This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage
of IPv4 addresses in IETF standards. In an effort to have the
information in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents
conforming to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet,
Management & Operations, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
This specific document focuses on usage of IPv4 addresses within the
Internet area.
For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1] document.
The following 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 turn starting with RFC 1 and ending in (about)
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 any of the issues raised 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.
Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as
"Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely
implemented and used throughout the Internet.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 9]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
In Section 3.6, "Resource Records", the definition of A record is:
RDATA which is the type and sometimes class dependent
data which describes the resource:
A For the IN class, a 32 bit IP address
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 10]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
And Section 5.2.1, "Typical functions" defines:
1. Host name to host address translation.
This function is often defined to mimic a previous HOSTS.TXT based
function. Given a character string, the caller wants one or more
32 bit IP addresses. Under the DNS, it translates into a request
for type A RRs. Since the DNS does not preserve the order of RRs,
this function may choose to sort the returned addresses or select
the "best" address if the service returns only one choice to the
client. Note that a multiple address return is recommended, but a
single address may be the only way to emulate prior HOSTS.TXT
services.
2. Host address to host name translation
This function will often follow the form of previous functions.
Given a 32 bit IP address, the caller wants a character string.
The octets of the IP address are reversed, used as name
components, and suffixed with "IN-ADDR.ARPA". A type PTR query is
used to get the RR with the primary name of the host. For
example, a request for the host name corresponding to IP address
1.2.3.4 looks for PTR RRs for domain name "4.3.2.1.IN-ADDR.ARPA".
There are, of course, numerous examples of IPv4 addresses scattered
throughout the document.
3.12. RFC 1035 Domain Names: Implementation and Specification
Section 3.4.1, "A RDATA format", defines the format for A records:
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ADDRESS |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
where:
ADDRESS A 32 bit Internet address.
Hosts that have multiple Internet addresses will have multiple A
records.
A records cause no additional section processing. The RDATA section
of an A line in a master file is an Internet address expressed as
four decimal numbers separated by dots without any embedded spaces
(e.g.,"10.2.0.52" or "192.0.5.6").
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 11]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
And Section 3.4.2, "WKS RDATA", format is:
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ADDRESS |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| PROTOCOL | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ |
| |
/ <BIT MAP> /
/ /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
where:
ADDRESS An 32 bit Internet address
PROTOCOL An 8 bit IP protocol number
<BIT MAP> A variable length bit map. The bit map
must be a multiple of 8 bits long.
The WKS record is used to describe the well known services supported
by a particular protocol on a particular internet address. The
PROTOCOL field specifies an IP protocol number, and the bit map has
one bit per port of the specified protocol. The first bit
corresponds to port 0, the second to port 1, etc. If the bit map
does not include a bit for a protocol of interest, that bit is
assumed zero. The appropriate values and mnemonics for ports and
protocols are specified in RFC1010.
For example, if PROTOCOL=TCP (6), the 26th bit corresponds to TCP
port 25 (SMTP). If this bit is set, a SMTP server should be
listening on TCP port 25; if zero, SMTP service is not supported on
the specified address.
The purpose of WKS RRs is to provide availability information for
servers for TCP and UDP. If a server supports both TCP and UDP, or
has multiple Internet addresses, then multiple WKS RRs are used.
WKS RRs cause no additional section processing.
Section 3.5, "IN-ADDR.ARPA domain", describes reverse DNS lookups and
is clearly IPv4 dependent.
There are, of course, numerous examples of IPv4 addresses scattered
throughout the document.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 12]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
3.13. RFC 1042 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over IEEE
802 networks
This specification specifically deals with the transmission of IPv4
packets over IEEE 802 networks.
3.14. RFC 1044 Internet Protocol on Network System's HYPERchannel:
Protocol Specification
There are a variety of methods used in this standard to map IPv4
addresses to 32 bits fields in the HYPERchannel headers. This
specification does not support IPv6.
3.15. RFC 1055 Nonstandard for transmission of IP datagrams over serial
lines: SLIP
This specification is more of an analysis of the shortcomings of SLIP
which is unsurprising. The introduction of PPP as a general
replacement of SLIP has made this specification essentially unused.
No update need be considered.
3.16. RFC 1088 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
NetBIOS networks
This specification documents a technique to encapsulate IP packets
inside NetBIOS packets.
The technique presented of using NetBIOS names of the form
IP.XX.XX.XX.XX will not work for IPv6 addresses since the length of
IPv6 addresses will not fit within the NetBIOS 15 octet name
limitation.
This specification defines IP multicast. Parts of the document are
IPv4 dependent.
3.18. RFC 1132 Standard for the transmission of 802.2 packets over IPX
networks
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
3.19. RFC 1201 Transmitting IP traffic over ARCNET networks
The major concerns of this specification with respect to IPv4
addresses occur in the resolution of ARCnet 8bit addresses to IPv4
addresses in an "ARPlike" method. This is incompatible with IPv6.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 13]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
3.20. RFC 1209 The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the SMDS Service
This specification defines running IPv4 and ARP over SMDS. The
methods described could easily be extended to support IPv6 packets.
3.21. RFC 1390 Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks
This specification defines the use of IPv4 address on FDDI networks.
There are numerous IPv4 dependencies in the specification.
In particular the value of the Protocol Type Code (2048 for IPv4) and
a corresponding Protocol Address length (4 bytes for IPv4) needs to
be created. A discussion of broadcast and multicast addressing
techniques is also included, and similarly must be updated for IPv6
networks. The defined MTU limitation of 4096 octets of data (with
256 octets reserved header space) should remain sufficient for IPv6.
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.
This protocol is designed specifically for use with IPv4, for
example:
Section 3. Packet Format
All numbers shown are decimal, unless indicated otherwise. The
BOOTP packet is enclosed in a standard IP UDP datagram. For
simplicity it is assumed that the BOOTP packet is never fragmented.
Any numeric fields shown are packed in 'standard network byte
order', i.e., high order bits are sent first.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 14]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
In the IP header of a bootrequest, the client fills in its own IP
source address if known, otherwise zero. When the server address is
unknown, the IP destination address will be the 'broadcast address'
255.255.255.255. This address means 'broadcast on the local cable,
(I don't know my net number)'.
FIELD BYTES DESCRIPTION
----- ----- ---
[...]
ciaddr 4 client IP address;
filled in by client in bootrequest if known.
yiaddr 4 'your' (client) IP address;
filled by server if client doesn't
know its own address (ciaddr was 0).
siaddr 4 server IP address;
returned in bootreply by server.
giaddr 4 gateway IP address,
used in optional cross-gateway booting.
Since the packet format is a fixed 300 bytes in length, an updated
version of the specification could easily accommodate an additional
48 bytes (4 IPv6 fields of 16 bytes to replace the existing 4 IPv4
fields of 4 bytes).
4.2. RFC 1188 Proposed Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams
over FDDI Networks
This document is clearly informally superseded by RFC 1390,
"Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks", even though no
formal deprecation has been done. Therefore, this specification is
not considered further in this memo.
The entire process of PMTU discovery is predicated on the use of the
DF bit in the IPv4 header, an ICMP message (also IPv4 dependent) and
TCP MSS option. This is not compatible with IPv6.
4.4. RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN
Section 3.2 defines an NLPID for IP as follows:
The value hex CC (binary 11001100, decimal 204) is IP.
Conformance with this specification requires that IP be supported.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 15]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
See section 5.1 for a diagram of the packet formats.
Clearly a new NLPID would need to be defined for IPv6 packets.
Section 5.1.3, "Endpoint Discriminator Option", defines a Class
header field:
Class
The Class field is one octet and indicates the identifier address
space. The most up-to-date values of the LCP Endpoint
Discriminator Class field are specified in the most recent
"Assigned Numbers" RFC. Current values are assigned as follows:
0 Null Class
1 Locally Assigned Address
2 Internet Protocol (IP) Address
3 IEEE 802.1 Globally Assigned MAC Address
4 PPP Magic-Number Block
5 Public Switched Network Directory Number
A new class field needs to be defined by the IANA for IPv6 addresses.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 16]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
Section 5.1, "Packet Formats", contains the following excerpt:
EtherType (16 bits) SHALL be set as defined in Assigned Numbers: IP
= 2048 ('0800'h), ARP = 2054 ('0806'h), RARP = 32,821 ('8035'h).
Section 5.5, "MTU", has the following definition:
The MTU for HIPPI-SC LANs is 65280 bytes.
This value was selected because it allows the IP packet to fit in
one 64K byte buffer with up to 256 bytes of overhead. The
overhead is 40 bytes at the present time; there are 216 bytes of
room for expansion.
HIPPI-FP Header 8 bytes
HIPPI-LE Header 24 bytes
IEEE 802.2 LLC/SNAP Headers 8 bytes
Maximum IP packet size (MTU) 65280 bytes
------------
Total 65320 bytes (64K - 216)
This definition is not applicable for IPv6 packets since packets can
be larger than the IPv4 limitation of 65280 bytes.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
4.16. RFC 2460 Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
This document defines IPv6 and has no IPv4 issues.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 17]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
4.17. RFC 2461 Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)
This document defines an IPv6 related specification and has no IPv4
issues.
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.
5.1. RFC 1234 Tunneling IPX traffic through IP networks
The section "Unicast Address Mappings" has the following text:
For implementations of this memo, the first two octets of the host
number will always be zero and the last four octets will be the
node's four octet IP address. This makes address mapping trivial
for unicast transmissions: the first two octets of the host number
are discarded, leaving the normal four octet IP address. The
encapsulation code should use this IP address as the destination
address of the UDP/IP tunnel packet.
This mapping will not be able to work with IPv6 addresses.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 18]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
There are also numerous discussions on systems keeping a "peer list"
to map between IP and IPX addresses. The specifics are not discussed
in the document and are left to the individual implementation.
The section "Maximum Transmission Unit" also has some implications on
IP addressing:
Although larger IPX packets are possible, the standard maximum
transmission unit for IPX is 576 octets. Consequently, 576 octets
is the recommended default maximum transmission unit for IPX packets
being sent with this encapsulation technique. With the eight octet
UDP header and the 20 octet IP header, the resulting IP packets will
be 604 octets long. Note that this is larger than the 576 octet
maximum size IP implementations are required to accept. Any IP
implementation supporting this encapsulation technique must be
capable of receiving 604 octet IP packets.
As improvements in protocols and hardware allow for larger,
unfragmented IP transmission units, the 576 octet maximum IPX packet
size may become a liability. For this reason, it is recommended
that the IPX maximum transmission unit size be configurable in
implementations of this memo.
This specification defines a mechanism very specific to IPv4.
5.3. RFC 1277 Encoding Network Addresses to Support Operation over
Non-OSI Lower Layers
Section 4.5, "TCP/IP (RFC 1006) Network Specific Format" describes a
structure that reserves 12 digits for the textual representation of
an IP address.
This 12 octet field for decimal versions of IP addresses is
insufficient for a decimal version of IPv6 addresses. It is possible
to define a new encoding using the 20 digit long IP Address + Port +
Transport Set fields in order to accommodate a binary version of an
IPv6 address, port number and Transport Set. There are several
schemes that could be envisioned.
5.4. RFC 1332 The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)
This specification defines a mechanism for devices to assign IPv4
addresses to PPP clients once PPP negotiation is completed. Section
3, "IPCP Configuration Options", defines IPCP option types which
embed the IP address in 4-byte long fields. This is clearly not
enough for IPv6.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 19]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
However, the specification is clearly designed to allow new Option
Types to be added and Should offer no problems for use with IPv6 once
appropriate options have been defined.
5.5. RFC 1377 The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.6. RFC 1378 The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.7. RFC 1469 IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks
This document defines the usage of IPv4 multicast over IEEE 802.5
Token Ring networks. This is not compatible with IPv6.
5.8. RFC 1552 The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol
(IPXCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 20]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.15. RFC 1763 The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Although the examples used in this document use IPv4 addresses,
(i.e., A records) there is nothing in the specification to preclude
full and proper functionality using IPv6.
5.21. RFC 1996 A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS
NOTIFY)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
This document is designed for use in IPv4 networks. There are many
references to a specified IP version number of 4 and 32-bit
addresses. This is incompatible with IPv6.
This document is designed for use in IPv4 networks. There are many
references to a specified IP version number of 4 and 32-bit
addresses. This is incompatible with IPv6.
5.24. RFC 2005 Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support
This specification documents the interoperation of IPv4 Mobility
Support; this is not relevant to this discussion.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 21]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.25. RFC 2022 Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM
Networks
This specification specifically maps IPv4 multicast in UNI based ATM
networks. This is incompatible with IPv6.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. The only
reference to IP addresses discuss the use of an anycast address, so
but one can assume that these techniques are IPv6 operable.
From the many references in this document, it is clear that this
document is designed for IPv4 only. It is only later in the document
that it is implicitly stated, as in:
ar$spln - length in octets of the source protocol address. Value
range is 0 or 4 (decimal). For IPv4 ar$spln is 4.
ar$tpln - length in octets of the target protocol address. Value
range is 0 or 4 (decimal). For IPv4 ar$tpln is 4.
and:
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 22]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
For backward compatibility with previous implementations, a null
IPv4 protocol address may be received with length = 4 and an
allocated address in storage set to the value 0.0.0.0. Receiving
stations must be liberal in accepting this format of a null IPv4
address. However, on transmitting an ATMARP or InATMARP packet, a
null IPv4 address must only be indicated by the length set to zero
and must have no storage allocated.
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification, for example:
PREFERRED_DSS (code 6)
Length is (n * 4) and the value is an array of n IP addresses,
each four bytes in length. The maximum number of addresses is
5 and therefore the maximum length value is 20. The list
contains the addresses of n NetWare Domain SAP/RIP Server
(DSS).
NEAREST_NWIP_SERVER (code 7)
Length is (n * 4) and the value is an array of n IP addresses,
each four bytes in length. The maximum number of addresses is
5 and therefore the maximum length value is 20. The list
contains the addresses of n Nearest NetWare/IP servers.
PRIMARY_DSS (code 11)
Length of 4, and the value is a single IP address. This field
identifies the Primary Domain SAP/RIP Service server (DSS) for
this NetWare/IP domain. NetWare/IP administration utility uses
this value as Primary DSS server when configuring a secondary
DSS server.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 23]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.36. RFC 2290 Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for PPP IPCP
This document is designed for use with Mobile IPv4. There are
numerous referrals to other IP "support" mechanisms (i.e., ICMP
Router Discover Messages) that specifically refer to the IPv4 of
ICMP.
5.37. RFC 2308 Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)
Although there are numerous examples in this document that use IPv4
"A" records, there is nothing in the specification that limits its
effectiveness to IPv4.
5.38. RFC 2331 ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM - UNI Signaling
4.0 Update
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 24]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.44. RFC 2371 Transaction Internet Protocol Version 3.0 (TIPV3)
This document states:
TIP transaction manager addresses take the form:
<hostport><path>
The <hostport> component comprises:
<host>[:<port>]
where <host> is either a <dns name> or an <ip address>; and <port>
is a decimal number specifying the port at which the transaction
manager (or proxy) is listening for requests to establish TIP
connections. If the port number is omitted, the standard TIP port
number (3372) is used.
A <dns name> is a standard name, acceptable to the domain name
service. It must be sufficiently qualified to be useful to the
receiver of the command.
An <ip address> is an IP address, in the usual form: four decimal
numbers separated by period characters.
And further along it states:
A TIP URL takes the form:
tip://<transaction manager address>?<transaction string>
where <transaction manager address> identifies the TIP transaction
manager (as defined in Section 7 above); and <transaction string>
specifies a transaction identifier, which may take one of two
forms (standard or non-standard):
i. "urn:" <NID> ":" <NSS>
A standard transaction identifier, conforming to the proposed
Internet Standard for Uniform Resource Names (URNs), as specified
by RFC2141; where <NID> is the Namespace Identifier, and <NSS> is
the Namespace Specific String. The Namespace ID determines the
syntactic interpretation of the Namespace Specific String. The
Namespace Specific String is a sequence of characters representing
a transaction identifier (as defined by <NID>). The rules for
the contents of these fields are specified by RFC2141 (valid
characters, encoding, etc.).
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 25]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
This format of <transaction string> may be used to express global
transaction identifiers in terms of standard representations.
Examples for <NID> might be <iso> or <xopen>, e.g.,
tip://123.123.123.123/?urn:xopen:xid
Note that Namespace Ids require registration.
ii. <transaction identifier>
A sequence of printable ASCII characters (octets with values in
the range 32 through 126 inclusive (excluding ":") representing a
transaction identifier. In this non-standard case, it is the
combination of <transaction manager address> and <transaction
identifier> which ensures global uniqueness, e.g.,
tip://123.123.123.123/?transid1
These are incompatible with IPv6.
5.45. RFC 2464 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets
over Ethernet and is not considered in this discussion.
5.46. RFC 2467 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks
This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets
over FDDI and is not considered in this discussion.
5.47. RFC 2470 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks
This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets
over Token Ring and is not considered in this discussion.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 26]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.51. RFC 2485 DHCP Option for The Open Group's User Authentication
Protocol
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.
This specification documents IPv6 addressing and is not discussed in
this document.
5.58. RFC 2529 Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains without Explicit
Tunnels
This specification documents IPv6 transmission methods and is not
discussed in this document.
5.59. RFC 2563 DHCP Option to Disable Stateless Auto-Configuration in
IPv4 Clients
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 27]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.60. RFC 2590 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Frame Relay Networks
Specification
This specification documents IPv6 transmission method over Frame
Relay and is not discussed in this document.
This document states:
Objective and Scope:
The major objective of this specification is to promote
interoperable implementations of IPv4 over FC. This
specification describes a method for encapsulating IPv4 and
Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) packets over FC.
This is incompatible with IPv6.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 28]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
This document defines an IPv6 specific specification and is not
discussed in this document.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 29]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.79. RFC 2728 The Transmission of IP Over the Vertical Blanking
Interval of a Television Signal
The following data format is defined:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| group | uncompressed IP header (20 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
: .... :
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | uncompressed UDP header (8 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | payload (<1472 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
: .... :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CRC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This is incompatible with IPv6.
(NAT-PT)
This specification defines a method for IPv6 transition and is not
discussed in this document.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 30]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.84. RFC 2776 Multicast-Scope Zone Announcement Protocol (MZAP)
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.
5.85. RFC 2782 A DNS RR for specifying the location of services
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.86. RFC 2794 Mobile IP Network Access Identifier Extension for IPv4
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.
This document states:
The Ethertype value SHALL be set as defined in Assigned Numbers:
IP 0x0800 2048 (16 bits)
This is limited to IPv4, and similar to the previous section,
incompatible with IPv6. There are numerous other points in the
documents that confirm this assumption.
This specification is specific to IPv4 address architecture, where a
modification is needed to use both addresses of a 31-bit prefix.
This is possible by IPv6 address architecture, but in most cases not
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 33]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
recommended; see RFC 3627, Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers
Considered Harmful.
There are IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 34]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
5.107. RFC 3376 Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3
This document describes of version of IGMP used for IPv4 multicast.
This is not compatible with IPv6.
5.108. RFC 3402 Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Two:
The Algorithm
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.109. RFC 3403 Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three:
The Domain Name System (DNS) Database
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have wide
scale 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 1149 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian
carriers
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. In fact the
flexibility of this specification is such that all versions of IP
should function within its boundaries, presuming that the packets
remain small enough to be transmitted with the 256 milligrams weight
limitations.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 35]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
6.3. RFC 1226 Internet protocol encapsulation of AX.25 frames
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.4. RFC 1241 Scheme for an internet encapsulation protocol: Version 1
This specification defines a specification that assumes IPv4 but does
not actually have any limitations which would limit its operation in
an IPv6 environment.
6.5. RFC 1307 Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol
This specification is IPv4 dependent, for example:
3.1 Control Message 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier | Total length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Function | Event Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Body |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Endpoint addresses: 32 bits each
The internet addresses of the two communicating parties for which the
link is being prepared.
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 36]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
6.8. RFC 1464 Using the Domain Name System To Store Arbitrary String
Attributes
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
This document defines a specification that is IPv4 specific, for
example:
4. Packet Formats
NARP requests and replies are carried in IP packets as protocol type
54. This section describes the packet formats of NARP requests and
replies:
NARP Request
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 | Hop Count | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Unused |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IP address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source IP address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NBMA length | NBMA address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| (variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 37]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
Source and Destination IP Addresses
Respectively, these are the IP addresses of the NARP requester
and the target terminal for which the NBMA address is desired.
And:
NARP Reply
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 | Hop Count | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Unused |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IP address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source IP address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NBMA length | NBMA address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| (variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Source and Destination IP Address
Respectively, these are the IP addresses of the NARP requester
and the target terminal for which the NBMA address is desired.
This is incompatible with IPv6.
6.13. RFC 1768 Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting
This specification defines multicasting for CLNP, which is not an IP
protocol, and therefore has no IPv4 dependencies.
This document is specific to IPv4 address architecture, and as such,
has no IPv6 dependencies.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 38]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
6.16. RFC 1819 Internet Stream Protocol Version 2 (ST2) Protocol
Specification - Version ST2+
This specification is IPv4 limited. In fact it is the definition of
IPv5. It has been abandoned by the IETF as feasible design, and is
not considered in this discussion.
This specification defines an extension to IPv4 ARP to delete entries
from ARP caches on a link.
6.18. RFC 1876 A Means for Expressing Location Information in the
Domain Name System
This document defines a methodology for applying this technology
which is IPv4 dependent. The specification itself has no IPv4
dependencies.
The document states:
The future version of IP (IP v6) will certainly have a
sufficient number of bits in its addressing space to provide an
address for even smaller GPS addressable units. In this
proposal, however, we assume the current version of IP (IP v4)
and we make sure that we manage the addressing space more
economically than that. We will call the smallest GPS
addressable unit a GPS-square.
This specification does not seem to have real IPv4 dependencies.
This specification will only operate using IPv4. As stated in the
document:
It was decided that the ten byte header offers the greatest
flexibility for encapsulating version 4 IP datagrams for the
following reasons: [...]
This is incompatible with IPv6.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 39]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
This document gives default values for use on IPv4 networks, but is
designed to be extensible so it will work with IPv6 with appropriate
IANA definitions.
This document is specific to IPv4 multicast addressing.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 40]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
In the initial survey of RFCs 52 positives were identified out of a
total of 186, broken down as follows:
Standards: 17 out of 24 or 70.83%
Draft Standards: 6 out of 20 or 30.00%
Proposed Standards: 22 out of 111 or 19.91%
Experimental RFCs: 7 out of 31 or 22.58%
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.
It is believed that experimental Ethernet networks are not being used
anymore, so the specification is no longer relevant.
7.1.6. RFC 922 Broadcasting Internet Datagrams in the Presence of
Subnets
Broadcasting is not used in IPv6, but similar functionality has been
included in RFC 3513, IPv6 Addressing Architecture.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 41]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2497, A Method for the
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet Networks.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 42]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2462, IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration, and RFC 3315, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6).
This problem can be fixed by defining a new NLPID for IPv6. Note
that an NLPID has already been defined in RFC 2427, Multiprotocol
Interconnect over Frame Relay.
This problem has been fixed in RFC 3315, Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6).
Further, the consensus of the DHC WG has been that the options
defined for DHCPv4 will not be automatically "carried forward" to
DHCPv6. Therefore, any further analysis of additionally specified
DHCPv4 Options has been omitted from this memo.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 43]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
No updated document exists for this specification. In practice, the
similar effect can be achieved by the use of a layer 2 tunneling
protocol. It is unclear whether an updated document is needed.
This problem has been resolved in RFC 2461, Neighbor Discovery for IP
Version 6 (IPv6).
7.3.3. RFC 1277 Encoding Net Addresses to Support Operation Over Non
OSI Lower Layers
No updated document exists for this specification; the problem might
be resolved by the creation of a new encoding scheme if necessary.
It is unclear whether an update is needed.
7.3.4. RFC 1332 PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)
This problem has been resolved in RFC 2472, IP Version 6 over PPP.
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear
whether one is needed.
7.3.8. RFC 2022 Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM
Networks
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear
whether one is needed.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 44]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
This problem has been fixed by RFC 3146, Transmission of IPv6 Packets
Over IEEE 1394 Networks.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 45]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
The problems have been resolved by RFC 3775 and RFC 3776 [3, 4].
Since the first Mobile IPv4 specification in RFC 2002, a number of
extensions to it have been specified. As all of these depend on
MIPv4, they have been omitted from further analysis in this memo.
This functionality has been defined in RFC 2491, IPv6 over Non-
Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks and RFC 2332, NBMA Next Hop
Resolution Protocol (NHRP).
No updated document exists for this specification. However, DNS
Dynamic Updates should provide similar functionality, so an update
does not seem necessary.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 46]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
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.
The editor, Cleveland Mickles, would like to thank Steve Bellovin and
Russ Housley for their comments and Pekka Savola for his comments and
guidance during the editing of this document. Additionally, he would
like to thank his wife, Lesia, for her patient support.
Pekka Savola helped in editing the latest versions of the document.
[1] Nesser II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
RFC 3789, June 2004.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 47]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
[2] Loughney, J., Ed., "IPv6 Node Requirements", Work in Progress,
January 2004.
[3] Johnson, D., Perkins, C. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[4] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to
Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes and Home
Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.
[5] Vida, R. and L. Costa, Eds., "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
Cleveland Mickles, Editor
Reston, VA 20191
USA
EMail: cmickles.ee88@gtalumni.org
Philip J. Nesser II
Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
Kirkland, WA 98034
USA
EMail: phil@nesser.com
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 48]
RFC 3790 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Internet Area June 2004
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.
Mickles & Nesser II Informational [Page 49]