Internet Host: nic.cerf.net Directory: farnet Subdirectory: farnet_docs Filename: nsf-backbone-rec Last Updated: Nov 8, 1991 Recommendations to the National Science Foundation from the Board of FARNET, Inc. Regarding Inter-midlevel Connectivity after the Expiration of the Current NSFNET Backbone Agreement November 1, 1991 Introduction With support from the National Science Foundation, FARNET (the Federation of American Research Networks) conducted a workshop and electronic discussion in the late summer and early fall of 1991 on the question of how connectivity among midlevel networks should be implemented after the current agreement for NSFNET backbone services expires in November, 1992. Participants included representatives from FARNET member networks, other NSFNET stakeholders (including carriers and leaders in university information technology), Federal agency representatives, and legal and economic experts. We gratefully acknowledge the participation of all those who helped to make this a fruitful and instructive process. As a result of this extended dialogue, the FARNET Board is pleased to make the following comments and recommendations to the National Science Foundation. Section I CONTEXT: The NREN, the NSFNET Backbone, and the Midlevel Networks In November, 1992 a five-year agreement between MERIT, Inc. and the National Science Foundation for the operation of a national backbone network for the NSFNET will expire. Viewed from almost any perspective, the pace of activity in the networking arena since 1987 has been astonishing. Network traffic has grown exponentially; bandwidth has increased by a factor of nearly 700; the number of networks connected to the backbone has increased from a few hundred to more than 3,000; and the user population is now estimated at more than 2,000,000 people nationwide. In addition, Congress and the Executive Branch, with a level of support from higher education and industry that is remarkable, have created a cohesive High Performance Computing and Communications program. A key component of this program, which is designed to push the frontiers of computer communication technology and maintain a U.S. leadership position in high performance computing, is the construction of a National Research and Education Network (NREN). According to the Office of Science and Technology Policy [1], NSF is expected to coordinate the "harmonization of existing agency networks" into the NREN and to support research into high-speed protocols, switches, and other technology. Because of the extraordinary growth of the NSFNET and the visibility of the HPCC program in government, industry, and academia, the next generation of the network (the "interim interagency NREN," or IINREN) will be developed and deployed in an environment very different from that of the mid 1980s. The NREN user community now includes many Federal agencies, libraries, hospitals and health care professionals, and a growing number of educators at the elementary and high-school levels. The list of stakeholders includes the RBOCs, the interexchange carriers (the three largest of whom now have operational roles in the NSFNET), several resellers of value-added network services (such as ANS, Alternet, and PSI), more than 25 state and regional networks, many publishers and others in the commercial information industry, and virtually all of the companies that supply the telecommunications industry with equipment. At the same time, the pressures for commercial use of the backbone facilities, from both potential consumers and potential providers, are tremendous. Vendors are clamoring to deliver software, technical support, instruction, news, and information across the network, and buyers are ready to purchase. But the market for network-based services is immature, in part because the value of such services is not well understood and also because restrictions on the commercial use of government-sponsored networks have discouraged such use. Because of this immaturity, and in view of the ambitious goals of the NREN program, a completely market-driven approach to the evolution of the network at this time is widely viewed among FARNET members as unlikely to satisfy some of the most important desiderata described below. Section II DESIDERATA: Critical Factors in the Evolution of the NSFNET to the Interim NREN FARNET members believe that the following are the critical issues surrounding the continued development of the NSFNET: ¥ Establishing a strong Federal NREN program, which will leverage significant private investment in the next generation of the network and will attract state and local funding and use ¥ Maintaining or improving U.S. technology leadership in the areas of high performance computing and communications, and developing strong mechanisms for technology transfer ¥ Providing an adequate level of stability and predictability, both in the operation of the network and in any transition to new technology or management structures, with particular emphasis on the requirements of the mission agencies (NASA and the Department of Energy) ¥ Greatly improving support for user and information services network-wide, including access to both public and private information resources, with early resolution of copyright and other intellectual property issues ¥ Ensuring adequate levels of performance, which will require that more attention be directed to network management, routing arbitration, cross-connect mechanisms, monitoring and problem resolution tools and procedures, etc. ¥ Offering a variety of choices for state and regional networks in backbone services (providers, location, access speeds, technologies, costs, etc.) ¥ Rapid elimination of restrictions on delivery of commercial services across the network, and structured transition to commercial provision of network systems and services ¥ Availability of widespread and equitable access to the network at reasonable cost, with a minimum level of guaranteed interconnectivity among service providers ¥ Providing mechanisms to ensure global interconnectivity without undue restrictions Section III RECOMMENDATIONS: FARNET Recommendations to NSF Regarding Inter-midlevel Connectivity in the Interim NREN 1. The multi-tier model for providing network services is valid and should be preserved. Experience confirms the validity of the three-tier approach (backbone, midlevel networks, and campus networks) that NSF adopted in the mid-80s. The vibrant infrastructure of state, regional, national, commercial, and non-profit providers that has been created around the NSFNET backbone since 1986 is the best argument for this approach. Regional and state networks have been able to leverage resources, both public and private, that may not have been available (or even apparent) to a national organization. The multiplicity of providers has generated considerable innovation in services and products and has increased the number of knowledgeable and committed network experts. We do not believe that the NSFNET could have expanded as rapidly and successfully as it has without strong local and regional involvement. At the same time, the network has profited from ambitious and successful efforts by Merit, IBM, and MCI (and now ANS) in establishing the NSFNET backbone. We expect that the structure of the IINREN will continue to evolve and change as current providers reassess their missions and new providers emerge. For example, we are not sure that future connections between midlevels will necessarily be of the type we have today, with dedicated private lines linking centrally managed routers. Other emerging topologies deserve consideration, including CIX/FIX-like structures (shared FDDI-based interconnection points) and shared use of national cell relay or frame relay networks. For convenience, in this paper we will refer to both traditional backbones and the use of alternate topologies in the top level of the three-tier hierarchy as "top-level backbone services." 2. Strong NSF support for top-level backbone services must continue. NSF must continue to provide strong support for the development of the top level of the IINREN, including support for robust and capable backbone services. As called for in the HPCC program, this should include funding for higher-level applications and user support, as well as new protocols, switch and transmission technologies, and higher bandwidth. In addition, all targeted users should have access to the IINREN at appropriate bandwidths, to be determined in conjunction with users and midlevel providers. NSF has provided critical leadership for the NSFNET backbone and seed funding for the midlevel networks, as well as support for the connection of hundreds of campuses to the network. Its actions, particularly in the backbone arena, have galvanized the response of industry. We expect that continued NSF support for top-level services will preserve this important leveraging effect. 3. As the agency responsible for NREN facilities coordination and deployment under the HPCC plan, NSF must assume a strong management role vis a vis the core of the NREN (which presumably will evolve from the current NSFNET). We believe that NSF is well qualified to be the lead agency in this area. Its leadership is committed to the HPCC program. It has established excellent relationships with industry and higher education, both in the NSFNET program and in the gigabits research program. It has demonstrated vision and skill in executing these programs. During the next phase of development, NSF will need to take an assertive position vis a vis the management and oversight of the backbone if it is to meet the NREN/HPCC goals as established by Congress and the Executive Branch. This is true whether there is a single, or multiple, providers of backbone service. In particular, NSF must play a proactive role to accelerate the harmonizing of multiple agency networks and protocols into a single shared NREN. 4. The operation of the backbone network should be recompeted in the GFY92 timeframe with multiple awardees. As described earlier, many conditions have changed since 1987, when the current agreement for backbone operations was made. In view of these changes and of the emergence of the HPCC program, we recommend that NSF issue a new solicitation for the provision and operation of production quality midlevel interconnection services. A variety of approaches would be encouraged and evaluated through peer review. The new providers would begin service in GFY93. The award should include at least two service providers who would be required to cooperate in the delivery of services, with specific attention to the resolution of administrative, legal, technical, and pricing issues associated with interconnection of facilities operated by different vendors. The goal is to promote neutrality at these cross connects. Experiments with pricing, transition to commercial services, etc. should be conducted as part of the operation of the network. The redesign of the backbone should be based on engineering and economic criteria. That is, the topology and capacity of the network should be derived from the distribution and usage patterns of the target population (existing and projected), and the design should make efficient use of existing and planned carrier facilities. The establishment of NSF-supported multi-provider backbone services will encourage the development of market mechanisms to ensure performance and enhance competition among providers and will lead more rapidly to a structured transition to commercial provision of network systems and services. 5. NSF should ensure that new technology is deployed in the backbone very carefully, to protect the quality of service to the end- user. Because hundreds of thousands of users already rely on the NSFNET for day-to-day support of research and educational activities, it is clear that we require a production-quality network today. The service level should approach the same standards as we used to expect from voice service. This means that the network operators must introduce new technology very carefully into the backbone, balancing the need for improvement with the need to maintain production-quality service. To keep pace with technical changes and demand for new services, they will have to upgrade facilities and equipment. At the same time, they must be held to clear performance standards. NSF should develop those standards in cooperation with the user community (per Recommendation 8, below) and should enforce them as part of its oversight function. 6. Midlevel networks should be able to exercise choice among vendors of top-level backbone services. To further the development of the market for commercially provided network services, midlevel networks should be able to exercise choice among providers. Mechanisms to allow choice by midlevel networks of a production backbone awardee could be implemented in a variety of ways, ranging from direct funding of the midlevels for that purpose to designation of a preferred awardee by the midlevel with NSF funds flowing directly to the backbone operators. 7. The backbone awardees should not be able to take advantage of their position to inhibit competition or to compete unfairly. Because the provision of reliable top-level services is essential to the success of the IINREN and the entire HPCC program, we emphasize again that NSF should maintain a strong, central oversight role in the provision of these services. Oversight should include both technical and management issues. In particular, NSF should guard that the winners of any new backbone solicitation do not use their position to inhibit competition or compete unfairly. 8. Provider accountability for performance should be ensured through the NSF award process. All organizations that receive NSF funding for the delivery of network services, from the campus level through the midlevels to the top level, must be held to clear performance criteria. These should be established by NSF in concert with the users and the providers of the service. The criteria must be objective and measurable and should be designed to ensure an acceptable level of service end-to-end throughout the IINREN [2]. Reliability and availability should be emphasized. Where the tools and systems to measure performance and resolve network outages are inadequate, NSF should provide funding to develop improved versions. 9. NSF should take a leadership role in developing mechanisms to permit commercial traffic to be carried on the IINREN. In the FCCSET report on "Grand Challenges," NSF is assigned the task of "initiating the exploration of pricing mechanisms for network service and network applications and structured transition to commercial service." NSF should actively promote and provide explicit guidance for this transition. To the extent that this requires research into legal or policy issues, or into techniques for performing accounting functions, NSF should support such research. In particular, it is most desirable from our point of view that the interim NREN be used in part for the delivery of commercial information and other services. The number of commercial companies already involved in the operation of IP-based computer communication networks -- including US Sprint, AT&T, MCI, PSI, ANS CO+RE Services, and Infonet -- along with developments such as the emergence of CIX, Inc. (the commercial Internet exchange) indicate that commercial vendors are already alert to the possibilities that the NREN program offers. The emergence of a larger market for network connectivity and services and the entry of new providers will, in the long run, lead to lower prices for all consumers as the marginal cost of delivering services diminishes and economies of scale come into play. Moreover, this expanded market will attract additional investment by commercial companies since it offers greater potential returns on investment. Additional investment will lead, in turn, to more rapid technology development. Coupled with the explosive growth in business use of IP-based networks, the NREN program in the public sector can help to drive the commercialization of wide-area network technology much as the NSFNET program has. 10. NSF should explore the feasibility of connecting midlevel networks using a FIX or CIX model as an alternative to a traditional backbone. Direct inter-regional links may also be desirable when such direct links reduce costs and/or improve reliability. NSF should explore the feasibility of linking midlevel networks using a FIX or CIX interconnect model as an alternative to a traditional backbone. Furthermore, NSF should seriously entertain proposals based on direct inter-regional links where such links can reduce costs and/or increase the end-to-end reliability and redundancy of the IINREN. 11. NSF should support the development of software tools for end- user applications and network management and operations. NSF should issue one or more solicitations for the development and deployment of tools for network management and operations, end-user applications, routing protocols, etc. Practical solutions to existing problems should be emphasized. For example, we believe that the lack of useful tools for information retrieval and display is one of the biggest impediments to the productive use of the network and has impaired the credibility of the NREN in the eyes of the target user populations. NSF should consider the issuance of several separate solicitations for for the development of software tools to ensure that this area is given adequate attention. Operators of NSF-supported networks should work closely with the awardees to ensure the rapid testing and deployment of new software tools. NSF should continue to emphasize open architectures and standards in these solicitations. Its early decision to specify TCP/IP as the standard networking protocol for the NSFNET was a profoundly effective incentive for the extension of networking services. Where standards are not adequately understood or developed, NSF should support programs to test, evaluate and improve them. 12. NSF should issue a new solicitation aimed at midlevel and campus providers, with award criteria based on policy goals such as improving the ease of use of the network and leveraging private and non-Federal public funds. Finally, we recommend that NSF, working with the user community and the providers, define and implement clear criteria for the award of additional funding to midlevel and campus networks (as distinct from the top level) and issue a new solicitation in this area. In the early stages of the deployment of NSFNET, this funding was appropriately focused on "connectivity." The new criteria should be designed to further specific programmatic and policy goals such as the extension of network services to new or underserved communities (for ubiquity), the improvement of network operations procedures and tools (for reliability), the enhancement of existing services through development activities, upgrading of existing connections to "have-not" institutions, leveraging of state, local, and private funds (to maximize the impact of Federal investment), training and support for end-users (in cooperation with national and local programs), etc. Notes 1 Grand Challenges: High Performance Computing and Communications. The FY 1992 U.S. Research and Development Program. A Report by the Committee on Physical, Mathematical, and Engineering Sciences, Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2 This recommendation evolved from a discussion of possible "certification" of network service providers. The goal of the certification process was the establishment and enforcement of minimum performance requirements across the network. We felt that implementing the requirements via NSF's award criteria and existing review process would be more direct and less bureaucratic.