summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1015.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1015.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc1015.txt1341
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]
+