Browse Prior Art Database

Comparison of Proposals for Next Version of IP (RFC1454)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002282D
Original Publication Date: 1993-May-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 13 page(s) / 33K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

T. Dixon: AUTHOR

Abstract

This is a slightly edited reprint of RARE Technical Report (RTC(93)004).

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 9% of the total text.

Network Working Group T. Dixon

Request for Comments: 1454 RARE

May 1993

Comparison of Proposals for Next Version of IP

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is

unlimited.

Abstract

This is a slightly edited reprint of RARE Technical Report

(RTC(93)004).

The following is a brief summary of the characteristics of the three

main proposals for replacing the current Internet Protocol. It is not

intended to be exhaustive or definitive (a brief bibliography at the

end points to sources of more information), but to serve as input to

the European discussions on these proposals, to be co-ordinated by

RARE and RIPE. It should be recognised that the proposals are

themselves "moving targets", and in so far as this paper is accurate

at all, it reflects the position at the 25th IETF meeting in

Washington, DC. Comments from Ross Callon and Paul Tsuchiya on the

original draft have been incorporated. Note that for a time the term

"IPv7" was use to mean the eventual next version of IP, but that the

same term was closely associated with a particilar proposal, so the

term "IPng" is now used to identify the eventual next generation of

IP.

The paper begins with a "generic" discussion of the mechanisms for

solving problems and achieving particular goals, before discussing

the proposals invidually.

1. WHY IS THE CURRENT IP INADEQUATE?

The problem has been investigated and formulated by the ROAD group,

but briefly reduces to the following:

- Exhaustion of IP Class B Address Space.

- Exhaustion of IP Address Space in General.

- Non-hierarchical nature of address allocation leading to flat

routing space.

Although the IESG requirements for a new Internet Protocol go further

than simply routing and addressing issues, it is these issues that

make extension of the current protocol an impractical option.

Consequently, most of the discussion and development of the various

proposed protocols has concentrated on these specific problems.

Near term remedies for these problems include the CIDR proposals

(which permit the aggregation of Class C networks for routing

purposes) and assignment policies which will allocate Class C network

numbers in a fashion which CIDR can take advantage of. Routing

protocols supporting CIDR are OSPF and BGP4. None of these are pre-

requisites for the new IP (IPng), but are necessary to prolong the

life of the current Internet long enough to work on longer-term

solutions. Ross Callon points out that there are other options for

prolonging the life of IP and that some ideas have been distributed

on the TUBA list.

Longer term proposals are being sought which ultimately allow for

further growth of th...