RFC 3793

Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents

📅 published June 2004, from ietf

RFC 3793: Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents 💖

okay bestie, the header is giving: this one is by P. Nesser, II of Nesser & Nesser Consulting and A. Bergstrom, Ed. of Ostfold University College. It's Informational 🎀 (so it's sharing info, not setting a standard), and it's dated May 2004 🌸. Its header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates ✨.

Status of this Memo ✨

This memo gives info to the Internet community. It doesn't specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution is unlimited 🦋.

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract 🌈

okay so this doc is trying to document every single place IPv4 addresses get used in the IETF Sub-IP Area standards that are currently deployed 🔥. the big goal is getting from an all-IPv4 Internet to an all-IPv6 one, and that takes a bunch of interim steps 🫶. one of those steps is evolving the current protocols that depend on IPv4. the hope is that these protocols (and their implementations) get redesigned to be network address independent, but if that doesn't happen, they should at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6 💅. so the survey covers all Standards (Full, Draft, and Proposed) plus Experimental RFCs, and writes down every dependency it finds 🍓.

Table of Contents 🧚

   1.  Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  Document Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   3.  Full Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   4.  Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   5.  Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   6.  Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   7.  Summary of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
       7.01. Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
       7.02. Draft Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
       7.03. Proposed Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
       7.04. Experimental RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   9.  Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   10. Normative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   11. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   12. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1. Introduction 🦋

this doc is part of a whole document set that's trying to document all IPv4 address usage in IETF standards 📚. to keep it manageable, it's split into 7 documents that match the current IETF areas: Application, Internet, Operations & Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport 🌸.

for the full intro, check out the introduction [1] 💖.

2. Document Organization 🎀

the rest of the sections are laid out below 💅.

Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each give the raw analysis of Full, Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs 🧚. each RFC gets its own turn, starting with RFC 1 and ending around RFC 3100. the comments are "raw," which means each RFC is looked at all by itself, and the problems it talks about don't peek ahead to see if they've already been fixed 👀.

Section 7 is where the analysis of Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 happens. that's where everything gets looked at as a whole, and the problems that later RFCs fixed get connected 🔥.

3. Full Standards 👑

Full Internet Standards (usually just called "Standards") are fully mature protocol specs that are widely implemented and used all over the Internet ✨.

There are no full standards in scope for this doc 🙈.

4. Draft Standards 🌈

Draft Standards are the penultimate standard level in the IETF. a protocol can only reach draft standard once there are multiple, independent, interoperable implementations 🫶. they're usually pretty mature and widely used 💜.

There are no draft standards in scope for this doc 💀.

5. Proposed Standards 🍓

Proposed Standards are the intro-level docs 🧚. there are no requirements for even a single implementation 😭. honestly, a lot of Proposed ones never get implemented or moved forward in the IETF process, so they're often just ideas put in front of the Internet community 💅. sometimes flaws get exposed, or they're one of many competing solutions to a problem. in those later cases, no discussion is included, because it wouldn't help this survey 🙈.

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 ✨.

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 💜.

6. Experimental RFCs 🧪

Experimental RFCs usually define protocols that don't have widescale implementation or use on the Internet 🌈. they're often proprietary or used in limited arenas 🙈. they get documented for the Internet community so that interoperability or some other useful scenario is possible 🫶. in a few cases, they're offered as alternatives to the mainstream solution for a known problem 🔥.

6.01. RFC 3063 MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism

There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 💅.

7. Summary of Results 📊

in the initial survey, 0 positives were found out of a total of 7 RFCs, broken down like this 👑:

      Standards:                         0 out of  0 or  0.00%
      Draft Standards:                   0 out of  0 or  0.00%
      Proposed Standards:                0 out of  6 or  0.00%
      Experimental RFCs:                 0 out of  1 or  0.00%

a lot of what was identified doesn't need any action, because it documents outdated, unused protocols 💀. other stuff documents protocols that the right working groups are actively updating 🧚. there are also plenty of standards that should be updated but won't cause any operational impact if they aren't 🌸. the remaining instances are written up below ✨.

7.01. Standards

There are no standards in scope for this doc 🙈.

7.02. Draft Standards

There are no draft standards in scope for this doc 💀.

7.03. Proposed Standards

There are no proposed standards with recommendations in this doc 🍓.

7.04. Experimental RFCs

There are no experimental standards with recommendations in this doc 🦋.

8. Security Considerations 🔒

this memo looks at how IPv6-ready specifications are. this doc doesn't have any security considerations of its own 🚨. (we're taking this one seriously, no cap ✨)

9. Acknowledgements 🫶

the authors want to thank the Internet Society for supporting the research and production of this doc 💖.

also, the author Philip J. Nesser II wants to thank his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser 💜.

the editor, Andreas Bergstrom, wants to thank Pekka Savola for guidance and for collecting comments on editing this doc 🎀.

10. Normative Reference 📚

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

11. Authors' Addresses 🏡

questions, comments, or suggestions can go to the authors at these addresses 💌:

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

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


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

   EMail: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). this doc is subject to the rights, licenses, and restrictions in BCP 78. except as set out there, the authors keep all their rights 🔐.

this doc and the info in it are provided on an "AS IS" basis, and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE 😭.

Intellectual Property 💜

The IETF takes no position on the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to apply to the implementation or use of the technology in this doc, or on whether any license under those rights might be available. it also doesn't say it has made any independent effort to find such rights 🔍. info about procedures for rights in RFC docs is in BCP 78 and BCP 79 📜.

copies of IPR disclosures sent to the IETF Secretariat, any assurances of licenses that will be made available, and the results of attempts to get a general license or permission for implementers or users of this spec can be found in the IETF's online IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 🌐.

the IETF invites anyone to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other proprietary rights that might cover technology required to implement this standard. send that info to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org 📬.

Acknowledgement 🌸

the RFC Editor function is currently funded by the Internet Society 💖.

📦 where this page comes from