1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1346.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1346.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..56c76c1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1346.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                           P. Jones
+Request for Comments: 1346                        Joint Network Team, UK
+                                                               June 1992
+
+
+             Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting
+                    for the Use of Network Resources
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is
+   unlimited.
+
+0. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
+
+   This paper gives reasons for wanting better sharing mechanisms for
+   networks.  It concludes that the challenge of sharing network
+   resources (and for example intercontinental link resources) between
+   groups of users is neither well understood, nor well catered for in
+   terms of tools for those responsible for managing the services.  The
+   situation is compared with other fields, both inside and outside IT,
+   and examples are cited. Recommendations for further work are made.
+
+   The purpose of this RFC is to focus discussion on particular
+   challenges in large service networks in general, and the
+   International IP Internet in particular.  No solution discussed in
+   this document is intended as a standard.  Rather, it is hoped that a
+   general consensus will emerge as to the appropriate solutions,
+   leading eventually to the adoption of standards.
+
+   The structure of the paper is as follows:
+
+      1. Findings
+      2. Conclusions
+      3. Recommendations
+
+1. FINDINGS
+
+   Issues arising from contention in the use of networks are not
+   unusual.  Once connectivity and reliability have been addressed to a
+   reasonable level, bandwidth becomes (or appears to become?) the main
+   issue.  Usage appears to have a strong tendency to rise to fill the
+   resources available (fully in line with the principles of Parkinson's
+   Law).  Line-speed upgrades have an effect, but with no guarantee of
+   permanently alleviating the problem.  Line-speeds are increasing as
+   technology improves over time, but the variations on matters like
+   availability and funding are wide, and users remain avaricious.
+
+
+
+Jones                                                           [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1346      Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting     June 1992
+
+
+   Often the situation can appear worse than having to survive in a
+   jungle, in the sense that the strong (even if "good") seem to have
+   little advantage over the weak.  It may seem that it is the
+   determined person rather than the important work that gets service.
+
+   Most people will have experienced poor service on an overloaded
+   network at some time. To help the end-users, it seems on the face of
+   it that one must help the IT Service Manager he relates to.  Examples
+   relating to the relationship between the network manager and his
+   customers, IT Service Managers at institutions connecting to his
+   network, include the following:
+
+   (a) If the IT Service Manager finds his link to the Network Manager's
+   network overloaded, he may be offered a link upgrade, probably with a
+   cost estimate.  He might prefer control mechanisms whereby he can say
+   that department X deserves more resources than department Y, or that
+   interactive terminal use takes preference over file transfers, or
+   that user U is more important than user V.
+
+   (b) Where an IT Service Manager is sharing a link, he will commonly
+   get more than his institution's share of the link, and often get very
+   good value-for-money compared to using a dedicated link, but he has
+   no guarantee that his end-users' usage won't get swamped by the use
+   of other (perhaps much larger) partners on the shared link.  This
+   could be seen as wishing to have a guaranteed minimum share according
+   to some parameter(s).
+
+   (c) On a shared link as under (b), the Network Manager may wish to
+   ensure that usage of the link (which might be a high-performance
+   trunk line on a network or an international link for example) by any
+   one partner is "reasonable" in relation perhaps to his contribution
+   to the costs.  In contrast to (b), the Network Manager is wishing to
+   impose a maximum value on some parameter(s).  He may be happy if the
+   width of the IT Service Manager's access link is not greater than his
+   share of the shared link (assuming the measure agreed on is "width"),
+   but this will commonly not be the case.  To be able to reach
+   agreement, the Network Manager and the IT Service Manager may need
+   options on the choice of parameters, and perhaps a choice on the
+   means of control, as well as being able to negotiate about values.
+
+   In circumstances where the Network Manager can exercise such controls
+   over his customers, the IT Service Managers may say with some feeling
+   and perhaps with justification, that if they are going to be
+   controlled can the Network Manager please provide tools whereby they
+   can arrange for the onward sharing of the resource they have, and
+   thence onwards down the hierarchy to the end-users.
+
+
+
+
+
+Jones                                                           [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1346      Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting     June 1992
+
+
+   (d) It may be Network Manager A has a link that Network Manager B
+   would like to use on occasion, perhaps as back-up on access to a
+   third network.  Network Manager A might well wish to be
+   accommodating, perhaps as examples because of financial benefit or
+   perhaps because of the possibility of a reciprocal arrangement.
+   However, the fear of overload affecting normal use and the lack of
+   control over the usage militates against arrangements that the
+   parties could be quite keen to make.
+
+   Such challenges are very far from being unique to networking.
+   Government and both public and private organisations and companies
+   allocate budgets (and resources other than money), control and
+   account for usage, recognising the possibility of overdrawing and
+   borrowing.  In times of shortage, food is rationed.  I haven't
+   checked this out, but it would surprise me if Jerry Hall wasn't
+   guaranteed a ticket for any Rolling Stones concert, should she wish
+   to attend.
+
+   The charging factor influences use but does not control it (except
+   perhaps in unusual circumstances where say payment was expected in
+   advance and usage was cut off when the money ran out).
+
+   In the IT world, multi-user hosts have filestore control systems; one
+   that I use has an overdraft facility with no penalty for not having a
+   prior arrangement!  There are also system designs and implementations
+   for sharing host processor time with more sophistication than just
+   counting seconds and chopping people off; this problem seems to me to
+   be reasonably well understood.  (Library catalogue searches under
+   author "John Larmouth" should provide some references for those who
+   require convincing.)  Some multi-user hosts have controls of sorts on
+   terminal connections.  On the other hand, I am not aware of any
+   control system in operation that can guarantee multi-user host
+   response time even outside the network context among directly
+   connected terminals.
+
+   The various roles bring different interests to bear.  A provider will
+   not necessarily see it in his interests to control usage, or (perhaps
+   even more likely) to provide customers with control tools, since the
+   lack of these may encourage - or even oblige - the customer to buy
+   more.  Even if the IT Service Manager can deal with the issue of who
+   or what is important, and the issues of the relative importance of
+   allocating resources against requests, other issues like social
+   acceptability may arise to complicate his life.  For example it may
+   be generally agreed (and perhaps the network manager instructed) that
+   "everyone" must be able to do a small amount of work at any time,
+   perhaps to do some housekeeping or seek information.
+
+
+
+
+
+Jones                                                           [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1346      Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting     June 1992
+
+
+   Time is an important factor.  Network resources, like computer
+   processor time and unlike filestore, vanish if they are not used.
+   People will in general prefer resources during prime shift to those
+   in the middle of their night; however, in global terms the middle of
+   their night can be during prime shift somewhere along their path of
+   usage.
+
+   What's to do?  Splitting lines with multiplexers is rather
+   inflexible, and may well militate against the benefits of resource-
+   sharing that give rise commonly to link-sharing arrangements.  Some
+   technologies:
+
+      - have the ability to treat (or at least mark) traffic as of high
+        priority, for example where it gives emergency or status
+        information;
+
+      - (in the case of X.25(84), I understand from my JNT colleague Ian
+        Smith,) have throughput class (section 6.13) and transit delay
+        (section 6.27).  (Ian tells me that it is in his view far from
+        clear how practical these facilities are);
+
+      - may be able to discriminate between traffic on grounds of
+        network source address;
+
+      - may be able to discriminate between traffic on grounds of
+        network destination address;
+
+      - may be able to discriminate between traffic on grounds of
+        application protocol, perhaps giving preference to interactive
+        terminal traffic, or making a choice between preference for
+        email and for file transfer traffic;
+
+      - may be able to discriminate between traffic on grounds of other
+        facets of network protocol or traffic.
+
+   In practice, one may well not have adequate tools in these or other
+   terms, and one may well have to ignore the challenges of resource
+   control, and either ignore the issue or refuse service.
+
+2. CONCLUSIONS
+
+      2.1 There seems to be a lack of tools to enable the controlling
+      and the sharing of networks and links.  This is militating against
+      the cooperative sharing of resources, and restricting the ability
+      of organisations to do business with one another.
+
+      2.2 Further, the definition of what constitutes a share, or what
+      parameter of service one would try to measure and control (or what
+
+
+
+Jones                                                           [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1346      Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting     June 1992
+
+
+      the choices are if any), is not clear.
+
+      2.3 Following from that, it is then not clear whether what is
+      needed is new or enhanced protocols/services, new or enhanced
+      procurement specifications or profiles, or new or enhanced
+      networking products or tools.
+
+      2.4 Service providers (more likely the public carriers or but also
+      some Network Managers) may see it as against their interests to
+      provide controlling tools if they see them as tending to constrain
+      usage and hence reducing income.  If so, they may not support, and
+      may even oppose, progress in the area.  However, they might be
+      persuaded that the provision of such tools might give them
+      competitive edge over their rivals, and therefore to support
+      appropriate projects and developments.
+
+3. RECOMMENDATIONS
+
+   There seems scope for one or more studies to:
+
+      - restate and refine the definition of the problems;
+
+      - collect, catalogue and relate relevant experience in both the
+        networking and non-networking fields;
+
+      - make recommendations as to what areas (e.g., among those
+        suggested in 2.3 above) projects should be undertaken;
+
+      - outline possible projects, indicating the timescale on which
+        improved sharing of production network service resources is
+        likely to be achieved, and recommending an order of priority
+        among the suggested projects.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+   Gender issues - where appropriate, the male embraces the female and
+   vice versa.
+
+   Dramatis Personae:
+
+      Jerry Hall is a close associate of Mr. M. Jagger, formerly of the
+      London School of Economics in the University of London, and now
+      Chairman and Chief Executive of an internationally prominent and
+      successful commercial musical operation.
+
+      Others mentioned in this paper are assumed to prefer to remain
+      anonymous, although the standard is to give contact information
+      for the author (see Author's Address section).
+
+
+
+Jones                                                           [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1346      Resource Allocation, Control, and Accounting     June 1992
+
+
+Security Considerations
+
+   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Phil Jones
+   JNT
+   RAL, Chilton, Didcot, OXON  OX11 0QX
+
+   Voice: +44-235-446618
+   Fax:   +44-235-446251
+
+   Email: p.jones@jnt.ac.uk  or c=gb;a= ;p=uk.ac;o=jnt;i=p;s=jones;
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Jones                                                           [Page 6]
+
+\ No newline at end of file