draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-03.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-04.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-03.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-04.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom
Ostfold University College Ostfold University College
August 2003 September 2003
Expires January 2004 Expires February 2004
Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Standards Currently Deployed IETF Standards
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at line 70 skipping to change at line 70
8. Authors Addresses 8. Authors Addresses
9. Intellectual Property Statement 9. Intellectual Property Statement
10. Full Copyright Statement 10. Full Copyright Statement
1.0 Introduction 1.0 Introduction
This document is the introduction to a document set aiming to This document is the introduction to a document set aiming to
document all usage of IPv4 addresses in IETF standards. In an effort 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 have the information in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7
documents conforming to the current IETF areas (Application[1], documents conforming to the current IETF areas (Application[1],
Internet[2], Manangement & Operations[3], Routing[4], Security[5], Internet[2], Management & Operations[3], Routing[4], Security[5],
Sub-IP[6] and Transport[7]). It also describes the methodology used Sub-IP[6] and Transport[7]). It also describes the methodology used
during documentation, which type of RFCs that has been documented, during documentation, which type of RFCs that has been documented,
and a concatenated summary of results. and a concatenated summary of results.
1.1 Short Historical Perspective 1.1 Short Historical Perspective
There are many challenges that face the Internet Engineering community. There are many challenges that face the Internet Engineering community.
The foremost of these challenges has been the scaling issue: how to The foremost of these challenges has been the scaling issue: how to
grow a network that was envisioned to handle thousands of hosts to one grow a network that was envisioned to handle thousands of hosts to one
that will handle tens of millions of networks with billions of hosts. that will handle tens of millions of networks with billions of hosts.
skipping to change at line 173 skipping to change at line 173
protocol is not being used. A good example of this concept is the protocol is not being used. A good example of this concept is the
Routing Information Protocol(RIP) version 1. There are many thousands Routing Information Protocol(RIP) version 1. There are many thousands
of sites using this protocol even though it has Historic status. There of sites using this protocol even though it has Historic status. There
are potentially hundreds of otherwise classified RFC's that should be are potentially hundreds of otherwise classified RFC's that should be
reclassified. reclassified.
2.0 Methodology 2.0 Methodology
To perform this study each class of IETF standards are investigated in To perform this study each class of IETF standards are investigated in
order of maturity: Full, Draft, and Proposed, as well as Experimental. order of maturity: Full, Draft, and Proposed, as well as Experimental.
Informational RFC are not addressed. RFCs that have been obsoleted by Informational and BCP RFCs are not addressed. RFCs that have been
either newer versions or as they have transitioned through the standards obsoleted by either newer versions or as they have transitioned through
process are not covered. the standards process are not covered. RFCs which have been classified
as Historic are also not included.
Please note that a side effect of this choice of methodology is that Please note that a side effect of this choice of methodology is that
some protocols that are defined by a series of RFC's that are of some protocols that are defined by a series of RFC's that are of
different levels of standards maturity are covered in different spots different levels of standards maturity are covered in different spots
in the document. Likewise other natural groupings (i.e. MIBs, SMTP in the document. Likewise other natural groupings (i.e. MIBs, SMTP
extensions, IP over FOO, PPP, DNS, etc.) could easily be imagined. extensions, IP over FOO, PPP, DNS, etc.) could easily be imagined.
2.1 Scope 2.1 Scope
The procedure used in this investigation is an exhaustive reading of the The procedure used in this investigation is an exhaustive reading of the
applicable RFC's. This task involves reading approximately 25000 pages applicable RFC's. This task involves reading approximately 25000 pages
of protocol specifications. To compound this, it was more than a of protocol specifications. To compound this, it was more than a
process of simple reading. It was necessary to attempt to understand process of simple reading. It was necessary to attempt to understand
the purpose and functionality of each protocol in order to make a proper the purpose and functionality of each protocol in order to make a proper
determination of IPv4 reliability. The author has made ever effort to determination of IPv4 reliability. The author has made every effort to
make this effort and the resulting document as complete as possible, but make this effort and the resulting document as complete as possible, but
it is likely that some subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) dependence was it is likely that some subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) dependence was
missed. The author encourage those familiar (designers, implementers missed. The author encourage those familiar (designers, implementers
or anyone who has an intimate knowledge) with any protocol to review or anyone who has an intimate knowledge) with any protocol to review
the appropriate sections and make comments. the appropriate sections and make comments.
3.0 Summary of Results 3.0 Summary of Results
In the initial survey of RFCs 175 positives were identified, out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 175 positives were identified, out of a
total of 871, broken down as follows: total of 871, broken down as follows:
skipping to change at line 377 skipping to change at line 378
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt
IETF work in progress, June 2003 IETF work in progress, June 2003
[2] Philip J. Nesser II, Cleveland Mickles. "Internet Area: Survey [2] Philip J. Nesser II, Cleveland Mickles. "Internet Area: Survey
of IPv4 Addresses Currently Deployed Deployed IETF Standards", of IPv4 Addresses Currently Deployed Deployed IETF Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-int-01.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-int-01.txt
IETF work in progress, June 2003 IETF work in progress, June 2003
[3] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses [3] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses
in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area Standards", in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-02.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-03.txt
IETF work in progress, August 2003 IETF work in progress, September 2003
[4] Philip J. Nesser II, Cesar. Olvera. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses [4] Philip J. Nesser II, Cesar. Olvera. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses
in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards", in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt IETF work in progress, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt IETF work in progress,
June 2003 June 2003
[5] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses [5] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses
in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards", in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-01.txt IETF work in progress, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-02.txt IETF work in progress,
June 2003 September 2003
[6] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses [6] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses
in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards", in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-02.txt IETF work in progress, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-subip-02.txt IETF work in progress,
August 2003 September 2003
[7] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom "Survey of IPv4 Addresses [7] Philip J. Nesser II, Andreas Bergstrom "Survey of IPv4 Addresses
in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards", in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-01.txt IETF work in progress, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-02.txt IETF work in progress,
June 2003 September 2003
8.0 Authors Addresses 8.0 Authors Addresses
Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions
at: at:
Philip J. Nesser II Philip J. Nesser II
Principal Principal
Nesser & Nesser Consulting Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/