RFC 1726: Technical Criteria for Choosing IP The Next Generation (IPng)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This RFC specifies criteria related to mobility for consideration in design and selection of the Next Generation of IP. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC1726
- Published
- December 1994
- Authors
- C. Partridge; F. Kastenholz
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- Legacy
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 31
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 1719A Direction for IPngCurrent
December 1994
- RFC 1753IPng Technical Requirements Of the Nimrod Routing and Addressing ArchitectureCurrent
December 1994
- RFC 1715The H Ratio for Address Assignment EfficiencyUpdated
November 1994
- RFC 1707CATNIP: Common Architecture for the InternetCurrent
October 1994
- RFC 1752The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation ProtocolCurrent
January 1995
- RFC 3194The H-Density Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency An Update on the H ratioCurrent
November 2001
- RFC 2460Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) SpecificationObsoleted
December 1998
- RFC 8200Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) SpecificationUpdated
July 2017
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?