GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc1015

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]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1015.txt · Last modified: 1987/07/15 18:07 (external edit)