RFC1670 - Input to IPng Engineering Considerations

Network Working Group                                        D. HeagertyRequest for Comments: 1670                                          CERNCategory: Informational                                      August 1994                Input to ipng Engineering ConsiderationsStatus 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 expresses some personal opinions on IPng engineering   considerations, based on experience with DECnet Phase V transition.   It suggests breaking down the IPng decisions and transition tasks   into smaller parts so they can be tackled early by the relevant   experts.Timescales   In order to allow key decisions to be taken early, I would like to   see IPng decisions and timescales broken down into into smaller   parts, for example:    - address strUCture and allocation mechanism    - name service changes    - host software and programming interface changes    - routing protocol changes   Although interrelated, not all details need to be defined by the same   date. Identify which decisions will be hard to change and which can   be allowed to evolve. All changes should be worked on in parallel,   but the above list indicates a feeling for urgency of a decision.   Our experience has been that administrative changes (as may be   required for addressing changes) need the greatest elapse time for   implementation, whereas routing protocol changes need the least.   I would like to see an early decision on address structure and enough   information for service managers to start planning their transition.   Some hosts will never be upgraded and will need to be phased out or   configured with reduced connectivity. A lead time of 10 years (or   more) will help to take good long term technical decisions and ease   financial and organisational constraints.Transition and deployment   Transition requires intimate knowledge of the environment (financial,   political as well as technical). The task needs to be broken down so   that service managers close to their clients can take decisions and   make them happen.   Let the service managers adapt the solutions for their environment by   providing them with a transition toolbox and scenarios of their uses   based on real examples. Clearly state the merits and limitations of
                            different transition strategies.   Provide for transition autonomy. Let systems and sites transition at   different times, as convenient for them.   Identify what software needs to be changed and keep an up-to-date   list.   Identify what is essential to have in place so that service managers   can transition at their own pace.   Allow for a feedback loop to improve software based on experience.Configuration, Administration, Operation   We run IP on a wide range of equipment and operating systems.  We   need an easy way to (re-)configure all our IP capable systems.  The   systems need to be sent their IP parameters (e.g., their address,   address of their default router, address of their local name servers)   and we need to oBTain data from the system (e.g., contact information   for owner, location and name of system). We also need an easy way to   update DNS.   In our environment systems are regularly moved between buildings and   we therefore find the tight coupling of IP address to physical subnet   over restrictive. Automatic configuration could help overcome this.   We would like to efficiently load balance users of various IP based   services (e.g., telnet, FTP, locally written applications) across a   number of systems.   The ability to break down addresses and routing into several levels   of hierarchy is important to allow the delegation of network   management into subdomains. As the network grows so does the desire   to increase the number of levels of hierarchy.Disclaimer and acknowledgments   This is a personal view and does not necessarily represent that of my   employer. I have benefited from many transition discussions with my   colleagues at CERN, other High Energy Physics DECnet managers and   Digital Equipment Corporation engineers.Security Considerations   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.Author's Address   Denise Heagerty   Communications Systems Group   Computing and Networks Division   CERN   European Laboratory for Particle Physics   1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland   Phone:  +41 22 767-4975   Fax:    +41 22 767-7155   EMail: denise@dxcoms.cern.ch