Request to Move RFC 1745 to Historic Status
Requests Historic status for the BGP4/IDRP and OSPF interaction described in RFC 1745.
Meyer, D. and J. Scudder, "Request to Move RFC 1745 to Historic Status", RFC 3167, DOI 10.17487/RFC3167, August 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3167>.
@misc{rfc3167,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 3167,
howpublished = {RFC 3167},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC3167},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3167},
author = {D. Meyer and J. Scudder},
title = {{Request to Move RFC 1745 to Historic Status}},
pagetotal = 3,
year = 2001,
month = aug,
} RFC text
Contents
Network Working Group D. Meyer
Request for Comments: 3167 Sprint
Category: Informational J. Scudder
Cisco Systems
August 2001
Request to Move RFC 1745 to Historic Status
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 (2001). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
RFC 1745, "BGP4/IDRP for IP---OSPF Interaction", describes technology
which was never deployed in the public internet. This document
requests that RFC 1745 be moved to Historic status.
1. Details
During a review of internet standards relating to BGP, it became
apparent that BGP/IDRP OSPF interaction, as described in RFC 1745,
has never been deployed in the public internet, and would require
significant implementation complexity. Since this mechanism has
never been in use in the public internet, it is proposed to
reclassify it to Historic.
2. Security Considerations
Moving RFC 1745 to Historic has no known effect on the security of
the internet.
3. References
[RFC1745] Varadhan, K., Hares, S. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP4/IDRP for
IP---OSPF Interaction", RFC 1745, December 1994.
4. Authors' Addresses
David Meyer
Sprint
12502 Sunrise Valley Dr
Reston VA, 20191
MS VARESA-0105
EMail: dmm@sprint.net
John Scudder
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA, 95134
EMail: jgs@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1The RFC 1745 Interaction
RFC 1745 describes interaction among BGP4, IDRP, and OSPF for IP. RFC 3167 says this mechanism was never deployed in the public Internet.
The memo states that implementation would require significant complexity. It provides a short rationale for reclassifying the earlier RFC.
The earlier RFC described a way for routing systems to interact. The later memo reports that the approach was never deployed publicly.
§1Why Historic Status Is Requested
RFC 3167 proposes Historic status because the mechanism had never been used in the public Internet and would be complex to implement.
The document does not specify a replacement. It says moving RFC 1745 to Historic has no known effect on Internet security.
The memo argues there is no reason to keep the unused, complex design as active guidance. It does not propose a new routing design.
§3Reference and Scope
The memo cites RFC 1745, “BGP4/IDRP for IP—OSPF Interaction,” published in December 1994. RFC 3167 is a status request, not a protocol specification.
Its scope is the proposed reclassification of RFC 1745. The security section states that the status move has no known effect on Internet security.
This memo only addresses the status of RFC 1745. It does not change the behavior of BGP4, IDRP, or OSPF.