rfc1687.txt

<VC++网络游戏建摸与实现>源代码

       high-bandwidth applications, improved very low-bandwidth (e.g.,
       radio based) applications, standard-TCP/IP-based transaction
       processing applications (e.g., multi-vendor distributed
       databases).

   Only Two Motivations For Users To Deploy IPng

   Despite this list of IPv4 problem areas, we suspect that there are
   only two causes which may motivate users to widely deploy IPng:

      (1) If IPng products add critical functionality which IPv4 can't
      provide (e.g., real time applications, multimedia applications,
      genuine (scalable) plug-and-play networking, etc.), users would be
      motivated to deploy IPng where that functionality is needed.



Fleischman                                                      [Page 9]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994


      However, these deployments must combat the "Integration Factor"
      and the "Inertia Factor" forces which have previously been
      described.  This implies that there must be a significant business
      gain to justify such a deployment.  While it is impossible to
      predict exactly how this conflict would "play out", it is
      reasonable to assume that IPng would probably be deployed
      according to an "as needed only" policy.  Optimally, specific
      steps would be taken to protect the remainder of the network from
      the impact of these localized changes.  Of course, should IPng
      become bundled with "killer applications" (i.e., applications
      which are extremely important to significantly many key business
      processes) then all bets are off:  IPng will become widely
      deployed.  However, it also should be recognized that virtually
      all (initial) IPng applications, unless they happen to be "killer
      applications", will have to overcome significant hurdles to be
      deployed simply because they represent risk and substantially
      increased deployment and support costs for the end user.

      (2) Should IPng foster a convergence between Internet Standards
      and International Standards (i.e., OSI), this convergence could
      change IPng's destiny.  That is, the networks of many large
      corporations are currently being driven by sets of strong, but
      contradictory, requirements:  one set demanding compliance with
      Internet Standards (i.e., TCP/IP) and another set demanding
      compliance with International Standards.  This paper assumes that
      the reader is already familiar with the many reasons why end users
      seek to deploy and use Internet Standards.  The following is a
      partial list as to why End Users may be motivated to use
      International Standards (i.e., OSI) as well:

   A)  World-wide commerce is regulated by governments in accordance
       with their treaties and legal agreements.  World-wide
       telecommunications are regulated by the ITU (a United Nations
       chartered/authorized organization).  International Standards
       (i.e., OSI) are the only government-sanctioned method for
       commercial data communications.  Aspects of this picture are
       currently in the process of changing.

   B)  The currently proprietary aeronautical world-wide air-to-ground
       and ground-to-ground communications are being replaced by an
       OSI-based (CLNP) Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN)
       internet which is being built in a number of different national
       and international forums including:

       *  International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
       *  International Air Transport Association (IATA)
       *  Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC)




Fleischman                                                     [Page 10]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994


       "Civil Aviation Authorities, airlines, and private aircraft will
       use the ATN to convey two major categories of data traffic among
       their computers: Air Traffic Services Communications (ATSC) and
       Aeronautical Industry Services Communication (AISC)." [Note: The
       data communications of airline passengers are not addressed by
       the directive.]

   C)  A corporation's customers may have data communications
       requirements which are levied upon them by the governments in
       which they operate which they, in turn, must support in their
       own products in order to fulfill their customers' needs.  For
       example, Boeing is influenced by existing:

       * Computer Aided Logistics Support (CALS; i.e., these are GOSIP
         (OSI)-based) requirements for US Department of Defense
         contractors.
       * Airline requirements emanating from A and B above.

   D)  The end user perception that once we have deployed
       International Standards we will not subsequently be compelled to
       migrate by external factors to another technology.  Thus, we
       would have a "safe" foundation to concentrate upon our real
       computing issues such as increased customer satisfaction,
       business process flow-time improvements, legacy system
       modernization, and cost avoidance.

   E)  The proposals of entities desiring to obtain contracts with
       Governments are evaluated on many subjective and objective
       bases.  One of the subjective issues may well be the
       "responsibility" and "dependability" of the bidder company
       including such intangibles as its corporate like-mindedness.
       For this reason, as long as the Government has OSI as their
       official standard, the bidder may have a subjective advantage if
       its corporate policy also includes a similar standard,
       particularly if data communications services are being
       negotiated.

   F)  The perception that the need for IPng may imply that IPv4 is
       unfit to be a strategic end user alternative.  Also, IPng is not
       a viable deployment option at this time.

   G)  Doubts concerning IPv4 scalability (e.g., toasternet: an
       algorithmic change in which currently "dumb devices" become
       intelligent and suddenly require Internet connectivity).

   It currently appears that many of these "OSI motivations" are
   undergoing change at this time.  This possibility must be tracked
   with interest.  However, a key point of this section is that a



Fleischman                                                     [Page 11]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994


   corporation must base its data communications decisions upon business
   requirements.  That is, corporations exist to sell products and
   services, not to play "networking games".

   Thus, if a means could be found to achieve greater synergy
   (integration/ adoption) between Internet Standards and International
   Standards then corporate management may be inclined to mandate
   internal deployment of the merged standards and promote their
   external use.  Optimally, such a synergy should offer the promise of
   reducing currently deployed protocol diversity (i.e., supports the
   "Integration Factor" force).  Depending on the specific method by
   which this convergence is achieved, it may also partially offset the
   previously mentioned "Inertia Factor" force, especially if IPng
   proves to be a protocol which has already been deployed.

User-based IPng Requirements

   From the above one can see that a mandate to use IPng to communicate
   over the Internet does not correspondingly imply the need for large
   corporate networks to generally support IPng within their networks.
   Thus, while the IPv4 scalability limitations are a compelling reason
   to identify a specific IPv4 replacement protocol for the Internet,
   other factors are at work within private corporate networks.  These
   factors imply that large TCP/IP end users will have a continuing need
   to purchase IPv4 products even after IPng products have become
   generally available.

   However, since the IETF community is actively engaged in identifying
   an IPng solution, it is desirable that the solution satisfy as many
   end user needs as possible.  For this reason, we would like to
   suggest that the following are important "user requirements" for any
   IPng solution:

   1)  The IPng approach must permit users to slowly transition to IPng
       in a piecemeal fashion.  Even if IPng becomes widely deployed,
       it is unrealistic to expect that users will ever transition all
       of the extensive IPv4 installed base to IPng.  Consequently, the
       approach must indefinitely support corporate-internal
       communication between IPng hosts and IPv4 hosts regardless of
       the requirements of the world-wide Internet.

   2)  The IPng approach must not hinder technological advances from
       being implemented.

   3)  The IPng approach is expected to eventually foster greater
       synergy (integration/adoption) between Internet Standards and
       International Standards (i.e., OSI).  [Note: This may be
       accomplished in a variety of ways including having the Internet



Fleischman                                                     [Page 12]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994


       Standards adopted as International Standards or else having the
       International Standards adopted as Internet Standards.]

   4)  The IPng approach should have "self-defining network" (i.e.,
       "plug & play") capabilities.  That is, large installations
       require device portability in which one may readily move devices
       within one's corporate network and have them autoconfigure,
       autoaddress, autoregister, etc.  without explicit human
       administrative overhead at the new location -- assuming that the
       security criteria of the new location have been met.

   5)  The approach must have network security characteristics which are
       better than existing IPv4 protocols.

Conclusion

   In summary, the key factor which will determine whether -- and to
   what extent -- IPng will be deployed by large end users is whether
   IPng will become an essential element for the construction of
   applications which are critically needed by our businesses.  If IPng
   is bundled with applications which satisfy critical business needs,
   it will be deployed.  If it isn't, it is of little relevance to the
   large end user.  Regardless of what happens to IPng, the large mass
   of IPv4 devices will ensure that IPv4 will remain an important
   protocol for the foreseeable future and that continued development of
   IPv4 products is advisable.

Security Considerations

   Security issues discussed throughout this memo.

Author's Address

   Eric Fleischman
   Network Architect
   Boeing Computer Services
   P.O. Box 24346, MS 7M-HA
   Seattle, WA 98124-0346 USA

   EMail:  [e-mail]











Fleischman                                                     [Page 13]