Status of this Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract. Design principles play a central role in the architecture of the Internet as driving most engineering decisions at conception level and operational level. This paper is based on the EC Future Internet Architecture (FIArch) Group results and identifies some of the design principles that we expect to govern the future architecture of the Internet. We believe that it may serve as a starting point and comparison for most research and development projects that target the so-called Future Internet Architecture.

No abstract

Standardization activities are recognized as one of the tools to incubate research results and accelerate their transfer to innovative marketable products and services. However, the European Commission (EC) research community and its associated stakeholders acknowledge the lack of research transfer via the standardization channel, generally referred to as the research-tostandardization gap. This chapter analyzes the root causes for this gap and proposes way forward. In particular research-focused standardization is considered as the instrument to address this issue. This chapter shows that prestandardization should be supplemented by a methodology and its associated process aiming to systematically analyze the standardization aspects of research projects and by helping them out to draw their standardization strategy.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how to design an integrated routing architecture for IP and ATM meeting the requirements for a large scale Internet based on IP and ATM. Integration of IP and ATM at the routing level leads us to consider two separate aspects: using a common routing architecture for IP and ATM on one hand (layer integration) and, on the other hand, integrating best-effort and QoS traffic support in the same routing architecture (service integration). The first level of integration is, for obvious reasons, highly recommended. In contrast, we show that the second level of integration is not desirable because best-effort and QoS traffic flows have, in terms of routing, contradictory requirements. To conduct this analysis, we feel that, because of the inherent complexity of the problem, confronting the existing proposals is too restrictive. Instead, we propose to go one step back in the design process and identify the basic design options to be considered when designing a routing architecture. We identify three options, namely, route updating vs. route pinning, hop by hop vs. explicit routing and precomputed routes vs. on-demand route computation. Using this framework, we conclude that best-effort traffic flows are well served by a combination of route updating, hop by hop routing and pre-computed routes while QoS flow routing is built on route pinning, explicit routing and on-demand route computation.