RFC 1719

RFC 1719: A Direction for IPng 💖

Okay bestie, here's the tea 🫖 This is RFC 1719, titled "A Direction for IPng," from the Network Working Group. It was written by P. Gross (that's Phill Gross, see Section 5) at MCI. It's Informational and dated December 1994. The title block doesn't list any RFCs that it obsoletes or updates ✨

---

Status of this Memo 🌸

So this memo is here to give information to the Internet community 🫶 It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind, so it's not a standard, periodt. Distribution of it is unlimited 🦋

Abstract 🧚

This doc was submitted to the IPng Area in response to RFC 1550 💜 Publishing it does not mean the IPng Area accepts any of the ideas inside 🙈 Comments should go to the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list 📬 The abstract says this RFC specifies criteria related to mobility for consideration in the 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 ✨

So at the Amsterdam IETF meeting, we ran a BOF called the "IPDecide BOF" 🎀 It was all about the process and progress of IPng activities.

(Quick reminder: "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 a few facets of the IPng process, like:

• "What is the basis for choosing the next generation IP (i.e., what are the technical requirements and decision criteria)."
• "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 had a productive atmosphere 💅 but it didn't land on a clear consensus among the attendees. Honestly, despite the good spirit, it highlighted the lack of a firm direction more than it created one 💀

The IPDecide BOF was followed the next evening by the open IESG plenary. In that session, the IESG and the attendees talked through the IPng issues and seemed to reach a consensus based on this set of bullets from the IETF chair:

• "The IETF needs to move toward closure on IPng." So the IETF should take active steps toward a technical decision, instead of waiting for the "marketplace" to decide.
• "The IESG has the responsibility for developing an IPng recommendation for the Internet community." So 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 that consensus, I'd like to announce some specific directions for the IESG that I hope will get us to a timely resolution of the key IPng issues 🔥

The IESG will set up 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". That recommendation goes to the IESG and the Internet community for review. After an adequate review period to surface any community concerns, the IESG will issue a final IPng recommendation.

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

The new area will be headed by two co-Area Directors from within the IESG. I've asked Allison Mankin (NRL), current Transport Services AD, and Scott Bradner (Harvard), current Operational Requirements AD, to be co-AD's for this temporary area, and I'm so happy to say they agreed 🥹 (Because this is expected to be a temporary assignment, Scott and Allison will also keep their current IESG positions during this period.)

All IETF Areas are now expected to have Area Directorates. For the IPng Area, a Directorate is going to be especially important for bringing in more viewpoints 👑 So as their first action, I'm asking Scott and Allison to form a specific IPng Directorate to act as a direction-setting and preliminary review body. The IPng process stays completely open, so reports and meeting notes from any IPng Directorate meetings will be published in a timely fashion 🫧

3. Issues Toward IPng Resolution 💅

Two important issues need resolving right away before we can expect progress toward an IPng recommendation:

• What is the scope of the effort? So should IPng be limited to solving the well-known scaling and address exhaustion issues? Or should it also include advanced features, like resource reservation for real-time traffic?

The case for considering advanced features is that migrating to a new IP is (hopefully, only!) a once-in-a-generation thing 😭 so all advanced features should at least be considered.

The case against includes the fact that we may not have time for this level of effort before the scaling and address exhaustion problems hit us, and that we may not have the understanding and experience needed to make all the right choices right now 🙈

• What is the available timeframe? Before we can make an informed decision about scope, we need a better grip on the urgency and time constraints we're facing ⏳

Factors that affect the available time include the current rate of address assignments (which can estimate when we're projected to run out of addresses), the current policies governing address assignment (which show how policies affect 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.

So I'm asking the new AD's and the Directorate to start these specific activities right away, to help guide their final 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 those 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 use variable length subnet masks, and how to use 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.
     • (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'm asking Scott and Allison for 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 work items above. In particular, the status of the timeframe work items should be fully reported. After that there will be 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 taking on this daunting assignment 🫶 I feel confident we're about to make real progress on the important IPng issues facing the Internet community 💖

4. Security Considerations 🚨

Security issues are not discussed in this memo. So yeah, that's the whole section, and this doc doesn't cover security at all 💀

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