draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-04.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05.txt 
Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II Network Working Group Philip J. Nesser II
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-04.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05.txt Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom Internet Draft Andreas Bergstrom (Ed.)
Ostfold University College Ostfold University College
September 2003 November 2003
Expires February 2004 Expires April 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
Status of this Memo
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
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at
any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
skipping to change at line 60 skipping to change at line 60
3.3 Operations & Management Area Specifications 3.3 Operations & Management Area Specifications
3.4 Routing Area Specifications 3.4 Routing Area Specifications
3.5 Security Area Specifications 3.5 Security Area Specifications
3.6 Sub-IP Area Specifications 3.6 Sub-IP Area Specifications
3.7 Transport Area Specifications 3.7 Transport Area Specifications
4. Discussion of "Long Term" Stability of Addresses on Protocols 4. Discussion of "Long Term" Stability of Addresses on Protocols
5. Security Consideration 5. Security Consideration
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
7. References 7. References
7.1 Normative 7.1 Normative
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], Management & Operations[3], Routing[4], Security[5], Internet[2], Management & Operations[3], Routing[4], Security[5],
skipping to change at line 214 skipping to change at line 214
Draft Standards 14 of 59 or 23.73% Draft Standards 14 of 59 or 23.73%
Proposed Standards 107 of 602 or 17.77% Proposed Standards 107 of 602 or 17.77%
Experimental RFCs 22 of 145 or 15.17% Experimental RFCs 22 of 145 or 15.17%
Of those identified many require no action because they document Of those identified many require no action because they document
outdated and unused protocols (see STD 44/RFC 891 in Section 3.44 for outdated and unused protocols (see STD 44/RFC 891 in Section 3.44 for
example), while others are document protocols that are actively being example), while others are document protocols that are actively being
updated by the appropriate working groups (SNMP MIBs for example). updated by the appropriate working groups (SNMP MIBs for example).
Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be
updated but do not cause any operational impact (STD 3/RFCs 1122 & 1123 updated but do not cause any operational impact (STD 3/RFCs 1122 & 1123
for example) if they are not updated. The remaining instances are for example) if they are not updated.
documented below.
In this statistical survey, a positive is defined as a RFC containing
an IPv4 dependency, regardless of context.
3.1 Application Area Specifications 3.1 Application Area Specifications
In the initial survey of RFCs, 17 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs, 33 positives were identified out of a
total of 262, broken down as follows: total of 257, broken down as follows:
Standards: 4 of 24 or 16.67% Standards: 1 out of 20, or 5.00%
Draft Standards: 3 of 20 or 15.00% Draft Standards: 4 out of 25, or 16.00%
Proposed Standards: 5 of 160 or 3.13% Proposed Standards: 18 out of 155 or 11.61%
Experimental RFCs: 5 of 58 or 8.62% Experimental RFCs: 10 out of 57 or 31.58%
For more information, please look at [1]. For more information, please look at [1].
3.2 Internet Area Specifications 3.2 Internet Area Specifications
In the initial survey of RFCs, 62 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 52 positives were identified out of a
total of 159, broken down as follows: total of 186, broken down as follows:
Standards 16 of 18 or 88.89% Standards 17 of 24 or 70.83%
Draft Standards 6 of 16 or 37.50% Draft Standards 6 of 20 or 30.00%
Proposed Standards 35 of 98 or 35.71% Proposed Standards 22 of 111 or 19.91%
Experimental RFCs 5 of 27 or 18.52% Experimental RFCs 7 of 31 or 22.58%
For more information, please look at [2]. For more information, please look at [2].
3.3 Operations & Management Area Specifications 3.3 Operations & Management Area Specifications
In the initial survey of RFCs, 41 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 36 positives were identified out of a
total of 163, broken down as follows: total of 153, broken down as follows:
Standards 6 of 10 or 60.00% Standards 6 of 15 or 40.00%
Draft Standards 3 of 18 or 16.67% Draft Standards 4 of 15 or 26.67%
Proposed Standards 31 of 121 or 25.62% Proposed Standards 26 of 112 or 23.21%
Experimental RFCs 1 of 14 or 7.14% Experimental RFCs 0 of 11 or 0.00%
For more information, please look at [3]. For more information, please look at [3].
3.4 Routing Area Specifications 3.4 Routing Area Specifications
In the initial survey of RFCs, 25 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs, 22 positives were identified out of a
total of 53, broken down as follows: total of 44, broken down as follows:
Standards 2 of 7 or 28.57% Standards 3 of 3 or 100.00%
Draft Standards 1 of 2 or 50.00% Draft Standards 1 of 2 or 50.00%
Proposed Standards 17 of 33 or 51.52% Proposed Standards 13 of 29 or 44.83%
Experimental RFCs 5 of 11 or 45.45% Experimental RFCs 6 of 11 or 54.54%
For more information, please look at [4]. For more information, please look at [4].
3.5 Security Area Specifications 3.5 Security Area Specifications
In the initial survey of RFCs, 6 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 4 positives were identified out of a
total of 127, broken down as follows: total of 124, broken down as follows:
Standards 0 of 1 or 0.00% Standards 0 of 1 or 0.00%
Draft Standards 1 of 3 or 33.33% Draft Standards 1 of 3 or 33.33%
Proposed Standards 4 of 105 or 3.81% Proposed Standards 1 of 102 or 0.98%
Experimental RFCs 1 of 18 or 5.56% Experimental RFCs 2 of 18 or 11.11%
For more information, please look at [5]. For more information, please look at [5].
3.6 Sub-IP Area Specifications 3.6 Sub-IP Area Specifications
In the initial survey of RFCs, 0 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs, 0 positives were identified out of a
total of 7, broken down as follows: total of 7, broken down as follows:
Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00%
Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00%
Proposed Standards 0 of 6 or 0.00% Proposed Standards 0 of 6 or 0.00%
Experimental RFCs 0 of 1 or 0.00% Experimental RFCs 0 of 1 or 0.00%
For information about the Sub-IP Area standards, please look at [6]. For information about the Sub-IP Area standards, please look at [6].
3.7 Transport Area Specifications 3.7 Transport Area Specifications
In the initial survey of RFCs, 24 positives were identified out of a In the initial survey of RFCs 25 positives were identified out of a
total of 100, broken down as follows: total of 104, broken down as follows:
Standards 4 of 5 or 80.00% Standards 3 of 5 or 60.00%
Draft Standards 0 of 0 or 0.00% Draft Standards 0 of 2 or 0.00%
Proposed Standards 15 of 79 or 18.99% Proposed Standards 17 of 82 or 20.73%
Experimental RFCs 5 of 16 or 31.25% Experimental RFCs 4 of 15 or 26.67%
For more information, please look at [7]. For more information, please look at [7].
4.0 Discussion of "Long Term" Stability of Addresses on Protocols 4.0 Discussion of "Long Term" Stability of Addresses on Protocols
In attempting this analysis it was determined that a full scale In attempting this analysis it was determined that a full scale
analysis is well beyond the scope of this document. Instead a short analysis is well beyond the scope of this document. Instead a short
discussion is presented on how such a framework might be established. discussion is presented on how such a framework might be established.
A suggested approach would be to do an analysis of protocols based on A suggested approach would be to do an analysis of protocols based on
skipping to change at line 368 skipping to change at line 370
document. document.
He would further like to thank Alan E. Beard, Jim Bound, Brian Carpenter He would further like to thank Alan E. Beard, Jim Bound, Brian Carpenter
and Itojun for valuable feedback on many points of this document. and Itojun for valuable feedback on many points of this document.
7.0 References 7.0 References
7.1 Normative 7.1 Normative
[1] Philip J. Nesser II, Rute Sofia. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses [1] Philip J. Nesser II, Rute Sofia. "Survey of IPv4 Addresses
in Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards", in Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards",
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-01.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03.txt
IETF work in progress, June 2003 IETF work in progress, October 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-02.txt
IETF work in progress, June 2003 IETF work in progress, October 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-03.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-04.txt
IETF work in progress, September 2003 IETF work in progress, November 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-02.txt IETF work in progress,
June 2003 October 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-02.txt IETF work in progress, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-03.txt IETF work in progress,
September 2003 November 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-04.txt IETF work in progress,
September 2003 November 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-02.txt IETF work in progress, draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-04.txt IETF work in progress,
September 2003 November 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
Kirkland, WA 98034 Kirkland, WA 98034
Email: phil@nesser.com Email: phil@nesser.com
Phone: +1 425 481 4303 Phone: +1 425 481 4303
Fax: +1 425 482 9721 Fax: +1 425 482 9721
Andreas Bergstrom Andreas Bergstrom (Editor)
Ostfold University College Ostfold University College
Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no Email: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
Address: Rute 503 Buer Address: Rute 503 Buer
N-1766 Halden N-1766 Halden
Norway Norway
9.0 Intellectual Property Statement 9.0 Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
 End of changes. 

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