Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


Network Working Group S. Bradner Request for Comments: 1550 Harvard University Category: Informational A. Mankin

                                                         December 1993
        IP: Next Generation (IPng) White Paper Solicitation

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.

Table of Contents

 1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 2.   Document Review Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 3.   Document Format Requirement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 4.   Outline for IPng Requirements and Concerns White Papers  . . 3
 5.   Engineering considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 6.   Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 7.   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 Appendix A - Formatting Rules (from RFC 1543) . . . . . . . . . . 6

1. Introduction

 The IP: next generation (IPng) area in the IETF is soliciting white
 papers on topics related to the IPng requirements and selection
 All interested parties are invited to submit white papers detailing
 any specific requirements that they feel an IPng must fulfill or any
 factors that they feel might sway the IPng selection.  An example of
 the former might be a submission by a representative of a utility
 company detailing the scaling and addressing features which would be
 required to service future inclusion of utility meters on the
 network.  An example of the other case might be a paper outlining the
 potential effect on IPng of some sections of the future network
 connectivity being provided via wireless networks.
 At this time, we are not accepting white papers that evaluate
 specific IPng proposals.  This type of document will be accepted
 after the various proposal documents are deemed to be clear and

Bradner & Mankin [Page 1] RFC 1550 IPng White Paper Solicitation December 1993

 All white papers will be reviewed in a process described below.  As a
 result of these reviews, each white paper will receive the focused
 attention of the IPng directorate and the community.  The white
 papers will be used as resource materials by the IPng Area working
 groups, the directorate, the external review board and the area
 directors, during the selection process.
 The deadline for the submission of these white papers is February 1,
 1994, though early submission is encouraged.
 Submit white papers, general or topic questions, and so on, to

2. Document Review Process

 All submitted documents will first be reviewed for clarity by members
 of the IPng directorate and the external review board.  This review
 may produce suggestions to the author on areas of the document where
 there may be some confusion as to the meaning.  Authors are urged to
 consider any such suggestions as constructive and to reexamine their
 text in light of the suggestions.
 A separate technical review will then be done of the white paper.
 This review will be conducted within the context of the document.
 That is, the review still will not make value judgments on the white
 papers, but will assess technical feasibility.  This review may also
 produce suggestions to the author.
 The document will be submitted as an Internet-Draft after these
 reviews have been completed and after whatever (if any) revisions
 that the author decides to make.   After a suitable period of time
 these documents will be submitted as informational RFCs unless
 withdrawn by the author.  These documents will comprise a part of the
 historical record of the IPng process.

3. Document Format Requirements

 All white papers must follow the format requirements listed in RFC
 1543 and must not exceed 10 pages in length. (The relevant portion of
 RFC 1543 is included in this document as Appendix A.)  They should
 not include the "status of memo" section; this will be added when the
 documents are posted as Internet Drafts.  The reference version of
 the document must be in ASCII as is current practice with all RFCs.
 A PostScript version of the document may be submitted in addition to
 the ASCII version. (See RFC 1543 for the formatting procedures to use
 with PostScript documents.)

Bradner & Mankin [Page 2] RFC 1550 IPng White Paper Solicitation December 1993

4. Outline for IPng Requirements and Concerns White Papers

 This section details the white paper outline to be followed by
 someone who would like to express an opinion about the various
 factors involved in the IPng definition and selection process.  Since
 these documents will be used as resource material by the various IPng
 working groups, the directorate, the external review board and the
 area directors, they should be well-focused and give specific
 references to data supporting their points.
 Each white paper should begin with an executive summary of the
 important points of the document.  This executive summary should not
 exceed 1/2 page in length.
 The white paper should then address the issue or issues that the
 author feels should be understood during the IPng process.  The total
 document should not exceed 10 pages in length.  An author may submit
 more than one white paper if he or she feels that the level of
 detailed discussion on each topic warrants it.

5. Engineering considerations

 In past discussions the following issues have been raised as relevant
 to the IPng selection process.  This list is in no particular order.
 Any or all of these issues may be addressed as well as any other
 topic that the author feels is germane, but do not exceed the 10 page
 limit, please.
 5.1  Scaling - What is a reasonable estimate for the scale of the
    future data networking environment?  The current common wisdom is
    that IPng should be able to deal with 10 to the 12th nodes.
 5.2  Timescale - What are reasonable time estimates for the IPng
    selection, development and deployment process or what should the
    timeframe requirements be?  This topic is being evaluated by the
    ALE working group and a copy of all white papers that express
    opinions about these topics will be forwarded to that group.
 5.3  Transition and deployment - Transition from the current version
    to IPng will be a complex and difficult process.  What are the
    issues that should be considered The TACIT working group will be
    discussing these issues and a copy of all white papers that
    express opinions about these topics will be forwarded to that
 5.4  Security - What level and type of security will be required in
    the future network environment?  What features should be in an
    IPng to facilitate security?

Bradner & Mankin [Page 3] RFC 1550 IPng White Paper Solicitation December 1993

 5.5  Configuration, administration and operation - As networks get
    larger and more complex, the day to day operational aspects become
    ever more important.  What should an IPng include or avoid in
    order to minimize the effect on the network operators?
 5.6  Mobile hosts - How important is the proliferation of mobile
    hosts to the IPng selection process?  To what extent should
    features be included in an IPng to assist in dealing with mobile
 5.7  Flows and resource reservation - As the data networks begin to
    get used for an increasing number of time-critical processes, what
    are the requirements or concerns that affect how IPng should
    facilitate the use of resource reservations or flows?
 5.8  Policy based routing - How important is policy based routing?
    If it is important, what types of policies will be used?  What
    requirements do routing policies and potential future global
    architectures of the Internet bring to IPng?  How do policy
    requirements interact with scaling?
 5.9  Topological flexibility - What topology is anticipated for the
    Internet?  Will the current general topology model continue?  Is
    it acceptable (or even necessary) to place significant topological
    restrictions on interconnectivity of networks?
 5.10 Applicability - What environment / marketplace do you see for
    the application of IPng?  How much wider is it than the existing
    IP market?
 5.11 Datagram service - Existing IP service is "best effort" and
    based on hop-by-hop routed datagrams.  What requirements for this
    paradigm influence the IPng selection?
 5.12 Accounting - How important a consideration should the ability to
    do accounting be in the selection of an IPng?  What, if any,
    features should be included in an IPng to support accounting
 5.13 Support of communication media - IPv4 can be supported over most
    known types of communications media.  How important is this same
    flexibility to an IPng?

Bradner & Mankin [Page 4] RFC 1550 IPng White Paper Solicitation December 1993

 5.14 Robustness and fault tolerance - To the extent that the Internet
    built from IPv4 has been highly fault tolerant, what are ways that
    IPng may avoid inadvertent decrease in the robustness (since some
    things may work despite flaws that we do not understand well).
    Comment on any other ways in which this requirement may affect the
 5.15 Technology pull - Are there technologies that will pull the
    Internet in a way that should influence IPng?  Can specific
    strategies be developed to encompass these?
 5.16 Action items - suggested charges to the directorate, working
    groups or others to support the concerns or gather more
    information needed for a decision.

6. Security Considerations

 This RFC raises no security issues, but does invite comment on the
 security requirements of IPng.

7. Authors' Addresses

 Scott Bradner
 Harvard University
 10 Ware St.
 Cambridge, MA 02138
 Phone: (617) 495-3864
 Allison Mankin
 Naval Research Laboratory
 c/o Code 5591
 Washington D.C. 20375-5000
 Phone: 202-404-7030

Bradner & Mankin [Page 5] RFC 1550 IPng White Paper Solicitation December 1993

Appendix A - Formatting Rules (from RFC 1543)

 Note: there are a set of NROFF formatting macros for the following
 format.  Please contact if you would like to get
 a copy.
 3a.  ASCII Format Rules
    The character codes are ASCII.
    Each page must be limited to 58 lines followed by a form feed on a
    line by itself.
    Each line must be limited to 72 characters followed by carriage
    return and line feed.
    No overstriking (or underlining) is allowed.
    These "height" and "width" constraints include any headers,
    footers, page numbers, or left side indenting.
    Do not fill the text with extra spaces to provide a straight right
    Do not do hyphenation of words at the right margin.
    Do not use footnotes.  If such notes are necessary, put them at
    the end of a section, or at the end of the document.
    Use single spaced text within a paragraph, and one blank line
    between paragraphs.
    Note that the number of pages in a document and the page numbers
    on which various sections fall will likely change with
    reformatting.  Thus cross references in the text by section number
    usually are easier to keep consistent than cross references by
    page number.

Bradner & Mankin [Page 6]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1550.txt · Last modified: 1993/12/15 20:08 by

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki