draft-ietf-idr-rfc1863-historic-00.txt   rfc4223.txt 
Inter-Domain Routing P. Savola Network Working Group P. Savola
Internet-Draft CSC/FUNET Request for Comments: 4223 CSC/FUNET
Obsoletes: 1863 (if approved) June 4, 2004 Obsoletes: 1863 October 2005
Expires: December 3, 2004 Category: Informational
Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic
draft-ietf-idr-rfc1863-historic-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Status of This Memo
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2004. 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 Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract Abstract
This memo reclassifies RFC 1863, A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative This memo reclassifies RFC 1863, A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative
to a full mesh routing, to Historic status. This memo also Obsoletes to a full mesh routing, to Historic status. This memo also obsoletes
RFC 1863. RFC 1863.
1. Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic 1. Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic
RFC 1863 [1] describes the use of route servers as an alternative to RFC 1863 [1] describes the use of route servers as an alternative to
BGP/IDRP full mesh routing. BGP/IDRP full mesh routing.
In the context of this document the term "RFC 1863 route server" is In the context of this document, the term "RFC 1863 route server" is
used to refer to a route server as specified in RFC1863. Other uses used to refer to a route server as specified in RFC1863. Other uses
of the term "route server" are outside the scope of this document. of the term "route server" are outside the scope of this document.
Implementations of RFC 1863 route servers do not exist, and are not Implementations of RFC 1863 route servers do not exist and are not
used as an alternative to full mesh routing. Therefore the RFC 1863 used as an alternative to full mesh routing. Therefore, RFC 1863 is
is reclassified to Historic status. reclassified to Historic status.
Current techniques that serve as an alternative to full mesh routing Current techniques that serve as an alternative to full mesh routing
include BGP Route Reflectors [2], BGP Confederedations [3] and the include BGP Route Reflectors [2], BGP Confederedations [3], and the
use of private AS numbers. IDRP for IP has never been standardized use of private AS numbers. IDRP for IP has never been standardized
by the IETF and can be considered obsolete. by the IETF and can be considered obsolete.
Other uses of (non-RFC1863) route servers, rather than as an Other uses of (non-RFC1863) route servers, rather than as an
alternative to full mesh routing as described by RFC 1863, are alternative to full mesh routing as described by RFC 1863, are
expected to continue be used for multiple purposes, but are out of expected to continue to be used for multiple purposes, but are out of
the scope of this memo. the scope of this memo.
2. Acknowledgements 2. Acknowledgements
Jeffrey Haas, John Scudder, Paul Jakma, and Yakov Rekhter provided Jeffrey Haas, John Scudder, Paul Jakma, and Yakov Rekhter provided
useful background information for the creation of this memo. Scott useful background information for the creation of this memo. Scott
Bradner, Jeffrey Haas and Yakov Rekhter provided substantial feedback Bradner, Jeffrey Haas, and Yakov Rekhter provided substantial
during the WG last call. feedback during the WG last call.
3. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
[[Note to the RFC-Editor: this section should be removed prior to
publication.]]
4. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
Reclassifying RFC 1863 has no security considerations. Reclassifying RFC 1863 has no security considerations.
5. References 4. References
5.1 Normative References 4.1. Normative References
[1] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh [1] Haskin, D., "A BGP/IDRP Route Server alternative to a full mesh
routing", RFC 1863, October 1995. routing", RFC 1863, October 1995.
5.2 Informative References 4.2. Informative References
[2] Bates, T., Chandra, R. and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An [2] Bates, T., Chandra, R., and E. Chen, "BGP Route Reflection - An
Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000. Alternative to Full Mesh IBGP", RFC 2796, April 2000.
[3] Traina, P., McPherson, D. and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System [3] Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous System
Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001. Confederations for BGP", RFC 3065, February 2001.
Author's Address Author's Address
Pekka Savola Pekka Savola
CSC/FUNET CSC/FUNET
Espoo Espoo
Finland Finland
EMail: psavola@funet.fi EMail: psavola@funet.fi
Intellectual Property Statement 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 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 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 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 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 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
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.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
72 lines changed or deleted 44 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.27, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/