From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc1015.txt | 1341 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1341 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1015.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1015.txt') 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] + -- cgit v1.2.3