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: [email protected]

















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-
  [email protected].

Acknowledgement

  Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
  Internet Society.







Savola                       Informational                      [Page 3]