Guidelines for the use of Internet-IP addresses in the ISO Connectionless-Mode Network Protocol
RFC 1069

Document Type RFC - Unknown (February 1989; No errata)
Obsoletes RFC 986
Last updated 2013-03-02
Stream Legacy
Formats plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Legacy state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state RFC 1069 (Unknown)
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          R. Callon
Request for Comments: 1069                                           DEC
Obsoletes: RFC 986                                            H.W. Braun
                                                           February 1989

         Guidelines for the use of Internet-IP addresses in the
                ISO Connectionless-Mode Network Protocol

Status of This Memo

   This RFC suggests an addressing scheme for use with the ISO
   Connectionless Network Protocol (CLNP) in the Internet.  This is a
   solution to one of the problems inherent in the use of "ISO-grams" in
   the Internet.  This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the Internet
   community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   This memo is a revision of RFC 986.  Changes were made in order to
   allow the addressing used in the CLNP in the Internet to be
   potentially useful for routing in the context of new inter- and
   intra-domain routing protocols, and in the context of large numbers
   of networks and routing domains.  The addressing scheme proposed in
   this RFC allows individual routing domains to make use of internal
   routing algorithms utilizing a variety of addressing formats, while
   still providing for a common addressing approach for use by inter-
   domain routing.  These features are important due to the rapid growth
   currently being experienced in the Internet.

1.  Objectives

   The data communications protocols currently emerging out of the
   international standardization efforts warrant an early integration
   into the existing extensive Internet network infrastructure.  The two
   possible approaches are a top-down one, where ISO applications like
   FTAM, X.400 and VTP are integrated on top of the transport function
   of the IP protocol suite, or a bottom-up approach where the whole ISO
   tower gets integrated without merging the two suites.  The bottom-up
   approach may make use of the fact that the ISO-CLNP and the IP are
   very similar in function.  This implies that it is reasonable to
   implement a multiprotocol function in some or all of the Internet
   gateways (potentially including part or all of the Internet
   environment).  The result would be that at least large portions of
   the Internet, in particular the backbones, can become usable for full
   implementations of the ISO protocol stack.

   A major problem with this approach is that there are open issues with

Callon & Braun                                                  [Page 1]
RFC 1069                   IP ISO Addressing               February 1989

   regard to the ISO addressing within the CLNP.  In particular, the ISO
   network layer addressing standard allows a great deal of flexibility
   in the assignment of addresses, and a particular address format must
   be chosen.  A further problem is the need for implementation and
   integration of routing facilities for the ISO-compatible subset of
   the Internet environment.

   This paper proposed to use addresses which are considerably more
   flexible than the addresses used in the current IP Internet
   environment.  This flexibility is necessary in order to allow some
   routing domains to base their internal routing protocol on addresses
   derived from the current IP addresses, to allow other routing domains
   to base routing on addresses in accordance to the intra-domain
   routing protocol being developed by ANSI and ISO [6], and to allow
   generality for a future inter-domain routing protocol.

   The addressing scheme proposed here makes use of the concept of
   "routing domains" as used in ANSI and ISO.  This concept is similar
   to, but not identical with, the concept of "Autonomous System" used
   in the Internet.  Routing domains include a combination of gateways,
   networks, and end systems (not just gateways), and routing domain
   boundaries may be used to define associated access control and policy
   routing constraints.  Like autonomous systems, routing domains may be
   assumed to be topologically contiguous.  There is no a priori reason
   why routing domains assigned for use with the ISO IP need to have any
   particular relation with existing autonomous systems which have been
   assigned for use with the IP.  The assignment of specific routing
   domain identifiers is an "assigned numbers" function which is
   necessary for use of the ISO IP in the Internet, but is beyond the
   scope of this document.

   It is expected that this addressing scheme will be appropriate for
   long term use with the ISO IP in the Internet.  However, it is also
   expected that in the long term, the Internet will be interconnected
   with other routing domains making use of other schemes, such as
   addresses assigned to commercial internets through ANSI, and
   addresses assigned by national standards organizations in other
Show full document text