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:rfc3869

Network Working Group R. Atkinson, Ed. Request for Comments: 3869 S. Floyd, Ed. Category: Informational Internet Architecture Board

                                                           August 2004
                  IAB Concerns and Recommendations
             Regarding Internet Research and Evolution

Status of this Memo

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

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

 This document discusses IAB concerns that ongoing research is needed
 to further the evolution of the Internet infrastructure, and that
 consistent, sufficient non-commercial funding is needed to enable
 such research.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
     1.1.  Document Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
     1.2.  IAB Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.3.  Contributions to this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
 2.  History of Internet Research and Research Funding. . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Prior to 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  1980s and early 1990s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Mid-1990s to 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.4.  Current Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
 3.  Open Internet Research Topics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Scope and Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
           3.2.1.   Domain Name System (DNS). . . . . . . . . . . .  8
           3.2.2.   New Namespaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Routing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
           3.3.1.   Inter-domain Routing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
           3.3.2.   Routing Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
           3.3.3.   Routing Algorithms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
           3.3.4.   Mobile and Ad-Hoc Routing . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.4.  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 1] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

           3.4.1.   Formal Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
           3.4.2.   Key Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
           3.4.3.   Cryptography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
           3.4.4.   Security for Distributed Computing. . . . . . . 15
           3.4.5.   Deployment Considerations in Security . . . . . 15
           3.4.6.   Denial of Service Protection. . . . . . . . . . 16
     3.5.  Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
           3.5.1.   Managing Networks, Not Devices. . . . . . . . . 16
           3.5.2.   Enhanced Monitoring Capabilities. . . . . . . . 17
           3.5.3.   Customer Network Management . . . . . . . . . . 17
           3.5.4.   Autonomous Network Management . . . . . . . . . 17
     3.6.  Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
           3.6.1.   Inter-Domain QoS Architecture . . . . . . . . . 18
           3.6.2.   New Queuing Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.7.  Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.8.  Studying the Evolution of the Internet Infrastructure. . 20
     3.9.  Middleboxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     3.10. Internet Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     3.11. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     3.12. Meeting the Needs of the Future. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     3.13. Freely Distributable Prototypes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 4.  Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 5.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 6.  Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 7.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 8.  Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 9.  Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

1. Introduction

 This document discusses the history of funding for Internet research,
 expresses concern about the current state of such funding, and
 outlines several specific areas that the IAB believes merit
 additional research.  Current funding levels for Internet research
 are not generally adequate, and several important research areas are
 significantly underfunded.  This situation needs to be rectified for
 the Internet to continue its evolution and development.

1.1. Document Organization

 The first part of the document is a high-level discussion of the
 history of funding for Internet research to provide some historical
 context to this document.  The early funding of Internet research was
 largely from the U.S. government, followed by a period in the second
 half of the 1990s of commercial funding and of funding from several
 governments.  However, the commercial funding for Internet research
 has been reduced due to the recent economic downturn.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 2] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 The second part of the document provides an incomplete set of open
 Internet research topics.  These are only examples, intended to
 illustrate the breadth of open research topics.  This second section
 supports the general thesis that ongoing research is needed to
 further the evolution of the Internet infrastructure.  This includes
 research on the medium-time-scale evolution of the Internet
 infrastructure as well as research on longer-time-scale grand
 challenges.  This also includes many research issues that are already
 being actively investigated in the Internet research community.
 Areas that are discussed in this section include the following:
 naming, routing, security, network management, and transport.  Issues
 that require more research also include more general architectural
 issues such as layering and communication between layers.  In
 addition, general topics discussed in this section include modeling,
 measurement, simulation, test-beds, etc.  We are focusing on topics
 that are related to the IETF and IRTF (Internet Research Task Force)
 agendas.  (For example, Grid issues are not discussed in this
 document because they are addressed through the Global Grid Forum and
 other Grid-specific organizations, not in the IETF.)
 Where possible, the examples in this document point to separate
 documents on these issues, and only give a high-level summary of the
 issues raised in those documents.

1.2. IAB Concerns

 In the aftermath of September 11 2001, there seems to be a renewed
 interest by governments in funding research for Internet-related
 security issues.  From [Jackson02]: "It is generally agreed that the
 security and reliability of the basic protocols underlying the
 Internet have not received enough attention because no one has a
 proprietary interest in them".
 That quote brings out a key issue in funding for Internet research,
 which is that because no single organization (e.g., no single
 government, software company, equipment vendor, or network operator)
 has a sense of ownership of the global Internet infrastructure,
 research on the general issues of the Internet infrastructure are
 often not adequately funded.  In our current challenging economic
 climate, it is not surprising that commercial funding sources are
 more likely to fund that research that leads to a direct competitive
 advantage.
 The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding
 is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the
 future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.  In
 addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 3] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 source can also affect the content of the research, for example,
 towards or against the development of open standards, or taking
 varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols
 on the other traffic on the Internet.
 At the same time, many significant research contributions in
 networking have come from commercial funding.  However, for most of
 the topics in this document, relying solely on commercially-funded
 research would not be adequate.  Much of today's commercial funding
 is focused on technology transition, taking results from non-
 commercial research and putting them into shipping commercial
 products.  We have not tried to delve into each of the research
 issues below to discuss, for each issue, what are the potentials and
 limitations of commercial funding for research in that area.
 On a more practical note, if there was no commercial funding for
 Internet research, then few research projects would be taken to
 completion with implementations, deployment, and follow-up
 evaluation.
 While it is theoretically possible for there to be too much funding
 for Internet research, that is far from the current problem.  There
 is also much that could be done within the network research community
 to make Internet research more focused and productive, but that would
 belong in a separate document.

1.3. Contributions to this Document

 A number of people have directly contributed text for this document,
 even though, following current conventions, the official RFC author
 list includes only the key editors of the document.  The
 Acknowledgements section at the end of the document thanks other
 people who contributed to this document in some form.

2. History of Internet Research and Research Funding

2.1. Prior to 1980

 Most of the early research into packet-switched networks was
 sponsored by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
 (DARPA) [CSTB99].  This includes the initial design, implementation,
 and deployment of the ARPAnet connecting several universities and
 other DARPA contractors.  The ARPAnet originally came online in the
 late 1960s.  It grew in size during the 1970s, still chiefly with
 DARPA funding, and demonstrated the utility of packet-switched
 networking.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 4] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 DARPA funding for Internet design started in 1973, just four years
 after the initial ARPAnet deployment.  The support for Internet
 design was one result of prior DARPA funding for packet radio and
 packet satellite research.  The existence of multiple networks
 (ARPAnet, packet radio, and packet satellite) drove the need for
 internetworking research.  The Internet arose in large measure as a
 consequence of DARPA research funding for these three networks -- and
 arise only incidentally from the commercially-funded work at Xerox
 PARC on Ethernet.

2.2. 1980s and early 1990s

 The ARPAnet converted to the Internet Protocol (IP) on January 1,
 1983, approximately 20 years before this document was written.
 Throughout the 1980s, the U.S. Government continued strong research
 and development funding for Internet technology.  DARPA continued to
 be the key funding source, but was supplemented by other DoD (U.S.
 Department of Defense) funding (e.g., via the Defense Data Network
 (DDN) program of the Defense Communication Agency (DCA)) and other
 U.S. Government funding (e.g., U.S. Department of Energy (DoE)
 funding for research networks at DoE national laboratories, (U.S.)
 National Science Foundation (NSF) funding for academic institutions).
 This funding included basic research, applied research (including
 freely distributable prototypes), the purchase of IP-capable
 products, and operating support for the IP-based government networks
 such as ARPAnet, ESnet, MILnet, the NASA Science Internet, and
 NSFnet.
 During the 1980s, the U.S. DoD desired to leave the business of
 providing operational network services to academic institutions, so
 funding for most academic activities moved over to the NSF during the
 decade.  NSF's initial work included sponsorship of CSnet in 1981.
 By 1986, NSF was also sponsoring various research projects into
 networking (e.g., Mills' work on Fuzzballs).  In the late 1980s, NSF
 created the NSFnet backbone and sponsored the creation of several NSF
 regional networks (e.g., SURAnet) and interconnections with several
 international research networks.  NSF also funded gigabit networking
 research, through the Corporation for National Research Initiatives
 (CNRI), starting in the late 1980s.  It is important to note that the
 NSF sponsorship was focused on achieving core NSF goals, such as
 connecting scientists at leading universities to NSF supercomputing
 centers.  The needs of high-performance remote access to
 supercomputers drove the overall NSFnet performance.  As a side
 effect, this meant that students and faculty at those universities
 enjoyed a relatively high-performance Internet environment.  As those
 students graduated, they drove both commercial use of the Internet
 and the nascent residential market.  It is no accident that this was
 the environment from which the world wide web emerged.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 5] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 Most research funding outside the U.S. during the 1980s and early
 1990s was focused on the ISO OSI networking project or on then-new
 forms of network media (e.g., wireless, broadband access).  The
 European Union was a significant source of research funding for the
 networking community in Europe during this period.  Some of the best
 early work in gigabit networking was undertaken in the UK and Sweden.

2.3. Mid-1990s to 2003

 Starting in the middle 1990s, U.S. Government funding for Internet
 research and development was significantly reduced.  The premise for
 this was that the growing Internet industry would pay for whatever
 research and development that was needed.  Some funding for Internet
 research and development has continued in this period from European
 and Asian organizations (e.g., the WIDE Project in Japan [WIDE]).
 Reseaux IP Europeens [RIPE] is an example of market-funded networking
 research in Europe during this period.
 Experience during this period has been that commercial firms have
 often focused on donating equipment to academic institutions and
 promoting somewhat vocationally-focused educational projects.  Many
 of the commercially-funded research and development projects appear
 to have been selected because they appeared likely to give the
 funding source a specific short-term economic advantage over its
 competitors.  Higher risk, more innovative research proposals
 generally have not been funded by industry.  A common view in Silicon
 Valley has been that established commercial firms are not very good
 at transitioning cutting edge research into products, but were
 instead good at buying small startup firms who had successfully
 transitioned such cutting edge research into products.
 Unfortunately, small startup companies are generally unable
 financially to fund any research themselves.

2.4. Current Status

 The result of reduced U.S. Government funding and profit-focused,
 low-risk, short-term industry funding has been a decline in higher-
 risk but more innovative research activities.  Industry has also been
 less interested in research to evolve the overall Internet
 architecture, because such work does not translate into a competitive
 advantage for the firm funding such work.
 The IAB believes that it would be helpful for governments and other
 non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic
 research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to
 sustain these funding levels going forward.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 6] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

3. Open Internet Research Topics

 This section primarily discusses some specific topics that the IAB
 believes merit additional research.  Research, of course, includes
 not just devising a theory, algorithm, or mechanism to accomplish a
 goal, but also evaluating the general efficacy of the approach and
 then the benefits vs. the costs of deploying that algorithm or
 mechanism.  Important cautionary notes about this discussion are
 given in the next sub-section.  This particular set of topics is not
 intended to be comprehensive, but instead is intended to demonstrate
 the breadth of open Internet research questions.
 Other discussions of problems of the Internet that merit further
 research include the following:
 [CIPB02,Claffy03a,Floyd,NSF03a,NSF03b].

3.1. Scope and Limitations

 This document is NOT intended as a guide for public funding agencies
 as to exactly which projects or proposals should or should not be
 funded.
 In particular, this document is NOT intended to be a comprehensive
 list of *all* of the research questions that are important to further
 the evolution of the Internet; that would be a daunting task, and
 would presuppose a wider and more intensive effort than we have
 undertaken in this document.
 Similarly, this document is not intended to list the research
 questions that are judged to be only of peripheral importance, or to
 survey the current (global; governmental, commercial, and academic)
 avenues for funding for Internet research, or to make specific
 recommendations about which areas need additional funding.  The
 purpose of the document is to persuade the reader that ongoing
 research is needed towards the continued evolution of the Internet
 infrastructure; the purpose is not to make binding pronouncements
 about which specific areas are and are not worthy of future funding.
 For some research clearly relevant to the future evolution of the
 Internet, there are grand controversies between competing proposals
 or competing schools of thought; it is not the purpose of this
 document to take positions in these controversies, or to take
 positions on the nature of the solutions for areas needing further
 research.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 7] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 That all carefully noted, the remainder of this section discusses a
 broad set of research areas, noting a subset of particular topics of
 interest in each of those research areas.  Again, this list is NOT
 comprehensive, but rather is intended to suggest that a broad range
 of ongoing research is needed, and to propose some candidate topics.

3.1.1. Terminology

 Several places in this document refer to 'network operators'.  By
 that term, we intend to include anyone or any organization that
 operates an IP-based network; we are not using that term in the
 narrow meaning of commercial network service providers.

3.2. Naming

 The Internet currently has several different namespaces, including IP
 addresses, sockets (specified by the IP address, upper-layer
 protocol, and upper-layer port number), Autonomous System (AS)
 number, and the Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN).  Many of the
 Internet's namespaces are supported by the widely deployed Domain
 Name System [RFC-3467] or by various Internet applications [RFC-2407,
 Section 4.6.2.1]

3.2.1. Domain Name System (DNS)

 The DNS system, while it works well given its current constraints,
 has several stress points.
 The current DNS system relies on UDP for transport, rather than SCTP
 or TCP.  Given the very large number of clients using a typical DNS
 server, it is desirable to minimize the state on the DNS server side
 of the connection.  UDP does this well, so it is a reasonable choice,
 though this has other implications, for example a reliance on UDP
 fragmentation.  With IPv6, intermediate fragmentation is not allowed
 and Path MTU Discovery is mandated.  However, the amount of state
 required to deploy Path MTU Discovery for IPv6 on a DNS server might
 be a significant practical problem.
 One implication of this is that research into alternative transport
 protocols, designed more for DNS-like applications where there are
 very many clients using each server, might be useful.  Of particular
 interest would be transport protocols with little burden for the DNS
 server, even if that increased the burden somewhat for the DNS
 client.
 Additional study of DNS caching, both currently available caching
 techniques and also of potential new caching techniques, might be
 helpful in finding ways to reduce the offered load for a typical DNS

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 8] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 server.  In particular, examination of DNS caching through typical
 commercial firewalls might be interesting if it lead to alternative
 firewall implementations that were less of an obstacle to DNS
 caching.
 The community lacks a widely-agreed-upon set of metrics for measuring
 DNS server performance.  It would be helpful if people would
 seriously consider what characteristics of the DNS system should be
 measured.
 Some in the community would advocate replacing the current DNS system
 with something better.  Past attempts to devise a better approach
 have not yielded results that persuaded the community to change.
 Proposed work in this area could be very useful, but might require
 careful scrutiny to avoid falling into historic design pitfalls.
 With regards to DNS security, major technical concerns include
 finding practical methods for signing very large DNS zones (e.g., and
 tools to make it easier to manage secure DNS infrastructure.
 Most users are unable to distinguish a DNS-related failure from a
 more general network failure.  Hence, maintaining the integrity and
 availability of the Domain Name System is very important for the
 future health of the Internet.

3.2.2. New Namespaces

 Additionally, the Namespace Research Group (NSRG) of the Internet
 Research Task Force (IRTF) studied adding one or more additional
 namespaces to the Internet Architecture [LD2002].  Many members of
 the IRTF NSRG believe that there would be significant architectural
 benefit to adding one or more additional namespaces to the Internet
 Architecture.  Because smooth consensus on that question or on the
 properties of a new namespace was not obtained, the IRTF NSRG did not
 make a formal recommendation to the IETF community regarding
 namespaces.  The IAB believes that this is an open research question
 worth examining further.
 Finally, we believe that future research into the evolution of
 Internet-based distributed computing might well benefit from studying
 adding additional namespaces as part of a new approach to distributed
 computing.

3.3. Routing

 The currently deployed unicast routing system works reasonably well
 for most users.  However, the current unicast routing architecture is
 suboptimal in several areas, including the following: end-to-end

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 9] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 convergence times in global-scale catenets (a system of networks
 interconnected via gateways); the ability of the existing inter-
 domain path-vector algorithm to scale well beyond 200K prefixes; the
 ability of both intra-domain and inter-domain routing to use multiple
 metrics and multiple kinds of metrics concurrently; and the ability
 of IPv4 and IPv6 to support widespread site multi-homing without
 undue adverse impact on the inter-domain routing system.  Integrating
 policy into routing is also a general concern, both for intra-domain
 and inter-domain routing.  In many cases, routing policy is directly
 tied to economic issues for the network operators, so applied
 research into routing ideally would consider economic considerations
 as well as technical considerations.
 This is an issue for which the commercial interest is clear, but that
 seems unlikely to be solved through commercial funding for research,
 in the absence of a consortium of some type.

3.3.1. Inter-domain Routing

 The current operational inter-domain routing system has between
 150,000 and 200,000 routing prefixes in the default-free zone (DFZ)
 [RFC-3221].  ASIC technology obviates concerns about the ability to
 forward packets at very high speeds.  ASIC technology also obviates
 concerns about the time required to perform longest-prefix-match
 computations.  However, some senior members of the Internet routing
 community have concerns that the end-to-end convergence properties of
 the global Internet might hit fundamental algorithmic limitations
 (i.e., not hardware limitations) when the DFZ is somewhere between
 200,000 and 300,000 prefixes.  Research into whether this concern is
 well-founded in scientific terms seems very timely.
 Separately from the above concern, recent work has shown that there
 can be significant BGP convergence issues today.  At present, it
 appears that the currently observed convergence issues relate to how
 BGP has been configured by network operators, rather than being any
 sort of fundamental algorithmic limitation [MGVK02].  This
 convergence time issue makes the duration of the apparent network
 outage much longer than it should be.  Additional applied research
 into which aspects of a BGP configuration have the strongest impact
 on convergence times would help mitigate the currently observed
 operational issues.
 Also, inter-domain routing currently requires significant human
 engineering of specific inter-AS paths to ensure that reasonably
 optimal paths are used by actual traffic.  Ideally, the inter-domain
 routing system would automatically cause reasonably optimal paths to
 be chosen.  Recent work indicates that improved BGP policy mechanisms

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 10] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 might help ensure that reasonably optimal paths are normally used for
 inter-domain IP traffic.  [SMA03]  Continued applied research in this
 area might lead to substantially better technical approaches.
 The current approach to site multi-homing has the highly undesirable
 side-effect of significantly increasing the growth rate of prefix
 entries in the DFZ (by impairing the deployment of prefix
 aggregation).  Research is needed into new routing architectures that
 can support large-scale site multi-homing without the undesirable
 impacts on inter-domain routing of the current multi-homing
 technique.
 The original application for BGP was in inter-domain routing,
 primarily within service provider networks but also with some use by
 multi-homed sites.  However, some are now trying to use BGP in other
 contexts, for example highly mobile environments, where it is less
 obviously well suited.  Research into inter-domain routing and/or
 intra-domain policy routing might lead to other approaches for any
 emerging environments where the current BGP approach is not the
 optimal one.

3.3.2. Routing Integrity

 Recently there has been increased awareness of the longstanding issue
 of deploying strong authentication into the Internet inter-domain
 routing system.  Currently deployed mechanisms (e.g., BGP TCP MD5
 [RFC-2385], OSPF MD5, RIP MD5 [RFC-2082]) provide cryptographic
 authentication of routing protocol messages, but no authentication of
 the actual routing data.  Recent proposals (e.g., S-BGP [KLMS2000])
 for improving this in inter-domain routing appear difficult to deploy
 across the Internet, in part because of their reliance on a single
 trust hierarchy (e.g., a single PKI).  Similar proposals (e.g., OSPF
 with Digital Signatures, [RFC-2154]) for intra-domain routing are
 argued to be computationally infeasible to deploy in a large network.
 A recurring challenge with any form of inter-domain routing
 authentication is that there is no single completely accurate source
 of truth about which organizations have the authority to advertise
 which address blocks.  Alternative approaches to authentication of
 data in the routing system need to be developed.  In particular, the
 ability to perform partial authentication of routing data would
 facilitate incremental deployment of routing authentication
 mechanisms.  Also, the ability to use non-hierarchical trust models
 (e.g., the web of trust used in the PGP application) might facilitate
 incremental deployment and might resolve existing concerns about
 centralized administration of the routing system, hence it merits
 additional study and consideration.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 11] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

3.3.3. Routing Algorithms

 The current Internet routing system relies primarily on two
 algorithms.  Link-state routing uses the Dijkstra algorithm
 [Dijkstra59].  Distance-Vector routing (e.g., RIP) and Path-Vector
 routing (e.g., BGP) use the Bellman-Ford algorithm [Bellman1957,
 FF1962].  Additional ongoing basic research into graph theory as
 applied to routing is worthwhile and might yield algorithms that
 would enable a new routing architecture or otherwise provide
 improvements to the routing system.
 Currently deployed multicast routing relies on the Deering RPF
 algorithm [Deering1988].  Ongoing research into alternative multicast
 routing algorithms and protocols might help alleviate current
 concerns with the scalability of multicast routing.
 The deployed Internet routing system assumes that the shortest path
 is always the best path.  This is provably false, however it is a
 reasonable compromise given the routing protocols currently
 available.  The Internet lacks deployable approaches for policy-based
 routing or routing with alternative metrics (i.e., some metric other
 than the number of hops to the destination).  Examples of alternative
 policies include: the path with lowest monetary cost; the path with
 the lowest probability of packet loss; the path with minimized
 jitter; and the path with minimized latency.  Policy metrics also
 need to take business relationships into account.  Historic work on
 QoS-based routing has tended to be unsuccessful in part because it
 did not adequately consider economic and commercial considerations of
 the routing system and in part because of inadequate consideration of
 security implications.
 Transitioning from the current inter-domain routing system to any new
 inter-domain routing system is unlikely to be a trivial exercise.  So
 any proposal for a new routing system needs to carefully consider and
 document deployment strategies, transition mechanisms, and other
 operational considerations.  Because of the cross-domain
 interoperability aspect of inter-domain routing, smooth transitions
 from one inter-domain routing system are likely to be difficult to
 accomplish.  Separately, the inter-domain routing system lacks strong
 market forces that would encourage migration to better technical
 approaches.  Hence, it appears unlikely that the commercial sector
 will be the source of a significantly improved inter-domain routing
 system.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 12] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

3.3.4. Mobile and Ad-Hoc Routing

 While some of the earliest DARPA-sponsored networking research
 involved packet radio networks, mobile routing [IM1993] and mobile
 ad-hoc routing [RFC-2501] are relatively recent arrivals in the
 Internet, and are not yet widely deployed.  The current approaches
 are not the last word in either of those arenas.  We believe that
 additional research into routing support for mobile hosts and mobile
 networks is needed.  Additional research for ad-hoc mobile hosts and
 mobile networks is also worthwhile.  Ideally, mobile routing and
 mobile ad-hoc routing capabilities should be native inherent
 capabilities of the Internet routing architecture.  This probably
 will require a significant evolution from the existing Internet
 routing architecture.  (NB: The term "mobility" as used here is not
 limited to mobile telephones, but instead is very broadly defined,
 including laptops that people carry, cars/trains/aircraft, and so
 forth.)
 Included in this topic are a wide variety of issues.  The more
 distributed and dynamic nature of partially or completely self-
 organizing routing systems (including the associated end nodes)
 creates unique security challenges (especially relating to
 Authorization, Authentication, and Accounting, and relating to key
 management).  Scalability of wireless networks can be difficult to
 measure or to achieve.  Enforced hierarchy is one approach, but can
 be very limiting.  Alternative, less constraining approaches to
 wireless scalability are desired.  Because wireless link-layer
 protocols usually have some knowledge of current link characteristics
 such as link quality, sublayer congestion conditions, or transient
 channel behavior, it is desirable to find ways to let network-layer
 routing use such data.  This raises architectural questions of what
 the proper layering should be, which functions should be in which
 layer, and also practical considerations of how and when such
 information sharing should occur in real implementations.

3.4. Security

 The Internet has a reputation for not having sufficient security.  In
 fact, the Internet has a number of security mechanisms standardized,
 some of which are widely deployed.  However, there are a number of
 open research questions relating to Internet security.  In
 particular, security mechanisms need to be incrementally deployable
 and easy to use.  "[Security] technology must be easy to use, or it
 will not be configured correctly.  If mis-configured, security will
 be lost, but things will `work'" [Schiller03].

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 13] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

3.4.1. Formal Methods

 There is an ongoing need for funding of basic research relating to
 Internet security, including funding of formal methods research that
 relates to security algorithms, protocols, and systems.
 For example, it would be beneficial to have more formal study of
 non-hierarchical trust models (e.g., PGP's Web-of-Trust model).  Use
 of a hierarchical trust model can create significant limitations in
 how one might approach securing components of the Internet, for
 example the inter-domain routing system.  So research to develop new
 trust models suited for the Internet or on the applicability of
 existing non-hierarchical trust models to existing Internet problems
 would be worthwhile.
 While there has been some work on the application of formal methods
 to cryptographic algorithms and cryptographic protocols, existing
 techniques for formal evaluation of algorithms and protocols lack
 sufficient automation.  This lack of automation means that many
 protocols aren't formally evaluated in a timely manner.  This is
 problematic for the Internet because formal evaluation has often
 uncovered serious anomalies in cryptographic protocols.  The creation
 of automated tools for applying formal methods to cryptographic
 algorithms and/or protocols would be very helpful.

3.4.2. Key Management

 A recurring challenge to the Internet community is how to design,
 implement, and deploy key management appropriate to the myriad of
 security contexts existing in the global Internet.  Most current work
 in unicast key management has focused on hierarchical trust models,
 because much of the existing work has been driven by corporate or
 military "top-down" operating models.
 The paucity of key management methods applicable to non-hierarchical
 trust models (see above) is a significant constraint on the
 approaches that might be taken to secure components of the Internet.
 Research focused on removing those constraints by developing
 practical key management methods applicable to non-hierarchical trust
 models would be very helpful.
 Topics worthy of additional research include key management
 techniques, such as non-hierarchical key management architectures
 (e.g., to support non-hierarchical trust models; see above), that are
 useful by ad-hoc groups in mobile networks and/or distributed
 computing.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 14] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 Although some progress has been made in recent years, scalable
 multicast key management is far from being a solved problem.
 Existing approaches to scalable multicast key management add
 significant constraints on the problem scope in order to come up with
 a deployable technical solution.  Having a more general approach to
 scalable multicast key management (i.e., one having broader
 applicability and fewer constraints) would enhance the Internet's
 capabilities.
 In many cases, attribute negotiation is an important capability of a
 key management protocol.  Experience with the Internet Key Exchange
 (IKE) to date has been that it is unduly complex.  Much of IKE's
 complexity derives from its very general attribute negotiation
 capabilities.  A new key management approach that supported
 significant attribute negotiation without creating challenging levels
 of deployment and operations complexity would be helpful.

3.4.3. Cryptography

 There is an ongoing need to continue the open-world research funding
 into both cryptography and cryptanalysis.  Most governments focus
 their cryptographic research in the military-sector.  While this is
 understandable, those efforts often have limited (or no) publications
 in the open literature.  Since the Internet engineering community
 must work from the open literature, it is important that open-world
 research continues in the future.

3.4.4. Security for Distributed Computing

 MIT's Project Athena was an important and broadly successful research
 project into distributed computing.  Project Athena developed the
 Kerberos [RFC-1510] security system, which has significant deployment
 today in campus environments.  However, inter-realm Kerberos is
 neither as widely deployed nor perceived as widely successful as
 single-realm Kerberos.  The need for scalable inter-domain user
 authentication is increasingly acute as ad-hoc computing and mobile
 computing become more widely deployed.  Thus, work on scalable
 mechanisms for mobile, ad-hoc, and non-hierarchical inter-domain
 authentication would be very helpful.

3.4.5. Deployment Considerations in Security

 Lots of work has been done on theoretically perfect security that is
 impossible to deploy.  Unfortunately, the S-BGP proposal is an
 example of a good research product that has significant unresolved
 deployment challenges.  It is far from obvious how one could widely
 deploy S-BGP without previously deploying a large-scale inter-domain
 public-key infrastructure and also centralizing route advertisement

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 15] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 policy enforcement in the Routing Information Registries or some
 similar body.  Historically, public-key infrastructures have been
 either very difficult or impossible to deploy at large scale.
 Security mechanisms that need additional infrastructure have not been
 deployed well.  We desperately need security that is general, easy to
 install, and easy to manage.

3.4.6. Denial of Service Protection

 Historically, the Internet community has mostly ignored pure Denial
 of Service (DoS) attacks.  This was appropriate at one time since
 such attacks were rare and are hard to defend against.  However, one
 of the recent trends in adversarial software (e.g., viruses, worms)
 has been the incorporation of features that turn the infected host
 into a "zombie".  Such zombies can be remotely controlled to mount a
 distributed denial of service attack on some victim machine.  In many
 cases, the authorized operators of systems are not aware that some or
 all of their systems have become zombies.  It appears that the
 presence of non-trivial numbers of zombies in the global Internet is
 now endemic, which makes distributed denial of service attacks a much
 larger concern.  So Internet threat models need to assume the
 presence of such zombies in significant numbers.  This makes the
 design of protocols resilient in the presence of distributed denial
 of service attacks very important to the health of the Internet.
 Some work has been done on this front [Savage00], [MBFIPS01], but
 more is needed.

3.5. Network Management

 The Internet had early success in network device monitoring with the
 Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) and its associated
 Management Information Base (MIB).  There has been comparatively less
 success in managing networks, in contrast to the monitoring of
 individual devices.  Furthermore, there are a number of operator
 requirements not well supported by the current Internet management
 framework.  It is desirable to enhance the current Internet network
 management architecture to more fully support operational needs.
 Unfortunately, network management research has historically been very
 underfunded.  Operators have complained that existing solutions are
 inadequate.  Research is needed to find better solutions.

3.5.1. Managing Networks, Not Devices

 At present there are few or no good tools for managing a whole
 network instead of isolated devices.  For example, the lack of
 appropriate network management tools has been cited as one of the
 major barriers to the widespread deployment of IP multicast [Diot00,

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 16] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 SM03].  Current network management protocols, such as the Simple
 Network Management Protocol (SNMP), are fine for reading status of
 well-defined objects from individual boxes.  Managing networks
 instead of isolated devices requires the ability to view the network
 as a large distributed system.  Research is needed on scalable
 distributed data aggregation mechanisms, scalable distributed event
 correlation mechanisms, and distributed and dependable control
 mechanisms.
 Applied research into methods of managing sets of networked devices
 seems worthwhile.  Ideally, such a management approach would support
 distributed management, rather than being strictly centralized.

3.5.2. Enhanced Monitoring Capabilities

 SNMP does not always scale well to monitoring large numbers of
 objects in many devices in different parts of the network.  An
 alternative approach worth exploring is how to provide scalable and
 distributed monitoring, not on individual devices, but instead on
 groups of devices and the network-as-a-whole.  This requires scalable
 techniques for data aggregation and event correlation of network
 status data originating from numerous locations in the network.

3.5.3. Customer Network Management

 An open issue related to network management is helping users and
 others to identify and resolve problems in the network.  If a user
 can't access a web page, it would be useful if the user could find
 out, easily, without having to run ping and traceroute, whether the
 problem was that the web server was down, that the network was
 partitioned due to a link failure, that there was heavy congestion
 along the path, that the DNS name couldn't be resolved, that the
 firewall prohibited the access, or that some other specific event
 occurred.

3.5.4. Autonomous Network Management

 More research is needed to improve the degree of automation achieved
 by network management systems and to localize management.  Autonomous
 network management might involve the application of control theory,
 artificial intelligence or expert system technologies to network
 management problems.

3.6. Quality of Service

 There has been an intensive body of research and development work on
 adding QoS to the Internet architecture for more than ten years now
 [RFC-1633, RFC-2474, RFC-3260, RFC-2205, RFC-2210], yet we still

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 17] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 don't have end-to-end QoS in the Internet [RFC-2990, RFC-3387].  The
 IETF is good at defining individual QoS mechanisms, but poor at work
 on deployable QoS architectures.  Thus, while Differentiated Services
 (DiffServ) mechanisms have been standardized as per-hop behaviors,
 there is still much to be learned about the deployment of that or
 other QoS mechanisms for end-to-end QoS.  In addition to work on
 purely technical issues, this includes close attention to the
 economic models and deployment strategies that would enable an
 increased deployment of QoS in the network.
 In many cases, deployment of QoS mechanisms would significantly
 increase operational security risks [RFC-2990], so any new research
 on QoS mechanisms or architectures ought to specifically discuss the
 potential security issues associated with the new proposal(s) and how
 to mitigate those security issues.
 In some cases, the demand for QoS mechanisms has been diminished by
 the development of more resilient voice/video coding techniques that
 are better suited for the best-effort Internet than the older coding
 techniques that were originally designed for circuit-switched
 networks.
 One of the factors that has blunted the demand for QoS has been the
 transition of the Internet infrastructure from heavy congestion in
 the early 1990s, to overprovisioning in backbones and in many
 international links now.  Thus, research in QoS mechanisms also has
 to include some careful attention to the relative costs and benefits
 of QoS in different places in the network.  Applied research into QoS
 should include explicit consideration of economic issues of deploying
 and operating a QoS-enabled IP network [Clark02].

3.6.1. Inter-Domain QoS Architecture

 Typically, a router in the deployed inter-domain Internet provides
 best-effort forwarding of IP packets, without regard for whether the
 source or destination of the packet is a direct customer of the
 operator of the router.  This property is a significant contributor
 to the current scalability of the global Internet and contributes to
 the difficulty of deploying inter-domain Quality of Service (QoS)
 mechanisms.
 Deploying existing Quality-of-Service (QoS) mechanisms, for example
 Differentiated Services or Integrated Services, across an inter-
 domain boundary creates a significant and easily exploited denial-of-
 service vulnerability for any network that provides inter-domain QoS
 support.  This has caused network operators to refrain from
 supporting inter-domain QoS.  The Internet would benefit from

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 18] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 additional research into alternative approaches to QoS, particularly
 into approaches that do not create such vulnerabilities and can be
 deployed end-to-end [RFC-2990].
 Also, current business models are not consistent with inter-domain
 QoS, in large part because it is impractical or impossible to
 authenticate the identity of the sender of would-be preferred traffic
 while still forwarding traffic at line-rate.  Absent such an ability,
 it is unclear how a network operator could bill or otherwise recover
 costs associated with providing that preferred service.  So any new
 work on inter-domain QoS mechanisms and architectures needs to
 carefully consider the economic and security implications of such
 proposals.

3.6.2. New Queuing Disciplines

 The overall Quality-of-Service for traffic is in part determined by
 the scheduling and queue management mechanisms at the routers.  While
 there are a number of existing mechanisms (e.g., RED) that work well,
 it is possible that improved active queuing strategies might be
 devised.  Mechanisms that lowered the implementation cost in IP
 routers might help increase deployment of active queue management,
 for example.

3.7. Congestion Control.

 TCP's congestion avoidance and control mechanisms, from 1988
 [Jacobson88], have been a key factor in maintaining the stability of
 the Internet, and are used by the bulk of the Internet's traffic.
 However, the congestion control mechanisms of the Internet need to be
 expanded and modified to meet a wide range of new requirements, from
 new applications such as streaming media and multicast to new
 environments such as wireless networks or very high bandwidth paths,
 and new requirements for minimizing queueing delay.  While there are
 significant bodies of work in several of these issues, considerably
 more needs to be done.
 We would note that research on TCP congestion control is also not yet
 "done", with much still to be accomplished in high-speed TCP, or in
 adding robust performance over paths with significant reordering,
 intermittent connectivity, non-congestive packet loss, and the like.
 Several of these issues bring up difficult fundamental questions
 about the potential costs and benefits of increased communication
 between layers.  Would it help transport to receive hints or other
 information from routing, from link layers, or from other transport-
 level connections?  If so, what would be the cost to robust operation
 across diverse environments?

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 19] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 For congestion control mechanisms in routers, active queue management
 and Explicit Congestion Notification are generally not yet deployed,
 and there are a range of proposals, in various states of maturity, in
 this area.  At the same time, there is a great deal that we still do
 not understand about the interactions of queue management mechanisms
 with other factors in the network.  Router-based congestion control
 mechanisms are also needed for detecting and responding to aggregate
 congestion such as in Distributed Denial of Service attacks and flash
 crowds.
 As more applications have the need to transfer very large files over
 high delay-bandwidth-product paths, the stresses on current
 congestion control mechanisms raise the question of whether we need
 more fine-grained feedback from routers.  This includes the challenge
 of allowing connections to avoid the delays of slow-start, and to
 rapidly make use of newly-available bandwidth.  On a more general
 level, we don't understand the potential and limitations for best-
 effort traffic over high delay-bandwidth-product paths, given the
 current feedback from routers, or the range of possibilities for more
 explicit feedback from routers.
 There is also a need for long-term research in congestion control
 that is separate from specific functional requirements like the ones
 listed above.  We know very little about congestion control dynamics
 or traffic dynamics of a large, complex network like the global
 Internet, with its heterogeneous and changing traffic mixes, link-
 level technologies, network protocols and router mechanisms, patterns
 of congestion, pricing models, and the like.  Expanding our knowledge
 in this area seems likely to require a rich mix of measurement,
 analysis, simulations, and experimentation.

3.8. Studying the Evolution of the Internet Infrastructure

 The evolution of the Internet infrastructure has been frustratingly
 slow and difficult, with long stories about the difficulties in
 adding IPv6, QoS, multicast, and other functionality to the Internet.
 We need a more scientific understanding of the evolutionary
 potentials and evolutionary difficulties of the Internet
 infrastructure.
 This evolutionary potential is affected not only by the technical
 issues of the layered IP architecture, but by other factors as well.
 These factors include the changes in the environment over time (e.g.,
 the recent overprovisioning of backbones, the deployment of
 firewalls), and the role of the standardization process.  Economic
 and public policy factors are also critical, including the central
 fact of the Internet as a decentralized system, with key players
 being not only individuals, but also ISPs, companies, and entire

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 20] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 industries.  Deployment issues are also key factors in the evolution
 of the Internet, including the continual chicken-and-egg problem of
 having enough customers to merit rolling out a service whose utility
 depends on the size of the customer base in the first place.
 Overlay networks might serve as a transition technology for some new
 functionality, with an initial deployment in overlay networks, and
 with the new functionality moving later into the core if it seems
 warranted.
 There are also increased obstacles to the evolution of the Internet
 in the form of increased complexity [WD02], unanticipated feature
 interactions [Kruse00], interactions between layers [CWWS92],
 interventions by middleboxes [RFC-3424], and the like.  Because
 increasing complexity appears inevitable, research is needed to
 understand architectural mechanisms that can accommodate increased
 complexity without decreasing robustness of performance in unknown
 environments, and without closing off future possibilities for
 evolution.  More concretely, research is needed on how to evolve the
 Internet will still maintaining its core strengths, such as the
 current degree of global addressability of hosts, end-to-end
 transparency of packet forwarding, and good performance for best-
 effort traffic.

3.9. Middleboxes

 Research is needed to address the challenges posed by the wide range
 of middleboxes [RFC-3234].  This includes issues of security,
 control, data integrity, and on the general impact of middleboxes on
 the architecture.
 In many ways middleboxes are a direct outgrowth of commercial
 interests, but there is a need to look beyond the near-term needs for
 the technology, to research its broader implications and to explore
 ways to improve how middleboxes are integrated into the architecture.

3.10. Internet Measurement

 A recurring challenge is measuring the Internet; there have been many
 discussions about the need for measurement studies as an integral
 part of Internet research [Claffy03].  In this discussion, we define
 measurement quite broadly.  For example, there are numerous
 challenges in measuring performance along any substantial Internet
 path, particularly when the path crosses administrative domain
 boundaries.  There are also challenges in measuring
 protocol/application usage on any high-speed Internet link.  Many of

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 21] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 the problems discussed above would benefit from increased frequency
 of measurement as well as improved quality of measurement on the
 deployed Internet.
 A key issue in network measurement is that most commercial Internet
 Service Providers consider the particular characteristics of their
 production IP network(s) to be trade secrets.  Ways need to be found
 for cooperative measurement studies, e.g., to allow legitimate non-
 commercial researchers to be able to measure relevant network
 parameters while also protecting the privacy rights of the measured
 ISPs.
 Absent measured data, there is possibly an over-reliance on network
 simulations in some parts of the Internet research community and
 probably insufficient validation that existing network simulation
 models are reasonably good representations of the deployed Internet
 (or of some plausible future Internet) [FK02].
 Without solid measurement of the current Internet behavior, it is
 very difficult to know what otherwise unknown operational problems
 exist that require attention, and it is equally difficult to fully
 understand the impact of changes (past or future) upon the Internet's
 actual behavioral characteristics.

3.11. Applications

 Research is needed on a wide range of issues related to Internet
 applications.
 Taking email as one example application, research is needed on
 understanding the spam problem, and on investigating tools and
 techniques to mitigate the effects of spam, including tools and
 techniques that aid the implementation of legal and other non-
 technical anti-spam measures [ASRG].  "Spam" is a generic term for a
 range of significantly different types of unwanted bulk email, with
 many types of senders, content and traffic-generating techniques.  As
 one part of controlling spam, we need to develop a much better
 understanding of its many, different characteristics and their
 interactions with each other.

3.12. Meeting the Needs of the Future

 As network size, link bandwidth, CPU capacity, and the number of
 users all increase, research will be needed to ensure that the
 Internet of the future scales to meet these increasing demands.  We
 have discussed some of these scaling issues in specific sections
 above.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 22] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 However, for all of the research questions discussed in this
 document, the goal of the research must be not only to meet the
 challenges already experienced today, but also to meet the challenges
 that can be expected to emerge in the future.

3.13. Freely Distributable Prototypes

 U.S.'s DARPA has historically funded development of freely
 distributable implementations of various Internet technologies (e.g.,
 TCP/IPv4, RSVP, IPv6, and IP security) in a variety of operating
 systems (e.g., 4.2 BSD, 4.3 BSD, 4.4 BSD, Tenex).  Experience has
 shown that a good way to speed deployment of a new technology is to
 provide an unencumbered, freely-distributable prototype that can be
 incorporated into commercial products as well as non-commercial
 prototypes.  Japan's WIDE Project has also funded some such work,
 primarily focused on IPv6 implementation for 4.4 BSD and Linux.
 [WIDE] We believe that applied research projects in networking will
 have an increased probability of success if the research project
 teams make their resulting software implementations freely available
 for both commercial and non-commercial uses.  Examples of successes
 here include the DARPA funding of TCP/IPv4 integration into the 4.x
 BSD operating system [MBKQ96], DARPA/USN funding of ESP/AH design and
 integration into 4.4 BSD [Atk96], as well as separate DARPA/USN and
 WIDE funding of freely distributable IPv6 prototypes [Atk96, WIDE].

4. Conclusions

 This document has summarized the history of research funding for the
 Internet and highlighted examples of open research questions.  The
 IAB believes that more research is required to further the evolution
 of the Internet infrastructure, and that consistent, sufficient non-
 commercial funding is needed to enable such research.
 In case there is any confusion, in this document we are not
 suggesting any direct or indirect role for the IAB, the IETF, or the
 IRTF in handling any funding for Internet research.

5. Acknowledgements

 The people who directly contributed to this document in some form
 include the following: Ran Atkinson, Guy Almes, Rob Austein, Vint
 Cerf, Jon Crowcroft, Sally Floyd, James Kempf, Joe Macker, Craig
 Partridge, Vern Paxson, Juergen Schoenwaelder, and Mike St. Johns.
 We are also grateful to Kim Claffy, Dave Crocker, Michael Eder, Eric
 Fleischman, Andrei Gurtov, Stephen Kent, J.P. Martin-Flatin, and
 Hilarie Orman for feedback on earlier drafts of this document.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 23] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 We have also drawn from the following reports:
 [CIPB02,IST02,NV02,NSF02,NSF03,NSF03a].

6. Security Considerations

 This document does not itself create any new security issues for the
 Internet community.  Security issues within the Internet Architecture
 primarily are discussed in Section 3.4 above.

7. Informative References

 [ASRG]        Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the IRTF.  URL
               "http://asrg.sp.am/".
 [Atk96]       R. Atkinson et al., "Implementation of IPv6 in 4.4
               BSD", Proceedings of USENIX 1996 Annual Technical
               Conference, USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA.
               January 1996.  URL
               http://www.chacs.itd.nrl.navy.mil/publications/CHACS/
               1996/1996atkinson-USENIX.pdf
 [Bellman1957] R.E. Bellman, "Dynamic Programming", Princeton
               University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1957.
 [Claffy03]    K. Claffy, "Priorities and Challenges in Internet
               Measurement, Simulation, and Analysis", Large Scale
               Network meeting, (US) National Science Foundation,
               Arlington, VA, USA.  10 June 2003.  URL
               "http://www.caida.org/outreach/
               presentations/2003/lsn20030610/".
 [Claffy03a]   K. Claffy, "Top Problems of the Internet and What
               Sysadmins and Researchers Can Do To Help", plenary talk
               at LISA'03, October 2003.  URL
               "http://www.caida.org/outreach/presentations/
               2003/netproblems_lisa03/".
 [Clark02]     D. D. Clark, "Deploying the Internet - why does it take
               so long and, can research help?", Large-Scale
               Networking Distinguished Lecture Series, (U.S.)
               National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 8 January
               2002.  URL: http://www.ngi-
               supernet.org/conferences.html

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 24] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 [CSTB99]      Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, (U.S.)
               National Research Council, "Funding a Revolution:
               Government Support for Computing Research", National
               Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999.  URL
               "http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cstb/
               pub_revolution.html".
 [CIPB02]      Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, "National
               Strategy to Secure Cyberspace", The White House,
               Washington, DC, USA.  September 2002, URL
               "http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb".
 [CWWS92]      J. Crowcroft, I. Wakeman, Z. Wang, and D. Sirovica, "Is
               Layering Harmful?", IEEE Networks, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp
               20-24, January 1992.
 [Diot00]      C. Diot, et al., "Deployment Issues for the IP
               Multicast Service and Architecture", IEEE Network,
               January/February 2000.
 [Deering1988] S. Deering, "Multicast Routing in Internetworks and
               LANs", ACM Computer Communications Review, Volume 18,
               Issue 4, August 1988.
 [Dijkstra59]  E. Dijkstra, "A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with
               Graphs", Numerische Mathematik, 1, 1959, pp.269-271.
 [FF1962]      L. R. Ford Jr. and D.R. Fulkerson, "Flows in Networks",
               Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1962.
 [FK02]        S. Floyd and E. Kohler, "Internet Research Needs Better
               Models", Proceedings of 1st Workshop on Hot Topics in
               Networks (Hotnets-I),  Princeton, NJ, USA. October
               2002.  URL
               "http://www.icir.org/models/bettermodels.html".
 [IM1993]      J. Ioannidis and G. Maguire Jr., "The Design and
               Implementation of a Mobile Internetworking
               Architecture", Proceedings of the Winter USENIX
               Technical Conference, pages 489-500, Berkeley, CA, USA,
               January 1993.
 [IST02]       Research Networking in Europe - Striving for Global
               Leadership, Information Society Technologies, 2002.
               URL "http://www.cordis.lu/ist/rn/rn-brochure.htm".

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 25] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 [Jacobson88]  Van Jacobson, "Congestion Avoidance and Control",
               Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 1988 Symposium, ACM SIGCOMM,
               Stanford, CA, August 1988.  URL
               "http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/jacobson88congestion.html".
 [Jackson02]   William Jackson, "U.S. should fund R&D for secure
               Internet protocols, Clarke says", Government Computer
               News, 31 October 2002.  URL
               "http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/security/20382-1.html".
 [Kruse00]     Hans Kruse, "The Pitfalls of Distributed Protocol
               Development: Unintentional Interactions between Network
               Operations and Applications Protocols", Proceedings of
               the 8th International Conference on Telecommunication
               Systems Design, Nashville, TN, USA, March 2000.  URL
               "http://www.csm.ohiou.edu/kruse/publications/
               TSYS2000.pdf".
 [KLMS2000]    S. Kent, C. Lynn, J. Mikkelson, and K. Seo, "Secure
               Border Gateway Protocol (S-BGP)", Proceedings of ISOC
               Network and Distributed Systems Security Symposium,
               Internet Society, Reston, VA, February 2000.
 [LD2002]      E. Lear and R. Droms, "What's in a Name: Thoughts from
               the NSRG", expired Internet-Draft, December 2002.
 [MBFIPS01]    Ratul Mahajan, Steven M. Bellovin, Sally Floyd, John
               Ioannidis, Vern Paxson, and Scott Shenker, "Controlling
               High Bandwidth Aggregates in the Network", ACM Computer
               Communications Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, July 2002.  URL
               "http://www.icir.org/pushback/".
 [MBKQ96]      M. McKusick, K. Bostic, M. Karels, and J. Quarterman,
               "Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating
               System", Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1996.
 [MGVK02]      Z. Mao, R. Govindan, G. Varghese, & R. Katz, "Route
               Flap Dampening Exacerbates Internet Routing
               Convergence", Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 2002, ACM,
               Pittsburgh, PA, USA, August 2002.
 [NV02]        NetVision 2012 Committee,"DARPA's Ten-Year Strategic
               Plan for Networking Research", (U.S.) Defense Advanced
               Research Projects Agency, October 2002.  Citation for
               acknowledgement purposes only.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 26] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 [NSF02]       NSF Workshop on Network Research Testbeds, National
               Science Foundation, Directorate for Computer and
               Information Science & Engineering, Advanced Networking
               Infrastructure & Research Division, Arlington, VA, USA,
               October 2002.  URL "http://www-
               net.cs.umass.edu/testbed_workshop/".
 [NSF03]       NSF ANIR Principal Investigator meeting, National
               Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, USA.  January 9-10,
               2003, URL "http://www.ncne.org/training/nsf-
               pi/2003/nsfpimain.html".
 [NSF03a]      D. E. Atkins, et al., "Revolutionizing Science and
               Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure", Report of NSF
               Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure, January 2003.
               URL "http://www.cise.nsf.gov/evnt/reports/
               atkins_annc_020303.htm".
 [NSF03b]      Report of the National Science Foundation Workshop on
               Fundamental Research in Networking.  April 24-25, 2003.
               URL "http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~jorg/workshop1/NSF-
               NetWorkshop-2003.pdf".
 [Floyd]       S. Floyd, "Papers about Research Questions for the
               Internet", web page, ICSI Center for Internet Research
               (ICIR), Berkeley, CA, 2003 URL
               "http://www.icir.org/floyd/research_questions.html".
 [RFC-1510]    Kohl, J. and C. Neuman, "The Kerberos Network
               Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 1510, September 1993.
 [RFC-1633]    Braden, R., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated
               Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview",
               RFC 1633, June 1994.
 [RFC-2082]    Baker, F. and R. Atkinson, "RIP-2 MD5 Authentication",
               RFC 2082, January 1997.
 [RFC-2210]    Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
               Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
 [RFC-2154]    Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
               Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
 [RFC-2385]    Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP
               MD5 Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 27] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 [RFC-2407]    Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
               Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.
 [RFC-2501]    Corson, S. and J. Macker, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
               (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
               Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999.
 [RFC-2990]    Huston, G., "Next Steps for the IP QoS Architecture",
               RFC 2990, November 2000.
 [RFC-3221]    Huston, G., "Commentary on Inter-Domain Routing in the
               Internet", RFC 3221, December 2001.
 [RFC-3234]    Carpenter, B. and S. Brim, "Middleboxes: Taxonomy and
               Issues", RFC 3234, February 2002.
 [RFC-3424]    Daigle, L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral
               Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address
               Translation", RFC 3424, November 2002.
 [RFC-3467]    Klensin, J., "Role of the Domain Name System (DNS)",
               RFC 3467, February 2003.
 [RFC-3535]    Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network
               Management Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003.
 [RFC-3387]    Eder, M., Chaskar, H., and S. Nag, "Considerations from
               the Service Management Research Group (SMRG) on Quality
               of Service (QoS) in the IP Network", RFC 3387,
               September 2002.
 [RIPE]        RIPE (Reseaux IP Europeens), Amsterdam, NL.  URL
               "http://www.ripe.net/ripe/".
 [Savage00]    Savage, S., Wetherall, D., Karlink, A. R., and
               Anderson, T., "Practical Network Support for IP
               Traceback", Proceedings of 2000 ACM SIGCOMM Conference,
               ACM SIGCOMM, Stockholm, SE, pp. 295-306.  August 2000.
 [Schiller03]  J. I. Schiller, "Interception Technology: The Good, The
               Bad, and The Ugly!", Presentation at 28th NANOG
               Meeting, North American Network Operators Group
               (NANOG), Ann Arbor, MI, USA, June 2003.  URL
               "http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0306/schiller.html".

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 28] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

 [SM03]        P. Sharma and R. Malpani, "IP Multicast Operational
               Network Management: Design, Challenges, and
               Experiences", IEEE Network, Vol.  17, No. 2, March
               2003.
 [SMA03]       N. Spring, R. Mahajan, & T. Anderson, "Quantifying the
               Causes of Path Inflation", Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM
               2003, ACM, Karlsruhe, Germany, August 2003.
 [WD02]        Walter Willinger and John Doyle, "Robustness and the
               Internet:  Design and Evolution", Unpublished/Preprint,
               1 March 2002, URL
               "http://netlab.caltech.edu/internet/".
 [WIDE]        WIDE Project, Japan.  URL "http://www.wide.ad.jp/".

8. Authors' Addresses

 Internet Architecture Board
 EMail:  iab@iab.org
 Internet Architecture Board Members
 at the time this document was published were:
 Bernard Aboba
 Harald Alvestrand (IETF chair)
 Rob Austein
 Leslie Daigle (IAB chair)
 Patrik Faltstrom
 Sally Floyd
 Mark Handley
 Bob Hinden
 Geoff Huston (IAB Executive Director)
 Jun-ichiro Itojun Hagino
 Eric Rescorla
 Pete Resnick
 Jonathan Rosenberg
 We note that Ran Atkinson, one of the editors of the document, was an
 IAB member at the time that this document was first created, in
 November 2002, and that Vern Paxson, the IRTF chair, is an ex-officio
 member of the IAB.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 29] RFC 3869 Research Funding Recommendations August 2004

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/S HE
 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
 INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
 IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can
 be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
 ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Atkinson & Floyd Informational [Page 30]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3869.txt · Last modified: 2004/08/23 18:45 (external edit)