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 problems
7.3.15. 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.