doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 1341 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1015.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1015.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fde8b24
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1015.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1341 @@
+Network Working Group                                   Barry M. Leiner
+Request for Comments:  1015                                       RIACS
+                                                              July 1987
+
+
+         Implementation Plan for Interagency Research Internet
+
+STATUS OF THIS MEMO
+
+    The RFC proposes an Interagency Research Internet as the natural
+    outgrowth of the current Internet.  This is an "idea paper" and
+    discussion is strongly encouraged.  Distribution of this memo is
+    unlimited.
+
+OVERVIEW
+
+    Networking has become widespread in the scientific community, and
+    even more so in the computer science community. There are networks
+    being supported by a number of the Federal agencies interested in
+    scientific research, and many scientists throughout the country have
+    access to one or more of these networks. Furthermore, there are many
+    resources (such as supercomputers) that are accessible via these
+    networks.
+
+    While many of these networks are interconnected on an informal
+    basis, there is currently no consistent mechanism to allow sharing
+    of the networking resources. Recognizing this problem, the FCCSET
+    Committee on Very High Performance Computing formed a Network
+    Working Group. This group has recommended an administrative and
+    management structure for interconnecting the current and planned
+    agency networks supporting research.  The structure is based on the
+    concept of a network of networks using standard networking
+    protocols.
+
+    This report elaborates on the earlier recommendation and provides an
+    implementation plan. It addresses three major areas; communications
+    infrastructure, user support, and ongoing research. A management and
+    administrative structure is recommended for each area, and a
+    budgetary estimate provided.  A phased approach for implementation
+    is suggested that will quickly provide interconnection and lead to
+    the full performance and functionality as the required technologies
+    are developed and installed.  While this report addresses the
+    interconnection of agency networks, and cooperation by certain
+    federal agencies, some discussion is presented of the possible role
+    that industry can play in support and use of such a network.
+
+    Work reported herein was supported by Cooperative Agreement NCC 2-
+    387 from the National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration (NASA) to
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                          [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    the Universities Space Research Association (USRA). This report was
+    prepared in response to a request from John Cavallini, Chairman of
+    the Networking Working Group of the FCCSET Committee on Very High
+    Performance Computing.
+
+INTRODUCTION
+
+    Computer networks are critical in providing scientists access to
+    computing resources (such as supercomputers) and permitting computer
+    supported interaction between researchers.  Several agencies,
+    recognizing this need, have established networks to provide the
+    needed communications infrastructure.  The need for this
+    infrastructure, though, cuts across the various agencies. To that
+    end, the FCCSET Committee on Very High Performance Computing Network
+    Working Group has recommended the formation of an Interagency
+    Research Internet (IRI) [1].
+
+    The purpose of this report is to suggest an implementation plan for
+    such an IRI. It addresses three major areas; communications
+    infrastructure, user support, and ongoing research. A management and
+    administrative structure is recommended for each area, and a
+    budgetary estimate provided. A phased approach for implementation is
+    suggested that will quickly provide interconnection and lead to the
+    full performance and functionality as the required technologies are
+    developed and installed. Finally, some discussion is presented on a
+    possible role for industry in supporting and using such a network.
+
+Motivation
+
+    The prime responsibility for providing the required infrastructure
+    for successful research lies with the researcher, his/her
+    institution, and the agency supporting that research.  Thus, the
+    individual agencies have installed and are continuing to enhance
+    computer networks to allow their researchers to access advanced
+    computing resources such as supercomputers as well as being able to
+    communicate with each other via such facilities as electronic mail.
+
+    However, there are a number of reasons why it is advantageous to
+    interconnect the various agency networks in a coherent manner so as
+    to provide a common "virtual" network supporting research.
+
+    The need to make effective use of available networks without
+    unnecessary duplication.  The agencies each support researchers in
+    many parts of the country, and have installed equally widespread
+    resources. Often, it is more effective for a scientist to be
+    provided networking service through a different agency network than
+    the one funding his research. For example, suppose several
+    scientists at an institution are already being funded by NASA and
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                          [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    are connected to a NASA supported network. Now a scientist at the
+    same institution but supported by NSF needs access to an NSF
+    supercomputer. It is much more effective to provide that
+    connectivity through an interconnection of NASA and NSF networks
+    than to establish another connection (to NSFnet) to the same
+    university.
+
+    The need to establish communication infrastructure to permit
+    scientists to access resources without regard to which network they
+    are connected but without violating access controls on either the
+    networks or the resources. A scientist may be supported by multiple
+    agencies, and therefore have access to resources provided by several
+    agencies. It is not cost-effective to have to provide a separate
+    network connection to the scientist for each of those agency
+    resources.
+
+    The need for a communications infrastructure to encourage
+    collaborative scientific research. One of the primary functions of a
+    computer network supporting science is the encouraging of
+    collaboration between researchers.  Scientific disciplines typically
+    cut across many different agencies. Thus, support of this
+    collaboration should be without regard to agency affiliation or
+    support of the scientists involved.
+
+    The need for a cooperative research and development program to
+    evolve and enhance the IRI and its components where appropriate.
+    Scientific research is highly demanding of both the computing and
+    networking environment. To assure that these needs continue to be
+    met, it is necessary to continually advance the state of the art in
+    networking, and apply the results to the research networks.  No
+    individual agency can  afford to support the required research
+    alone, nor is it desirable to have inordinate duplication of
+    research.
+
+Summary of previous report
+
+    These reasons led to the formation of the FCCSET Commitee on Very
+    High Performance Computing and its Network Working Group. This group
+    began in early 1985 to discuss the possibility of interconnecting
+    into a common networking facility the various agency networks
+    supporting scientific research. These discussions led to the report
+    issued earlier this year [1] recommending such an approach.
+
+    The report used the "Network of Networks" or Internet model of
+    interconnection.  Using a standard set of protocols, the various
+    networks can be connected to provide a common set of user services
+    across heterogenous networks and heterogenous host computers [2,
+    3,4]. This approach is discussed further in the Background section
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                          [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    below.
+
+    The report goes on to recommend an administrative and management
+    structure that matches the technical approach.  Each agency would
+    continue to manage and administer its individual networks. An
+    interagency body would provide direction to a selected organization
+    who would provide the management and operation of the
+    interconnections of the networks and the common user services
+    provided over the network. This selected organization would also
+    provide for coordination of research activities, needed
+    developments, and reflecting research community requirements into
+    the national and  international standards activities.
+
+Overview of Implementation Plan
+
+    The general structure of the proposed IRI is analogous to a federal
+    approach. Each of the agencies is responsible for operating its own
+    networks and satisfying its users' requirements. The IRI provides
+    the interconnecting infrastructure to permit the users on one
+    network to access resources or users on other networks. The IRI also
+    provides a set of standards and services which the individual
+    agencies, networks, and user communities can exploit in providing
+    capabilities to their individual users.  The management structure,
+    likewise, provides a  mechanism by which the individual agencies can
+    cooperate without interfering with the agencies' individual
+    authorities or responsibilities.
+
+    In this report, an implementation plan for the IRI is proposed.
+    First, some background is given of the previous efforts to provide
+    networks in support of research, and the genesis of those networks.
+    A description of the suggested approach to attaining an IRI is then
+    given. This description is divided into two sections; technical and
+    management. The technical approach consists of two components. First
+    is the provision of an underlying communications infrastructure;
+    i.e. a means for providing connectivity between the various
+    computers and workstations.  Second is provision of the means for
+    users to make effective use of that infrastructure in support of
+    their research.
+
+    The management section elaborates on the suggestions made in the
+    FCCSET committee report.  A structure is suggested that allows the
+    various agencies to cooperate in the operations, maintenance,
+    engineering, and research activities required for the IRI.  This
+    structure also provides the necessary mechanisms for the scientific
+    research community to provide input with respect to requirements and
+    approaches.
+
+    Finally, a phased implementation plan is presented which would allow
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                          [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    the IRI to be put in place rapidly with modest funding.  A budgetary
+    estimate is also provided.
+
+BACKGROUND
+
+    The combination of packet switched computer networks,
+    internetworking to allow heterogeneous computers to communicate over
+    heterogeneous networks, the widespread use of local area networks,
+    and the availability of workstations and supercomputers has given
+    rise to the opportunity to provide greatly improved computing
+    capabilities to science and engineering. This is the major
+    motivation behind the IRI.
+
+History of Research Network
+
+    The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) developed the
+    concept of packet switching beginning in the mid 1960's.  Beginning
+    with the Arpanet (the world's first packet switched network) [5],a
+    number of networks have been developed. These have included packet
+    satellite networks [6,7], packet radio networks [8,7], and local
+    area networks [9].
+
+    Although the original motivation for the Arpanet development was
+    computer resource sharing, it was apparent early on that a major use
+    of such networks would be for access to computer resources and
+    interaction between users [10].  Following the Arpanet development,
+    a number of other networks have been developed and used to provide
+    both of these functions [11]. CSNET was initiated to provide
+    communications between computer science researchers [12,13].  CSNET
+    was initiated by the NSF in cooperation with a number of
+    universities, but is now self-sufficient.   Its subscribers include
+    universities throughout the world as well as industrial members
+    interested in interacting with computer scientists.
+
+    CSNET makes use of a number of networking technologies including the
+    Arpanet, public X.25 networks, and dial-up connections over phone
+    lines, to support electronic mail and other networking functions. In
+    addition to the basic data transport service, CSNET and Arpanet
+    operate network information centers which provide help to users of
+    the network as well as a number of services including a listing of
+    users with their mail addresses (white pages) and a repository where
+    relevant documents are stored and can be retrieved.
+
+    With the installation of supercomputers came the desire to provide
+    network access for researchers.  One of the early networks to
+    provide this capability was MFEnet [11].  It was established in the
+    early 1970's to provide DOE-supported users access to
+    supercomputers, particularly a Cray 1 at Lawrence Livermore National
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                          [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    Labs. Because MFEnet was established prior to widespread adoption of
+    the TCP/IP protocol suite (to be discussed below), the MFEnet uses a
+    different set of protocols. However, interfaces have been developed
+    between the MFEnet and other networks, and a migration plan is
+    currently under development.
+
+    NASA Ames Research Center has long been in the forefront of using
+    advanced computers to support scientific research.  The latest
+    computing facility, the Numerical Aerodynamic Simulator, uses a Cray
+    2 and other machines along  with a number of networking technologies
+    to provide support to computational fluid dynamics researchers [14].
+    This system uses the TCP/IP protocol suite both locally and remotely
+    and provides easy access through advanced workstations.
+
+    Recognizing the importance of advanced computers in carrying out
+    scientific research, NSF in 1984 embarked on an ambitious program to
+    provide supercomputer access to researchers. This program involved
+    both the provision of supercomputers themselves (through purchase of
+    computer time initially, and establishment of supercomputer centers)
+    and provision of access to those supercomputers through an extensive
+    networking program, NSFnet [15]. The NSFnet uses a number of
+    existing networks (e.g. Arpanet, BITNET, MFEnet) and exploratory
+    networks interconnected using the TCP/IP protocol suite (discussed
+    below) to permit scientists widespread access to the supercomputer
+    centers and each other. The NSFnet is also taking advantage of the
+    widespread installation of campus and regional networks to achieve
+    this connectivity in a cost effective manner.
+
+    The above are only a small number of the current and existing
+    networks being used to support research.  Quarterman [11] provides a
+    good synopsis of the networks currently in operation. It is obvious
+    from this that effective interconnection of the networks can provide
+    cost-efficient and reliable services.
+
+    Starting in the early 1970's, recognizing that the military had a
+    need to interconnect various networks (such as packet radio for
+    mobile operation with long-line networks like the Arpanet), DARPA
+    initiated the development of the internet technologies [16].
+    Beginning with the development of the protocols for interconnection
+    and reliable transport (TCP/IP), the program  has developed methods
+    for providing electronic mail, remote login, file transfer and
+    similar functions between differing computers over dissimilar
+    networks [4,3].  Today, using that technology, thousands of
+    computers are able to communicate with each other over a "virtual
+    network" of approximately 200 networks using a common set of
+    protocols. The concepts developed are being used in the reference
+    model and protocols of the Open Systems Interconnection model being
+    developed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) [17].
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                          [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    This is becoming even more important with the widespread use of
+    local area networks.  As institutions install their own networks,
+    and need to establish communications with computers at other sites,
+    it is important to have a common set of protocols and a means for
+    interconnecting the local networks to wide area networks.
+
+Internet Model
+
+    The DARPA Internet system uses a naming and addressing protocol,
+    called the Internet Protocol (IP), to interconnect networks into a
+    single virtual network. Figure 1 shows the interconnection of a
+    variety of networks into the Internet system.  The naming and
+    addressing structure allows any computer on any network to address
+    in a uniform manner any computer on any other network. Special
+    processors, called Gateways, are installed at the interfaces between
+    two or more networks and provide both routing amongst the various
+    networks as well as the appropriate translation from internet
+    addresses to the address required for the attached networks. Thus,
+    packets of data can flow between computers on the internet.
+
+    Because of the possiblity of packet loss or errors, the Transmission
+    Control Protocol (TCP) is used above the IP to provide for
+    reliability and sequencing. TCP together with IP and the various
+    networks and gateways then provides for reliable and ordered
+    delivery of data between computers. A  variety of functions can use
+    this connection to provide service to the users. A summary of the
+    functions provided by the current internet system is given in [4].
+
+    To assure interoperability between military users of the system, the
+    Office of the Secretary of Defense mandated the use of the TCP/IP
+    protocol suite wherever there is a need for interoperable packet
+    switched communications. This led to the standardization of the
+    protocols [18, 19, 20, 21, 22].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                          [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    +---+   +---+      +---+                   +---+  +---+ +---+
+    | FS|   | SC|      | SC|                   | SC|  | SC| | SC|
+    +-+-+   +-+-+      +-+-+                   +-+-+  +-+-+ +-+-+
+      |       |          |                       |      |     |
+    --+-------+-----+-----+-------+--LAN--     --+------+-+---+----LAN--
+      |       |     |     |       |                       |
+    +-+--+  +-+--+ +-+--+ +-+--+  |                       |
+    | WS |  | WS | | WS | | WS |  |                       |
+    +-+--+  +-+--+ +-+--+ +-+--+  |                       |
+                               +-+-+                    +-+-+
+                               | G |                    | G |
+                               +-+-+                    +-+-+
+                                 |                        |
+                         +--------------+         +--------------+
+                         |  Agency      |  +-+-+  |    Agency    |
+                         |  Network     |--| G |--|    Network   |
+                         +------+-------+  +---+  +------+-----+-+
+                                |                        |     |
+                              +-+-+                    +-+-+   |
+                              | G |                    | G |   |
+                              +-+-+                    +-+-+   |
+                               /                        /    +-------+
+                              /                        /     |  TS   |
+                             /                        /      +-+-----+
+                     +--------------+        +--------------+ | |...|
+                     |  Regional    |        | Commercial   | T T   T
+                     |   Network    |        |  Network     |
+                     +-----+--------+        +------+-------+
+                           |                        |
+                         +-+-+                      |
+                         | G |                      |
+                         +-+-+                      |
+                           |                      +-+-+
+                           |                      | H |
+                           |                      +---+
+    ----+------+-----+-----+------LAN----
+        |      |     |     |
+    +-+--+ +-+--+ +-+--+ +-+--+        +-------------------------+
+    | WS | | WS | | WS | | WS |        | H  - Host               |
+    +-+--+ +-+--+ +-+--+ +-+--+        | WS - Workstation        |
+                                       | SC - Supercomputer      |
+                                       | TS - Terminal Server    |
+                                       | FS - File Server        |
+                                       | G  - Gateway            |
+                                       +-------------------------+
+
+                            Figure 1: Internet System
+
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                          [Page 8]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    Thus, the TCP/IP protocol suite and associated mechanisms (e.g.
+    gateways) provides a way to interconnect heterogeneous computers on
+    heterogenous networks. Routing and addressing functions are taken
+    care of automatically and transparently to the users.The ISO is
+    currently developing a set of standards for interconnection which
+    are very similar in function to the DARPA developed technologies.
+    Although ISO is making great strides, and the  National Bureau of
+    Standards is working with a set of manufacturers to develop and
+    demonstrate these standards,  the TCP/IP protocol suite still
+    represents the most available and tested technology for
+    interconnection of computers and networks. It is for that reason
+    that several agencies/programs, including the Department of Defense,
+    NSF and NASA/NAS, have all adopted the TCP/IP suite as the most
+    viable set of standards currently. As the international standards
+    mature, and products supporting them appear, it can be expected that
+    the various networks will switch to using those standards.
+
+TECHNICAL APPROACH
+
+    The Internet technology described above provides the basis for
+    interconnection of the various agency networks. The means to
+    interconnect must satisfy a number of constraints if it is to be
+    viable in a multi-agency environment.
+
+    Each agency must retain control of its own networks. Networks have
+    been established to support agency-specific missions as well as
+    general computer communications within the agency and its
+    contractors. To assure that these missions continue to be supported
+    appropriately, as well as assure appropriate accountability for the
+    network operation, the mechanism for interconnection must not
+    prevent the agencies from retaining control over their individual
+    networks.
+
+    This is not to say that agencies may not choose to have their
+    individual networks operated by the IRI, or even turned over to the
+    IRI if they determine that to be appropriate.
+
+    Appropriate access control, privacy, and accounting mechanisms must
+    be incorporated. This includes access control to data, resources,
+    and the networks themselves, privacy of user data, and accounting
+    mechanisms to support both cost allocation and cost auditing [23].
+
+    The technical and adminstrative approach must allow (indeed
+    encourage) the incorporation of evolving technologies. In
+    particular, the network must evolve towards provision of high
+    bandwidth, type of service routing, and other advanced techniques to
+    allow effective use of new computing technology in a distributed
+    research environment.
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                          [Page 9]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+Communications Infrastructure
+
+    The communications infrastructure provides connectivity between user
+    machines, workstations, and centralized resources such as
+    supercomputers and database machines. This roughly corresponds to
+    communications services at and below the transport layer in the ISO
+    OSI reference model.  There are two different types of networks. The
+    first are local networks, meaning those which are internal to a
+    facility, campus, etc. The second are networks which provide transit
+    service between facilities. These transit networks can connect
+    directly to computers, but are evolving in a direction of connecting
+    local networks. The networks supported by the individual agencies
+    directly are mainly in the category of transit (or long-haul)
+    networks, as they typically provide nationwide connectivity, and
+    usually leave communications within a facility to be dealt with by
+    the facility itself. The IRI communications infrastructure thus
+    deals mainly with the interconnection of transit networks.
+
+    The internet model described above provides a simple method for
+    interconnecting transit networks (as well as local networks.)  By
+    using IP gateways between the agency networks, packet transport
+    service can be provided between computers on any of the various
+    networks. The placement of the gateways and their capacity will have
+    to be determined by an initial engineering study. In addition, as
+    the IRI evolves, it may be cost-effective to install one or more
+    wide area networks (or designate certain existing ones) to be IRI
+    transit networks, to be used by all agencies on a cost  sharing
+    basis. Thus, the IRI communications infrastructure would consist of
+    the interconnecting gateways plus any networks used specifically as
+    transit networks. Using IP as the standard for interconnection of
+    networks and global addressing provides a common virtual network
+    packet transport service, upon which can be built various other
+    network services such as file transfer and electronic mail.  This
+    will allow sharing of the communication facilities (channels,
+    satellites, etc.) between the various user/agency communities in a
+    cost effective manner.
+
+    To assure widespread interconnectivity, it is important that
+    standards be adopted for use in the IRI and the various computers
+    connected to it. These standards need to cover not only the packet
+    transport capability but must address all the services required for
+    networking in a scientific domain, including but not limited to file
+    transfer, remote login, and electronic  mail.  Ultimately it is
+    desirable to move towards a single set of standards for the various
+    common services, and the logical choice for those standards are
+    those being developed in the international commercial community
+    (i.e. the ISO standards).  However, many of the scientific networks
+    today use one or more of a small number of different standards; in
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 10]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    particular the TCP/IP protocol suite mentioned above, the MFEnet
+    protocols, and DECNET. As the international standards mature, it is
+    expected that the number of communities using the same protocol
+    suite will grow [5] [6].  Even today, several of the
+    agencies/communities are using a common protocol suite, namely the
+    TCP/IP suite. All the users connected to those computers and
+    networks are able to have the full functions of an interoperable
+    networking capability. And therefore the ability of the users to
+    share resources and results will increase.
+
+User Services
+
+    In order that scientists can effectively use the network, there
+    needs to be a user support organization.  To maximize the cost
+    effectiveness of the overall IRI, the local user support personnel
+    must be used effectively.  In particular, it is anticipated that
+    direct support of users/researchers would be provided by local
+    support personnel. The IRI user support organization would provide
+    support to those local support personnel in areas where nationwide
+    common service is cost effective.
+
+    In particular, the this organization has several functions:  assist
+    the local support personnel in the installation of facilities
+    compatible with the IRI, provide references to standard facilities
+    (e.g. networking interfaces, mail software) to the local support
+    personnel, answer questions that local personnel are not able to
+    answer, aid in the provision of specific user community services,
+    e.g.  database of relevance to specific scientific domain.
+
+Internet Research Coordination
+
+    To evolve internet to satisfy new scientific requirements and make
+    use of new technology, research is required in several areas.  These
+    include high speed networking, type of service routing, new end to
+    end protocols,  and congestion control.  The IRI organizational
+    structure can assist in identifying areas of research where the
+    various agencies have a common interest in supporting in order to
+    evolve the network, and then assist in the coordination of that
+    research.
+
+MANAGEMENT APPROACH
+
+    A management approach is required that will allow each agency to
+    retain control of its own networking assets while sharing certain
+    resources with users sponsored by other agencies.  To accomplish
+    this, the following principles and constraints need to be followed.
+
+    IRI consists of the infrastructure to connect agency networks and
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 11]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    the user services required for effective use of the combined
+    networks and resources.
+
+    An organization must be identified to be responsible for the
+    engineering, operation, and maintenance of both the interconnecting
+    infrastructure and the user services support.
+
+    While some agencies may choose to make use of IRI facilities and
+    contractors to manage their individual agency networks, this would
+    not be required and is not anticipated to be the normal situation.
+    Any such arrangement would have  to be negotiated individually and
+    directly between the agency and the IRI operations organization.
+    Normally, the IRI organization would neither manage the individual
+    agency networks nor have any jurisdiction within such networks.
+
+    Gateways that interconnect the agency networks as well as any long-
+    haul networks put in place specifically as jointly supported transit
+    networks (if any such networks are required) will be managed and
+    operated under the IRI organization.
+
+    A support organization for common IRI services is required.  The
+    principal clients for these services would be the local support
+    personnel.
+
+    The IRI structure should support the coordination of the individual
+    research activities required for evolution and enhancement of the
+    IRI.
+
+General Management Structure
+
+    Figure 2 shows the basic management structure for the IRI.  It is
+    based on the use of a non-profit organization (call it the
+    Interagency Research Internet Organization, IRIO) to manage both the
+    communications infrastructure and user support. The IRIO contracts
+    for the engineering, development, operations, and maintenance of
+    those services with various commercial and other organizations. It
+    would be responsible for providing technical and administrative
+    management of the contractors providing these functions. Having the
+    IRI operational management provided by an independent non-profit
+    organization skilled in the area of computer networking will permit
+    the flexibility required to deal with the evolving and changing
+    demands of scientific networking in a cost-effective manner.
+
+    Direction and guidance for the IRIO will be provided by a Policy
+    Board consisting of representatives from the Government agencies who
+    are funding the IRI. The Chairman of the Board will be selected from
+    the agency representatives on a rotating basis. The Board will also
+    have an Executive Director to provide administrative and other
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 12]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    support. To provide effective support for the IRI Policy Board as
+    well as assure appropriate coordination with the IRIO, the Executive
+    Director shall be the Director of the IRIO.
+
+    To assure that the IRI provides the best support possible to the
+    scientific research community, the Policy Board will be advised by a
+    Technical Advisory Board (TAB) consisting of representatives from
+    the network research and engineering community, the various networks
+    being interconnected with the IRI, and the scientific user
+    community.  Members of the TAB will be selected by the Policy Board.
+    The TAB will review the operational support of science being
+    provided by the IRI and suggest directions for improvement. The TAB
+    will interface directly with the IRIO to review the operational
+    status and plans for the future, and recommend to the Policy Board
+    any changes in priorities or directions.
+
+    Research activities related to the use and evolution of the internet
+    system will be coordinated by the Internet Research Activities Board
+    (IRAB). The IRAB consists of the chairmen of the research task
+    forces (see below) and has as ex-officio members technical r
+    representatives from the funding agencies  and the IRIO.  The
+    charter of the IRAB is to identify required directions for research
+    to improve the IRI, and recommend such directions to the funding
+    agencies. In addition, the IRAB will continually review ongoing
+    research activities and identify how they can be exploited to
+    improve the IRI.
+
+    The Research Task Forces will each be concerned with a particular
+    area/emphasis of research (e.g. end-to-end protocols, gateway
+    architectures, etc.). Members will be active researchers in the
+    field and the chairman an expert in the area with a broad
+    understanding of research both in that area and the general internet
+    (and its use for scientific research). The chairmen of the task
+    forces will be selected by IRAB, and thus the IRAB will be a self-
+    elected and governing organization representing the networking
+    research community. The chairmen will solicit the members of the
+    task force as volunteers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 13]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
++------+    +------+    +------+    +------+     ....   +------+
+|DARPA |    |  NSF |    | DOE  |    | NASA |            |Others|
++--+---+    +--+---+    +--+---+    +--+---+            +--+---+
+   |           |           |           |                   |
+   +--+--------+-----------+----+------+-------------------+
+      |                         |                    +------------+
+      | Funding                 | Representatives    |  Scientific|
+      |                         |                    |  Research  |
+      V                         V                    |  Community |
++-------------+              +-------------+         +----------+-+
+|  Selecting  |     Policy   |    Policy   |                    |
+|  Contracting|<-------------+    Board    |    Advice          |
+|  Agency     |           +->|             |<------------+      |
++-----+-------+           |  +------+------+             |      |
+      |Funding            |         |Management      +------+<--+
+      |   Advice and Plans|         |                |  TAB |<-------+
+      |   +---------------+         V                +------+<---- + |
+      |   |                   +------------+            ^ ^        | |
+      +---|------------------>|            | Interaction| |        | |
+          |                   |    IRIO    |<-----------+ |        | |
+          |    +------------->|            |<-----------+ |        | |
+          |    | Interaction  +-----+------+ Interaction| |        | |
+          |    |                    |                   V |        | |
+          |    |        +-----------+----------+    +------------+ | |
+          |    |        |Management |  Funding |    | Constituent| | |
+          |    |        |           |          |    | Networks   | | |
+          V    V        V           V          V    +------------+ | |
+        +-------+    +--------+ +--------+  +-----------+          | |
+        | IRAB  |    |Network | |  User  |  |   Other   |          | |
+        +-------+    |  O&M   | |Services|  |Contractors|          | |
+            |        +----+---+ +---+----+  +-----+-----+          | |
+            |             |         |             |                | |
+            |             +---------+-------------+----------------+ |
+            |                                                        |
+            +-----------------+--------------------+                 |
+            |Chair            |Chair               |Chair            |
+            V                 V                    V                 |
+       +----------+        +----------+       +----------+           |
+       |TASK FORCE|        |TASK FORCE|  .... |TASK FORCE|           |
+       +----------+        +----------+       +----------+           |
+            ^                  ^                 ^                   |
+            |                  |                 |                   |
+            V                  V                 V                   |
+           +--------------------------------------+                  |
+           |      Network Research Community      |------------------+
+           +--------------------------------------+
+
+                   Figure 2:  IRI Management Structure
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 14]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+Funding
+
+    In this section, the funding of the IRI is described. Recall that
+    the IRI consists of the infrastructure to connect the agency
+    networks and the services required for users to make effective use
+    of such an infrastructure. These costs are divided into two
+    categories; operations costs and research costs. The operations
+    costs are those to operate and maintain both the communications
+    infrastructure and the user services.  These costs must be shared
+    between the various agencies and channeled to the IRIO to operate
+    the IRI. The research costs are those used to carry out the needed
+    research to evolve the IRI. These costs are handled within the
+    various agency budgets and used to support research in each agency
+    with coordination between the agencies.
+
+Operations Cost
+
+    Each participating agency will contribute a share of operations cost
+    of IRI. Initially, each agency will contribute an equal share.
+    Later, perhaps, the agency contributions will be adjusted according
+    to a number of factors such as number of users, amount of traffic,
+    type of support required (high bandwidth real time versus low
+    bandwidth mail for example).
+
+    To facilitate the funding and administration of the IRI, one agency
+    will be selected to manage the contract with IRIO. All funds will
+    flow through that agency to the IRIO via interagency transfer. The
+    role of the selected agency would be to provide the needed
+    contractual activities and adminstrative management. Technical
+    guidance and monitoring of IRIO activities would be provided by the
+    IRI Policy Board.
+
+    It is not yet clear which Federal agency is best for this role.  The
+    requirements for such an agency include the ability to deal flexibly
+    with the evolving requirements of the IRI, to deal with funding
+    flowing from the various agencies, and to deal flexibly with the
+    various agency technical representatives and incorporate their
+    recommendations into the contract as required. One of the first
+    activities required for the Policy Board would be to select an
+    appropriate funding agency.
+
+    All operations and maintenance funding for the IRI will flow through
+    the IRIO to selected contractors. This allows centralized management
+    of the operation of the IRI.
+
+    There are two major assumptions underlying the budgetary estimates
+    to follow.  First of all, the IRIO should maintain a fairly low
+    profile with respect to the end users (i.e. the scientists and
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 15]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    researchers). That is, the users will interact directly with their
+    local support personnel.  The IRIO will act as facilitator and
+    coordinator, and provide facilities, information and help services
+    to the local sites. This will allow the IRIO to remain relatively
+    small, as it will not need to deal directly with the thousands of
+    scientists/users.
+
+    Second, it is assumed that the operations budget supports the
+    interconnection of agency networks as well as transit networking
+    where required, but does not include costs of the individual agency
+    networks.
+
+    Appendix A provides details of the budgetary estimate. Table 1 gives
+    a summary. Note that the initial year has a higher expenditure of
+    capital equipment, reflecting the need to purchase both the gateways
+    needed for initial interconnection and the needed facilities to
+    provide the operation of the gateways and the user services.
+    Operations costs are expected to grow by inflation while the capital
+    costs should remain constant (decrease when inflation is considered)
+    as the IRI is stabilized.
+
+Research Costs
+
+    In addition to the costs of operating and maintaining the
+    communications infrastructure and user services, funding must be
+    allocated to support an ongoing program of research to improve and
+    evolve the IRI.
+
+    While each agency funds its own research program, the intent is that
+    the various programs are coordinated through the IRI Policy Board.
+    Likewise,  while it is not intended that funds shall be combined or
+    joint funding of projects is required, such joint activity can be
+    done on an individual arrangement basis.
+
+    Each agency agrees, as part of the joint IRI activity, to fund an
+    appropriate level of networking research in areas applicable to IRI
+    evolution. The total funding required is currently estimated to be
+    four million dollars in FY87, growing by inflation in the outyears.
+    Details of this budgetary estimate are provided in Appendix A.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 16]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+              +--------------------------------------------------+
+              |                    Table 1                       |
+              |                                                  |
+              |           Annual IRI Operations Budget           |
+              +----------+-------------+------------+------------+
+              | Fiscal   |   Capital   |    O & M   |   Total    |
+              |  Year    |    Cost     |    Cost    |            |
+              |          |             |            |            |
+              |          |   ($M)      |    ($M)    |   ($M)     |
+              +----------+-------------+------------+------------+
+              |  1987    |      2      |      8     |    10      |
+              +----------+-------------+------------+------------+
+              |  1988    |      1      |      9     |    10      |
+              +----------+-------------+------------+------------+
+              |  1989    |      1      |     10     |    11      |
+              +--------------------------------------------------+
+              |  1990    |      1      |     11     |    12      |
+              +--------------------------------------------------+
+              |  1991    |      1      |     12     |    13      |
+              +--------------------------------------------------+
+
+PHASED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
+
+    The long-term goal of the IRI activity is to put in place a
+    functional high-performance network available to scientists across
+    the nation. To accomplish this goal, a steady evolution of
+    capability is envisioned.  This phased approach involves both
+    technical and administrative aspects.
+
+Technical Phasing
+
+    Currently, networks are being supported by a number of agencies as
+    discussed in Section 2. Many are using the DoD protocol suite
+    (TCP/IP, etc.) and others have incorporated or are incorporating
+    mechanisms for interoperability with networks using the DoD protocol
+    suite (e.g. MFEnet). Most have discussed eventual evolution to ISO
+    protocols and beyond. By and large, most of these networks are
+    hooked together in some mainly ad hoc manner already, some by
+    pairwise arrangement and some through third party connections (e.g.
+    a university network connected to two agency networks).
+
+    There are two major shortcomings to this ad hoc connection, though.
+    Performance is not adequate for advanced scientific environments,
+    such as supercomputer usage, and community wide user support is not
+    generally available. The phased apprach described below will allow
+    these deficiencies to be overcome through coordinated action on the
+    part of the  various funding agencies.
+
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 17]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+Phase I - Functional Interoperability
+
+    The initial stage of the IRI would provide for sharing of the
+    communications facilities (e.g. channels, satellites, etc.) by
+    interconnecting the networks using the Internet Protocol and IP
+    gateways. In addition, mechanisms will be installed (where required)
+    and maintained to allow interconnection of the common user services,
+    such as electronic mail. This will allow sharing of resources
+    attached to the network, such as supercomputers. [7] [8] Note:
+    actual use of facilities other than mail would require arrangements
+    with the various responsible parties for each host. For example, to
+    login to a host not only requires network access; it also requires a
+    login account on that host.
+
+    Specific steps to be undertaken in Phase I are the following:
+
+    Gateways will be purchased and installed where needed to
+    interconnect the agency networks. The location and performance of
+    these gateways will be specified by the IRIO and approved by the
+    Policy Board. This engineering will take into account an estimate of
+    current and future traffic requirements as well as existing
+    interconnecting gateways. It may also result in a recommendation
+    that some or all existing gateways between agency networks be
+    replaced with common hardware so that adequate management of the
+    interconnection can be achieved.
+
+    An IRI operations and management center will be established for the
+    interconnecting gateways. [9] [10] This perhaps could be done in
+    conjunction with a network management center for another set of
+    gateways, e.g. those supported by DARPA or NSF.
+
+    The requirement for application gateways or other techniques to
+    interconnect communities using different protocols will be
+    investigated and a recommendation made by the IRIO in conjuction
+    with the IRAB. The appropriate mechanisms will be installed by the
+    IRIO at the direction of the Policy Board.
+
+    An initial user services facility will be established. This facility
+    will provide at a minimum such services as a white pages of users
+    (similar to the current Internet "whois" service) and a means for
+    making accessible standard networking software.
+
+    The IRAB, in coordination with the Policy Board,  will draft a
+    coordinated research plan for the development of the new
+    technologies required for evolution of the IRI.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 18]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+Phase II - Full IRI Capability
+
+    Phase II will make the IRI fully functional with enhanced
+    capabilities and performance.
+
+    High performance gateways with appropriate new capabilities and
+    functions will be installed, replacing and/or augmenting the
+    gateways in place from Phase I.  The functionality and performance
+    of these gateways will be specified based on the experience from
+    Phase I use, the anticipated new uses of the network, and the state
+    of the art technologies available as a result of the ongoing
+    research.
+
+    The basic user services facility will be mature and support network
+    operation. New capabilities will be developed to support specific
+    scientific communities (such as a data base of software used by a
+    specific community and its availability over the network.)
+
+    A high performance backbone network wil be installed if needed to
+    connect high performance agency networks. [11] [12] This is
+    anticipated because of the move in several agencies to provide high
+    bandwidth networks in support of such activities as supercomputer
+    access.
+
+    The introduction and use of international standards  will be
+    investigated and a plan developed for providing more services to the
+    broad scientific community through use of these standards.
+
+Administrative Phasing
+
+    The goal of the IRI is to get to a fully cooperating and managed
+    interagency research internet involving most if not all of the
+    agencies supporting scientific research. Recognizing that currently,
+    the major research networking players (both networking for research
+    and research in networking) are DOE, NASA, DARPA, and NSF, the
+    following steps are recommended:
+
+    The first and critical step is to establish a four agency Memorandum
+    of Agreement (MOA) to interconnect the agency networks and to share
+    the costs of interconnection, transit networks, and an operations
+    center. A management structure should be agreed upon as outlined
+    above.  Agreement must also be reached on the need to fund an
+    ongoing research and engineering activity to evolve the internet.
+
+    A Policy Board and Technical Advisory Board should be established as
+    quickly as possible to assure appropriate guidance and direction.
+
+    The Policy Board shall then select an agency to handle the
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 19]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    administrative and contractual actions with the IRIO.
+
+    A non-profit organization shall then be selected by that agency
+    through an appropriate procurement mechanism to be the IRIO. The
+    Policy Board of the IRI shall be the selection panel.
+
+    The initial four agencies shall transfer the agreed upon funds to
+    the selected contracting agency on equal basis to start.
+
+    These funds will then allow the contracting agency to establish a
+    contract for the IRIO with the selected non-profit organization.
+
+    The IRIO can then establish sub-contracts for engineering,
+    procurement, installation, and management of gateways and operation
+    of the user services center.
+
+    To initiate the research coordination, the following steps will be
+    accomplished.
+
+    The Internet Activities Board will evolve into the Internet Research
+    Activities Board, through added membership and charter revision.
+
+    Additional task forces will be formed as needed to reflect the
+    expanded areas of research interest.
+
+    Once the IRI is established and operating, the funding and use of
+    the IRI will be reviewed to determine if equal funding is equitable.
+    If not, the IRIO should be tasked to develop a recommendation for a
+    practical cost allocation scheme. In addition, once the IRI has
+    proved itself to be successful,  other agencies will join the IRI
+    and provide additional funding.
+
+INDUSTRY ROLE
+
+    This report has thus far addressed the interconnection of agency
+    supported networks and the use of such an internet by agency
+    supported researchers. However, industry also has a need for a
+    similar infrastructure to support its research activities. [13]
+    [14]. Note that this refers only to industrial research activities.
+    It is not envisioned, nor would it be appropriate, for the IRI to
+    provide a communications system for normal industrial activities.
+    Regulatory concerns make it difficult for industry to connect to a
+    network that is supported by a federal agency in pursuit of the
+    agency mission.
+
+    The IRI structure above, though, may permit the connection of
+    industrial research organizations.  Since the IRIO is a non-profit
+    non-government organization, it would be able to accept funds from
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 20]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+    industry as a fair share of the costs of using the IRI. These funds
+    in turn can be used to expand the networking resources so that no
+    degradation of service is felt by the users suppported by the
+    federal agencies. This topic would need to be discussed further by
+    the Policy Board and the organization selected as the IRIO.
+
+SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
+
+    The interconnection of the various agency networks supporting
+    scientific research into an overall infrastructure in support of
+    such research represents an exciting opportunity.  This report
+    recommends an approach and a specific set of actions that can
+    achieve that goal. It is hoped that, regardless of the mechanism
+    used, that the Federal agencies involved recognize the importance of
+    providing an appropriate national infrastructure in support of
+    scientific research and take action to make such an infrastructure a
+    reality.
+
+ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
+
+    This report was prepared with advice and comments from a large
+    number of people, including the members of the FCCSET Committee
+    Network Working Group and the Internet Activities Board.  Their
+    input is greatly appreciated, and I hope that this report represents
+    a consensus on both the need for the IRI and the proposed approach.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 21]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+APPENDIX A - FUNDING BREAKDOWN
+
+    This appendix provides the details for the budgetary estimates of
+    Table 1.
+
+    Gateways
+
+    Gateways will be required between the various agency (and perhaps
+    regional) networks. As an upper bound, assume one IRI gateway per
+    state times $40K per gateway, spread out over two years, for a
+    capital cost of $1M per year for first two years.
+
+    Operation Center
+
+    The IRI operations center will have to engineer the location and
+    capacity of the gateways, as well as install, operate and maintain
+    them. It also will need to coordinate support and maintenance of
+    end-to-end service, helping to identify and correct problems in the
+    interconnections. Costs are estimated as two people round the clock
+    to man the operations center and three full time people to
+    coordinate, operate, and engineer the IRI.  Using an estimate of
+    $120K (including other direct costs (ODC)) per year for an operator
+    and $200K per year for other activities, and translating 2 people
+    round the clock into 9 people results in a total annual cost of
+    $1.7M. In addition, equipment costs of roughly $500K per year can be
+    expected.
+
+    Transit Networks
+
+    It is expected that support of at least one transit network will be
+    necessary. This may involve reimbursement to one of the agencies for
+    use of their network, or may involve operations and maintenance of
+    an IRI dedicated network. An estimate for these costs, based on
+    historical data for operating the Arpanet, is $4M per year.
+
+    User Support Organization
+
+    To provide effective support as discussed above will require a staff
+    available during working hours.  A reasonable estimate for the costs
+    of such an organization is 5 people times $200K per year, or $1M per
+    year (including ODC). In addition, there will be capital equipment
+    costs in the first two years totalling roughly $2M.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 22]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+REFERENCES
+
+       1.  FCCSET Committee on Very High Performance Computing Network
+           Working Group, Report on Interagency Networking for Research
+           Programs, February 1986.
+
+       2.  Cerf, V.G. and P. Kirstein, "Issues in packet-network
+           interconnection,"  Proceedings of the IEEE, pp. 1386-1408,
+           November 1978
+
+       3.  Cerf, V.G. and E. Cain, "The Dod intenet architecture model,
+           "Computer Networks, pp. 307-318, July 1983.
+
+       4.  Leiner, B.M., J. Postel, R. Cole, and D. Mills, "The DARPA
+           internet protocol suite,"  IEEE communications Magazine
+            March 1985.
+
+       5.  Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, A History of the
+           Arpanet: The First Decade, Defense Advanced Research Projects
+           Agency, April 1981.  (Defense Tech. Info. Center AD A1 15440)
+
+       6.  Jacobs, I.M. et. al., "General purpose satellite networks,"
+           Proceedings of the IEEE pp. 1448-1467, November 1978
+
+       7.  Tobagi, F., R. Binder, and B.M. Leiner, "Packet radio and
+           satellite networks," IEEE Communications Magazine, November
+           1984.
+
+       8.  Kahn, R.E. et. al., "Advances in packet radio technology,"
+           Proceedings of the IEEE pp. 1468-1496, November
+
+       9.  Clark, D. et. al., "An introduction to local area
+           networks,", Proceedings of the IEEE, November 1978
+
+      10.  Lederberg, J., "Digital communications and the conduct
+           of science: the new literacy," vol. 66, pp. 1314-1319,
+           November 1978.
+
+      11.  Hoskins, J.C. and J.S. Quaterman, "Notable Computer
+           Networks,", pp. 932-971, October 1986.
+
+      12.  Dennings, P.J., A.C. Hearn, and C.W. Kern, "History and
+           overview of CSNET," pp. 138-145, March 1983.
+
+      13.  Comer, D., "The computer science research network
+           CSNET: A history and status report", vol. 26, pp. 747-753,
+           October 1983.
+
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 23]
+
+RFC 1015                      IRI Plan                         July 1987
+
+
+      14.  Bailey, R.R. NAS: supercomputing master tool for
+           aeronautics Aerospace America, pp. 118-121, January 1985
+
+      15.  Jennings, D.M., L.H. Landweber, I.H. Fuchs, W.R. Adrion
+           "Computer Networking for Scientist Science" vol. 231
+           pp. 943-950, February 1986
+
+      16.  Cerf, V.G. R.E. Kahn, "A protocol for packet network
+           intercommunication, IEEE Transactions on Communications
+           vol. COM-22, May 1974
+
+      17.  Zimmerman, H. "OSI reference model - the ISO model of
+           architecture for open systems intercommunications, IEEE
+           Transactions on Communications vol. COM-28 pp. 425-432
+           April 1980
+
+      18.  Defense Communications Agency, MIL STD 1777: Internet
+           Protocol, 1983
+
+      19.  Defense Communications Agency, MIL STD 1778: Transmission
+           Control Protocol Defense Communications Agency, 1983
+
+      20.  Defense Communications Agency, MIL STD 1780: File Transfer
+           Protocol Defense Communications Agency, 1985
+
+      21.  Defense Communications Agency, MIL STD 1781: Simple Mail
+           Transfer Protocol Defense Communications Agency, 1985
+
+      22.  Defense Communications Agency, MIL STD 1782: Telnet
+           Protocol Defense Communications Agency, 1985
+
+      23.  Leiner, B.M. and M. Bishop, Research Institute for Advanced
+           Computer Science Access Control and Privacy in Large
+           Distribution Systems, RIACS TR 86.6, March 1986
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Leiner                                                         [Page 24]
+