GENWiki

Network Working Group P. Gross Request for Comments: 1719 MCI Category: Informational December 1994

                        A Direction for IPng

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 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.  This RFC specifies
 criteria related to mobility for consideration in design and
 selection of the Next Generation of IP.

Table of Contents

 1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 2.   A Direction for IPng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 3.   Issues Toward IPng Resolution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 4.   Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 5.   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Introduction

 At the Amsterdam IETF meeting, we held a BOF, entitled the "IPDecide
 BOF", on the process and progress of the IPng activities.

 ("IPng" stands for "IP, the next generation".   The IPDecide BOF was
 chaired by Brian Carpenter.  Minutes are available in the IETF
 directories, with the file name </ietf/93jul/ipdecide-minutes-
 93jul.txt>.)

 The IPDecide BOF explored several facets of the IPng process, such
 as:

    "What is the basis for choosing the next generation IP (i.e., what
    are the technical requirements and decision criteria)."

Gross [Page 1] RFC 1719 A Direction for IPng December 1994

    "With the advent of CIDR and new, more stringent address
    assignment policies, are we comfortable that we truly understand
    the level of urgency?"

    "Should the IETF or the marketplace make the final IPng decision".

 The BOF was held in a productive atmosphere, but did not achieve what
 could be called a clear consensus among the assembled attendees.  In
 fact, despite its generally productive spirit, it did more to
 highlight the lack of a firm direction than to create it.

 The IPDecide BOF was followed the next evening by the open IESG
 plenary. During this session, the IESG and the assembled attendees
 discussed the IPng issues and seemed to arrive at a consensus based
 on the following set of bullets presented by the IETF chair:

    "The IETF needs to move toward closure on IPng."  That is, the
    IETF should take active steps toward a technical decision, rather
    than waiting for the "marketplace" to decide.

    "The IESG has the responsibility for developing an IPng
    recommendation for the Internet community."  That is, the IESG
    should provide leadership and take specific actions to help move
    the IETF toward a technical decision.

    "The procedures of the recommendation-making process should be
    open and published well in advance by the IESG."

    "As a part of the process, the IPng WGs may be given new
    milestones and other guidance to aid the IESG."

    "There should be ample opportunity for community comment prior to
    final IESG recommendation (e.g., there will be an extended Last
    Call)."

2. A Direction For IPng

 Building on this consensus, I'd like to announce a set of specific
 directions in the IESG that I hope will move us toward timely
 resolution of many of the key IPng issues.

 The IESG will establish a temporary, ad hoc, "area" to deal
 specifically with IPng  issues.  The charter for this new IESG area
 is to develop a recommendation on which, if any, of the current
 proposals should be adopted as the "next IP".  This recommendation
 will be submitted to the IESG and to the Internet community for
 review.  Following an adequate period of review to surface any
 community concerns, the IESG will issue a final IPng recommendation.

Gross [Page 2] RFC 1719 A Direction for IPng December 1994

 All of the current IPng-related working groups will be moved
 immediately into this new area.

 This new area will be headed by two co-Area Directors from within the
 IESG. I have asked Allison Mankin (NRL), current Transport Services
 AD, and Scott Bradner (Harvard), current Operational Requirements AD,
 to serve as co-AD's for this temporary area.  I am very pleased to
 report that they have agreed to take this important assignment.
 (Because this is expected to be a temporary assignment, Scott and
 Allison will also continue to serve in their current IESG positions
 during this period.)

 All IETF Areas are now expected to have Area Directorates.  For the
 IPng Area, a Directorate will be especially important to bring
 additional viewpoints into the process.  Therefore, I am asking that,
 as their first action, Scott and Allison form a specific IPng
 Directorate to act as a direction-setting and preliminary review
 body.  The IPng process will continue to be completely open, and
 therefore reports and meeting notes from any IPng Directorate
 meetings will be published in timely fashion.

3. Issues Toward IPng Resolution

 Two important issues need resolution immediately before we can expect
 progress toward an IPng recommendation:

What is the scope of the effort?

    That is, should IPng be limited to solving the well known scaling
    and address exhaustion issues; or should IPng also include
    advanced features such as resource reservation for real-time
    traffic?

    The argument in favor of considering advanced features is that
    migration to a new IP is (hopefully, only!) a once-in-a-generation
    occurrence, and therefore all advanced features should at least be
    considered.

    Arguments opposed to considering advanced features include the
    fact that we may not have time for this level of effort before the
    scaling and address exhaustion problems confront us, and that we
    may not have the necessary understanding and experience to make
    all the correct choices at this time.

Gross [Page 3] RFC 1719 A Direction for IPng December 1994

What is the available timeframe?

    That is, before we can even begin to make an informed decision
    about the scope, we need a better understanding of the urgency and
    time constraints facing us.

    Factors that affect the available time include the current rate of
    address assignments (which can give us an estimate of when we are
    currently projected to run out of addresses), the current policies
    governing address assignment (which can give us an understanding
    of how policies affect the assignment and utilization rates), the
    impact of CIDR aggregation, the development time for IPng, and the
    time needed to field and migrate to the new IPng.

 Therefore, I am asking the new AD's and the Directorate to start
 immediately the following specific activities to help guide their
 ultimate IPng recommendation:

    1. Develop an understanding of the available timeframe, covering
    at least the following issues:

Review Internet growth metrics, such as the current address

assignment and utilization rates. Develop an understanding of

       how the new address assignment policies impact the assignment
       and utilization rates.

Review the expected impact of CIDR address aggregation.

Develop an understanding of the expected savings due to CIDR

       aggregation.

Develop new technical guidelines for classless Internet

addressing. Specific examples include guidelines for how to

       utilize variable length subnet masks, and how to utilize
       currently unused Class A and B addresses in a classless fashion
       in hosts and routers.

Develop a strong understanding of the time required for the

development, fielding, and migration for a new IP.

Based on all the above issues,

          (a) develop an estimate for how long we have to develop
          and deploy an IPng.  This could be a set of estimates
          based on best/worst case estimates for how each of the
          above factors will affect the available timeframe.

Gross [Page 4] RFC 1719 A Direction for IPng December 1994

          (b) Consider whether more stringent assignment policies
          might provide additional time.  If so, recommend such
          policies.

          (c) make a recommendation on whether it is worthwhile to
          mount a serious effort to reclaim addresses and/or to
          renumber significant portions of the Internet.

    2. Based on an informed judgment of the time constraints above,
    make a recommendation regarding the scope for IPng, i.e., should
    IPng consider scaling issues only or advanced topics also.

    3. Based on the scope and time constraints, develop a clear and
    concise set of technical requirements and decision criteria for
    IPng.  These should include, but not be limited to, the criteria
    outlined in the IESG statement (RFC1380).

    4. Based on the decision criteria, scope, and time constraints,
    make a recommendation on which of the current IPng candidates to
    accept, if any.

    Finally, I am asking Scott and Allison to make a detailed report
    at the opening plenary of the next IETF meeting in November on the
    status of setting up their new area, and on their progress toward
    organizing the above work items.  In particular, the status of the
    work items on timeframe should be fully reported. This will be
    followed by regular progress reports to the Internet community, at
    IETF meetings and in other appropriate forums.

 Please join me in giving Scott and Allison our full cooperation, and
 in thanking them for accepting this daunting assignment.  I feel
 confident that we will now make significant progress on the important
 IPng issues facing the Internet community.

4. Security Considerations

 Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

5. Author's Address

 Phill Gross
 Director of Internet Engineering
 MCI Data Services Division
 2100 Reston Parkway FL 6
 Reston, VA   22091

 Phone: 703-715-7431
 EMail: phill_gross@mcimail.com

Gross [Page 5] RFC 1719 A Direction for IPng December 1994

Gross [Page 6]