RFC 3790
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Internet Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents
Pages: 49
Informational
Informational
Part 2 of 2 – Pages 18 to 49
4.17. RFC 2461 Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)
This document defines an IPv6 related specification and has no IPv4 issues.4.18. RFC 2462 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
This document defines an IPv6 related specification and has no IPv4 issues.4.19. RFC 2463 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
This document defines an IPv6 related specification and has no IPv4 issues.4.20. RFC 3596 DNS Extensions to support IP version 6
This specification defines the AAAA record for IPv6 as well as PTR records using the ip6.arpa domain, and as such has no IPv6 issues.5. 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.5.1. 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.
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.
5.2. RFC 1256 ICMP Router Discovery Messages
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.
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.5.9. RFC 1570 PPP LCP Extensions
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.10. RFC 1598 PPP in X.25 PPP-X25
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.11. RFC 1618 PPP over ISDN
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.12. RFC 1663 PPP Reliable Transmission
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.13. RFC 1752 The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol
This document defines a road map for IPv6 development and is not relevant to this discussion.5.14. RFC 1755 ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.15. RFC 1763 The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.16. RFC 1764 The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.17. RFC 1973 PPP in Frame Relay
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.18. RFC 1981 Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6
This specification describes an IPv6 related specification and is not discussed in this document.5.19. RFC 1982 Serial Number Arithmetic
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.20. RFC 1995 Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS
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.5.22. RFC 2003 IP Encapsulation within IP
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 IPv6.5.23. RFC 2004 Minimal Encapsulation within IP
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.
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 IPv6.5.26. RFC 2043 The PPP SNA Control Protocol (SNACP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.27. RFC 2097 The PPP NetBIOS Frames Control Protocol (NBFCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.28. RFC 2113 IP Router Alert Option
This document provides a new mechanism for IPv4. This is incompatible with IPv6.5.29. RFC 2125 The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Protocol (BAP) / The PPP Bandwidth Allocation Control Protocol (BACP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.30. RFC 2136 Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.31. RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification
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.5.32. RFC 2225 Classical IP and ARP over ATM
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:
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.
5.33. RFC 2226 IP Broadcast over ATM Networks
This document is limited to IPv4 multicasting. This is incompatible
with IPv6.
5.34. RFC 2241 DHCP Options for Novell Directory Services
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.
5.35. RFC 2242 NetWare/IP Domain Name and Information
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.
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.5.39. RFC 2332 NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)
This document is very generic in its design and seems to be able to support numerous layer 3 addressing schemes and should include both IPv4 and IPv6.5.40. RFC 2333 NHRP Protocol Applicability
This document is very generic in its design and seems to be able to support numerous layer 3 addressing schemes and should include both IPv4 and IPv6.5.41. RFC 2335 A Distributed NHRP Service Using SCSP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.42. RFC 2363 PPP Over FUNI
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.43. RFC 2364 PPP Over AAL5
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
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.).
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.
5.48. RFC 2472 IP Version 6 over PPP
This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets
over PPP and is not considered in this discussion.
5.49. RFC 2473 Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification
This specification documents an IPv6 aware specification and is not
considered in this discussion.
5.50. RFC 2484 PPP LCP Internationalization Configuration Option
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.51. RFC 2485 DHCP Option for The Open Group's User Authentication Protocol
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.5.52. RFC 2486 The Network Access Identifier
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.53. RFC 2491 IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) Networks
This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets over NBMA networks and is not considered in this discussion.5.54. RFC 2492 IPv6 over ATM Networks
This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets over ATM networks and is not considered in this discussion.5.55. RFC 2497 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet Networks
This specification documents a method for transmitting IPv6 packets over ARCnet networks and is not considered in this discussion.5.56. RFC 2507 IP Header Compression
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.5.57. RFC 2526 Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast Addresses
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.
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.5.61. RFC 2601 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for ATMARP
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.5.62. RFC 2602 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for MARS
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.5.63. RFC 2603 ILMI-Based Server Discovery for NHRP
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.5.64. RFC 2610 DHCP Options for Service Location Protocol
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.5.65. RFC 2615 PPP over SONET/SDH
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.66. RFC 2625 IP and ARP over Fibre Channel
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 IPv6.5.67. RFC 2661 Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.68. RFC 2671 Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
5.69. RFC 2672 Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection
This document is only defined for IPv4 addresses. An IPv6 specification may be needed.5.70. RFC 2673 Binary Labels in the Domain Name System
This document is only defined for IPv4 addresses. An IPv6 specification may be needed.5.71. RFC 2675 IPv6 Jumbograms
This document defines a IPv6 packet format and is therefore not discussed in this document.5.72. RFC 2684 Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.73. RFC 2685 Virtual Private Networks Identifier
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.74. RFC 2686 The Multi-Class Extension to Multi-Link PPP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.75. RFC 2687 PPP in a Real-time Oriented HDLC-like Framing
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.76. RFC 2688 Integrated Services Mappings for Low Speed Networks
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.77. RFC 2710 Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
This document defines an IPv6 specific specification and is not discussed in this document.5.78. RFC 2711 IPv6 Router Alert Option
This document defines an IPv6 specific specification and is not discussed in this document.
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 IPv6.5.80. RFC 2734 IPv4 over IEEE 1394
This specification is IPv4 only.5.81. RFC 2735 NHRP Support for Virtual Private Networks
This specification implies only IPv4 operations, but does not seem to present any reason that it would not function for IPv6.5.82. RFC 2765 Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (SIIT)
This specification defines a method for IPv6 transition and is not discussed in this document.5.83. RFC 2766 Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)
This specification defines a method for IPv6 transition and is not discussed in this document.
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.5.87. RFC 2834 ARP and IP Broadcast over HIPPI-800
This document uses the generic term "IP Address" in the text but it also contains the text: The HARP message has several fields that have the following format and values: Data sizes and field meaning: ar$hrd 16 bits Hardware type ar$pro 16 bits Protocol type of the protocol fields below ar$op 16 bits Operation code (request, reply, or NAK) ar$pln 8 bits byte length of each protocol address ar$rhl 8 bits requester's HIPPI hardware address length (q) ar$thl 8 bits target's HIPPI hardware address length (x) ar$rpa 32 bits requester's protocol address ar$tpa 32 bits target's protocol address ar$rha qbytes requester's HIPPI Hardware address ar$tha xbytes target's HIPPI Hardware address Where: ar$hrd - SHALL contain 28. (HIPARP) ar$pro - SHALL contain the IP protocol code 2048 (decimal). ar$op - SHALL contain the operational value (decimal): 1 for HARP_REQUESTs 2 for HARP_REPLYs 8 for InHARP_REQUESTs 9 for InHARP_REPLYs 10 for HARP_NAK ar$pln - SHALL contain 4.
And later:
31 28 23 21 15 10 7 2 0
+-----+---------+-+-+-----------+---------+-----+---------+-----+
0 | 04 |1|0| 000 | 03 | 0 |
+---------------+-+-+---------------------+---------------+-----+
1 | 45 |
+-----+-+-------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
2 |[LA] |W|MsgT= 0| 000 | Dest. Switch Addr |
+-----+-+-------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
3 | 2 | 2 | 000 | Source Switch Addr |
+---------------+---------------+-------+-----------------------+
4 | 00 00 | |
+-------------------------------+ |
5 | Destination ULA |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
6 | [LA] | |
+-------------------------------+ |
7 | Source ULA |
+===============+===============+===============+===============+
8 | AA | AA | 03 | 00 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
9 | 00 | 00 | Ethertype (2054) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
10 | hrd (28) | pro (2048) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
11 | op (ar$op) | pln (6) | rhl (q) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
12 | thl = (x) | Requester IP Address upper (24 bits) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
13 | Req. IP lower | Target IP Address upper (24 bits) |
+---------------+-----------------------------------------------+
14 | Tgt. IP lower | Requester HIPPI Hardware Address bytes 0 - 2 |
+---------------+-----------------------------------------------+
15 | Requester HIPPI Hardware Address bytes 3 - 6 |
+-----------------------------------------------+---------------+
16 | Requester HW Address bytes 7 - q | Tgt HW byte 0 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
17 | Target HIPPI Hardware Address bytes 1 - 4 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
18 | Target HIPPI Hardware Address bytes 5 - 8 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
19 |Tgt HW byte 9-x| FILL | FILL | FILL |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
HARP - InHARP Message
This is incompatible with IPv6.
5.88. RFC 2835 IP and ARP over HIPPI-6400
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.5.89. RFC 2855 DHCP for IEEE 1394
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.5.90. RFC 2874 DNS Extensions to Support IPv6 Address Aggregation and Renumbering
This document defines a specification to interact with IPv6 and is not considered in this document.5.91. RFC 2893 Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers
This document defines a transition mechanism for IPv6 and is not considered in this document.5.92. RFC 2916 E.164 number and DNS
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.93. RFC 2937 The Name Service Search Option for DHCP
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.5.94. RFC 3004 The User Class Option for DHCP
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.5.95. RFC 3011 The IPv4 Subnet Selection Option for DHCP
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.5.96. RFC 3021 Using 31-Bit Prefixes for IPv4 P2P Links
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
recommended; see RFC 3627, Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful.5.97. RFC 3024 Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP, revised
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.5.98. RFC 3046 DHCP Relay Agent Information Option
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.5.99. RFC 3056 Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds
This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this document.5.100. RFC 3068 An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers
This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this document.5.101. RFC 3070 Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) over Frame Relay
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.102. RFC 3074 DHC Load Balancing Algorithm
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.103. RFC 3077 A Link-Layer Tunneling Mechanism for Unidirectional Links
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.5.104. RFC 3115 Mobile IP Vendor/Organization-Specific Extensions
This is an extension to an IPv4-only specification.5.105. RFC 3145 L2TP Disconnect Cause Information
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.5.106. RFC 3344 IP Mobility Support for IPv4
There are IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
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.5.110. RFC 3513 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
This specification documents IPv6 addressing and is not discussed in this document.5.111. RFC 3518 Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Bridging Control Protocol (BCP)
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.6. Experimental RFCs
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.6.2. RFC 1183 New DNS RR Definitions
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
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.6.6. RFC 1393 Traceroute Using an IP Option
This document uses an IPv4 option. It is therefore limited to IPv4 networks, and is incompatible with IPv6.6.7. RFC 1433 Directed ARP
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
6.8. RFC 1464 Using the Domain Name System To Store Arbitrary String Attributes
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.6.9. RFC 1475 TP/IX: The Next Internet
This document defines IPv7 and has been abandoned by the IETF as a feasible design. It is not considered in this document.6.10. RFC 1561 Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments
This document defines the use of NSAP addressing and does not use any version of IP, so there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.6.11. RFC 1712 DNS Encoding of Geographical Location
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.6.12. RFC 1735 NBMA Address Resolution Protocol (NARP)
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) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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.
6.14. RFC 1788 ICMP Domain Name Messages
This specification is used for updates to the in-addr.arpa reverse
DNS maps, and is limited to IPv4.
6.15. RFC 1797 Class A Subnet Experiment
This document is specific to IPv4 address architecture, and as such,
has no IPv6 dependencies.
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.6.17. RFC 1868 ARP Extension - UNARP
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.6.19. RFC 1888 OSI NSAPs and IPv6
This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this document.6.20. RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing
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.6.21. RFC 2143 Encapsulating IP with the SCSI
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.
6.22. RFC 2345 Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.6.23. RFC 2443 A Distributed MARS Service Using SCSP
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.6.24. RFC 2471 IPv6 Testing Address Allocation
This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this document.6.25. RFC 2520 NHRP with Mobile NHCs
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.6.26. RFC 2521 ICMP Security Failures Messages
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.6.27. RFC 2540 Detached Domain Name System (DNS) Information
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.6.28. RFC 2823 PPP over Simple Data Link (SDL) using SONET/SDH with ATM-like framing
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.6.29. RFC 3123 A DNS RR Type for Lists of Address Prefixes
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.6.30. RFC 3168 The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP
This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes.6.31. RFC 3180 GLOP Addressing in 233/8
This document is specific to IPv4 multicast addressing.
7. Summary of the Results
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.7.1. Standards
7.1.1. RFC 791 Internet Protocol
RFC 791 has been updated in the definition of IPv6 in RFC 2460.7.1.2. RFC 792 Internet Control Message Protocol
RFC 792 has been updated in the definition of ICMPv6 in RFC 2463.7.1.3. RFC 891 DCN Networks
DCN has long since been ceased to be used, so this specification is no longer relevant.7.1.4. RFC 894 IP over Ethernet
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2464, A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks.7.1.5. RFC 895 IP over experimental Ethernets
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.
7.1.7. RFC 950 Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure
Broadcasting is not used in IPv6, but similar functionality has been included in RFC 3513, IPv6 Addressing Architecture.7.1.8. RFC 1034 Domain Names: Concepts and Facilities
The problems have been fixed by defining new resource records for IPv6 addresses.7.1.9. RFC 1035 Domain Names: Implementation and Specification
The problems have been fixed by defining new resource records for IPv6 addresses.7.1.10. RFC 1042 IP over IEEE 802
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2470, Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks.7.1.11. RFC 1044 IP over HyperChannel
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.1.12. RFC 1088 IP over NetBIOS
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.1.13. RFC 1112 Host Extensions for IP Multicast
The IPv4-specific parts of RFC 1112 have been updated in RFC 2710, Multicast Listener Discovery for IPv6.7.1.14. RFC 1122 Requirements for Internet Hosts
RFC 1122 is essentially a requirements document for IPv4 hosts. Similar work is in progress [2].7.1.15. RFC 1201 IP over ARCNET
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2497, A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ARCnet Networks.
7.1.16. RFC 1209 IP over SMDS
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.1.17. RFC 1390 Transmission of IP and ARP over FDDI Networks
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2467, Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI Networks.7.2. Draft Standards
7.2.1. RFC 951 Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP)
This problem has been fixed by RFC 2462, IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration, and RFC 3315, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6).7.2.2. RFC 1191 Path MTU Discovery
This problem has been fixed in RFC 1981, Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6.7.2.3. RFC 1356 Multiprotocol Interconnect on X.25 and ISDN
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.7.2.4. RFC 1990 The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)
A new class identifier ("6") for IPv6 packets has been registered with the IANA by the original author, fixing this problem.7.2.5. RFC 2067 IP over HIPPI
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.2.6. RFC 2131 DHCP
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.
7.3. Proposed Standards
7.3.1. RFC 1234 Tunneling IPX over IP
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.7.3.2. RFC 1256 ICMP Router Discovery
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.7.3.5. RFC 1469 IP Multicast over Token Ring
The functionality of this specification has been essentially covered in RFC 2470, Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks.7.3.6. RFC 2003 IP Encapsulation within IP
This problem has been fixed by defining different IP-in-IP encapsulation, for example, RFC 2473, Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification.7.3.7. RFC 2004 Minimal Encapsulation within IP
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.
7.3.9. RFC 2113 IP Router Alert Option
This problem has been fixed in RFC 2711, IPv6 Router Alert Option.7.3.10. RFC 2165 SLP
The problems have been addressed in RFC 3111, Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6.7.3.11. RFC 2225 Classical IP & ARP over ATM
The problems have been resolved in RFC 2492, IPv6 over ATM Networks.7.3.12. RFC 2226 IP Broadcast over ATM
The problems have been resolved in RFC 2492, IPv6 over ATM Networks.7.3.13. RFC 2371 Transaction IPv3
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.3.14. RFC 2625 IP and ARP over Fibre Channel
There is work in progress to fix these problems7.3.15. RFC 2672 Non-Terminal DNS Redirection
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.3.16. RFC 2673 Binary Labels in DNS
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.3.17. IP over Vertical Blanking Interval of a TV Signal (RFC 2728)
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.3.18. RFC 2734 IPv4 over IEEE 1394
This problem has been fixed by RFC 3146, Transmission of IPv6 Packets Over IEEE 1394 Networks.
7.3.19. RFC 2834 ARP & IP Broadcasts Over HIPPI 800
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.3.20. RFC 2835 ARP & IP Broadcasts Over HIPPI 6400
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.3.21. RFC 3344 Mobility Support for IPv4
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.7.3.22. RFC 3376 Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3
This problem is being fixed by MLDv2 specification [5].7.4. Experimental RFCs
7.4.1. RFC 1307 Dynamically Switched Link Control Protocol
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.4.2. RFC 1393 Traceroute using an IP Option
This specification relies on the use of an IPv4 option. No replacement document exists, and it is unclear whether one is needed.7.4.3. RFC 1735 NBMA Address Resolution Protocol (NARP)
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).7.4.4. RFC 1788 ICMP Domain Name Messages
No updated document exists for this specification. However, DNS Dynamic Updates should provide similar functionality, so an update does not seem necessary.
7.4.5. RFC 1868 ARP Extension - UNARP
This mechanism defined a mechanism to purge ARP caches on a link. That functionality already exists in RFC 2461, Neighbor Discovery for IPv6.7.4.6. RFC 2143 IP Over SCSI
No updated document exists for this specification. It is unclear whether one is needed.7.4.7. RFC 3180 GLOP Addressing in 233/8
Similar functionality is provided by RFC 3306, Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 Multicast Addresses, and no action is necessary.8. Security Considerations
This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does not have security considerations in itself.9. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet Society in the research and production of this document. Additionally the author would like to thanks his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser. 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.10. References
10.1. Normative References
[1] Nesser II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", RFC 3789, June 2004.
10.2 Informative References
[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 2004.11. Authors' Addresses
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
12. 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.