RFC 1675: Security Concerns for IPng
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
A number of the candidates for IPng have some features that are somewhat worrisome from a security perspective. While it is not necessary that IPng be an improvement over IPv4, it is mandatory that it not make things worse. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC1675
- Published
- August 1994
- Authors
- S. Bellovin
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- Legacy
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 4
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 1674A Cellular Industry View of IPngCurrent
August 1994
- RFC 1676INFN Requirements for an IPngCurrent
August 1994
- RFC 1673Electric Power Research Institute Comments on IPngCurrent
August 1994
- RFC 1677Tactical Radio Frequency Communication Requirements for IPngCurrent
August 1994
- RFC 1672Accounting Requirements for IPngCurrent
August 1994
- RFC 1678IPng Requirements of Large Corporate NetworksCurrent
August 1994
- RFC 1679HPN Working Group Input to the IPng Requirements SolicitationCurrent
August 1994
- RFC 1670Input to IPng Engineering ConsiderationsCurrent
August 1994
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?