GENWiki

Network Working Group D. Crocker Request for Comments: 1775 Brandenburg Consulting Category: Informational March 1995

                      To Be "On" the Internet

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
 does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
 this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

 The Internet permits different levels of access for consumers and
 providers of service.  The nature of those differences is quite
 important in the capabilities They afford.  Hence, it is appropriate
 to provide terminology that distinguishes among the range, so that
 the Internet community can gain some clarity when distinguishing
 whether a user (or an organization) is "on" the Internet.  This
 document suggests four terms, for distinguishing the major classes of
 access.

1. INTRODUCTION

 The Internet is many things to many people.  It began as a technology
 and has grown into a global service.  With the growth has come
 increased complexity in details of the technology and service,
 resulting in confusion when trying to determine whether a given user
 is "on" the Internet.  Who is on the Internet?  What capabilities do
 they have?  This note is an attempt to aid Internet consumers and
 providers in determining the basic types of end-user access that
 distinguish critical differences in Internet attachment.

 The list was developed primarily for the perspective of users, rather
 than for the technical community. The definitions in this list take
 the perspective that users are primarily interested in application
 services.   A curious implication is that some of the definitions do
 not rely on the direct use of the underlying Internet connectivity
 protocols, TCP/IP.  For many technical discussions, therefore, these
 terms will not be appropriate.

Crocker [Page 1]  RFC 1775 To Be "On" the Internet March 1995

2. LABELS FOR INTERNET ACCESS

 The following definitions move from "most" to "least" Internet
 access, from the perspective of the user (consumer). The first term
 is primarily applicable to Internet service providers.  The remaining
 terms are primarily applicable to consumers of Internet service.

 FULL ACCESS

    This is a permanent (full-time) Internet attachment running
    TCP/IP, primarily appropriate for allowing the Internet community
    to access application servers, operated by Internet service
    providers.  Machines with Full access are directly visible to
    others attached to the Internet, such as through the Internet
    Protocol's ICMP Echo (ping) facility.  The core of the Internet
    comprises those machines with Full access.

 CLIENT ACCESS

    The user runs applications that employ Internet application
    protocols directly on their own computer platform, but might not
    be running underlying Internet protocols  (TCP/IP), might not have
    full-time access, such as through dial-up, or might have
    constrained access, such as through a firewall.  When active,
    Client users might be visible to the general Internet, but such
    visibility cannot be predicted.  For example, this means that most
    Client access users will not be detected during an empirical
    probing of systems "on" the Internet at any given moment, such as
    through the ICMP Echo facility.

 MEDIATED ACCESS

    The user runs no Internet applications on their own platform.  An
    Internet service provider runs applications that use Internet
    protocols on the provider's platform, for the user.  User has
    simplified access to the provider, such as dial-up terminal
    connectivity.  For Mediated access, the user is on the Internet,
    but their computer platform is not.  Instead, it is the computer
    of the mediating service (provider) which is on the Internet.

 MESSAGING ACCESS

    The user has no Internet access, except through electronic mail
    and through netnews, such as Usenet or a bulletin board service.
    Since messaging services can be used as a high-latency -- i.e.,
    slow -- transport service, the use of this level of access for
    mail-enabled services can be quite powerful, though not
    interactive.

Crocker [Page 2]  RFC 1775 To Be "On" the Internet March 1995

3. SAMPLE USAGE

 The test of a nomenclature is, of course, its application to real-
 life situations.  Two simple cases involve home users.  If a user
 accesses the Internet by running a terminal program on their PC and
 then dials up a public service which provides the Internet
 applications, then that user has Mediated Internet access.  The
 public service has Client or Full access, but the user does not.  On
 the other hand, users who access via SLIP or PPP are running Internet
 applications on their own PCs and they have Client Internet access.

 Many corporations now have a full-time link to the Internet.  The
 link is based on TCP/IP and usually has a number of Internet servers
 running, for email exchange and for making public corporate data
 available to the rest of the world, such as through the World Wide
 Web and Gopher.  Clearly, the corporation is "on" the Internet, with
 Full Internet access.

 What about a user in that corporation?  Many corporations today
 separate their internal internet from the public Internet via a
 firewall.  If a user from the internal internet has a desktop
 computer and reaches out to the Internet, through the firewall, by
 running any Internet applications, such as a Web browser, then that
 user has Client Internet access.

 Some corporations will not allow this, instead requiring all software
 which touches the public Internet to be run on specially-administered
 machines which are part of the corporation's firewall suite of
 services.  Hence, users must make a terminal connection to the
 special machines, from there running the Internet applications.  Such
 users have Mediated Internet access, the same as home users who dial
 up a public service.

4. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

 This specification does NOT, itself, provide or define any security-
 related mechanisms.  However it does describe scenarios with
 different security implications for users and providers.  Readers of
 this discussion are cautioned to consider those implications when
 choosing a service.

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 Development of these definitions was spurred by many public and
 private discussions in which confusion over Internet access reigned.
 Convergence on an initial set of three terms was the result of
 discussion on the Big-Internet mailing list, particularly from
 comments made by Alan Barret, Howard Berkowitz, Noel Chiappa, Steve

Crocker [Page 3]  RFC 1775 To Be "On" the Internet March 1995

 Goldstein, Iain Hanson, Gary Malkin, Bob McKisson, Tim O'Reilly, Dave
 Piscitello and Bill Simpson.  Eventually, the need for a fourth
 category became evident and was discussed further with the
 participants on the list.  This does not mean that any of them
 necessarily endorses the terms and definitions provided, merely that
 their notes assisted my thinking on the topic.  After the initial
 round of public discussion, Smoot Carl-Mitchell and John Quarterman
 of Texas Internet Consulting developed terminology for similar
 categories and served to prompt modification of this set, described,
 here, to distinguish between provider and consumer forms of access
 and emphasize the role of Full access in defining the Internet core.

6. Security Considerations

 Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

7. Author's Address

 David H. Crocker
 Brandenburg Consulting
 675 Spruce Dr.
 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

 Phone:    +1 408 246 8253
 Fax:      +1 408 249 6205
 EMail:    dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu

Crocker [Page 4]