Request to Move RFC 1745 to Historic Status
Retiring a BGP4 and IDRP protocol specification that was never deployed.
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.
AI ELI5
On this page
§1An Abandoned Routing Design
RFC 1745 specified an interaction between BGP4 (Border Gateway Protocol version 4), IDRP (Interdomain Routing Protocol), and OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) routing protocols. This mechanism was designed to handle the routing coexistence challenges of the 1990s, when both BGP and IDRP were being considered as interdomain routing solutions.
However, RFC 1745 was never deployed in the public internet. Despite years as a Proposed Standard, no implementations emerged because the complexity was high and the practical need never materialized.
Long ago, people designed a way for three different route-sharing systems to work together. But the Internet went a different way and nobody ever built it.
§2Why This Design Was Never Used
The BGP4/IDRP OSPF interaction would require significant implementation complexity. In practice, BGP4 emerged as the clear choice for interdomain routing, and IDRP never gained real traction. The interaction mechanism became irrelevant as the routing landscape simplified.
Moving RFC 1745 to Historic status acknowledges this reality. A specification that was never deployed after years of opportunity should not remain as a recommended standard.
The design was too complicated, and the problem it solved never really happened. The Internet picked a simpler solution instead.
§3Impact
Moving RFC 1745 to Historic status has no known effect on the security of the internet. Since this mechanism was never deployed, retiring it does not affect any existing networks or systems.
This change has no effect on how the Internet works, because this mechanism was never part of it.