFE indicates that the NAS should select an address for the user (e.g. Assigned from a pool of addresses kept by the NAS). Other valid values indicate that the NAS should use that value as the user's IP address. 5.9. Framed-IP-Netmask Description This Attribute indicates the IP netmask to be configured for the user when the user is a router to a network. It MAY be used in Access-Accept packets. It MAY be used in an Access-Request packet as a hint by the NAS to the server that it would prefer that netmask, but the server is not required to honor the hint. A summary of the Framed-IP-Netmask Attribute format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Address +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Address (cont) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type 9 for Framed-IP-Netmask. Length 6 Address The Address field is four octets specifying the IP netmask of the user. 5.14. Login-IP-Host Description "This Attribute indicates the system with which to connect the user, when the Login-Service Attribute is included. It MAY be used in Access-Accept packets. It MAY be used in an Access-Request packet as a hint to the server that the NAS would prefer to use that host, but the server is not required to honor the hint." A summary of the Login-IP-Host Attribute format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Address +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Address (cont) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type 14 for Login-IP-Host. Length 6 Address The Address field is four octets. The value 0xFFFFFFFF indicates that the NAS SHOULD allow the user to select an address. The value 0 indicates that the NAS SHOULD select a host to connect the user to. Other values indicate the address the NAS SHOULD connect the user to. 5.22. Framed-Route Description This Attribute provides routing information to be configured for the user on the NAS. It is used in the Access-Accept packet and can appear multiple times. A summary of the Framed-Route Attribute format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right. 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- | Type | Length | Text ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Type 22 for Framed-Route. Length >= 3 Text The Text field is one or more octets, and its contents are implementation dependent. It is intended to be human readable and MUST NOT affect operation of the protocol. It is recommended that the message contain UTF-8 encoded 10646 [7] characters. For IP routes, it SHOULD contain a destination prefix in dotted quad form optionally followed by a slash and a decimal length specifier stating how many high order bits of the prefix to use. That is followed by a space, a gateway address in dotted quad form, a space, and one or more metrics separated by spaces. For example, "192.168.1.0/24 192.168.1.1 1 2 -1 3 400". The length specifier may be omitted, in which case it defaults to 8 bits for class A prefixes, 16 bits for class B prefixes, and 24 bits for class C prefixes. For example, "192.168.1.0 192.168.1.1 1". Whenever the gateway address is specified as "0.0.0.0" the IP address of the user SHOULD be used as the gateway address. There are also several example authentication sequences that use the attributes discussed above and hence have IPv4 addresses. Although the definitions in this RFC are limited to IPv4 addresses, the specification is easily extensible for new attribute types. It is therefore relatively simple to create new IPv6 specific attributes. 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. 5.001 RFC 1413 Identification Protocol There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.002 RFC 1421 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.003 RFC 1422 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.004 RFC 1423 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part III There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.005 RFC 1424 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part IV There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.006 RFC 1510 The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5) Although this specification specifies optional use of host addresses, there are no specific requirements that the addresses be IPv4. The specification has no IPv4 dependencies, but implementations might have issues. 5.007 RFC 1731 IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.008 RFC 1734 POP3 AUTHentication command There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.009 RFC 1828 IP Authentication using Keyed MD5 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. The operations described operate on the entire IP packet without specifying that the IP packet be IPv4 or IPv6. 5.010 RFC 1829 The ESP DES-CBC Transform There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. The operations described operate on the entire IP packet without specifying that the IP packet be IPv4 or IPv6. 5.011 RFC 1847 Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and Multipart/Encrypted There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.012 RFC 1848 MIME Object Security Services There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.013 RFC 1928 SOCKS Protocol Version This specification is IPv6 aware and will function normally on either IPv4 and IPv6. 5.014 RFC 1929 Username/Password Authentication for SOCKS V5 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.015 RFC 1961 GSS-API Authentication Method for SOCKS Version 5 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.016 RFC 1964 The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.017 RFC 1968 The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.018 RFC 2015 MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.019 RFC 2025 The Simple Public-Key GSS-API Mechanism (SPKM) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.020 RFC 2082 RIP-2 MD5 Authentication This RFC documents a security mechanism for an IPv4 only routing specification. It is expected that a similar (or better) mechanism will be developed for RIPng. 5.021 RFC 2085 HMAC-MD5 IP Authentication with Replay Prevention This document defines an IP version independent specification and has no IPv4 dependencies. 5.022 RFC 2195 IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/ Response There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.023 RFC 2203 RPCSEC_GSS Protocol Specification There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.024 RFC 2222 Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.025 RFC 2228 FTP Security Extensions There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.026 RFC 2243 OTP Extended Responses There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.027 RFC 2245 Anonymous SASL Mechanism There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.028 RFC 2246 The TLS Protocol Version 1.0 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.029 RFC 2284 PPP Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.030 RFC 2385 Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option Although the specification enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is an update to an IPv4 only routing specification. 5.031 RFC 2401 Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. 5.032 RFC 2402 IP Authentication Header This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. 5.033 RFC 2403 The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within ESP and AH There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.034 RFC 2404 The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.035 RFC 2405 The ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.036 RFC 2406 IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. 5.037 RFC 2407 The Internet IP Security Domain of Interpretation for ISAKMP This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. 5.038 RFC 2408 Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP) This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. 5.039 RFC 2409 The Internet Key Exchange (IKE) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.040 RFC 2410 The NULL Encryption Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.041 RFC 2419 The PPP DES Encryption Protocol, Version 2 (DESE-bis) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.042 RFC 2420 The PPP Triple-DES Encryption Protocol (3DESE) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.043 RFC 2440 OpenPGP Message Format There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.044 RFC 2444 The One-Time-Password SASL Mechanism There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.045 RFC 2451 The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.046 RFC 2478 The Simple and Protected GSS-API Negotiation Mechanism There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.047 RFC 2510 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Management Protocols There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.048 RFC 2511 Internet X.509 Certificate Request Message Format There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.049 RFC 2535 Domain Name System Security Extensions There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There are discussions of A and AAAA records in the document, but have no real implications on IPv4 dependency or on any IP related address records. 5.050 RFC 2536 DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.051 RFC 2538 Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System (DNS) Section 3.1 X.509 CERT RR Names Some X.509 versions permit multiple names to be associated with subjects and issuers under "Subject Alternate Name" and "Issuer Alternate Name". For example, x.509v3 has such Alternate Names with an ASN.1 specification as follows: GeneralName ::= CHOICE { otherName [0] INSTANCE OF OTHER-NAME, rfc822Name [1] IA5String, dNSName [2] IA5String, x400Address [3] EXPLICIT OR-ADDRESS.&Type, directoryName [4] EXPLICIT Name, ediPartyName [5] EDIPartyName, uniformResourceIdentifier [6] IA5String, iPAddress [7] OCTET STRING, registeredID [8] OBJECT IDENTIFIER } uses a potential IPv4 only address. It goes on with the following example: Example 2: Assume that an X.509v3 certificate is issued to /CN=James Hacker/L=Basingstoke/O=Widget Inc/C=GB/ with Subject Alternate names of (a) domain name widget.foo.example, (b) IPv4 address 10.251.13.201, and (c) string "James Hacker ". Then the storage locations recommended, in priority order, would be (1) widget.foo.example, (2) 201.13.251.10.in-addr.arpa, and (3) hacker.mail.widget.foo.example. Since the definition of X.509v3 certificates is not discussed in this document it is unclear if IPv6 addresses are also supported in the above mentioned field. The document does however refer to RFC 2459 for the definition of a certificate, and RFC 2459 is IPv6 and IPv4 aware. 5.052 RFC 2539 Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the Domain Name System (DNS) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.053 RFC 2560 X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Specification - OCSP There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.054 RFC 2585 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.055 RFC 2587 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure LDAPv2 Schema There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.056 RFC 2623 NFS Version 2 and Version 3 Security Issues and the NFS Protocol's Use of RPCSEC_GSS and Kerberos V5 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.057 RFC 2631 Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.058 RFC 2632 S/MIME Version 3 Certificate Handling There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.059 RFC 2633 S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.060 RFC 2634 Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.061 RFC 2712 Addition of Kerberos Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.062 RFC 2743 Generic Security Service Application Program Interface Version 2 Update 1 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.063 RFC 2744 Generic Security Service API Version 2 : C-bindings There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.064 RFC 2747 RSVP Cryptographic Authentication This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 5.065 RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.066 RFC 2817 Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.067 RFC 2829 Authentication Methods for LDAP There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.068 RFC 2830 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer Security (LDAP) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.069 RFC 2831 Using Digest Authentication as a SASL Mechanism There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.070 RFC 2845 Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.071 RFC 2847 LIPKEY - A Low Infrastructure Public Key Mechanism Using SPKM There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.072 RFC 2853 Generic Security Service API Version 2 : Java Bindings The document uses the InetAddress variable which does not necessarily limit it to IPv4 addresses so there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.073 RFC 2857 The Use of HMAC-RIPEMD-160-96 within ESP and AH There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.074 RFC 2875 Diffie-Hellman Proof-of-Possession Algorithms There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.075 RFC 2930 Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.076 RFC 2931 DNS Request and Transaction Signatures (SIG(0)s) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.077 RFC 2935 Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP) HTTP Supplement There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.078 RFC 2941 Telnet Authentication Option There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.079 RFC 2942 Telnet Authentication: Kerberos Version 5 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.080 RFC 2943 TELNET Authentication Using DSA There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.081 RFC 2944 Telnet Authentication: SRP There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.082 RFC 2945 The SRP Authentication and Key Exchange System There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.083 RFC 2946 Telnet Data Encryption Option There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.084 RFC 2947 Telnet Encryption: DES3 64 bit Cipher Feedback There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.085 RFC 2948 Telnet Encryption: DES3 64 bit Output Feedback There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.086 RFC 2949 Telnet Encryption: CAST-128 64 bit Output Feedback There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.087 RFC 2950 Telnet Encryption: CAST-128 64 bit Cipher Feedback There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.088 RFC 2984 Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm in CMS There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.089 RFC 3007 Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic Update There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.090 RFC 3008 Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Signing Authority There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.091 RFC 3012 Mobile IPv4 Challenge/Response Extensions This document is specifically designed for IPv4. 5.092 RFC 3039 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Qualified Certificates Profile There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.093 RFC 3041 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6 This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this document. 5.094 RFC 3062 LDAP Password Modify Extended Operation There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.095 RFC 3090 DNS Security Extension Clarification on Zone Status There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.096 RFC 3097 RSVP Cryptographic Authentication -- Updated Message Type Value There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.097 RFC 3110 RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.098 RFC 3118 Authentication for DHCP Messages This document is only designated for IPv4. It is expected that similar functionality is available in DHCPv6. 5.099 RFC 3207 SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over Transport Layer Security There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.100 RFC 3275 (Extensible Markup Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.101 RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 5.102 RFC 3369 Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 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. 6.01 RFC 1004 Distributed-protocol authentication scheme There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.02 RFC 1411 Telnet Authentication: Kerberos Version 4 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.03 RFC 1412 Telnet Authentication: SPX There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.04 RFC 1507 DASS - Distributed Authentication Security Service There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.05 RFC 1851 The ESP Triple DES Transform There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.06 RFC 1949 Scalable Multicast Key Distribution (SMKD) This specification assumes the use of IGMP and is therefore limited to IPv4 multicast. It is assumed that a similar mechanism may be defined for IPv6 multicasting. 6.07 RFC 2093 Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Specification There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.08 RFC 2094 Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Architecture There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.09 RFC 2154 OSPF with Digital Signatures This OSPF option is IPv4 limited. See the following packet format: 7.2. Router Public Key Certificate A router public key certificate is a package of data signed by a Trusted Entity. This certificate is included in the router PKLSA and in the router configuration information. To change any of the values in the certificate, a new certificate must be obtained from a TE. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Router Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TE Id | TE Key Id | Rtr Key Id | Sig Alg | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Create Time | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Key Field Length | Router Role | #Net Ranges | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Address Mask | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP Address/Address Mask for each Net Range ... / | ... / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Router Public Key | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Certification / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ #NET RANGES The number of network ranges that follow. A network range is defined to be an IP Address and an Address Mask. This list of ranges defines the addresses that the Router is permitted to advertise in its Router Links LSA. Valid values are 0-255. If there are 0 ranges the router cannot advertise anything. This is not generally useful. One range with address=0 and mask=0 will allow a router to advertise any address. IP ADDRESS & ADDRESS MASK Define a range of addresses that this router may advertise. Each is a 32 bit value. One range with address=0 and mask=0 will allow a router to advertise any address. 6.10 RFC 2522 Photuris: Session-Key Management Protocol There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.11 RFC 2523 Photuris: Extended Schemes and Attributes There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.12 RFC 2659 Security Extensions For HTML There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.13 RFC 2660 The Secure HyperText Transfer Protocol There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.14 RFC 2692 SPKI Requirements There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.15 RFC 2693 SPKI Certificate Theory There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.16 RFC 2716 PPP EAP TLS Authentication Protocol There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 6.17 RFC 2773 Encryption using KEA and SKIPJACK This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 6.18 RFC 3029 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Data Validation and Certification Server Protocols There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 7.0 Summary of Results In the initial survey of RFCs 4 positives were identified out of a total of 124, broken down as follows: Standards 0 of 1 or 0.00% Draft Standards 1 of 3 or 33.33% Proposed Standards 1 of 102 or 0.98% Experimental RFCs 2 of 18 or 11.11% 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 7.2 Draft Standards 7.2.1 RADIUS (RFC 2865) The problems have been resolved in RFC 3162, RADIUS and IPv6. 7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3.1 RIPv2 MD5 Authentication (RFC 2082) This functionality has been assumed by the use of the IPsec AH header as defined in RFC 2402, IP Authentication Header. 7.3.2 Mobile IPv4 Challenge Response Extension (RFC 3012) The problems are not being addressed and similar functions may be needed in Mobile IPv6. 7.3.3 Authentication for DHCP Messages (RFC 3118) This problem has been fixed in RFC 3315, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6). 7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.4.1 Scalable Multicast Key Distribution (RFC 1949) This specification relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new specification may be produced; however, the SMKD is not believed to be in use. 8.0 Security Consideration 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. 10.0 References 10.1 Normative [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05.txt IETF work in progress, November 2003 11.0 Authors' Addresses Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions at: Philip J. Nesser II Principal Nesser & Nesser Consulting 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 Kirkland, WA 98034 Email: phil@nesser.com Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Fax: +1 425 48 Andreas Bergstrom (Editor) Ostfold University College Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no Address: Rute 503 Buer N-1766 Halden Norway 12.0 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 13.0 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this docu- ment itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of develop- ing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The lim- ited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DIS- CLAIMS 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. Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-04.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.) Ostfold University College November 2003 Expires April 2004 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 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. Introduction 2. Document Organisation 3. Full Standards 4. Draft Standards 5. Proposed Standards 6. Experimental RFCs 7. Summary of Results 7.1 Standards 7.2 Draft Standards 7.3 Proposed Standards 7.4 Experimental RFCs 8. Security Consideration 9. Acknowledgements 10. References 11. Authors' Addresses 12. Intellectual Property Statement 13. Full Copyright Statement 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, Management & Operations, 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. 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 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. 16.1.1. 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. 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. 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. 3.3.2 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 RESPONSEall 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 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. 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 3551 RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control. There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 4.2 RFC 3530 Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 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. 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. 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. 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 = 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 and subparameters is per [1]. The 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 is expressed in the usual dotted decimal IP address representation, from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255. and 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. 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. 5.82 RFC 3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 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. 6.01 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 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. 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. 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. -- where 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 is a decimal integer and 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. 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. 7.0 Summary of Results In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a total of 104, broken down as follows: Standards 3 of 5 or 60.00% Draft Standards 0 of 2 or 0.00% Proposed Standards 17 of 82 or 20.73% Experimental RFCs 4 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. 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. 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. 8.0 Security Consideration 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 References 10.1 Normative [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05.txt IETF work in progress, November 2003 11.0 Authors' Addresses Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions at: Philip J. Nesser II Principal Nesser & Nesser Consulting 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 Kirkland, WA 98034 Email: phil@nesser.com Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Fax: +1 425 48 Andreas Bergstrom (Editor) Ostfold University College Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no Address: Rute 503 Buer N-1766 Halden Norway 12.0 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 13.0 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this docu- ment itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of develop- ing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The lim- ited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DIS- CLAIMS 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.