[IMR] IMR90-02.TXT February 1990 INTERNET MONTHLY REPORTS ------------------------ The purpose of these reports is to communicate to the Internet Research Group the accomplishments, milestones reached, or problems discovered by the participating organizations. This report is for research use only, and is not for public distribution. Each organization is expected to submit a 1/2 page report on the first business day of the month describing the previous month's activities. These reports should be submitted via network mail to Ann Westine (Westine@ISI.EDU) or Karen Roubicek (Roubicek@NNSC.NSF.NET). TABLE OF CONTENTS INTERNET ACTIVITIES BOARD IAB MESSAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 3 INTERNET RESEARCH REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 18 AUTONOMOUS NETWORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 18 END-TO-END SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 19 PRIVACY AND SECURITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 19 COLLABORATION TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 19 INTERNET ENGINEERING REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 20 Westine [Page 1]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 Internet Projects BARRNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 31 BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN, INC., . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 31 CERFNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 32 CICNET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 34 CORNELL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 34 ISI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 34 JVNCNET, NORTH EAST RESEARCH REGIONAL NETWORK . . . . . . page 36 LOS NETTOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 36 MERIT/UMNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 36 MIDNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 38 MIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 38 MITRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 38 MRNET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 38 NCAR/USAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 39 NEW ENGLAND ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH NETWORK . . . . . . . . page 39 NNSC, UCAR/BOLT BERANEK and NEWMAN, INC., . . . . . . . . page 39 NORTHWESTNET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 39 NSFNET BACKBONE, MERIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 40 NTA-RE/NDRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 40 NYSERNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 41 OARNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 41 Pennsylvania Research and Economic Partnership Network . page 41 PITTSBURGH SUPERCOMPUTER CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 42 RIPE (Reseaux IP Europeans) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 42 SAN DIEGO SUPERCOMPUTER CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 42 SESQUINET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 42 SRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 42 SURANET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 43 TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION NETWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 44 UCL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 44 UDEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 44 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN/NCSANET . . . page 45 WESTNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 45 Westine [Page 2]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 IAB MESSAGE IAB MEETING JANUARY 3-4, 1990 USC/Information Sciences Institute SUMMARY A. The IAB reaffirmed its policy that an RFC published in Postscript must, if at all possible, be accompanied by a version in plain ASCII text. B. The IAB modified the Internet standards procedures and the nomenclature for the protocol specification documents. These changes were intended to: (1) clarify the meaning of the "requirement level" (Required, Recommended, Elective, etc) of a standard; (2) define more formal procedures for advancing standards through the "standards track"; (3) require IESG recommendation and IAB approval for each step in the standards track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, and Standard); and (4) institute minimum times at each step, to aid vendors in planning products. [However, the IESG subsequently raised further questions on this procedure, so the issue is probably not finally settled]. C. The IAB decided that IAB meeting minutes will be published to the Internet community. D. The IAB approved the following general policy on intra-AS routing protocols ("IGPs") for the Internet: there will be one primary standard protocol, which will be RECOMMENDED, but there may be other standard protocols which will be ELECTIVE. All general- purpose Internet gateways will be expected to support the primary standard; support of any of the other standard protocols will be optional. Westine [Page 3]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 MINUTES 1. ATTENDEES IAB: Bob Braden, ISI Hans-Werner Braun, Merit Vint Cerf, NRI Lyman Chapin, DG David Clark, MIT Phill Gross, NRI Steve Kent, BBN Tony Lauck, DEC Barry Leiner, RIACS Dan Lynch, Interop, Inc. Jon Postel, ISI Visitors: Bill Bostwick, FRICC Paul Mockapetris, ISI Mark Pullen, DARPA Ira Richer, DARPA 2. REVIEW ACTION ITEMS: Cerf The Executive Director distributed hard copies of the agenda, the minutes of the last meeting, and a status summary of old action items. The group reviewed the old action items. The company Internet, Inc. of Reston, VA is trying to trademark the name "Internet". Cerf will discuss with them the sensitivity of this issue. The group discussed the issue raised by the FRICC of "exotic locations" for IAB and IETF meetings. Richer said that the concern is travel time and expense, not exoticness. Clark pointed out that Canada is not considered foreign travel. Gross observed that the recent decision to reduce IETF meetings to 3 per year should help. 3. ORGANIZATION REPORTS A. IESG/IETF: Gross Presented set of overheads outlining the 8 areas and 34 working groups (WGs) within the IESG/IETF. Westine [Page 4]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 a) IESG Areas and Directors. 1) Applications: Russ Hobby/UC Davis (2 WGs) 2) Security: Steve Crocker/TIS (2 WGs) 3) Operations: Phill Gross/NRI (interim) (2 WGs) 4) Host and User Services: Craig Partridge/BBN (5 WGs) 5) Internet Services: Noel Chiappa/Consultant (9 WGs) 6) Routing: Bob Hinden/BBN (6 WGs) 7) Network Management: Dave Crocker/DEC (6 WGs) 8) OSI Integration: Rob Hagens/U Wisc and Ross Callon/DEC (2 WGs) b) IESG meetings and subgroups. c) IETF meetings, presentations and highlights. It was pointed out that an IETF area director must make a major time commitment, even though many IESG meetings do not require extra travel. d) Final agenda of the 15th IETF (Oct 31 - Nov 3, 1989). e) Number of WGs per area. A new WG to develop encapsulation of IP over SMDS will be chaired by George Clapp (Ameritech) and Mike Fidler (OSU). There is a new WG to update RFC-1009 (gateway requirements), chaired by Jim Forster (Cisco) with Phil Almquist (BARRNET) as editor. Noel Chiappa spawned six new WGs in the Internet Services area; a newly formed IS-IS group, as well as an Open Distance Vector group. Four groups are winding down, four others need help to wind down, while six others need to be formed, do not have a chairperson, or have not met yet. Concerning participation in IETF, meeting attendance at Hawaii was 180, down from 220 at Stanford. There are >500 entries on mailing list, and about 60 active WG participants. A concern was raised that we are stretching these 60 too thin, and Gross was asked to report on the extent of overlapping WG membership. f) IETF WG summary by area. g) Future IETF meeting sites. Westine [Page 5]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 o Winter 1990: February 6-9, 1990, Florida State University, Host: Ken Hays. o Spring 1990: May 1-4, 1990, Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center, Host: Gene Hastings. o Summer 1990: July 31-August 3, 1990, University of British Columbia, Host: John Demco. Braden suggested more formality in the relationship between IESG and IAB: the IESG should specifically state the issues on which they want IAB response. Gross promised to provide list of IESG recommendations to IAB. It was suggested that IAB members could be on IESG and IRSG mailing lists, but it was decided that IESG should be allowed to keep their mail private. Gross, the IESG chair, and Cerf, an ex-officio member of the IESG, can forward IESG messages when they think appropriate and after asking the original sender. Gross distributed a report on the IESG and its activities. B. IRSG/IRTF: Clark The IRSG held a one day meeting in Austin, TX, and agreed on three activities: 1) Hold workshops. 2) Write an annual "State of Research" report. 3) Foster WG meetings. Craig Partridge is organizing a workshop on gigabit networks. While activity (2) is worthy in abstract, in reality it has proved difficult to orchestrate. Clark is accepting advice on how to achieve this. One of the WGs should own the "getting big" problem. We need to make sure that Deborah Estrin's ANRG and the proposed RG on Naming/Addressing don't overlap in this area. Discussion ensued about keeping the IRSG/IRTF healthy, when there is a shortage of funding for network research. Richer observed that the July IAB meeting created a list of important research areas, and that a one-level-deeper description would be helpful. C. OPEN GATEWAY TESTBED STATUS: Braden Braden presented a set of overheads on the planning of the proposed open gateway testbed. Two issues have been: finding a gateway platform with open software, and setting up a network operation center to keep track of versions and updates. We Westine [Page 6]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 expect one platform to support all experiments, but will expect experimentors to take turns. Braden has organized teleconferences with vendors to determine which would be most appropriate; we are currently awaiting more vendor information. DARPA has asked ISI to run the NOC. Two level of experiments are planned: IP-level and application level. The application experiments (e.g., multimedia teleconferencing) will be important to create real traffic for testing the IP level. The group discussed the problem of creating adequate test traffic. Lauck pointed out that artificial traffic, even if constructed with the same statistics as real traffic, will not behave the same under load as real traffic, because of feedback: the addition of new traffic changes previous traffic characteristics. Clark said that there is particular interest in looking for oscillations caused by this feedback. D. NSFNET: Braun Braun presented a set of graphs showing NSFNET statistics. a) T-1 data network #2 -- physical routing. b) Number of regional, state, and local networks linked -- 897 as of December 1989. c) Monthly traffic in packets. Gathered using the NNStat tool. Traffic definitely still increasing, and migration to T3 rates is already being considered. Kent suggested that Merit consult BBN network analysis folks for insight into how much traffic can increase before severe congestion begins. d) Monthly summaries of major NSFNET application distribution examples. o Interactive data (telnet, rlogin) - 25% o File transfers (FTP) - 21% o Name service - 15% o Electronic mail (SMTP) - 32% o Other services - 7% Although traffic grew enormously, the profile of the traffic distribution remained roughly the same. Westine [Page 7]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 e) Three month comparison of traffic. f) 3-D graphs of traffic during days of the week. Only packets are counted, not bytes. Braden noted that byte counts have been added to NNStat/statspy. Mockapetris can now send bad hosts warnings. g) Where packets originate - collected by Internet network number and sorted by traffic - identified high traffic examples: Stanford and Berkeley. OSI CLNP was demonstrated at InterOp but is not yet deployed in the backbone. NSF wants T3 speeds, and Braun hopes to see them in 1990. NSF hopes to have a T1 line into CERN by March. Postel suggested that we raise the default maximum segment size from 576 to 1500 bytes. However, later discussion led to the conclusion that this must await MTU Discovery development. 4. RFC STATUS AND PROCEDURES A. STATUS REPORT ON RFC PUBLICATIONS: Postel As RFC Editor, Postel distributed hard copies of a draft message on policy for RFCs in Postscript, of a status report on RFC publication prepared by Joyce Reynolds, and a draft of the next version of the "IAB Official Protocol Standards" RFC. Six RFCs have been published in Postscript so far. Two have been converted to text; Mills' RFC will probably can't be; others are pending. B. POSTSCRIPT RFCs, DRAFT STATMENT: Postel The IAB discussed the draft statement on Postscript and agreed to it, with the addition that the source of every document is needed. It should also recommend using Postscript only for RFCs containing diagrams. C. STANDARDS PROCEDURES There was a lengthy and thorough discussion of Internet standard procedures. o It was proposed and rejected that the Proposed Standard stage was unnecessary and could be dropped. Westine [Page 8]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 o It was reiterated that Internet drafts have a 6 month maximum lifetime. Gross noted that Internet drafts will have only a Summary section, but no Status of Memo; the RFC editor will add the latter when the draft becomes an RFC. o It was agreed that minimum times should be specified for each stage in the standards process. o It was agreed that IESG and IAB action will be required for a protocol specification to enter the Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or Standard status. Chapin suggested publication of an RFC announcing scopes of IETF WG's. Gross took an action item to do this. Gross presented a proposal for modification to the classification of RFCs, which he felt would make the process clearer to the world. Under this proposal, the "Requirement Level" (RL) of an RFC would really only apply to a full standard. For proposed standards and draft standards, the RL would state the INTENDED requirement level when it becomes a standard. A. In the new scheme, each Internet protocol specification has two attributes: a state (or status) of Experimental, Historical, Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or Standard, and a requirement level (RL) of Not Recommended, Elective, Recommended, or Required. The requirement level is to be assigned as follows: State Requirement Level (RL) _____ ______________________ Experimental Not Recommended Historical Not Recommended Proposed Standard Draft Standard Standard Elective, Recommended, or Required A specification in the Proposed Standard or Draft Standard state is said to be in the standards track. B. A new specification enters in either the Experimental or the Proposed Standard state. The possible state transitions are then as follows: o Experimental -> Proposed Standard Westine [Page 9]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 o Proposed Standard -> Draft Standard o Draft Standard -> Standard o Any state -> Historical C. A protocol specification can enter Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, or Standard state only with the recommendation of the IESG and the approval of the IAB. D. An Internet protocol specification which the IESG and IAB enter into the standards track may have been originated by a Working Group of the IETF, by a Research Group of the IRTF, or by an outside source. E. A protocol specification that enters the Proposed Standard state must remain there at least 4 months, and in the Draft stage at least 6 months. F. Raising the requirement level on a Proposed, Draft, or full Standard will require an additional waiting period, to give vendors an opportunity to react and to adjust their planning. Specifically, raising the RL of a protocol spec in the Proposed/Draft stage will force the 4/6 months "clock" to be restarted. Raising the RL of a full Standard will cause the protocol specification to reenter the standards track at the Draft Standard stage, inserting a delay of at least 10 months before the new RL can take effect. G. Protocol specifications may be published in Experimental or Historical state at the discretion of the RFC Editor, and with appropriate review. The IAB tentatively agreed to this plan, subject to some further email discussions. During this discussion, Chapin supplied much useful and interest- ing information about the ANSI standard process. It became clear that the IAB's standards problem differs from ANSI's in important ways. Chapin also brought up an important concept, the "Journal or Record", and suggested that the IAB needs one; "it gets you off the hook for a lot". It was suggested that the IAB publish a newsletter, that would also serve as a Journal-of-Record, as an RFC at least once per quarter. It would include the IAB news currently included in the internet Quarterly and a summary of RFCs published and Westine [Page 10]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 protocol status changes. Chapin pointed out that publication of this RFC would synchronize the advance of the standards "clock". The Internet Monthly was discussed. It should be split into two newsletters, one operational in orientation and the other continuing to cover research, perhaps including future gigabit research activities. 5. COORDINATION WITH OTHER GROUPS A. OSF: Open Software Foundation. IAB is happy to accept ideas and input from OSF, but no official affiliation with OSF is appropriate at this time. Since OSF makes money selling particular software, there was concern that they are rather like a vendor, and are not a parallel standards organization. B. NMF: Network Managment Forum. No conclusions were reached. 6. IAB ORGANIZATION AND ISSUES: Cerf A. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The dilemma is how to make the IAB more open and yet preserve its efficacy. Comparisons were made with ANSI, IEEE, NAS, and government organizations. Since the IAB is concerned with broader simple issues than just standards and is informally constituted, no analogies could be drawn. It was decided that minutes of IAB meetings will be published, and the Executive Director was instructed to perform this task. IAB members delivered oral statements of potential conflict of interest; there were no surprises. Cerf will ask all IAB members to fill out a NAS (National Academy of Sciences) bias-report form, and the results will be circulated to all IAB members B. STANDARDS SUMMIT A meeting scheduled for February 20-22 will be held in Fredericksburg, Virginia to discuss management of standards- the explosion making procedures around the world, particularly in view of groups with various special interests in the area. The former chief scientist of the ITU arranged an invitation for the IAB to participate. Expecting 100-150 people to attend. Westine [Page 11]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 Cerf looking for another volunteer participant besides himself. C. FORMER SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENTS TASK FORCE At Barry Leiner's recommendation, the IAB agreed that the former Scientific Requirements task force should be formally disbanded, but could continue as an informal group under Leiner's care. Members will be encouraged to join appropriate IETF WGs, e.g., in the User Services and Applications areas. D. DISCUSSION OF IRTF The IRTF was discussed, and it was agreed that it is functioning effectively. 7. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: Leiner A. CCIRN: Leiner Leiner, the official IAB representative to the ICB and to RARE, reported on activities of these groups. This led to a general discussion of the high level of IP-related activity in Europe, the roles of the CCIRN, RIPE, and RARE, and cooperation between these groups and the IAB and its task forces. Points which came up included: o The CCIRN endorsed Brim's recommendations on international connections: international links forming part of the general infrastructure should be connected into the national backbones. The IAB felt that the FRICC ought to announce this policy officially, and Gross took an action to cause the drafting of an RFC for this purpose. o The North American and European members of the CCIRN, to provide for more continental coordination prior to meetings of the CCIRN, respectively formed the NACCIRN and EuroCCIRN. Leiner agrred to provide documentation on the charters for each of these groups. o Gross announced out that the FEPG and RARE will hold US/European workshops on CONS/CLNS gateways. Prime movers include Rose, Hagens, and NIST. The first meeting will be in DC or at IETF Talahassee meeting. Cerf suggested these workshops should be used as springboards for future cooperation with RARE. Westine [Page 12]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 B. Multiprotocol Internet Leiner raised the issue of the role of the IAB with respect to non-IP internets. Cerf answered that it is our intent to build an egalitarian multiprotocol Internet, parts of which will not be IP-based. Leiner and Braun then questioned whether the IAB is addressing the multi-protocol issues aggressively enough. Gross said that our intent here needs to be more widely broadcast, and that the statement again should come from the FRICC. Leiner suggested that if the Europeans felt we were seriously addressing parallel operation and interoperability of protocols, they would be more anxious to be involved in IETF WGs. Gross pointed out that IETF has an entire new area, OSI Integration, appropriate for them to join; this area already works with a RARE group on X.400 addressing issues. Clark and Cerf summarized the IAB's role as follows: (1) The IAB speaks for IP *protocols*. (2) The IAB fosters development of *infrastructure* in US. (3) The IAB is concerned with the *architecture* for the future multiprotocol Internet. Although it is not our responsibility to make the OSI protocols evolve, we care how the combination works together and interoperates. C. ICB Report: Leiner The next ICB meeting will be the end of February. Nothing has changed on the fat-pipe to Europe. The ICB is addressing defense issues and CCIRN addressing Research. The fat-pipe will be an ICB-driven pipe (i.e., used for military cooperation), although CCIRN may use it. D. CA*Net: Braun Canadian is building CA*Net as a sparse, 56Kbps backbone. Funding will come from the National Research Council and from regional (provincial) networks, with contributions from IBM Canada, which will supply routers using NSFnet technology, and Integrated Network Services (INSINC), which will supply the lines. CA*NET presents "interesting" routing issues at multiple access points to US backbones. There is a Canadian Council for Research Networking (CCCRN). Westine [Page 13]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 8. PRIVACY AND SECURITY ISSUES: Kent A. INTERNET USER CERTIFICATE REGISTRATION Kent distributed a draft of "Internet User Certificate Registration", describing the proposed rules for obtaining certificates from RSADSI Inc. for use of private email. Gross took an action item to find or create an IETF working group to address the problem of electronic signature registration. Kent led the meeting through the proposed agreement, pointing out all the issues, pitfalls, and issues still under negotiation. There was a discussion of the handling of expired certificates and revoked certificates ("bad boy lists", which need to be in located in a directory service). Another issues concerned the controversial restriction that only RSADSI can issue certificates. There was also some discussion of expanding the use of these certificates beyond private email; for example, Kent pointed out that they are exactly what is needed for gateway authentication. The question was asked: why do we fully trust RSADSI? Kent answered: (1) Since only RSADSI maintains keys, an obvious audit trail will be left if bogus certificates are found. (2) RSADSI has obvious economic incentive as well as the necessary expertise to protect information; "there are lots of built-in safeguards." The discussion led to several issues for Kent to take to an impending meeting with RSADSI, to refine the draft procedures. Kent asked Pullen about an Internet connection for RSADSI; Pullen will take action. It is taking longer than expected to get out the private email software. TIS had promised the software for November 30, 1989, but they didn't realize how long it would take for the software to mature. They now expect a prototype version in January 1990. This version uses public keys and X.509 but requires a highly centralized key managment facility (to be provided by NIST). Because there is no support for notaries, they do not want to propagate this initial version too widely. A more complete version is projected for initial testing in April 90, with general use hopefully in mid 1990. The RFC status is Draft Standard, Elective. Westine [Page 14]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 Another issue was raised: what organization will act as the certificate-granting authority for the U.S. government? NIST and GSA were mentioned as possibilities. B. Security Bug Reports: Gross Gross introduced a proposed procedure for handling reports of security-related software bugs. It could be used by the current CERT and other similar groups that may be formed in the future (e.g., a CERT for MS/DOS). Gross' proposal resulted from the concern that vendors might not cooperate and that people might fail to report bugs due to potential liability. A Washington, D.C. law firm has critiqued the proposal. With small changes, the writeup satisfies all the criteria they set out to achieve. Lauck asked: What is the confidentiality of bug reports? Instead of broadcasting the bugs, we could encourage a vendor to fix it in the next system release, and in the meantime only give the bug report to certain companies and government agencies. Cerf replied that this is an instance of the standing debate: is it more harmful to broadcast security bug reports or to keep them secret? Also, how do we protect the reporter; if a bug report is not truthful, a vendor could have grounds for a law suit. The goal of the proposed procedure is to notify the community, without harming the vendors or risking defamation. The proposal contains a multi-step procedure, first reporting the bug only to the vendor, but in later steps broadcasting the report to a successively wider audience. The procedure would require positive acknowledgments at all the early steps, and would use RFC-1113 private email for these broadcast reports. One piece of legal advice was to put vendor on record as supporting the procedure or not. If a vendor refuses to be on the mailing list to receive and acknowledge security bug reports, then archive the vendor's refusal! 9. IGP: Gross Gross discussed the current serious candidates for a standard IGP: OSPF, IS-IS, and an Open Distance Vector (ODV) protocol to be developed. 1) OSPF is a Proposed Standard. A public domain version of it is now available for alpha testing from the University of Maryland, and it will be incorporated into GATED. Proteon has an independent implementation. Westine [Page 15]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 OSPF resulted from an official IAB/IETF effort started 18 months ago, and it is derived from IS-IS with modifications appropriate for the Internet. However, there has been little operational experience with it so far, and questions have been raised about its documentation. 2) IS-IS was DEC-developed; there is lots of experience with a subset of it in the NSFNET backbone, and DEC has developed the full protocol for DECNET Phase V. Extensions would be necessary in order to handle the Internet (e.g., subnetting). 3) The ODV WG was announced in July and met for the first time in Hawaii. The WG expressed unwillingness to start from Cisco's IGRP, because Cisco has patented the algorithm. Gross recommended the following policy, which was adopted by the IAB: "The following is the general IAB policy on intra-AS routing protocols ("IGPs") for the Internet: there will be one primary standard protocol, which will be RECOMMENDED, but there may be other standard protocols which will be ELECTIVE. All general-purpose Internet gateways will be expected to support the primary standard; support of any of the other standard protocols will be optional." The IESG will be considering this issue at an open meeting in Tallahasee, and will later make a recommendation to the IAB. The IAB did not want to preempt the IESG recommendation, but it did discuss the issue at painful length, in the context of the meta-question: can we designate a time when the choice will be made? It was suggested that setting the date now would reduce the possibility of claims of unfairness. Unfortunately, the choice of time frame probably prejudices the result, since the different protocols are in different development stages. Therefore, the IAB took no further action on this issue pending an IESG recommendation, and wished the IESG lots of luck! The following points were made in the discussion: o We want to wait until operational experience has been gained with interoperation of multiple independent implementations. (CMOT was brought up as a painful example of adopting a standard before sufficient testing had occurred). Westine [Page 16]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 o On the other hand, it is important to make the choice as soon as possible; an earlier decision will result in earlier vendor products. o Lauck (naturally) spoke consistently in favor of IS-IS. He said that there would be no problem with making the necessary IP-specific extensions to IS-IS, and that having a single underlying routing protocol for both OSI and IP would save significant vendor effort. o Pullen said that if it's a question of technical quality, then simply pick one. However, absent clear technical superiority, it is imperative to maintain an open path to OSI. 10. WHITE PAGES: Pullen About a year ago, the FRICC decided to make White Pages a priority item, and in particular to support X.500. DARPA & NFS spearheaded this activity for the FRICC. Clark, Leiner, and IAB came up with a strawman list of potential activities to accomplish this, given the global resources available. In particular, the IAB plan urged multiple, interoperable pilot X.500 implementations. Pullen particularly acknowledged the work that Clark [RFC-1107] contributed to the planning effort. Pullen outlined his approach to bringing X.500 service to the Internet. The proposed applications are White Pages and privacy-enhanced mail; other applications are possible. 11. NREN MANAGEMENT: Pullen Pullen described plans being put together for management committees for the NREN. This is expected to include a broader and more formalized version of the FRICC, and a broad- based advisory committee. 12. INTER-AUTONOMOUS DOMAIN ROUTING: Gross, Braun The candidate inter-AD routing protocols are: o EGP2 o EGP3 o BGP o ORWG protocols It was stated that EGP3 appears to be essentially dead, although an RFC may be published some day. BGP is an interim effort, Westine [Page 17]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 created by Cisco, IBM, and Merit, with considerable other support. The ORWG work continues to be the long-range hope, but it is not a short-term solution. BGP development is being overseen by the Interconnectivity Working Group (IWG). Gross discussed his plans to create a Topology Engineering Working Group (TEWG) to perform the more operational function that IWG was originally chartered to do. The need to ensure a link between FARNET and the TEWG was brought up. Braden expressed a concern that the BGP RFC describes a protocol but not an architecture; Braun replied that the architecture document is in the mail to Jon Postel, for publication as an RFC. He distributed copies of an early draft. Richer raised his concern about the continuing failure to produce a routing architecture document, promised by the IAB last July. He indicated that funding for routing research might await such a document. 13. OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE: Cerf Cerf pointed out that there are still many unsolved issues that attend the evolution of the Internet, such as accounting and access control. He agreed to write up his concerns for discussion at the next IAB meeting. 14. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE * April 24, 1990 Teleconference. * June 28-29, 1990, Boston, MA. * October 11, 1990, San Jose, CA, at InterOp '90. * January 8-9, 1991, ISI, Los Angeles, CA. Bob Braden (Braden@ISI.EDU) INTERNET RESEARCH REPORTS ------------------------- AUTONOMOUS NETWORKS ------------------- No news to report for February. A teleconference on billing issues is being planned for March/April timeframe. Deborah Estrin (Estrin@USC.EDU) Westine [Page 18]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 END-TO-END SERVICES ------------------- No progress to report this month. Bob Braden (Braden@ISI.EDU) PRIVACY AND SECURITY -------------------- Privacy-Enhanced Mail activities have continued at Trusted Information Systems in preparation for a limited beta release expected for this spring. TIS has been focusing on preparing interim key management software to support this release. Implementation progress, plans for subsequent releases, modifications to the user registration process, and assignment of Certification Authority responsibility will be among topics discussed at the next P-E Mail workshop on March 27th with representatives of BBN, TIS, NIST and RSADSI expected to attend. Per discussion at its January meeting at Xerox PARC, the PSRG is looking to assist in the establishment an IETF Working Group for the use of Secure Data Network System (SDNS) protocols in the Internet. Security protocols SP3 and SP4 and the associated Key Management Protocol (KMP), developed in the SDNS program, would seem to have some appeal for use as a generic method for providing security services in a number of protocol environments, and the United States, through ANSI, has introduced SP4 to ISO as a candidate for international standardization. PSRG members will be taking this up with Steve Crocker, the IETF Area Director for Security, during March, and hope to have more to report on this activity in the next monthly. The next meeting of the Privacy & Security RG is planned for the first week of April, 1990, at Digital Equipment Corporation in Boxborough, MA. Ken Rossen (kenr@BBN.COM) COLLABORATION TECHNOLOGY ------------------------ The CTRG met February 28 - March 1 at Xerox PARC. The major topics of discussion were multi-media workstation architecture, media synchronization, connection architecture, and the decision by Olivetti to abandon many of its research endeavors world- wide---including the elimination of 80% of its staff at Olivetti Westine [Page 19]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 Research California in Menlo Park. As a result of this last item, the chairman can now be accessed as LANTZ@SPAR.STANFORD.EDU (no, he has not returned to Stanford). Further details of the last meeting will appear in a future Monthly. Keith Lantz (LANTZ@SPAR.STANFORD.EDU) INTERNET ENGINEERING REPORTS ---------------------------- Internet Engineering Task Force and IETF Areas Chairman: Phill Gross/CNRI The Sixteenth IETF meeting was held at Florida State University (FSU) on February 6-9, 1990. The meeting was sponsored by the Super Computations Research Institute (SCRI) and the Department of Energy. The local host was Ken Hays. The agenda was very full. Approximately 35 working groups met for a total of 44 separate sessions during the five half-day working group periods. In addition to network status reports and technical presentations there was a particular focus on Intra-Autonomous Domain routing. IAB Participation We were very pleased to have several members of the IAB in attendance at FSU. Not only did Vinton Cerf (IAB Chair) and Dan Lynch (ACE) attend, but so did two new members of the IAB. Tony Lauck (DEC) and Lyman Chapin (Data General, Chair of X3S3.3) were invited to join the IAB in January. As an IAB member, I am gratified to have these two new members on the IAB and I was especially happy to see the participation of IAB members, new and old, at the IETF meeting. New Working Groups Several working groups had their first meetings at an IETF plenary at FSU: Internet Services - IP-over-SMDS - MTU Discovery (also met prior to IETF) - Router Discovery (also met prior to IETF) - Router Requirements Westine [Page 20]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 Security - Internet Security Policy Routing - IS-IS for Dual IP/OSI routing (also met prior to IETF) - Multicast routing for OSPF Host and User Services - Distributed File System OSI Integration - OSI NSAP Guidelines Applications - Network Printing Protocol Operations - Topology Engineering - User Connectivity In other WG news: There was also a "Birds-of-a-feather" session on accounting in the Internet. The purpose of the BOF was to determine if there was enough interest and technical issues to form a WG in this area. Depending on the outcome and proposed focus, such a WG could be organized under the Network Management Area or the Operations Area. Several WGs have completed their charter. These WGs are essentially retired, although in some cases the WGs will simply be inactive until further activity develops under their charter. The WGs that have completed their charters include: - NOC Tools (Internet-Draft complete, to be submitted as an RFC) - Performance and Congestion Control (Internet-Draft complete, to be submitted as an RFC) - IP Authentication (Internet-Draft complete, to be submitted as an RFC) OSI Integration The OSI area has changed its name but not its important focus. The original name "OSI Coexistance and Interoperability" was a cumbersome attempt by the IETF chair to capture the charter of the area in the title! The area's main focus was always intended to be the sound planning required for the integration of OSI protocols Westine [Page 21]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 into the Internet. It was always intended for the OSI to "coexist" with the other protocol families now in the Internet. It was also intended for this area to consider methods for OSI protocols to interoperate with the current TCP/IP protocols. This charter is not new or unique. The DoD developed an OSI Implementation Plan several years ago, which had a similar focus. The Federal Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) also formed a planning group with a similar focus. The IETF OSI Integration Area hopes to act as a point of focus for technical OSI planning in the Internet. Please contact the co-Directors (Rob Hagens and Ross Callon) for a more information on activities in the OSI Integration Area. IGP Policy Perhaps the most important topic at the FSU IETF plenary was the discussions and presentations on Intra-AS routing protocols. As was advertised prior to the meeting, the IESG made the following recommendation to the IAB: "There is a pressing need for a high functionality *open* Intra-AS Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) for the TCP/IP protocol family. Users and network operators have also expressed a strong need for routers from different vendors to interoperate. Based on these two requirements, the IESG hereby recommends that one high functionality routing protocol be designated as the "recommended" standard IGP for routers in the Internet. Other routing protocols may also be designated as "elective" standards. By this, it is the intent that all developers of Internet routers make the "recommended" standard IGP available in their products. However, it is not the intent to discourage the use of other routing protocols in situations where there may be sound technical reasons to do so. This recommendation is meant to *enable* multi- vendor router interoperation. It is not otherwise meant to dictate what routing protocol can be used in a private environment. "Therefore, developers of Internet routers are free to implement, and network operators are free to use, other elective Internet standard routing protocols, or proprietary non-Internet-standard routing protocols, as they wish". During the FSU IETF meeting (specifically at the IESG meetings of February 8th and 9th), the IESG discussed the question of choosing one routing protocol to become the "recommended" standard IGP for the TCP/IP protocol family. The two candidates under discussion were ISO's IS-IS, enhanced to support IP in tandem with CLNP, and Westine [Page 22]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 OSPF. Both protocols use the SPF routing algorithms. A preliminary recommendation is being forward to the IAB and will be announced to the IETF mailing in early March. IESG meetings and minutes The IESG held an open meeting on Thursday at the FSU IETF. This has become a standard practice for exchanging information between the IESG and the IETF plenary, and will continue at future meetings. Meeting notes from the open IESG meeting will be included in the Proceedings of the FSU IETF. Phill Gross, Chair IETF and IESG *******IESG AREA REPORTS******* APPLICATIONS AREA Director: Russ Hobby/UC-Davis Network Applications in Need of Standards The Internet has grown to the point where a vast number of people have access and they are now asking "What do we do with it?". Most TCP/IP implementations include three basic applications: remote login (Telnet), file transfer (FTP) and electronic mail (SMTP). These applications need to be looked at to see if they meet todays need, but people want more! The main reason for TCP/IP's success has been its interoperability. Now that new applications are being looked at (and in some cases developed), we need to provide standards for these applications to insure continued interoperability. In the telephone world, the user does not care what is happening with the switching and circuits, he just wants to be able to talk to the person at the other end. This also needs to be true with network applications. We already see proprietary network systems, particularly with microcomputer, that can not talk to each other. What we need are agreed upon standards at the network level for the applications, and the vendors can then sell their product because their's is the "best" implementation and user interface. Also, regardless of one's options on OSI, it will happen at some point and TCP/IP needs to work closely with the OSI groups to make sure that there will be interoperability at the application level. Westine [Page 23]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 Here are a few of the applications, old and new, that have produced some interest and questions. Electronic Mail There is no doubt that current email could use some improvements. How can we include image information in email. What about electronic signatures? Is what we really need an electronic document standard that will include these issues and more? How is X.400 going to fit into or work with the TCP/IP world? What about ANSI Z39.50 Network Printers An IETF working group for this one is forming now. We need to define a standard method of sending printer output to a printer connected to the network. Some items to consider are: 1) Authentication/security/accounting 2) Begin/end control of print job 3) Printing modes and options (postscript, plain text, page/line size, ....) 4) Scheduling priorities Network Backups Define a standard method of doing disk backups to a mass storage system on the network. This is becoming particularly important with the increase of PCs and workstations that do not have mass storage directly attached. Distributed Network Bulletin Board System Define a Bulletin Board System such that various parts of the information base can reside on different computers. This allows each provider of their information to provide the maintenance and computing resources for that part of the information base. Also as the information base grows, rather than having get a bigger computer to handle the growth, you add more computers. One idea currently being looked at UC Davis is to use the USENET concept and NNTP, but use the Domain Name System to specify which computer provides NNTP service for a particular newsgroup. Distributed Network Calendar/Scheduling System Define a system such that one computer can maintain a calendar for a group of people/rooms/items, but can also communicated Westine [Page 24]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 with calendars on other computers over the network for scheduling. Network FAX Define a standard method of sending FAX information over a network. If we can get email to include images, this need may decrease, but people what to do FAX now! Network Interactive Conversations Define a standard method for interactive conversations over the network. There are several programs that allow users to talk to each other, but no standards for it. UNIX "talk" or Internet Relay Chat (IRC) are probably the closest to defacto standards. Network Database Define a standard method of interacting with databases over a network. SQL seems to one option. Directory Services What is the best way to provide this service? Whois? DNS? X.500? We need an official way of doing it over TCP/IP. HOST AND USER SERVICES AREA Director: Craig Partridge/BBN User Services The User Services WG has announced that it will begin to produce a new type of RFC, an F.Y.I. note. F.Y.I. notes are informational RFCs, designed to help users and managers better understand how to use the Internet. The NISI working group has been re-instated. Dana Sitzler of MERIT is chair. The groups charter is to examine the on-line information services offered by the NIC, and consider what service protocols could be standardized, so all NICs could provide similar information using the same protocol. Host Services The TCP Big Windows WG has developed two possible ways to expand the TCP window size and sequence space to sizes appropriate for gigabit networks. Researchers at Cray Research and some of the Westine [Page 25]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 national supercomputer centers have agreed to develop and test these options and report on which one seems more suitable. The Distributed File Systems WG has started work to identify issues in operating distributed file systems over wide areas. There is reason to believe that existing DFS protocols are not well suited to this problem. The Graphics WG decided to disband, in favor of trying to arrange a one-time workshop in which people interested in graphics, networking, and standards could discuss common concerns. The WG felt that it was just too difficult to persuade the graphics community to attend networking meetings, or the networking community to attend graphics meeting. INTERNET SERVICES AREA Director: Noel Chiappa/Consultant Report not received. NETWORK MANAGEMENT AREA Director: Dave Crocker/DEC Report not received. OSI INTEGRATION AREA Directors: Ross Callon/DEC and Rob Haggens/U-Wisc The OSI general WG has reviewed the following documents RFC 1006 Internet Draft: DRAFT-UCL-KILLE-NETWORKADDRESSES-00.PS.1 Internet Draft: DRAFT-UCL-KILLE-PRESENTATIONADDRESS-00.PS.1 Internet Draft: DRAFT-OSF-SHUE-OSIUDP-00.TXT.1 and determined which should be progressed in the RFC Standards Track, and for each document to be progressed, the anticipated requirement level. These recommendations are listed in the OSI general meeting report. The OSI-NSAP working group had their initial meeting. The group accepted their charter, to develop guidelines for NSAP assignment and administration, Westine [Page 26]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 and identified eight issues/questions that need to be resolved. These issues are detailed in the meeting report. The OSI-X.400 working group meet to consider the transition to, and operation of an Internet X.400 Private Management Domain. Their work can be summarized into 2 points: a) there is no need to specify a transition or Address structure for the Internet; domain defined attributes will suffice. b) there is a real need to allocate funds to administer and operate a PRMD on behalf of the National Research and Education Network, NREN. The group is preparing a detailed statement to this effect that also includes details on the administration and operation of an NREN PRMD. OPERATION AREA Interim Director: Phillip Gross/CNRI The Interconnectivity WG (chaired by Guy Almes) will conquer by dividing. IWG has had two main activities in recent meetings - BGP, and operational routing and topology management. We have decided to create a new WG, Topology Engineering (tewg), to focus specifically on the second issue. Scott Brim (Cornell Theory Center) will chair the new TEWG. TEWG will have a specific goal of coordinating among the various relevant operational routing and topology management groups in the Internet. This includes regional networks, FARNET, national backbones, etc. Guy Almes will continue to chair IWG, which will now take BGP as its main focus. Please see the charters for IWG and TEWG, or contact the chairs for additional information. The Joint Monitoring for Adjacent NSFnet Networks WG (JoMANN) has undergone a minor transformation. Sue Hares (Merit) organized JoMANN, at least partly, to assist Merit in interacting with the regional networks attached to NSFnet. JoMANN proved useful enough that we have decided to establish it as a mainstay of the new Operations Area. The WG will be renamed Network Joint Monitoring (NJM) to emphasize that the new focus will be monitoring issues beyond simply networks adjacent to NSFnet. There is some other preliminary activity in the Operations Area. We held a meeting of the reporters from the major national backbones (NSFnet, ESnet, NSI, DCA/DARPA) in an attempt to make the Westine [Page 27]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 network status report a more regular and standardized feature. We also had an ad hoc meeting of folks interested in developing standard ways of collecting and reporting network data. We hope to bring these two efforts together, if possible. ROUTING AREA Director: Robert Hinden/BBN MULTICAST OSPF W.G. This WG met for the first time at the February IETF. Twenty two people attended the meeting, with the following topics being covered: introduction to IP multicast, overview of the IGMP protocol, survey of current multicast routing strategies, and proposed modifications / additions (algorithms and data) that will be necessary to support multicast routing in OSPF. Most the discussion centered on a desire for performance characteristics of multicast routing (e.g., how dynamic will host group membership be, how often will the cache entries be calculated). OPEN ROUTING W.G. The inter-domain policy routing architecture document became an Internet Draft at the beginning of February. It is available as Title: An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing Editors: M. Lepp and M. Steenstrup for the Open Systems Routing Working Group Filename: draft-ietf-orwg-architecture-01.ps Martha Steenstrup gave a presentation to the IETF plenary outlining the important ideas in the document. The working group meet at IETF and discussed the details of how the architecture works. Work is progressing on the protocols for the initial version of inter- domain policy routing. The group is scheduling a video conference in Mid-March to discuss the proposed protocols. The ORWG is now open. Send mail to msteenstrup@bbn.com if you would like to be put on the mailing list. OSPF W.G. John Moy gave a presentation to the IETF plenary describing OSPF, together with a comparison to the dual IS-IS. Also at the February IETF, there was a meeting of OSPF implementors (led by Rob Coltun and Jeff Honig). The main topic of this meeting was the Westine [Page 28]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 incorporation of the University of Maryland's OSPF code into the "gated" program. Finally, field testing of OSPF in selected NSF regionals (and other Autonomous Systems) has begun. A new mailing list, ospf-tests@seka.cso.uiuc.edu has been formed to support this effort. INTERCONNECTIVITY W.G. The IWG meet several times at the IETF meeting and worked on a new versions of the BGP protocol and an accompanying usage document. New versions of these documents will be released in March. As part of the reorganization of the IWG, the old BGP mailing list has been merged with the IWG list. The new list is iwg@rice.edu. Please send messages concerning IWG/BGP issues to the merged list. IS-IS Working Group Radia Perlman presented a talk to the IETF plenary on the IS-IS routing protocol and IP extensions. The working group meet several times at IETF to further refine the IP extensions and develop plans for several implementations. OSPF / IS-IS Debate There was much debate at the FSU IETF meeting on the merits of the OSPF v.s. IS-IS for routing IP traffic. The intention is to pick one as the recommended standard IGP for IP to allow for multivendor routing in a single autonomous system. The discussion was loud and heated, but no blood was shed. I believe that the only conclusion that was reached is that we need real operational experience with these protocols before one can be selected as the "recommended standard IGP". SECURITY AREA Director: Steve Crocker/TIS The new Security Policy WG, chaired by Rich Pethia, met at the IETF meeting in Florida. There was a considerable interest. The WG will propose ideas for an Internet-wide security policy. A mailing list has been established. Send requests to: spwg-request@nri.reston.va.us A number of messages have already been sent on this list, and the ideas are flowing rapidly. Westine [Page 29]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 The SNMP Authentication portion of the Autnentication WG met in Florida and discussed a trio of documents. These documents will continue to undergo further review, but have been released for general distribution with the intention of becoming a proposed standard (elective). The three documents are: "Authentication and Privacy in the SNMP" "Administration of SNMP Communities" "Experimental Definitions of Managed Objects for Administration of SNMP Communities" Keith McCloghrie, Chuck Davin and Jim Galvin are to be congratulated for pushing through these documents. The IP authentication portion of the Authentication WG did not meet, but its document is complete and will be submitted to the RFC editor for advancement to Proposed Standard (Elective). Some security related topics have come up that are being pursued in other areas. This is expected to happen reasonably frequently, and our intent is to leave the primary responsibility with the other area and coordinate as needed. Specific topics being coordinated at the moment are: - User profile, under development by the User Services WG, chaired by Joyce Reynolds - Telnet encryption and authentication, under development by the Telnet WG, chaired by Dave Borman. - Privacy Enhanced Mail, under development by the Privacy and Security Working Group in the IRTF, chaired by Steve Kent. Phill Gross (pgross@NRI.RESTON.VA.US) Westine [Page 30]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 INTERNET PROJECTS ----------------- BARRNET ------- No report received. BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN INC. ---------------------------- INTERNET RESEARCH During the month of January, we completed the Internet Draft containing the inter-domain policy routing architecture. This document was reviewed by about 15 reviewers in the open routing area before submission as an Internet Draft, and is now being reviewed by members of the Internet community. At IETF, we presented the architecture both during a formal presentation and at the working group sessions. There seems to be a fair amount of interest in getting this implemented, both for its own sake and because it would relieve a lot of the current Internet routing problems. We've also been scoping out the protocols for the initial version of inter-domain policy routing. These include protocols for route request, path setup, virtual gateway status monitoring, virtual link status monitoring, and status dissemination. We held a video conference on 27 February to review the first drafts of these protocols among the group developing them, and we are now in the process of revising the drafts based upon comments received during the video conference. TERRESTRIAL WIDEBAND NETWORK AND ST/IP GATEWAY During February, the Terrestrial Wideband supported eleven conferences and two demos -- more than 3 a week. Two of the conferences involved four sites, four involved three sites, and seven involved two sites. Conferences were held by the IETF Steering group and IETF working groups on Open Routing and on Benchmarking. In addition, Bob Braden chaired a discussion on DRI related topics and a number of conferences were held involving participants such as Ira Richer (DARPA) and Danny Cohen (ISI). Work on support of SIMNET over ST progressed steadily. The first phase of development was completed ahead of schedule. Final system testing will be conducted during March. Weeklong SIMNET exercises Westine [Page 31]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 have been scheduled for the last week in March and the first week in April. In preparation for these exercises, SIMNET ST/IP gateways have been installed at the SIMNET-Washington office, Ft. Rucker and Ft. Knox. Another gateway is on site at Ft Leavenworth and is scheduled for installation in the beginning of March. INTERNET O&M An error in the algorithm for disseminating EGP information within a Butterfly Gateway autonomous system was found and fixed this month. This error was responsible for a number of gateway "restarts", particularly in the Wideband Butterfly Gateways. This error was detected when EGP tables in gateways at certain Wideband Network sites were increased to accommodate the larger number of networks now present in the Internet. The resulting increase in EGP traffic appeared to exacerbate the problem. A new version of software was installed at BBN, CMU, RADC, and DARPA and Butterfly Gateway restarts at those sites due to the EGP problem disappeared. This new version of software will be distributed to all Butterfly Gateway locations during the next month. EURO-DRI INFRASTRUCTURE An upgrade was installed in the Butterfly Gateway located at NTA-RE in Kjeller, Norway. This upgrade included additional processors, a non-volatile RAM board, a new terminal and load device, and up-to- date software accomodating the new configuration. NTA-RE gateway operations have been stable since the upgrade was done. Bob Hinden (Hinden@BBN.COM) CERFNET ------- Installations On Tuesday, February 6th, Supercomputing Solutions Incorporated (SSI) of San Diego were brought online. SSI has a 56 kilobits per second (kbps) link to the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC). SSI is involved in the mini-supercomputer business. On Tuesday, February 13th, Quotron Systems Incorporated, in Los Angeles, were brought online. Quotron has a 56 kbps link to the University of California, Los Angeles. Two new industrial sites will be brought online in March and April. ISX Corporation will be brought up March 14th and will have a 56 kbps link to UCLA. Walt Disney Imagineering will be brought online April 3rd and will have a 56 kbps link to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). Westine [Page 32]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 Increased Redundancy A T1 circuit between the backbone nodes at UCLA and UC Irvine was brought up on February 9th. This new circuit acts as a default route. Normally, traffic passing from the UC Irvine reaches the NSFNET through their T1 circuit to the SDSC. If this link goes down traffic takes the default route through the UCLA node, across to the Caltech backbone node and down the T1 circuit to SDSC. From here it can be routed to the NSFNET. Memory Problems CERFnet has recently encountered memory problems on one of its cisco Systems AGS Gateways. This gateway at SDSC, Dr. Zog, periodically cannot answer queries by the Simple Network Management Protocol because of a lack of memory. The status of all sites connected to CERFnet via Dr. Zog at SDSC is "unknown" at that time. CERFnet operations are working to resolve this memory problem. Other Activities CERFnet hosted a seminar on February 16th at the San Diego Supercomputer Center. This seminar titled, Introduction to Simple Network Management (SNMP) Protocol, was taught by Pushpendra Mohta of CERFnet and discussed SNMP, its design and goals. The morning session delt with elements of SNMP. The afternoon session dealt with the use of the SNMP based tools in network management. The seminar was attended by 60 people. The next CERFnet seminar is tentatively scheduled for May or June. This seminar will be about the future of networking, dealing with both fact and fantasy. In February, Karen Armstrong attended the quarterly Internet Engineering Task Force meeting at Florida State University. Karen is particularly involved with the activities of the User Services Working Group and the sub-group User-Documentation. Her involvement is these groups allows her to provide the CERFnet user community with valuable information, such as the latest developments on the Internet and new networking-related documentation. by Karen Armstrong (armstrongk@sds.sdsc.edu). Westine [Page 33]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 CICNET ------- No report received. CORNELL ------- No report received. ISI --- INTERNET CONCEPTS PROJECT To more fully test the IP Source Quench congestion control algorithm, application sender and gateway server programs that use UDP have been created. This is needed to develop a detailed picture of the algorithm's operation without confusion from TCPs congestion and windowing control. These tests will yield benchmark performance against which possible interference with TCP will be judged. Greg Finn (Finn@ISI.EDU) Bob Braden presented a seminar to the ISI networking group, summarizing the recent Workshop on Architectures for Very-High- Speed Networks held at BBN. Joyce Reynolds attended the IETF meetings in Tallahasse, Florida, at Florida State University, 5-9, February. Paul Mockapetris visited Open Software Foundation in Boston, MA, for X.500 demos, 12-16 February. Paul Mockapetris attended X.500 meeting in Boston, MA with Retix, Banyan, and HP, 20-27 February. Three RFCs were published this month. RFC 1143: Bernstein, D., "The Q Method of Implementing TELNET Option Negotiation", NYU, February 1990. RFC 1144: Jacobson, V., "Compressing TCP/IP Headers for Low-Speed Serial Links", LBL, February 1990. RFC 1145: Zweig, J. (UIUC), and C. Partridge (BBN), "TCP Alternate Checksum Options", February 1990. Ann Westine (Westine@ISI.EDU) Westine [Page 34]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 MULTIMEDIA CONFERENCING PROJECT A record 12 teleconferences were held in February, including one that was the first time neither of the implementors' sites, BBN nor ISI, participated. We have developed a test program to investigate the sound I/O facilities on the Sparcstation and the NeXT machine as alternative platforms for the teleconferencing system. The program digitizes audio using the built-in codec, then either loops it back internally to the local speaker or encapsulates it in UDP packets which are shipped over the Internet. Packets are either played back on another machine's built-in speaker or bounced off a remote host and played back locally. There is a noticable delay of approximately one fourth of a second on the NeXT machine when the test program is run in internal loopback mode. We are hopeful that this delay may be reduced in future releases of the NeXT operating system by additional DMA modes for the transfer of data between the DSP and the main processor. Delay in the Sparcstation is very low with small buffers. The addition of the network code seems to have added very little delay, compared to internal loopback. In tests run on our local Ethernet, the packet loss has been between 0% and 1% and the speech sounds pretty good. A new version of the packet video host, PVP, was released that will allow codec types and codec data rates to be changed during an on- going ST connection. This will facilitate quick comparisons of various codecs without requiring frequent loading and starting of different sets of PVP modules. Steve Casner attended the IETF meeting in Tallahassee, FL, where the Connection-Oriented IP WG laid the groundwork for a coordinated plan for CO experiments on the DRI Testbed. He also attended the Collaboration Technology RG meeting in Palo Alto, CA, presenting seminars beforehand at NASA Ames and afterwards at Xerox PARC on "N-Way Conferencing with Packet Video". Dave Walden attended the Electronic Imaging Conference in Pasadena to learn about the latest developments in graphic and video imaging products. Steve Casner, Annette DeSchon, Dave Walden, Eve Schooler (casner@ISI.EDU, deschon@ISI.EDU, djwalden@ISI.EDU, schooler@ISI.EDU) Westine [Page 35]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 FAST PARTS Stockton Gaines and Anna-Lena Neches attended the ASC X12/DISA seminar "EDI: LETTERS OF THE LAW" in Dallas, Texas. This seminar addressed various audit, legal and security issues in Electronic Data Interchange. Anna-Lena Neches (ALNeches@ISI.EDU) Alan Katz finished the electronic mail based FAX server and have started testing. Since it is a mail based server, Alan wants to make really sure that it does not generate lots of junk mail accidently. The manual version of our electronic FAX system has been used somewhat within FAST for the last month. Alan Katz (Katz@ISI.EDU) JVNCNET, NORTH EAST RESEARCH REGIONAL NETWORK --------------------------------------------- No report received. LOS NETTOS ---------- We have developed a method for accessing the console ports of the cisco router and CSU/DSU's at remote member sites. A single dial up line is attached to a low cost any-to-any port selector. We also connect the local console terminal and the cisco auxillary "connect out" port to the port selector. This allows us to replace the A-B switch the console terminal previously used and it allows telnet access to the CSU/DSU T1 line statistics. We can power cycle the routers and CSU/DSU's to initiate a power reset by selecting a specific port on the port selector. One node is operational, and we will install more sites soon. Walt Prue (Prue@isi.edu) MERIT/UMNET ----------- The eight-member Merit Board of Directors met in a two day strategic planning retreat at the end of February to consider membership, governance, the kinds of networking services and types of affiliated organizations to which such services are offered, router and link upgrade plans for the Merit Michigan intra-state network, fee structures, etc. The directors represent the eight Merit member universities. They were joined by additional staff Westine [Page 36]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 from their universities, the President of Merit, and several of the Merit staff. The Merit Network News, Merit's newsletter, is now available in an eletronic form: as a mailing list; via anonymous FTP from the NIC.Merit.Edu machine; and via an automated mail query server. For a subscription to the electronic version, send to MNN- Request@merit.edu. For information on accessing this and other online documentation from the NIC machine, send to info@merit.edu Merit staff has completed implementation and deployment of software within the Merit intra-state network in Michigan which allows asynchronous and X.25 users to Telnet to machines on the Internet without the need to go through an intermediate host or terminal server. In order to comply with NSF guidelines and pending completion of the Merit authorization server, users connected via dial-in lines or from public microcomputer labs at Merit member universities are not allowed to initiate connections which traverse the NSFNET. When the authorization server is deployed, this administrative restriction will be removed for users who are able to provide a valid id and password. Although there are approximately 1,500 of these "public" ports on Merit, there are 10,000 other private ports whose users are not subject to this restriction. Reciprocally, Internet users can now Telnet to hosts on the Merit Michigan network via hermes.merit.edu. This connects to a software gateway which provides the standard Which Host? prompt used on the intra-state network. Merit has agreed to provide a mail gateway service for SprintMail (formerly TeleMail), similar to the one already provided for MCIMail. The new gateway is undergoing testing and should be operational within the next month. Planning is continuing for the upgrade of the router technology and link topology used on the Merit intra-state network. The upgrade will greatly increase the packet switching capacity, provide a path to OSI standards, and make the network easier to maintain. At the same time, the new design will make it possible to maintain the existing X.25, IBM direct channel attachment, asynchronous, and bi-sync services currently provided. Pat McGregor (patmcg@merit.edu) Westine [Page 37]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 MIDNET ------ No report received. MIT-LCS ------- No progress to report this month. Chuck Davin (jrd@PITT.LCS.MIT.EDU) MITRE Corporation ----------------- No report received. MRNET ----- Two new networks connected to MRNet in February: The Minnesota State University System network completed their connection to MRNet. Through this connection, the seven MSUS schools now have Internet connectivity: Bemidji State University Mankato State University Metropolitan State University Moorhead State University St. Cloud State University Southwest State University Winona State University The Army Supercomputer Network (ASnet) also connected to MRNet. The ASnet connection will enable Army High Performance Computing Research Center (AHPCRC) users to communicate with AHPCRC facilities at the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supercomputer Center. MRNet will also provide NSFnet connectivity to some ASnet sites. Jeff Wabik is working with the Army to figure out how this will work. Westine [Page 38]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 The MRNet Executive Committee is about to start working on finding a Chair. Feel free to send suggestions or offers of assistance to any member of the MRNet Executive Committee: Carl F. Henry chenry@carleton.edu Timothy J. Salo tjs@msc.umn.edu Jeff A. Wabik jwabik@msc.umn.edu by Timothy J. Salo (tjs@msc.umn.edu) NCAR/USAN --------- No report received. NEW ENGLAND ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH NETWORK ----------------------------------------- During February, The University of Maine System and Samsung Software America were connected to NEARnet as T1 branch node sites. From these locations NEARnet will be extending service to northeastern Massachusetts and the state of Maine. In addition Stratus Computer, Horizon Research, Process Software and Proteon were brought on-line. Operation of the network was stable during the month. The Technical and User Seminar is planned for March 19. by John Rugo (jrugo@nic.near.net) NNSC, UCAR/BOLT BERANEK and NEWMAN, INC. ---------------------------------------- Craig Partridge and Karen Roubicek attended the IETF. The User Documents Working Group bibliography is expected to be in the Internet Drafts Directory at the end of March. The NNSC distributed additions to Chapters 1 and 2 of the Internet resource Guide. by Corinne Carroll (ccarroll@nnsc.nsf.net) NORTHWESTNET ------------ No report received. Westine [Page 39]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 NSF BACKBONE (Merit) ------------------- Packet counts across the NSFNET Backbone totalled 2,551,049,352, increasing 3.46% in February over January. The overall average uptime exceeded 99.98%, with only three class one outages logged for the month. The networks announced on the backbone as of February 28 number 1038. Statistics representing network traffic which traversed the NSFNET backbone during one-month reporting periods (TRAFFIC) are now available for anonymous ftp from the directory STATS on NIS.NSF.NET (35.1.1.48). Inpacket count totals (INPKTS) and one-way delay times (PING) are also available in STATS. Dennis Ferguson of CA*Net met with Merit/NSFNET staff on February 27 and 28 to discuss the technical aspects of international routing between CA*Net and the NSFNET as well as issues of network performance. Some regional networks began to explore the use of BGP to the NSFNET backbone, with additional regionals expressing interest in partici- pating in this endeavor. Elise Gerich participated in the FRICC Engineering Planning Committee meeting as well as presented a technical report on the current state of the NSFNET backbone at the IETF meeting hosted by Florida State University. Cathy Aronson, Dave Katz and Pat Smith also represented Merit/NSFNET in various working groups which convened during IETF. The IP over FDDI working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force, chaired by Dave Katz, approved the draft specification of IP over FDDI. This specification will be published as an Internet Proposed Standard, the first step in the new Internet standards process. It is likely to be a full Internet standard in ten months. by Jo Ann Ward (jward@merit.edu) NTA-RE and NDRE --------------- - Regarding direct connection to the Internet from NDRE. NDRE is now in the process of purchasing the nessecary equipment, for an Ethernet connection into the NORSAR Cisco machine. Hopefully, this will be installed by the end of March. Westine [Page 40]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 - Regarding Norwegian Army Packet Radio System. Army Material Command Norway has now finished contracts negotiations for its new multi role radio system, and a contract may be signed in the near future. This multi role radio system, is utilizing the same basic radio unit for CNR netts, single channel radio access to trunk systems, and X.25 packet nettworks including X.25 access to the packet switch in the trunk nettwork. This packet radio system was briefly described in an earlier IRM. Anton B. Leere (leere%dione.ndre.uninett@nac.no) NYSERNET -------- No report received. OARNET ------ No report received. PENNSYLVANIA RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP NETWORK ------------------------------------------------------ During the month some changes have been implemented regarding the network hubs. A direct or dial-up asynchronous connection to a terminal server at the Phildelphia hub has been established. This 16 port cisco Systems equipment will allow access to the network at 9.6 Kbps. Also, a new hub has been installed in Scranton, which will offer 56 Kbps connections to the northeast part of the state. Bucknell University has signed on as a new member of the network. The first issue of PREPnet News was circulated during the month by the PREPnet NIC with Bonnie Moore as editor. Our newsletter this month features a statement of PREPnet's mission and enumerates our future goals and plans. Also included is a listing of some of the information resources now available on the network. High-tech commercial and academic representatives from within the state attended the Pennsylvania Technology Conference held in Philadelphia during the month. During the two day proceedings, PREPnet was mentioned frequently as the state's burgeoning "electronic highway to the future" by notable individuals in attendance including Governor Robert Casey. Tom Cummings (tc1r@andrew.cmu.edu) Westine [Page 41]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 PITTSBURGH SUPERCOMPUTER CENTER ------------------------------- The T-1 connecting the Cleveland router to Ohio State University was removed 2/26/90. OARnet networks are now connected to the NSFnet exclusively through CICnet. Case Western Reserve, the Lewis Engineering Research Center and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation will continue to be connected to the NSFnet via PSCnet. The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center is currently installing an Ultranet link to the Westinghouse Energy Center (approximately 20 miles away) where it's Cray Y-MP is located. When the installation is completed it will provide gigabit speeds between the Cray, various local nets within PSC and NSS#5 and will be used for experiments in high-speed graphics, file service and distributed processes. by Greg Dobrich (dobrich@a.psc.edu) RIPE (Reseaux IP Europeans) --------------------------- No report received. SAN DIEGO SUPERCOMPUTER CENTER ------------------------------ No report received. SESQUINET --------- No report received. SRI ---- DDN NIC In February, 52 new numbers have been assigned to government- sponsored (previously called "connected") IP networks. In addition, this month we assigned 75 numbers to independent (i.e., not sponsored by the government, previously called "unconnected") IP networks. The total number of all assigned IP numbers is now 4,060 which includes 2,298 sponsored networks and 1,762 independent networks. The total number of assigned Autonomous System numbers (ASNs) is now 591. Westine [Page 42]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 There are currently a total of 1,402 registered domains which includes 46 at the top level, 1,311 at the second level, and 45 third-level MIL domains. Two people participated IETF in Tallahassee. Mary Stahl SURANET ------- SURAnet continues to increase in the number of sites connected and in the number of networks advertised to the NSFnet. At present there are 95 sites online and 154 networks are being advertised to the NSFnet. The current list of sites and networks can be obtained via anonymous FTP fromnoc.sura.net, password guest, cd pub. File name is "online". The installation of the SURAnet T-1 backbone is in progress. The report below indicates the status of the lines being installed. Interim Report on SURAnet T-1 Backbone Lines UMD to U of Delaware; Installed and Working Umd to Johns Hopkins U; Installed and Working UMD to U of Florida; Installed and Working UMD to CEBAF; Installed and Working UMD to U of Tennessee; Installed and Working UMD to CONCERT Net (MCNC); Scheduled for Installation 3/8/90 CONCERT Net (MCNC) to Clemson U.; Scheduled for Installation 3/8/90 U of Tennessee to U of Alabama(Birmingham); Scheduled for Installation 3/8/90 Georgia Tech to Florida State U; Scheduled for Installation 3/8/90 U of Florida to Florida State U; Scheduled for Installation 3/8/90 U of Alabama(Birmingham) to Georgia Tech; Scheduled for Installation 3/8/90 U of Alabama(Birmingham) to Louisiana State U; Scheduled for Installation 3/21/90 Clemson to Georgia Tech; Scheduled for Installation 3/23/90 U of Florida to Florida Institute of Technology; Scheduled for Installation on 4/3/90 U of Florida to Florida Institute of Technology; Scheduled for Installation on 4/3/90 Jackson State U to Mississippi State U; Scheduled for Installation on 4/25/90 Westine [Page 43]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 Florida Institute of Technology to NOVA U; Not yet determined U of Alabama(Birmingham) to Jackson State U; Not yet determined by Jack Hahn (hahn@umd5.umd.edu) TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION NETWORK ------------------------------ No report received. UCL ---- Research: Steve Kille submitted 3 (yes 3) documents to the RFC editor. They were on OSI Addressing and Encoding of addresses and mapping between DNS and X.500. Peter Kirstein attended the IETF meeting. A report on floor control mechanisms for multi-media real tiem conferences was completed by a PhD student with Jon Crowcroft. Infrastructure: The UCL Butterfly upgrade was completed. John Crowcroft (jon@CS.UCL.AC.UK) UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE ---------------------- 1. Mike Davis is collecting and analyzing measurement data from our burgeoning campus network goo, including SURA regional gateways. He has found an alarming amount of traffic due to RIP routing updates, presently equal to the entirety of all NTP traffic for 250-plus time servers. Ken Monington found an interesting correlation between atomic time and LORAN time during local rainfall which suggests a new application for the Network time Protocol (NTP) as a raingauge. 2. Paul Schragger has completed a reservation-protocol simulator for our gigabit project and demonstrated it using the NSFNET Phase-II backbone topology with imaginative, gigabit links. Westine [Page 44]  Internet Monthly Report February 1990 3. Dave Mills attended a SIMNET review at IDA. 4. Bugs in ancient NTP Version-0 implementations have occasionally caused destructive packet oscillations clearly visible in Mike Davis' data. As new Version-1 and Version-2 implementations have been available for over two years, support for Version-0 has been withdrawn. An updated NTP specification fixing minor bugs in text and diagrams and including new local-clock and clock-combining algorithms is now available. 5. A pair of fuzzballs have crawled from the woodwork at Norwegian Telecommunications Administration, one of which is now chiming NTP from a atomic (cesium) clock. It is now possible to precisely calibrate the asymmetric delays on transatlantic paths, which now measure a surprisingly high 90 milliseconds. Considerable tuning of NTP implementation parameters was necessary to cope with the present poor performance of Internet paths to Norway. The behavior on these paths is quite similar to that reported by me many times over the last several months, where routes flail constantly over many gateways and networks, including ARPANET, MILNET and WIDEBAND. Dave Mills (Mills@UDEL.EDU) UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN/NCSANET -------------------------------------------------- No report received. WESTNET -------- No report received. Westine [Page 45]