Dismiss
InnovationQ will be updated on Sunday, Oct. 22, from 10am ET - noon. You may experience brief service interruptions during that time.
Browse Prior Art Database

The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol (RFC1752)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000004002D
Original Publication Date: 1995-Jan-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

S. Bradner: AUTHOR [+2]

Abstract

This document presents the recommendation of the IPng Area Directors on what should be used to replace the current version of the Internet Protocol. This recommendation was accepted by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 2% of the total text.

Network Working Group S. Bradner

Request for Comments: 1752 Harvard University

Category: Standards Track A. Mankin

ISI

January 1995

The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the

Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet

Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state

and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document presents the recommendation of the IPng Area Directors

on what should be used to replace the current version of the Internet

Protocol. This recommendation was accepted by the Internet

Engineering Steering Group (IESG).

Table of Contents

1. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. A Direction for IPng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. IPng Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5. ALE Working Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5.1 ALE Projections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5.2 Routing Table Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5.3 Address Assignment Policy Recommendations. . . . . . . . 8

6. IPng Technical Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6.1 The IPng Technical Criteria document . . . . . . . . . . 9

7. IPng Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

7.1 CATNIP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

7.2 SIPP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

7.3 TUBA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8. IPng Proposal Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8.1 CATNIP Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

8.2 SIPP Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

8.3 TUBA Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

8.4 Summary of Proposal Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

9. A Revised Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

10 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

10.1 Criteria Document and Timing of Recommendation . . . . . 18

10.2 Address Length . . . . . ....