Browse Prior Art Database

IPng White Paper on Transition and Other Considerations (RFC1671)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002508D
Original Publication Date: 1994-Aug-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-12
Document File: 8 page(s) / 12K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

B. Carpenter: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1671: DOI

Abstract

This white paper outlines some general requirements for IPng in selected areas. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 19% of the total text.

Network Working Group B. Carpenter Request for Comments: 1671 CERN Category: Informational August 1994

IPng White Paper on Transition and Other Considerations

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document was submitted to the IETF IPng area in response to RFC 1550. Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by the IPng area of any ideas expressed within. Comments should be submitted to the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list.

Summary

This white paper outlines some general requirements for IPng in selected areas. It identifies the following requirements for stepwise transition:

A) Interworking at every stage and every layer. B) Header translation considered harmful C) Coexistence. D) IPv4 to IPng address mapping. E) Dual stack hosts. F) DNS. G) Smart dual-stack code. H) Smart management tools.

Some remarks about phsysical and logical multicast follow, and it is suggested that a model of how IPng will run over ATM is needed.

Finally, the paper suggests that the requirements for policy routing, accounting, and security firewalls will in turn require all IPng packets to carry a trace of the type of transaction involved as well as of their source and destination.

Transition and deployment

It is clear that the transition will take years and that every site will have to decide its own staged transition plan. Only the very smallest sites could envisage a single step ("flag day") transition,

Carpenter [Page 1]

RFC 1671 IPng White Paper on Transition, etc. August 1994

presumably under pressure from their Internet service providers. Furthermore, once the IPng decision is taken, the next decade (or more) of activity in the Internet and in all private networks using the Internet suite will be strongly affected by the process of IPng deployment. User sites will look at the decision whether to change from IPv4 in the same way as they have looked in the past at changes of programming language or operating system. It may not be a foregone conclusion that what they change to is IPng. Their main concern will be to minimise the cost of the change and the risk of lost production.

This concern immediately defines strong constraints on the model for transition and deployment of IPng. Some of these constraints are listed below, with a short explanation of each one.

Terminology: an "IPv4 host" is a host that runs exactly what it runs today, with no maintenance releases and no configuration changes. An "IPng host" is a host that has a new version of IP, and has been reconfigured. Similarly for routers.

A) Interworking at every stage and every layer.

This is the major constraint. Vendors of computer systems, routers, and applications software will certainly not coordinate their product release dates. Users will go on running their old equipment and software. Therefore, any combination of IPv4 and IP...

Processing...
Loading...