GENWiki

Network Working Group P. Savola Request for Comments: 4223 CSC/FUNET Obsoletes: 1863 October 2005 Category: Informational

              Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic

Status of This Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

 This memo reclassifies RFC 1863, A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative
 to a full mesh routing, to Historic status.  This memo also obsoletes
 RFC 1863.

1. Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic

 RFC 1863 [1] describes the use of route servers as an alternative to
 BGP/IDRP full mesh routing.

 In the context of this document, the term "RFC 1863 route server" is
 used to refer to a route server as specified in RFC 1863.  Other uses
 of the term "route server" are outside the scope of this document.

 Implementations of RFC 1863 route servers do not exist and are not
 used as an alternative to full mesh routing.  Therefore, RFC 1863 is
 reclassified to Historic status.

 Current techniques that serve as an alternative to full mesh routing
 include BGP Route Reflectors [2], BGP Confederedations [3], and the
 use of private AS numbers.  IDRP for IP has never been standardized
 by the IETF and can be considered obsolete.

 Other uses of (non-RFC1863) route servers, rather than as an
 alternative to full mesh routing as described by RFC 1863, are
 expected to continue to be used for multiple purposes, but are out of
 the scope of this memo.

Savola Informational [Page 1]  RFC 4223 Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic October 2005

2. Acknowledgements

 Jeffrey Haas, John Scudder, Paul Jakma, and Yakov Rekhter provided
 useful background information for the creation of this memo.  Scott
 Bradner, Jeffrey Haas, and Yakov Rekhter provided substantial
 feedback during the WG last call.

3. Security Considerations

 Reclassifying RFC 1863 has no security considerations.

4. References

4.1. Normative References

 [1]  Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh
      routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.

4.2. Informative References

 [2]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An
      Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000.

 [3]  Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System
      Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001.

Author's Address

 Pekka Savola
 CSC/FUNET
 Espoo
 Finland

 EMail: psavola@funet.fi

Savola Informational [Page 2]  RFC 4223 Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic October 2005

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

 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.

Savola Informational [Page 3]