Network Working Group P. Nesser, II
Request for Comments: 3794 Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Category: Informational A. Bergstrom, Ed.
Ostfold University College
June 2004
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
IETF Transport Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents
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 (2004).
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
1.0. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.0. Document Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.0. Full Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4.0. Draft Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.0. Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.0. Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.0. Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1. Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.2. Draft Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.3. Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.4. Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.0. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.0. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 1]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
10.0. Normative Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.0. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.0. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
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,
Operations & Management, 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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 2]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 3]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
6.1.1. 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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 4]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 5]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
3.4.2. 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
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 6]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
RESPONSE all 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 7]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
Section 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 8]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
Section 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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 9]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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 3530 Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
4.2. RFC 3550 RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
4.3. RFC 3551 RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with
Minimal Control.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 10]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 11]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 12]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 13]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 14]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 15]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 16]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 17]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 18]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 19]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 20]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 21]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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 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 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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 22]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 23]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
--
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 24]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 25]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 26]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
7.0. Summary of Results
In the initial survey of RFCs 24 positives were identified out of a
total of 104, broken down as follows:
Standards: 3 out of 5 or 60.00%
Draft Standards: 0 out of 2 or 0.00%
Proposed Standards: 17 out of 82 or 20.73%
Experimental RFCs: 4 out 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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 27]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 28]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
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.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 29]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
8.0. Security Considerations
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. Normative Reference
[1] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
RFC 3789, June 2004.
11.0. Authors' Addresses
Please contact the authors with any questions, comments or
suggestions at:
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
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 30]
RFC 3794 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Transport Area June 2004
12.0. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 31]
RFC, FYI, BCP