The IP: next generation (IPng) area in the IETF is soliciting white
papers on topics related to the IPng requirements and selection
criteria.
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
complete.
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
ipng-wp@harvard.edu.
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.
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
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.
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
group.
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
hosts?
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
functions?
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
IPng.
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.
Scott Bradner
Harvard University
10 Ware St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: (617) 495-3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
Allison Mankin
Naval Research Laboratory
c/o Code 5591
Washington D.C. 20375-5000
Phone: 202-404-7030
EMail: mankin@cmf.nrl.navy.mil
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 ipng-wp@harvard.edu 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
margin.
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]