RFC 4223

RFC 4223: Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic 🎀

Okay bestie, so this is the paper trail where the IETF basically says "we're retiring this one" 💅. Written by Pekka Savola of CSC/FUNET, dated October 2005 ✨. It's an Informational doc, so it doesn't set any Internet standard 🌸. It obsoletes RFC 1863 and doesn't update anything else. Full legend, no cap 🫶.

---

Status of This Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community 💜. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind 🙈. Distribution of this memo is unlimited ✨.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005) 🌈.

Abstract

This memo reclassifies RFC 1863, "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing", to Historic status 🦋. It also obsoletes RFC 1863 💀, which is the spicy part 🔥.

1. Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic 👑

1.1. Background

Okay so RFC 1863 [1] describes using route servers as an alternative to BGP/IDRP full mesh routing 🧚.

In this doc, when we say "RFC 1863 route server," we mean a route server as specified in RFC 1863 💖. Any other uses of the term "route server" are outside the scope of this document, bestie 🙅‍♀️.

1.2. Reasoning for Reclassification

Here's the tea: implementations of RFC 1863 route servers do not exist, and they aren't used as an alternative to full mesh routing 😭. So RFC 1863 gets reclassified to Historic status 🍓.

1.3. Current Alternatives

The techniques that currently stand in for full mesh routing are BGP Route Reflectors [2], BGP Confederations [3], and private AS numbers 💅. IDRP for IP was never standardized by the IETF, so honestly it can be considered obsolete 💀✨.

1.4. Out of Scope

Other uses of (non-RFC 1863) route servers, not as an alternative to full mesh routing like RFC 1863 describes, are expected to keep going for multiple purposes 🌸. They're just out of scope for this memo 🫶.

2. Acknowledgements 🫶

Jeffrey Haas, John Scudder, Paul Jakma, and Yakov Rekhter gave useful background info for this memo 💜. Scott Bradner, Jeffrey Haas, and Yakov Rekhter gave substantial feedback during the WG last call 🙌.

3. Security Considerations 🔒

Reclassifying RFC 1863 has no security considerations 😌.

4. References 📚

4.1. Normative References

[1] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.

4.2. Informative References

[2] Bates, T., Chandra, R., and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000.

[3] Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001.

Author's Address 🎀

Pekka Savola CSC/FUNET Espoo Finland

EMail: psavola@funet.fi 💌

Full Copyright Statement 🌈

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights 📜.

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

Intellectual Property 💜

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document, or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights 🧐. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79 📖.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat, any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 🔗.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard 🦋. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org 💌.

Acknowledgement 💖

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society ✨.