Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-00.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting Internet Draft February 2003 Expires August 2003 Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing 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 Routing 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. 1.0 Introduction This work began as a megolithic document draft-ietf-ngtrans- ipv4survey-XX.txt. In an effort to rework the information into a more manageable form, it has been broken into 8 documents conforming to the current IETF areas (Application, General, Internet, Manangement & Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport). 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 overcome with changes to the network layer and to routing protocols. (Ignoring the tremendous advances in computational hardware) 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. This version of IP was documented in RFC 760. This was a version of IP with 8 bit network and 24 bit host addresses. A year later IP 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 need 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 not sufficient to scale with the growth of the Internet. The first version of BGP was documented in 1989 in RFC 1105. The next scaling issues to became apparent in the early 1990's was the exhaustion of the Class B address space. The growth and commercialization of the Internet had organizations requesting IP addresses in alarming numbers. In May of 1992 over 45% of the Class B space was 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 solved 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 solved the problem for the present but there are still potential scaling issues. Current Internet growth would have long overwhelmed the current address space if industry didn't supply a solution in 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 A Brief Aside Throughout this document there are discussions on how protocols might be updated to support IPv6 addresses. Although current thinking is that IPv6 should suffice as the dominant network layer protocol for the lifetime of the author, it is not unreasonable to contemplate further upgrade to IP. Work done by the IRTF Interplanetary Internet Working Group shows one idea of far reaching thinking. It may be a reasonable idea (or may not) to consider designing protocols in such a way that they can be either IP version aware or independent. This idea must be balanced against issues of simplicity and performance. Therefore it is recommended that protocol designer keep this issue in mind in future designs. Just as a reminder, remember the words of Jon Postel: "Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept from others." 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 RFC are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by either newer versions or as they have transitioned through the standards process are not covered. 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 ever 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. 2.2 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 RFC 3247. The comments for each RFC is "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 1009 Gateway Requirements It is pointless to attempt to try and quantify the IPv4 references in this document. The document specifies operations of IPv4 routers/gateways. Hence, it makes numerous references that are IPv4 specific. Like RFC 1122, it is necessary to rewrite this document and create a "IPv6 Gateway Requirements" standard. 3.2 RFC 904 Exterior Gateway Protocol This RFC has been depreciated to Historic status and is not considered. 3.3 RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol This RFC has been reclassified as historic and replace by STD 56. See Section 3.56 for its further discussion. 3.4 Interface Message Processor: Specifications for the Interconnection of a Host and an IMP This standard has be reclassified as Historic and is not considered in this discussion. 3.5 RFC 2328 OSPF Version 2 This RFC defines a protocol for IPv4 routing. It is highly assumptive about address formats being IPv4 in nature. A new versions of OSPF must be created to support IPv6. 3.6 RFC 2453 RIP Version 2 RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2080. 3.7 RFC 1722 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement RIPv2 is only intended for IPv4 networks. IPv6 routing functionality is contain in RIPng documented in RFC 2081. 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 1771 A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) (BGP-4) This RFC defines a protocol used for exchange of IPv4 routing information and does not support IPv6. A new EGP must be defined for the exchange of IPv6 routing information. 4.2 RFC 1772 Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet (BGP-4-APP) This RFC is a discussion of the use of BGP4 on the Internet. Since BGP4 is limited to IPv4 addresses, it is expected that a similar document will be created to be paired with the definition of the next generation BGP. 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 1195 Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments (IS-IS) This documents specifies a protocol for the exchange of IPv4 routing information. It is incompatible with IPv6. There are is substantial work being done on a newer version of IS-IS that should include IPv6 routing. 5.02 RFC 1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF This document discusses a version of OSPF that is limited to IPv4. It is expected that a similar document be assigned for when a version of OSPF that supports IPv6 is established. 5.03 RFC 1397 Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 Version of The Border Gateway Protocol BGP2 and BGP3 are both depreciated and therefore are not discussed in this document. 5.04 RFC 1403 BGP OSPF Interaction (BGP-OSPF) This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols and how they exchange IPv4 information. A similar document should be produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6. 5.05 RFC 1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing (IDPR-ARCH) The architecture described in this documents has no IPv4 dependencies. 5.06 RFC 1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: Version 1 (IDPR) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 5.07 RFC 1517 Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) (CIDR) This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 5.08 RFC 1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR (CIDR-ARCH) This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 5.09 RFC 1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy (CIDR-STRA) This document deals exclusively with IPv4 addressing issue. 5.10 RFC 1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits (RIP-DC) This protocol is an extension to a protocol for exchanging IPv4 routing information. In Section 3. IP Routing Information Protocol Version 1 shows: Followed by up to 25 routing entries (each 20 octets) 0 1 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | address family identifier (2) | must be zero (2) | +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | IP address (4) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | must be zero (4) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | must be zero (4) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | metric (4) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ . . The format of an IP RIP datagram in octets, with each tick mark representing one bit. All fields are in network order. The four octets: sequence number (2), fragment number (1) and number of fragments (1) are not present in the original RIP specification. They are only present if command takes the values 7 or 8. Figure 2. IP Routing Information Protocol packet format The section referencing RIPv2 refers back to the above text. 5.11 RFC 1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF (OSPF-Multi) This document defines the use of IPv4 multicast to an IPv4 routing protocol. A similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6. 5.12 RFC 1587 The OSPF NSSA Option (OSPF-NSSA) This document defines an extension to an IPv4 routing protocol and it is assumed that any updated version of OSPF to support IPv6 will contain an appropriate update for this option. 5.13 RFC 1745 BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction (BGP4/IDRP) This document discusses the interaction between two routing protocols and how they exchange IPv4 information. A similar document should be produced when versions of OSPF and BGP that support IPv6. 5.14 RFC 1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits (OSPF-DC) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. 5.15 RFC 1997 BGP Communities Attribute (BGP-COMM) Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this enhancement. 5.16 RFC 2080 RIPng for IPv6 (RIPNG-IPV6) This RFC documents a protocol for exchanging IPv6 routing information and is not discussed in this document. 5.17 RFC 2091 Triggered Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits (RIP-TRIG) This RFC defines an enhancement for an IPv4 routing protocol and while it has no IPv4 dependencies it is inherintely limited to IPv4. It is expected that a similar mechanism will be implemented in RIPng. 5.18 RFC 2332 NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) (NHRP) This document is very generic in its design and seems to be able to support numerous layer 3 addressing schemes and should include both IPv4 and IPv6. 5.19 RFC 2333 NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement This document is very generic in its design and seems to be able to support numerous layer 3 addressing schemes and should include both IPv4 and IPv6. 5.20 RFC 2335 A Distributed NHRP Service Using SCSP (NHRP-SCSP) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 5.21 RFC 2338 Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) This protocol is IPv4 specific. See the following: 5.1 VRRP Packet Format This section defines the format of the VRRP packet and the relevant fields in the IP header. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Version| Type | Virtual Rtr ID| Priority | Count IP Addrs| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Auth Type | Adver Int | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP Address (1) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | . | | . | | . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP Address (n) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Authentication Data (1) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Authentication Data (2) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 5.2 IP Field Descriptions 5.2.1 Source Address The primary IP address of the interface the packet is being sent from. 5.2.2 Destination Address The IP multicast address as assigned by the IANA for VRRP is: 224.0.0.18 This is a link local scope multicast address. Routers MUST NOT forward a datagram with this destination address regardless of its TTL. There are numerous other references to 32-bit IP addresses. There does not seem to be any reason that a new version of this protocol could be straightforwardly be developed for IPv6. 5.22 RFC 2370 The OSPF Opaque LSA Option (OSPF-LSA) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. 5.23 RFC 2439 BGP Route Flap Damping Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this enhancement. 5.24 RFC 2545 Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing This RFC documents IPv6 routing methods and is not discussed in this document. 5.25 RFC 2622 Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) (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 masks need to be defined. 5.26 RFC 2735 NHRP Support for Virtual Private Networks This protocol implies only IPv4 operations, but does not seem to present any reason that it would not function for IPv6. 5.27 RFC 2740 OSPF for IPv6 This document defines an IPv6 specific protocol and is not discussed in this document. 5.28 RFC 2769 Routing Policy System Replication (RPSL) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 5.29 RFC 2784 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) (GRE) This protocol is only defined for IPv4. The document states: o IPv6 as Delivery and/or Payload Protocol This specification describes the intersection of GRE currently deployed by multiple vendors. IPv6 as delivery and/or payload protocol is not included Therefore, a new version must be defined for IPv6. 5.30 RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh (IBGP) Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this enhancement. Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in and IPv6 aware BGP. 5.31 RFC 2842 Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4 Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this enhancement. Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in and IPv6 aware BGP. 5.32 RFC 2858 Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 (MEXT-BGP4) In the Abstract Currently BGP-4 [BGP-4] is capable of carrying routing information only for IPv4 [IPv4]. This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, etc...). The extensions are backward compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate with a router that doesn't support the extensions. The document is therefore no examined further in this document. 5.33 RFC 2890 Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 5.34 RFC 2894 Router Renumbering for IPv6 This document defines an IPv6 only document and is not concerned in this document. 5.35 RFC 2918 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 5.36 RFC 3065 Autonomous System Confederations for BGP (BGP-ASC) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 5.37 RFC 3107 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 (SDP) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 5.38 RFC 3122 Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse Discovery Specification This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this document. 5.39 RFC 3140 Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. 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 1075 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (IP-DVMRP) This document defines a protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. A similar mechanism must be defined for IPv6 multicast routing (or the functionality must be included in other "standard" IPv6 routing protocols.) 6.02 RFC 1383 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (DNS-IP) This proposal is IPv4 limited: This record is designed for easy general purpose extensions in the DNS, and its content is a text string. The RX record will contain three fields: - A record identifier composed of the two characters "RX". This is used to disambiguate from other experimental uses of the "TXT" record. - A cost indicator, encoded on up to 3 numerical digits. The corresponding positive integer value should be less that 256, in order to preserve future evolutions. - An IP address, encoded as a text string following the "dot" notation. The three strings will be separated by a single comma. An example of record would thus be: ___________________________________________________________________ | domain | type | record | value | | - | | | | |*.27.32.192.in-addr.arpa | IP | TXT | RX, 10, 10.0.0.7| |_________________________|________|__________|___________________| which means that for all hosts whose IP address starts by the three octets "192.32.27" the IP host "10.0.0.7" can be used as a gateway, and that the preference value is 10. 6.03 RFC 1476 RAP: Internet Route Access Protocol (RAP) This document defines an IPv7 routing protocol and has been abandoned by the IETF as a feasible design. It is not considered in this document. 6.04 RFC 1765 OSPF Database Overflow (OSPF-OVFL) There are no IPv4 dependencies in this protocol other than the fact that it is an new functionality for a routing protocol that only supports IPv4 networks. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. 6.05 RFC 1863 A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing (BGP-IDRP) This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 6.06 RFC 1966 BGP Route Reflection An alternative to full mesh IBGP (BGP-RR) Although the protocol enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies, it is an update to an IPv4 only routing protocol. It is expected that a newer version of BGP that is IPv6 aware will also implement this enhancement. Conceptually there should be no issues with the protocol operating in and IPv6 aware BGP. 6.07 RFC 2189 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing This document specifies a protocol that depends on IPv4 multicast. It is expected that it could easily be updated to support IPv6 multicasting. 7.3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBT Control Packet Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | group address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | target router | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | originating router | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | option type | option len | option value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3. JOIN_REQUEST Packet Format JOIN_REQUEST Field Definitions o group address: multicast group address of the group being joined. For a "wildcard" join (see [5]), this field contains the value of INADDR_ANY. o target router: target (core) router for the group. o originating router: router that originated this JOIN_REQUEST. There are many other packet formats defined in the document that show this limitation as well. 6.08 RFC 2201 Core Based Trees (CBT) Multicast Routing Architecture See previous section for the IPv4 limitation in this protocol. 6.09 RFC 2520 NHRP with Mobile NHCs (NHRP-MNHCS) This protocol is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes. 6.10 RFC 2676 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions There are IPv4 dependencies in this protocol. IT requires the use of the IPv4 TOS header field. It is assumed that a future update to OSPF to support IPv6 will also support this functionality. 7.0 Summary of Results In the initial survey of RFCs 26 positives were identified out of a total of 58, broken down as follows: Standards 3 of 7 or 42.86% Draft Standards 1 of 2 or 50.00% Proposed Standards 18 of 39 or 46.15% Experimental RFCs 4 of 10 or 40.00% 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. The author has attempted to organize the results in a format that allows easy reference to other protocol designers. The following recommendations uses the documented terms "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" described in RFC 2119. They should only be interpreted in the context of RFC 2119 when they appear in all caps. That is, the word "should" in the previous SHOULD NOT be interpreted as in RFC 2119. The assignment of these terms has been based entirely on the authors perceived needs for updates and should not be taken as an official statement. 7.1 Standards 7.1.1 STD 4 Router Requirements (RFC 1812) RFC 1812 SHOULD be updated to include IPv6 Routing Requirements (once they are finalized) 7.1.2 STD 54 OSPF (RFC 2328) This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.1.3 STD 56 RIPv2 (RFC 2453) This problem has been fixed by RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 7.2 Draft Standards 7.2.1 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (RFC 1771) This problem has been fixed in RFC2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. 7.3 Proposed Standards 7.3.01 IS-IS (RFC 1195) This problem is being addressed by the IS-IS WG and a ID is currently available (draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-02.txt) 7.3.02 Applicability Statement for OSPFv2 (RFC 1370) This problem has been resolved in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.03 Applicability of CIDR (RFC 1517) The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374. 7.3.04 CIDR Architecture (RFC 1518) The contents of this specification has been treated in various IPv6 addressing architecture RFCS. See RFC 2373 & 2374. 7.3.05 RIP Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 1582) This problem has been addressed in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 7.3.06 OSPF Multicast Extensions (RFC 1584) This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.07 OSPF NSSA Option (RFC 1587) This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.08 BGP4/IDRP OSPF Interaction (RFC 1745) The problems are addressed in the combination of RFC2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 and RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.09 OSPF For Demand Circuits (RFC 1793) This functionality has been covered in RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.10 IPv4 Router Requirements (RFC 1812) See Section 7.1.2. 7.3.11 RIP Triggered Extensions for Demand Circuits (RFC 2091) This functionality is provided in RFC 2080, RIPng for IPv6. 7.3.12 VRRP (RFC 2338) The problems identified are being addressed by the VRRP WG and there is an ID (draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-02.txt). 7.3.13 OSPF Opaque LSA Option (RFC 2370) This problem has been fixed by RFC 2740, OSPF for IPv6. 7.3.14 BGP Route Flap Dampening (RFC 2439) These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. 7.3.15 RPSL (RFC 2622) Additional objects MUST be defined for IPv6 addresses and prefixes. 7.3.16 GRE (RFC 2784) The problems have not been addressed and a new protocol SHOULD be defined. 7.3.17 BGP Route Reflector (RFC 2796) These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. 7.3.18 Capabilities Advertisement in BGP4 (RFC 2842) These issues are addressed via using BGP4 plus RFC 2283, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4. 7.4 Experimental RFCs 7.4.1 Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol (RFC 1075) This protocol is a routing protocol for IPv4 multicast routing. It is no longer in use and SHOULD NOT be redefined. 7.4.2 An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing (RFC 1383) This protocol relies on IPv4 DNS RR and a new protocol standard SHOULD NOT be produced. 7.4.3 QoS Routing Mechanisms and OSPF Extensions (RFC 2676) 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. 7.4.4 Core Based Trees (CBT version 2) Multicast Routing (RFC 2189) This protocol relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new protocol standard MAY be produced. 8.0 Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society in the research and production of this document. Additionally the author would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser. 9.0 Authors Address 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