3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards draft-ietf-ngtrans-ipv4survey NGTRANS WG Meeting 53 rd IETF, Minneapolis

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Agenda Brief Introduction & Overview Current Results Next Steps On The Classification of Standards

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Introduction & Overview Work Started in late 1999 –First draft (-00) in May 2000 –Second (current) draft (-01) in August 2001 –Final draft (-02) completed and will be handed in after the meeting Goal of the project is to review all of the current IETF Standards for IPv4 assumptions to make a transition to IPv6 as smooth as possible

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Introduction & Overview (cont) Full Standards –68 RFCS Draft Standards –65 RFCS Proposed Standards –611 RFCS Experimental –150 RFCS

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Introduction & Overview (cont) Most of the work has been done as an individual effort –Reading Each of the 894 RFCS –About 25,000 pages of text PLEASE LOOK AT THE DRAFT FOR ANY RFCS THAT YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF AND COMMENT

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Document Organization Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Methodology Section 3: Full Standards Section 4: Draft Standards Section 5: Proposed Standards Section 6: Experimental RFCs Section 7: Summary of Results Section 8: Discussion of "Long Term" Stability of Addresses

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Current Results -01 Draft The –01 draft was concerned with finding RFCS with problems –Full Standards: 26 RFCS (38.25%) –Draft Standards: 19 RFCS (29.23%) –Proposed Standards: 107 RFCS (17.93%) –Experimental: 23 RFCS (15.33%) –Total: 177 RFCS (20.13%)

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Current Results -01 Draft Each RFC was examined independently of all others Technique purposely chosen to give more false positives rather than accidentally missing something Helped reduce the scope of the individual investigation

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Current Results (-02) Full Standards Requirements for Internet Hosts (RFC 1122 & 1123) Router Requirements (RFC 1812) Network Time Protocol (RFC 1305) Netbios over TCP/UDP (RFCs 1001 & 1002) IP over HyperChannel (RFC 1044) IP over Netbios (RFC 1088) IP over SMDS (RFC 1209)

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Current Results (-02) Draft Standards SMDS MIB (RFC 1694) The PPP Multilink Protocol (RFC 1990) –A new class identifier for IPv6 packets must be registered with the IANA. It is RECOMMENDED that the (currently unassigned) value of 6 be assigned by the IANA with a description of "Internet Protocol (IPv6) Address." An application for this assignment has been sent to the IANA. IP over HIPPI (RFC 2067)

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Current Results (-02) Proposed Standards Tunneling IPX over IP (RFC 1234) ONC RPC v2 (RFC 1833) RTP (RFC 1889) Support for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks (RFC 2022) Transaction IP v3 (RFC 2371) RPSL (RFC 2622)

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Current Results (-02) Proposed Standards IP & ARP Over FibreChannel (RFC 2625) IP over Vertical Blanking Interval of a TV Signal (RFC 2728) AgentX Protocol V1 (RFC 2741) GRE (RFC 2784) ARP & IP Broadcasts Over HIPPI 800 (RFC 2834)

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Current Results (-02) Proposed Standards ARP & IP Broadcasts Over HIPPI 6400 (RFC 2835) TCP Processing of the IPv4 Precedence Field (RFC 2873) XML DTP For Roaming Access Phone Books (RFC 3017) SDP For ATM Bearer Connections (RFC 3108) The Congestion Manager (RFC 3124)

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Current Results (-02) Proposed Standards (MIBS) PPP IPCP MIB (RFC 1473) DNS Server MIB (RFC 1611) DNS Resolver MIB (RFC 1612) Appletalk MIB (RFC 1742) DataLink Switching using SMIv2 MIB (RFC 2022) Classical IP & ARP over ATM MIB (RFC 2320) Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 ATM MIB (RFC 2417)

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Current Results (-02) Proposed Standards (MIBS) ATM MIB (RFC 2515) TN3270 MIB (RFC 2562) Application MIB (RFC 2564) Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN/HPR in IP Networks (RFC 2584) RADIUS MIB (RFC 2618) RADIUS Authentication Server MIB (RFC 2619) Entity MIB Version 2 (RFC 2737) MIB For Traceroute, Pings and Lookups (RFC 2925)

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Current Results (-02) Experimental RFCs IRC Protocol (RFC 1459) ARP Extensions (RFC 1868) Scalable Multicast Key Distribution (RFC 1949) IP Over SCSI (RFC 2143) Using LDAP as a NIS (RFC 2307) Intra-LIS IP multicast among routers over ATM using Sparse Mode PIM (RFC 2337) OSPF over ATM and Proxy-PAR (RFC 2844

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Next Steps -02 Draft will be submitted after the conclusion of the meeting Request to the IESG for a last call period and publication as an Informational RFC Then its up to the WGs and the rest of the IETF to decide what to update

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis How You Can Help READ THE DRAFT AND COMMENT Ingest large amounts of caffeine REREAD THE DRAFT AND COMMENT … and in case it isn’t clear READ THE DRAFT AGAIN AND COMMENT –It’s over 200 pages of gripping narrative, enjoy!

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis On The Classification of Standards There are 61 Full Standards –4 of which have been reclassified to Historic. There are 65 Draft Standards, 611 Proposed Standards, and 150 Experimental RFCs –Only 66 have been reclassified as Historic That is a rate of less than 8%. It should be obvious that in the more that 30 years of protocol development and documentation there should be at least as many (if not a majority of) protocols that have been retired compared to the ones that are currently active.

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Current Process Is Flawed We need to fix this problem It’s like a 30 year Bookstore that has 92% of its books in the New Release Section The biggest problem is that “new” protocols are either Proposed Standards or Experimental RFCs –They can, have and do linger for more that 15 years without any movement

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis Why? Two Reasons Standards progress when they are championed NNTP (RFC 977 February 1986) –Proposed standard IESG typically takes action only by request (too much work) RFC Editor is overworked RFC publication rate is huge (almost 1 per work day) RFCs are bigger and more complicated Primarily looking at the present and future

3/20/2002IESG PlenaryIETF 53, Minneapolis How Do We Deal With The Orphans? We don’t! We need a large one-time effort to clean up the protocol suite We need regular review to keep the things from getting out of hand in the future