RFC 1015
Implementation plan for interagency research Internet
Implementation Plan for Interagency Research Internet 🌸
okay bestie, the header first 🎀 This is RFC 1015, from the Network Working Group, written by Barry M. Leiner at RIACS and dated July 1987. It's labeled an idea paper, and the header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates.
Status of This Memo ✨
so this RFC proposes an Interagency Research Internet as the natural outgrowth of the current Internet 🦋 It's an "idea paper," so discussion is strongly encouraged, and distribution of this memo is unlimited 💖
Overview 💅
networking has gotten super widespread in the scientific community, and even more so in computer science 🧚 A bunch of federal agencies that fund science run networks, and lots of scientists can get onto one or more of them. There are also resources, like supercomputers, that you can reach through those networks ✨
the tea is that many of these networks are interconnected on an informal basis, but there's no consistent mechanism for sharing the networking resources 😭 So the FCCSET Committee on Very High Performance Computing formed a Network Working Group. That group recommended an administrative and management structure for interconnecting the current and planned agency networks that support research. The structure is based on a network of networks, using standard networking protocols 👑
this report builds on that earlier recommendation and gives an implementation plan. It covers three major areas: communications infrastructure, user support, and ongoing research. A management and administrative structure is recommended for each area, plus a budgetary estimate. A phased approach is suggested so you get interconnection quickly, then grow into full performance and functionality as the required technologies are developed and installed 🌈 While the report focuses on interconnecting agency networks and cooperation by certain federal agencies, it also talks about the possible role industry can play in supporting and using such a network ⭐
Work reported herein was supported by Cooperative Agreement NCC 2-387 from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to 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 for giving scientists access to computing resources, like supercomputers, and letting researchers interact with each other through computers. Several agencies saw that need and set up networks to provide the communications infrastructure. But the need cuts across the agencies, so the FCCSET Committee's Network Working Group recommended forming an Interagency Research Internet (IRI) [1] 🦋
the purpose of this report is to suggest an implementation plan for that IRI. It covers the same three major areas: communications infrastructure, user support, and ongoing research. A management and administrative structure is recommended for each one, plus a budgetary estimate. A phased approach is suggested that provides interconnection fast and grows to full performance and functionality as the required technologies are developed and installed. Finally, there's some discussion of a possible role for industry in supporting and using such a network 💖
Motivation 🧚
the prime responsibility for providing the infrastructure needed for successful research lies with the researcher, his/her institution, and the agency supporting that research. So the individual agencies have installed and keep enhancing computer networks, so their researchers can reach advanced computing resources like supercomputers and talk to each other through things like electronic mail 💌
still, there are a bunch of reasons it's worth interconnecting the various agency networks in a coherent way, so they make one common "virtual" network that supports research 🌸
- Making effective use of available networks without unnecessary duplication. The agencies each support researchers in many parts of the country, and they've installed equally widespread resources. Often it's more effective for a scientist to get networking service through a different agency's network than the one funding their research. For example, say several scientists at an institution are already funded by NASA and connected to a NASA-supported network. Now a scientist at the same institution, but supported by NSF, needs access to an NSF supercomputer. It's way more effective to provide that connectivity through an interconnection of NASA and NSF networks than to set up another connection (to NSFnet) to the same university 🙈
- Letting scientists access resources without caring which network they're on, without violating access controls on either the networks or the resources. A scientist may be supported by multiple agencies, and so have access to resources provided by several of them. It isn't cost-effective to give the scientist a separate network connection for each of those agency resources 🔥
- Encouraging collaborative scientific research. One of the primary functions of a computer network that supports science is encouraging collaboration between researchers. Scientific disciplines typically cut across many different agencies, so support for this collaboration should be without regard to agency affiliation or support of the scientists involved 🫶
- Running a cooperative research and development program to evolve and enhance the IRI and its components where appropriate. Scientific research is super demanding of both the computing and networking environment. To make sure those needs keep getting met, it's 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, and it isn't desirable to have inordinate duplication of research 💅
Summary of previous report 📜
these reasons led to the formation of the FCCSET Committee on Very High Performance Computing and its Network Working Group. Starting in early 1985, this group discussed the possibility of interconnecting the various agency networks supporting scientific research into a common networking facility. Those discussions led to the report issued earlier this year [1], which recommended that 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 heterogeneous networks and heterogeneous host computers [2, 3,4]. This approach is discussed further in the Background section below 🧚
the report goes on to recommend an administrative and management structure that matches the technical approach. Each agency would keep managing and administering its individual networks. An interagency body would provide direction to a selected organization, and that organization would manage and operate the interconnections of the networks and the common user services provided over the network. The selected organization would also coordinate research activities and needed developments, and reflect research community requirements into national and international standards activities 👑
Overview of Implementation Plan 🗺️
the general structure of the proposed IRI is analogous to a federal approach. Each agency is responsible for operating its own networks and satisfying its users' requirements. The IRI provides the interconnecting infrastructure so users on one network can access resources or users on other networks. The IRI also provides a set of standards and services that the individual agencies, networks, and user communities can exploit to provide capabilities to their own users. The management structure, likewise, gives the individual agencies a mechanism to cooperate without interfering with each agency's individual authorities or responsibilities 🌈
in this report, an implementation plan for the IRI is proposed. First, there's some background on previous efforts to provide networks in support of research, and on the genesis of those networks. Then comes a description of the suggested approach to attaining an IRI, split into two sections: technical and management. The technical approach has two components. The first is providing an underlying communications infrastructure, i.e. a means for providing connectivity between the various computers and workstations. The second is providing the means for users to make effective use of that infrastructure in support of their research 💖
the management section elaborates on the suggestions in the FCCSET committee report. It suggests a structure that lets the various agencies cooperate in the operations, maintenance, engineering, and research activities the IRI requires. This structure also provides the mechanisms for the scientific research community to give input on requirements and approaches 🦋
finally, a phased implementation plan is presented that would let the IRI be put in place rapidly with modest funding. A budgetary estimate is also provided 💸
Background 🌟
the combination of packet switched computer networks, internetworking to let heterogeneous computers communicate over heterogeneous networks, the widespread use of local area networks, and the availability of workstations and supercomputers has opened up the opportunity to provide greatly improved computing capabilities to science and engineering. This is the major motivation behind the IRI 🌈
History of Research Network ✨
okay bestie, the DARPA folks started cooking up packet switching in the mid 1960's 🧚 The Arpanet came first (the world's first packet switched network, iconic 👑) [5], and then a whole bunch of other networks showed up: packet satellite networks [6,7], packet radio networks [8,7], and local area networks [9] 🛰️
The Arpanet was originally built for computer resource sharing, but it became obvious pretty early on that the big use would be getting to computer resources and chatting with other users [10] 💬 After that, a number of other networks got built to do both of those things [11] CSNET was started to give computer science researchers a way to communicate [12,13] 🎓 The NSF kicked it off in cooperation with a number of universities, but it's self-sufficient now 💅 Its subscribers are universities all over the world, plus industrial members who want to interact with computer scientists 🌍
CSNET uses a bunch 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 📧 Besides that basic data transport service, CSNET and Arpanet run network information centers that help users, plus services like a listing of users with their mail addresses (white pages) and a repository where relevant documents are stored and can be retrieved 📚 literal library energy 🧸
When supercomputers showed up, researchers wanted network access too 🖥️ One of the early networks for that was MFEnet [11]. It was set up in the early 1970's to give DOE-supported users access to supercomputers, especially a Cray 1 at Lawrence Livermore National Labs. Since MFEnet was established before TCP/IP was widely adopted (to be discussed below 👀), MFEnet uses a different set of protocols. Still, interfaces have been developed between 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 🔥 Their newest computing facility, the Numerical Aerodynamic Simulator, uses a Cray 2 and other machines, along with a number of networking technologies, to support computational fluid dynamics researchers [14] It uses the TCP/IP protocol suite both locally and remotely and gives easy access through advanced workstations 💻
Recognizing how important advanced computers are for science, the NSF in 1984 started an ambitious program to get researchers supercomputer access 🚀 The program had two parts: providing the supercomputers themselves (first by buying computer time, then by setting up supercomputer centers), and giving access to them through an extensive networking program called NSFnet [15]. NSFnet uses a number of existing networks (e.g. Arpanet, BITNET, MFEnet) and exploratory networks interconnected using the TCP/IP protocol suite (discussed below) so scientists everywhere can reach the supercomputer centers and each other 🤝 It also takes advantage of the widespread installation of campus and regional networks to get this connectivity in a cost effective way 💸
The above are only a small number of the current and existing networks being used to support research. Quarterman [11] gives a good synopsis of the networks currently in operation 📖 It's obvious from all this that effective interconnection of networks can provide cost-efficient and reliable services 🙌
Starting in the early 1970's, DARPA realized the military needed to interconnect various networks (like packet radio for mobile operation with long-line networks like the Arpanet), so it started developing internet technologies [16] 📡 It began with protocols for interconnection and reliable transport (TCP/IP), and then the program developed ways to do electronic mail, remote login, file transfer, and similar functions between different computers over dissimilar networks [4,3]. Today, thousands of computers can communicate with each other over a "virtual network" of approximately 200 networks using a common set of protocols. Wild 🤯 The concepts developed here are also used in the reference model and protocols of the Open Systems Interconnection model being developed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) [17] 🌈
This is getting even more important now that local area networks are everywhere 🏫 As institutions install their own networks and need to communicate with computers at other sites, it's important to have a common set of protocols and a way to interconnect local networks with 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 a variety of networks interconnected into the Internet system ✨ The naming and addressing structure lets any computer on any network 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 they provide both routing amongst the various networks and the appropriate translation from internet addresses to the addresses required by the attached networks. So packets of data can flow between computers on the internet 📦
Because of the possibility of packet loss or errors, the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is used above IP to provide reliability and sequencing 🧦 TCP, together with IP and the various networks and gateways, then provides reliable and ordered delivery of data between computers. A variety of functions can use this connection to provide service to 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] 🙌
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| 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 SystemSo the TCP/IP protocol suite and associated mechanisms (e.g. gateways) give us a way to interconnect heterogeneous computers on heterogeneous networks 💖 Routing and addressing functions are taken care of automatically and transparently to users. The ISO is currently developing a set of interconnection standards that 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 interconnecting computers and networks. That's why 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 🎀
okay so the Internet technology we just talked about is the foundation for hooking all the agency networks together 🌸 but the way we connect them has to pass a bunch of vibe checks if it's gonna work in a multi-agency setup 💅
First vibe check: each agency has to keep control of its own networks 🦋 These networks were built to support agency-specific missions, plus general computer communications inside the agency and its contractors. So to keep those missions supported and keep the network operation accountable, the way we connect things must not stop agencies from staying in charge of their individual networks.
Now don't get it twisted, this isn't saying agencies may not choose to have the IRI operate their networks. If an agency decides that's the right move, or even wants to hand its networks over to the IRI completely, that's totally on the table 🫶
Next, the access control, privacy, and accounting mechanisms must be built in, no exceptions 🔐 That covers access control to data, resources, and the networks themselves, privacy of user data, and accounting mechanisms that support both cost allocation and cost auditing [23].
And the technical and administrative approach must allow (and honestly, it should totally encourage) new and evolving technologies ✨ In particular, the network has to level up toward high bandwidth, type of service routing, and other advanced techniques, so researchers can actually make the most of new computing tech in a distributed research environment. It's giving future-proof 🚀
Communications Infrastructure 🛰️
The communications infrastructure is what connects user machines, workstations, and centralized resources like supercomputers and database machines 💻 This roughly lines up with communications services at and below the transport layer in the ISO OSI reference model.
There are two types of networks. The first are local networks, which are internal to a facility, campus, etc. The second are networks that provide transit service between facilities. Transit networks can connect directly to computers, but they're evolving toward connecting local networks. The agency networks are mostly transit (or long-haul) networks, since they usually provide nationwide connectivity and leave communications within a facility to the facility itself. So the IRI communications infrastructure mainly deals with interconnecting transit networks 🌈
The internet model we described earlier gives 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. Where the gateways go and how much capacity they have will need to be decided by an initial engineering study 📝 Also, as the IRI evolves, it may be cost-effective to install one or more wide area networks (or designate certain existing ones) as IRI transit networks, used by all agencies on a cost-sharing basis.
So the IRI communications infrastructure would consist of the interconnecting gateways plus any networks used specifically as transit networks. Using IP as the standard for interconnecting networks, along with global addressing, gives you a common virtual network packet transport service 🧚 Other services like file transfer and electronic mail can then be built on top of it. This lets the communication facilities (channels, satellites, etc.) get shared between the various user and agency communities in a cost-effective way 💖
To get widespread interconnectivity, it's important that standards are adopted for use in the IRI and the various computers connected to it 🍓 These standards need to cover not just packet transport but must also 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's desirable to move toward a single set of standards for the common services, and the logical choice is the standards being developed by the international commercial community (i.e. the ISO standards) 👑
However, many scientific networks today use one or more of a small number of different standards. In particular, that's the TCP/IP protocol suite mentioned above, the MFEnet protocols, and DECNET 🫠 As the international standards mature, the number of communities using the same protocol suite is expected to grow [5] [6]. Even today, several of the agencies and communities are already using a common protocol suite, namely TCP/IP. All the users connected to those computers and networks can have the full functions of an interoperable networking capability, which means their ability to share resources and results is about to go way up 🎉
User Services 🫶
Scientists need a user support organization so they can use the network effectively 🧑🔬 To maximize the cost-effectiveness of the overall IRI, the local user support personnel must be used effectively. Direct support of users and researchers is expected to come from local support personnel, and the IRI user support organization would back those local folks up in areas where nationwide common service is cost-effective 💅
In particular, this organization has several functions:
- assist the local support personnel in installing facilities compatible with the IRI
- provide references to standard facilities (e.g. networking interfaces, mail software) to the local support personnel
- answer questions the local personnel aren't able to answer
- aid in providing specific user community services, e.g. a database of relevance to a specific scientific domain 📚
Internet Research Coordination 🔬
To evolve the internet so it can satisfy new scientific requirements and use new technology, research is needed 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 help identify the research areas where the various agencies have a common interest in supporting, in order to evolve the network, and then help coordinate that research ✨
MANAGEMENT APPROACH 📋
A management approach is required that lets each agency keep control of its own networking assets while still sharing certain resources with users sponsored by other agencies 🤝 To make that happen, the following principles and constraints need to be followed.
IRI is made up of the infrastructure that connects agency networks, plus the user services needed to use the combined networks and resources effectively 🌸
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 use 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 them 🙈
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 the evolution and enhancement of the IRI. That's the whole goal, bestie 🌈✨
General Management Structure
okay so Figure 2 is the big-picture management structure for the IRI 🦋✨ It's built around a non-profit organization (call it the Interagency Research Internet Organization, IRIO) that runs both the communications infrastructure and the user support. The IRIO contracts out the engineering, development, operations, and maintenance of those services to various commercial and other organizations 💼 It's also responsible for the technical and administrative management of those contractors. Having an independent non-profit that's skilled in computer networking is what lets the IRI handle the evolving, changing demands of scientific networking flexibly and cost-effectively 💅
Direction and guidance for the IRIO come from a Policy Board made up of representatives from the Government agencies funding the IRI 👑 The Chairman of the Board is picked from the agency representatives on a rotating basis. The Board also gets an Executive Director for administrative and other support. To make sure the Policy Board is well supported and the IRIO stays properly coordinated, the Executive Director is the Director of the IRIO 🫶
To make sure the IRI gives the scientific research community the best support possible, the Policy Board gets advice from a Technical Advisory Board (TAB) 🎀 The TAB is made up of representatives from the network research and engineering community, the various networks being interconnected with the IRI, and the scientific user community. The Policy Board selects the TAB members. The TAB reviews the operational support of science the IRI provides and suggests directions for improvement. It interfaces directly with the IRIO to review operational status and future plans, and it recommends changes in priorities or directions to the Policy Board 📋
Research related to the use and evolution of the internet system is coordinated by the Internet Research Activities Board (IRAB) 🧠 The IRAB is made up of the chairmen of the research task forces (more on those below), and it has ex-officio members who are technical representatives from the funding agencies and the IRIO. Its charter is to identify the research directions required to improve the IRI and recommend them to the funding agencies. It also keeps reviewing ongoing research activities and figures out how they can be exploited to improve the IRI 🔍
The Research Task Forces each focus on a particular area or emphasis of research (e.g. end-to-end protocols, gateway architectures, etc.) 🔬 Members are active researchers in the field, and each chairman is an expert in the area with a broad understanding of research both in that area and in the general internet (and its use for scientific research). The chairmen are selected by the IRAB, so the IRAB ends up being a self-elected and governing organization representing the networking research community 👑 The chairmen solicit the task force members as volunteers.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ .... +------+
|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 StructureFunding
Now let's talk money 💸 Funding for the IRI is split into two categories. Remember, the IRI is the infrastructure that connects the agency networks, plus the services users need to actually make good use of that infrastructure. Operations costs cover operating and maintaining both the communications infrastructure and the user services. These must be shared between the various agencies and channeled to the IRIO to operate the IRI 💖 Research costs pay for the research needed to evolve the IRI. Those 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 the IRI's operations cost 💖 At first, every agency pays an equal share. Later, the contributions might be adjusted according to factors like number of users, amount of traffic, and type of support required (high bandwidth real time versus low bandwidth mail, for example) 📬
To make the funding and administration easier, one agency will be selected to manage the contract with the IRIO. All funds flow through that agency to the IRIO via interagency transfer. The selected agency provides the needed contractual activities and administrative management, while technical guidance and monitoring of IRIO activities come from the IRI Policy Board 🧚
It's not yet clear which Federal agency is best for this role 🤔 The agency needs to deal flexibly with the evolving requirements of the IRI, handle funding flowing in from the various agencies, and deal flexibly with the various agency technical representatives, incorporating their recommendations into the contract as required. One of the very first things the Policy Board has to do is select an appropriate funding agency 🎯
All operations and maintenance funding for the IRI flows through the IRIO to the selected contractors. That allows centralized management of the IRI's operation 🍓
There are two major assumptions behind the budgetary estimates. First, the IRIO should keep a fairly low profile with respect to the end users (the scientists and researchers). Users interact directly with their local support personnel, while the IRIO acts as facilitator and coordinator and provides facilities, information, and help services to the local sites. That keeps the IRIO relatively small, since it won't need to deal directly with the thousands of scientists and users 🙈
Second, the operations budget supports the interconnection of agency networks as well as transit networking where required, but it does not include the costs of the individual agency networks 💅
Appendix A provides the details of the budgetary estimate, and Table 1 gives a summary. Note that the initial year has higher capital equipment expenditure, reflecting the need to purchase both the gateways needed for initial interconnection and the facilities needed to operate the gateways and the user services. Operations costs are expected to grow with inflation, while capital costs should remain constant (decrease when inflation is considered) as the IRI stabilizes 📈
Research Costs
Okay so, on top of the costs of running and maintaining the communications infrastructure and user services, funding MUST also be allocated for an ongoing research program to improve and evolve the IRI ✨. The IRI literally has to keep glowing up, bestie 💅.
Each agency runs its own research program, but the plan is for all of them to be coordinated through the IRI Policy Board 🤝. It's not intended that funds SHALL be combined, or that joint funding of projects is REQUIRED 🙅. Joint activity can still happen through individual arrangements 🦋.
Each agency agrees, as part of the joint IRI activity, to fund a suitable amount of networking research 🧠 in areas that matter for IRI evolution. Right now the total funding REQUIRED is estimated at four million dollars in FY87, and it grows with inflation in the outyears 📈. All the budget deets are in Appendix A 🎀.
+--------------------------------------------------+
| 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 is to put in place a functional high-performance network available to scientists across the nation. To get there, we're looking at a steady evolution of capability 📈. This phased approach involves both technical and administrative aspects 💜.
Technical Phasing
Okay so right now a bunch of agencies are running their own networks, as discussed in Section 2 🧩. Lots of them use the DoD protocol suite (TCP/IP, etc.), and others have added or are adding ways to interoperate with networks that use the DoD protocol suite (e.g. MFEnet) 🤝. Most have talked about eventually moving to ISO protocols and beyond 🚀. Honestly, most of these networks are already kind of hooked together in a mainly ad hoc way 🙈. Some are paired up one-to-one, and some connect through third party connections (e.g. a university network connected to two agency networks).
But ngl, this ad hoc setup has two major shortcomings 😭. First, performance isn't adequate for advanced scientific environments, like supercomputer usage. Second, community wide user support isn't generally available. The phased approach below will let us fix these deficiencies through coordinated action from the various funding agencies 💖.
Phase I - Functional Interoperability
Phase I is all about functional interoperability 🔗. The starter stage lets everyone share the communications facilities (e.g. channels, satellites, etc.) by interconnecting the networks using the Internet Protocol and IP gateways 🛰️. We'll also install and maintain mechanisms (where REQUIRED) so common user services, like electronic mail 📧, can be interconnected too. That means sharing resources attached to the network, like supercomputers 🖥️ [7] [8].
Note: actual use of facilities other than mail would require arrangements with the various responsible parties for each host 🙈. Like, to login to a host, you not only need network access, you ALSO need a login account on that host 🔑.
Here are the specific steps for Phase I, bestie 📝:
- Gateways will be bought and installed where needed to interconnect the agency networks 🚪. The IRIO specifies the location and performance of these gateways, and the Policy Board approves them 📋. The engineering takes an estimate of current and future traffic requirements into account, plus the existing interconnecting gateways. It MAY also result in a recommendation that some or all existing gateways between agency networks get replaced with common hardware, so the interconnection can be managed properly 🧹.
- An IRI operations and management center will get set up for the interconnecting gateways 🏢 [9] [10]. This perhaps could be done alongside a network management center for another set of gateways, e.g. those supported by DARPA or NSF 🤓.
- Application gateways (or other techniques) to link up communities running different protocols are a requirement that will get investigated 🔍. The IRIO and the IRAB will make a recommendation together, and then the IRIO installs the right mechanisms once the Policy Board says go 🚦.
- An initial user services facility gets set up 📇. At a minimum it'll offer things like a white pages of users (similar to the current Internet "whois" service) and a way to make standard networking software accessible 💾.
- The IRAB, working with the Policy Board, will draft a coordinated research plan for developing the new technologies REQUIRED for evolution of the IRI 🧪.
Phase II - Full IRI Capability
Phase II is the glow-up 👑. The IRI becomes fully functional with enhanced capabilities and performance ✨.
High performance gateways with the right new capabilities and functions will get installed, replacing and/or augmenting the Phase I gateways 🚀. Their functionality and performance will be specified based on what we learned from Phase I use, the anticipated new uses of the network, and the state of the art technologies coming out of the ongoing research 🧠.
The basic user services facility will be all grown up and support network operation 🎓. New capabilities will be built for specific scientific communities, like a database of software used by a specific community and its availability over the network 💿.
A high performance backbone network will be installed if needed to connect high performance agency networks 🦴 [11] [12]. This is anticipated because several agencies are moving to provide high bandwidth networks for things like supercomputer access 💪.
We'll investigate introducing and using international standards 🌍, and develop a plan to give the broad scientific community more services through them.
Administrative Phasing
The goal is a fully cooperating, managed interagency research internet that involves most if not all of the agencies supporting scientific research 🤝. Since right now the major research networking players (both networking for research and research in networking) are DOE, NASA, DARPA, and NSF 👑, the following steps are RECOMMENDED:
- Step one (and the critical one 💅): set up a four agency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to interconnect the agency networks and 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 funding an ongoing research and engineering activity to evolve the internet 💜.
- A Policy Board and a Technical Advisory Board SHOULD be set up as quickly as possible so there's solid guidance and direction 🧭.
- Then the Policy Board SHALL select an agency to handle the administrative and contractual stuff with the IRIO 📑.
- Next, a non-profit organization SHALL 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.
- To start, the initial four agencies SHALL transfer the agreed upon funds to the selected contracting agency on an equal basis 💸.
- Those funds then let the contracting agency set up a contract for the IRIO with the selected non-profit organization 📜.
- The IRIO can then set up sub-contracts for engineering, procurement, installation, and management of gateways, plus operation of the user services center 🛠️.
- To kick off the research coordination, these steps will get done ✨:
- The Internet Activities Board will evolve into the Internet Research Activities Board through added membership and a charter revision 🧠.
- Additional task forces will get formed as needed to reflect the expanded areas of research interest 🔬.
- Once the IRI is established and running, its funding and use will get reviewed to figure out whether equal funding is equitable ⚖️. If it isn't, the IRIO SHOULD be tasked with developing a recommendation for a practical cost allocation scheme. Also, once the IRI has proved itself successful, other agencies will join and provide additional funding 🌈.
INDUSTRY ROLE 🏭
So far this report has covered connecting agency-supported networks and how agency-supported researchers use that internet 🌐. But industry needs a similar infrastructure for its research activities too 🧪 [13] [14]. Quick note: this only means industrial research activities 🔍. It's not envisioned (and it wouldn't be appropriate) for the IRI to provide a communications system for normal industrial activities 🙅. Regulatory concerns make it hard for industry to connect to a network 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 industry as a fair share of the costs of using the IRI 💰. Those funds could then expand the networking resources so no degradation of service is felt by the users supported by the federal agencies 🫶. This topic would need more discussion between the Policy Board and the organization selected as the IRIO 🗣️.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 🌸
Connecting the various agency networks that support scientific research into one overall infrastructure is an exciting opportunity 🦋. This report recommends an approach and a specific set of actions that can get us there 🗺️. It's hoped that, no matter which mechanism gets used, the Federal agencies involved recognize how important it is to provide an appropriate national infrastructure for scientific research, and take action to make that infrastructure a reality 💖.
Acknowledgement ✨
Okay bestie, huge shoutout 📣💖 This report was put together with advice and comments from a ton of people, including the members of the FCCSET Committee Network Working Group and the Internet Activities Board. Their input is so appreciated 🫶, and I'm hoping this report reflects a consensus on both the need for the IRI and the proposed approach 🦋.
Appendix A - Funding Breakdown 💅
This appendix gives you the nitty gritty details behind the budget estimates in Table 1 🎀.
Gateways
Okay so gateways are gonna be required between the different agency (and maybe regional) networks 🌸. As an upper bound, we assume one IRI gateway per state, at $40K per gateway, spread out over two years. That means a capital cost of $1M per year for the first two years 💸.
Operation Center
The IRI operations center is gonna have to engineer where the gateways go and how much capacity they've got, plus install, operate and maintain them 🛠️. It also has to coordinate support and maintenance of the end-to-end service, helping spot and fix problems in the interconnections 🔍. The costs are estimated as two people round the clock to staff the operations center, plus 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, that comes out to a total annual cost of $1.7M 💰. On top of that, equipment costs of roughly $500K per year can be expected 🖥️.
Transit Networks
So we expect needing support for at least one transit network 🚇. That could mean reimbursing one of the agencies for using their network, or running and maintaining an IRI dedicated network. Based on historical data from operating the Arpanet, the estimate for these costs is $4M per year 💸.
User Support Organization
To give effective support like we talked about above, you need a staff available during working hours 🙋. A reasonable estimate for that organization is 5 people times $200K per year, or $1M per year (including ODC) 💁. Then there are the capital equipment costs in the first two years, totalling roughly $2M 🖥️✨.
References 📚
- FCCSET Committee on Very High Performance Computing Network Working Group, Report on Interagency Networking for Research Programs, February 1986.
- Cerf, V.G. and P. Kirstein, "Issues in packet-network interconnection," Proceedings of the IEEE, pp. 1386-1408, November 1978
- Cerf, V.G. and E. Cain, "The Dod intenet architecture model,"Computer Networks, pp. 307-318, July 1983.
- Leiner, B.M., J. Postel, R. Cole, and D. Mills, "The DARPA internet protocol suite," IEEE communications Magazine March 1985.
- 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)
- Jacobs, I.M. et. al., "General purpose satellite networks," Proceedings of the IEEE pp. 1448-1467, November 1978
- Tobagi, F., R. Binder, and B.M. Leiner, "Packet radio and satellite networks," IEEE Communications Magazine, November 1984.
- Kahn, R.E. et. al., "Advances in packet radio technology," Proceedings of the IEEE pp. 1468-1496, November
- Clark, D. et. al., "An introduction to local area networks,", Proceedings of the IEEE, November 1978
- Lederberg, J., "Digital communications and the conduct of science: the new literacy," vol. 66, pp. 1314-1319, November 1978.
- Hoskins, J.C. and J.S. Quaterman, "Notable Computer Networks,", pp. 932-971, October 1986.
- Dennings, P.J., A.C. Hearn, and C.W. Kern, "History and overview of CSNET," pp. 138-145, March 1983.
- Comer, D., "The computer science research network CSNET: A history and status report", vol. 26, pp. 747-753, October 1983.
- Bailey, R.R. NAS: supercomputing master tool for aeronautics Aerospace America, pp. 118-121, January 1985
- Jennings, D.M., L.H. Landweber, I.H. Fuchs, W.R. Adrion "Computer Networking for Scientist Science" vol. 231 pp. 943-950, February 1986
- Cerf, V.G. R.E. Kahn, "A protocol for packet network intercommunication, IEEE Transactions on Communications vol. COM-22, May 1974
- 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
- Defense Communications Agency, MIL STD 1777: Internet Protocol, 1983
- Defense Communications Agency, MIL STD 1778: Transmission Control Protocol Defense Communications Agency, 1983
- Defense Communications Agency, MIL STD 1780: File Transfer Protocol Defense Communications Agency, 1985
- Defense Communications Agency, MIL STD 1781: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol Defense Communications Agency, 1985
- Defense Communications Agency, MIL STD 1782: Telnet Protocol Defense Communications Agency, 1985
- 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
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc1015 1987-07
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms