## 6 Comparison of the BSI and NIST Guides
_DNSSEC_ is covered by the NIST guide, however, only 56% of it and most of it is only mentioned. _Multihoming_ was also very superficially explained in the BSI guide (0.14), but extensively handled in the NIST guide (0.86). Multihoming is very common today as it improves reachability of sites even if one of its ISPs should fail. There are new issues arising with multihoming because of IPv6 routing. While the NIST guide considers these as relevant, the BSI guide does not. _Routing Protocols_ is the only subcategory that shows a different picture. This time the BSI guide exceeds the NIST guide in completeness and depth. Routing protocols are of medium importance. All in all both guides do well in covering this subcategory although depth of coverage should be increased, as low depth is not sufficient. Finally, Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) is a subcategory of minor importance. The NIST guide once again has higher completeness and depth values for this subcategory than the BSI guide. Taking the low importance into consideration, coverage of both guides seems to be sufficient. Figure 12 shows the average depth of the RFCs that are covered from this category. As the figure reveals, both guides provide only low depth for most topics of this category. Still the NIST guide does better in all of them. Worth mentioning is that both guides focus especially on the _DNS Specification_ as  
Figure 11: Average depth of DHCPv6 and autoconfiguration. the BSI guide achieves a depth of 0.8 (high) and the NIST guide even a score of 1 (very high). It should be noted though that both guides only covered the main RFCs for this subcategory. The last category to be compared is _Transition Methods_. The NIST guide covers 39% more of the relevant RFCs than the BSI guide. Both guides go into more detail with _Dual Stack_ than with _Tunneling_ and _Translation_. _Dual Stack_ is covered more broadly as well as in more detail by the NIST guide. It is the most important topic, thus, depth should be better than medium, and examples should be given on how to deploy a dual stack infrastructure. Both guides achieve only low scores and have room for improvement. _Tunneling_ and _Translation_ are important topics as the results of the survey show. However, both guides discourage the use of these methods as they should only be used as a last resort and be replaced as soon as alternatives become available. Nevertheless, they must be covered by a secure deployment guide because they can introduce security issues. Figure 13 shows the average depth of RFCs that are covered for this category. As the figure shows, the NIST guide provides a medium level of detail for _Dual Stack_ and _Tunneling_, while the BSI guide has medium to low depth for these subcategories. Both have only less than 0.5 depth in the subcategory _Translation_. According to these results translation methods are seen as least important by both guides. Weighted Completeness:This score was established by combining the weights established by using AHP and the survey, and multiplying them with the completeness values derived by the evaluation. Table 9 shows the results for the two guides. Because the weights are all close, the weighted completeness differs only to a small extent from the completeness without weights. The difference between the two guides without weights was 0.51, and with weights 0.49. The impact of the weights was positive for the BSI guide and negative for the NIST guide, and brought both a little closer together. All in all this does not change the assessment that the NIST guide is far ahead in terms of completeness and covers a lot more of the relevant RFCs than the BSI guide does. Figure 12: Average depth of routing and Domain Name System (DNS).