Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                          J. CurranRequest for Comments: 1669                                           BBNCategory: Informational                                      August 1994Market Viability as a IPng CriteriaStatus 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 toRFC1550. 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.Introduction   In an open marketplace, adoption of new technology is driven by   consumer demand.  New technologies that wish to succeed in the   marketplace must provide new capabilities or reduced costs to gain   consumer confidence.  Internetworking technologies can be   particularly difficult to deploy and must provide a correspondingly   high return on investment.  In order to determine market viability of   new internetworking technology, it's necessary to compare the   required deployment effort against the potential benefits as seen by   the customer.  "Viability in the Marketplace" is an important   requirement for any IPng candidate and this paper is an attempt to   summarize some important factors in determing market viability of   IPng proposals."Pushing" Internetworking Technology   It has been asserted by some that the adoption of a single IPng   protocol by the computing industry would generate general acceptance   in the networking industry.  There is ample evidence to support this   view; for example, some of the today's more prevalent networking   protocols gained initial market acceptance through bundling with   computer operating systems (e.g. IP via UNIX, DECNET via VMS, etc.)   It should be noted, however, that this approach to technology   deployment is by no means assured, and some of today's most popular   internetworking software (Novell, etc.) have thrived despite   alternatives bundled by computing manufacturers.   Given that IPng   will have to compete against an well established and matureCurran                                                          [Page 1]

RFC 1669          IPng White Paper on Market Viability       August 1994   internetworking protocol (IP version 4), promotion of an IPng   solution by computer system manufacturers should be recognized as   highly desirable but not sufficient on its own to ensure IPng   acceptance in the marketplace.Can IPng compete against IPv4?   Given the large installed base of IPv4 systems, computer system   manufacturers will need to continue to provide IPv4 capabilities for   the foreseeable future.  With both IPng and IPv4 support in their new   systems, users will be facing a difficult choice between using IPv4   and IPng for internetworking.  Existing IPv4 users will migrate to   IPng for one of three possible reasons:New functionality not found in IPv4   IPng needs to provide functionality equivalent to that currently   provided by IPv4.  It remains to be seen whether additional   functionality (such as resource reservation, mobility,   autoconfiguration, autoregistration, or security) will be included in   the base specification of any IPng candidate.  In order to provide   motivation to migrate to IPng, it will be necessary for IPng   proposals to offer capabilities beyond those already provided IPv4.Reduced costs by using IPng   It is quite unlikely that migration to IPng will result in cost   savings in any organization.  Migration to IPng will certainly result   in an increased need for training and engineering, and hence   increased costs.To gain connectivity to otherwise unreachable IPng hosts   For existing sites with valid IPv4 network assignments, connectivity   is not affected until address depletion occurs.  Systems with   globally-unique IPv4 addresses will have complete connectivity to any   systems since backwards-compatible communication is required of new   IPng hosts.   From the perspective of an existing IPv4 site, IPng provides little   tangible benefit until IPv4 address depletion occurs and   organizations reachable only via IPng appear.  Given the absence of   benefits from migration,  it is uncertain whether a significant base   of IPng sites will be occur prior to IPv4 address depletion.   Sites which are not yet running IP have little motivation to deploy   IPng for the immediate future.  As long as IPv4 network assignments   are available, new sites have an choice to use IPv4 which providesCurran                                                          [Page 2]

RFC 1669          IPng White Paper on Market Viability       August 1994   the sufficient internetworking capabilities (measured in   functionality, cost, and connectivity) for many organizations today.   Given the parity in IPng and IPv4 capabilities, IPv4 (as a more   mature internetworking protocol) is the more probable choice for   organizations just now selecting an internetworking protocol.   Once IPv4 address assignments are no longer available, sites wishing   to participate in the global Internet will have a very difficult   decision in selection of an internetworking protocol.   The current   suite of IPng proposals cannot provide complete internetworking   between IPng-only sites and IPv4-only sites since (by definition)   there will be insufficient space to map all IPng addresses into the   IPv4 address space.  As none of the proposals currently call for   dynamic network address translation (NAT), it is inevitable that   IPng-only sites will have access to a partial set of IPv4 sites at   any given moment.   Internetworking services which do not allow complete access to the   global Internet (IPv4 and IPng in the post-IPv4-address-depletion   world) are clearly not as valuable as services which offer complete   Internet access.  Sites which are unable to obtain IPv4 network   assignments will be seeking Internet services which can provide   complete Internet service.   Additionally, some sites will have   "privately numbered" IPv4 networks and will desire similar Internet   services which provide transparent access to the entire Internet. The   development of network address translation devices and subsequent   services is highly likely under these market conditions.Summary   No internetworking vendor (whether host, router, or service vendor)   can afford to deploy and support products and services which are not   desired in the marketplace.  Given the potential proliferation of   network address translation devices, it is not clear that IPng will   secure sufficient following to attain market viability.  In the past,   we have seen internetworking protocols fail in the marketplace   despite vendor deployment and IPng cannot succeed if it is not   deployed by organizations.  As currently envisioned, IPng may not be   ambitious enough in the delivery of new capabilities to compete   against IPv4 and the inevitable arrival of network address   translation devices.  In order to meet the requirement for "viability   in the marketplace', IPng needs to deliver clearly improved   functionality over IPv4 while offering some form transparent access   between the IPv4 and IPng communities once IPv4 address depletion has   occurred.Curran                                                          [Page 3]

RFC 1669          IPng White Paper on Market Viability       August 1994Security Considerations   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.Author's Address   John Curran   BBN Technology Services, Inc.   10 Moulton Street   Cambridge MA 02138   EMail: jcurran@near.netCurran                                                          [Page 4]