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: 2019-Feb-10
Document File: 15 page(s) / 23K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

T. Dixon: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1454: DOI

Abstract

This is a slightly edited reprint of RARE Technical Report (RTC(93)004). This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 10% 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.

Dixon [Page 1]

RFC 1454 Comparison of Next Version IP Proposals May 1993

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 the Internet. The timescale for considering these proposals is as follows:

- Dec 15 Issue selection criteria as RFC.

- Feb 12 Two interoperable implementations available.

- Feb 26 Seco...

Processing...
Loading...