As per Relevance of the word complete, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group J.
Request for Comments: 1669
Category: Informational August 1994
Market Viability as a IPng
Status of this
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution
this memo is unlimited
This document was submitted to the IETF IPng area in response to
1550. Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by
IPng area of any ideas expressed within. Comments should
submitted to the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list
In an open marketplace, adoption of new technology is driven
consumer demand. New technologies that wish to succeed in
marketplace must provide new capabilities or reduced costs to
consumer confidence. Internetworking technologies can
particularly difficult to deploy and must provide a
high return on investment. In order to determine market viability
new internetworking technology, it's necessary to compare
required deployment effort against the potential benefits as seen
the customer. "Viability in the Marketplace" is an
requirement for any IPng candidate and this paper is an attempt
summarize some important factors in determing market viability
IPng proposals
"Pushing" Internetworking
It has been asserted by some that the adoption of a single
protocol by the computing industry would generate general
in the networking industry. There is ample evidence to support
view; for example, some of the today's more prevalent
protocols gained initial market acceptance through bundling
computer operating systems (e.g. IP via UNIX, DECNET via VMS, etc.)
It should be noted, however, that this approach to
deployment is by no means assured, and some of today's most
internetworking software (Novell, etc.) have thrived
alternatives bundled by computing manufacturers. Given that
will have to compete against an well established and
Curran [Page 1]
RFC 1669 IPng White Paper on Market Viability August 1994
internetworking protocol (IP version 4), promotion of an
solution by computer system manufacturers should be recognized
highly desirable but not sufficient on its own to ensure
acceptance in the marketplace
Can IPng compete against IPv4?
Given the large installed base of IPv4 systems, computer
manufacturers will need to continue to provide IPv4 capabilities
the foreseeable future. With both IPng and IPv4 support in their
systems, users will be facing a difficult choice between using IPv
and IPng for internetworking. Existing IPv4 users will migrate
IPng for one of three possible reasons
New functionality not found in IPv
IPng needs to provide functionality equivalent to that
provided by IPv4. It remains to be seen whether
functionality (such as resource reservation, mobility
autoconfiguration, autoregistration, or security) will be included
the base specification of any IPng candidate. In order to
motivation to migrate to IPng, it will be necessary for
proposals to offer capabilities beyond those already provided IPv4.
Reduced costs by using
It is quite unlikely that migration to IPng will result in
savings in any organization. Migration to IPng will certainly
in an increased need for training and engineering, and
increased costs
To gain connectivity to otherwise unreachable IPng
For existing sites with valid IPv4 network assignments,
is not affected until address depletion occurs. Systems
globally-unique IPv4 addresses will have complete connectivity to
systems since backwards-compatible communication is required of
IPng hosts
From the perspective of an existing IPv4 site, IPng provides
tangible benefit until IPv4 address depletion occurs
organizations reachable only via IPng appear. Given the absence
benefits from migration, it is uncertain whether a significant
of IPng sites will be occur prior to IPv4 address depletion
Sites which are not yet running IP have little motivation to
IPng for the immediate future. As long as IPv4 network
are available, new sites have an choice to use IPv4 which
Curran [Page 2]
RFC 1669 IPng White Paper on Market Viability August 1994
the sufficient internetworking capabilities (measured
functionality, cost, and connectivity) for many organizations today
Given the parity in IPng and IPv4 capabilities, IPv4 (as a
mature internetworking protocol) is the more probable choice
organizations just now selecting an internetworking protocol
Once IPv4 address assignments are no longer available, sites
to participate in the global Internet will have a very
decision in selection of an internetworking protocol. The
suite of IPng proposals cannot provide complete
between IPng-only sites and IPv4-only sites since (by definition
there will be insufficient space to map all IPng addresses into
IPv4 address space. As none of the proposals currently call
dynamic network address translation (NAT), it is inevitable
IPng-only sites will have access to a partial set of IPv4 sites
any given moment
Internetworking services which do not allow complete access to
global Internet (IPv4 and IPng in the post-IPv4-address-
world) are clearly not as valuable as services which offer
Internet access. Sites which are unable to obtain IPv4
assignments will be seeking Internet services which can
complete Internet service. Additionally, some sites will
"privately numbered" IPv4 networks and will desire similar
services which provide transparent access to the entire Internet.
development of network address translation devices and
services is highly likely under these market conditions
No internetworking vendor (whether host, router, or service vendor
can afford to deploy and support products and services which are
desired in the marketplace. Given the potential proliferation
network address translation devices, it is not clear that IPng
secure sufficient following to attain market viability. In the past
we have seen internetworking protocols fail in the
despite vendor deployment and IPng cannot succeed if it is
deployed by organizations. As currently envisioned, IPng may not
ambitious enough in the delivery of new capabilities to
against IPv4 and the inevitable arrival of network
translation devices. In order to meet the requirement for "
in the marketplace', IPng needs to deliver clearly
functionality over IPv4 while offering some form transparent
between the IPv4 and IPng communities once IPv4 address depletion
occurred
Curran [Page 3]
RFC 1669 IPng White Paper on Market Viability August 1994
Security
Security issues are not discussed in this memo
Author's
John
BBN Technology Services, Inc
10 Moulton
Cambridge MA 02138
EMail: jcurran@near.
Curran [Page 4]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
