Appendix 1. IETF Internet Problem Descriptions At the first IETF meeting in January 1986, a list of Internet problems was developed covering short, intermediate and long range issues. At the most recent IETF meeting in February 1987, an attempt was made to develop such a list in a more rigorous fashion. The IETF membership was divided into groups with the goal of compiling problem descriptions in particular areas. The resulting Internet Problem Descriptions are contained in this appendix and are a mixture of intermediate range protocol issues and very short range O&M issues. Problems were listed in the following format: Problem Description: Severity: (low, medium, high) Time Frame: (time until problem becomes critical) Owner: (Responsible Agency or group) Plan/Options: The original forms have been edited to combine or eliminate redundant descriptions. The problem list is not exhaustive and further work will 1) develop a more complete list, 2) divide into categories by timeframe and 3) prioritize within category. IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Internet doesn't work under heavy load (ie, Congestion) For example, existing DDN protocols can't efficiently handle gateways between networks of grossly different band- width e.g.., Ethernet- Arpanet) Severity: High Time Frame: Immediate Owner: DDN/DARPA Plan/Options: Short term: Add capacity to existing infrastructure Intermediate term: 1} Develop congestion control for DoD LP 2) Investigate existing solutions outside the DDN community. Long Term Research: Look at new Internet schemes; e.g., Internet Connection Oriented Protocol IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: 1) Lack of ISO Connection-Less Internet Protocol in current Internet Gateways. 2) Lack of ES-IS Severity: Low now, grows to severe in 2 years Time Frame: 2 years Plan/Options: 1) Set/define "standards" for how ISO IP should be used 2a) Start funding contractors to implement ISO/IP in gateways 2b) Purchase gateways with ISO/IP 3) Deploy in Internet Infrastructure starting in 6 - 18 months 4) Run some applications (FTAM, etc) to gain experience. Modify standards goto 2) Also: Work with Standard's Organization to apply DoD IT experience into ISO/IP IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: MILNET domain adoption plan Severity: Low - now; Medium - 6 mo; High - 1-2 years Time Frame: (see Severity) Owner: DDN/OSD Plan/Options: Plans needed for vendor documentation and advice, administrator documentation, migration plan and RFC updates. IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Short-term Internet Routing Problems; eg, Extra-Hop, table space (routing) performance, buffering limitations in LSI-11, mail bridges (gateways) Severity: High Time Frame: Immediate Owner: DDN/BBN Plan/Options: 1) Deploy Butterfly Mailbridge Gateways in Parallel with LSI-11 GW's in about 6 months 2) Transition Core to Butterflies MB's 3) Remove LSI-11's Requires SW/HW to be deployed before configuration mgt and testing is completed. IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Internet Information Management; eg, Much duplication; needless distribution info; congestion problems Severity: Time Frame: Owner: DDN Plan/Options: - reconvene the group "!%@" include regional NIC reps - look at what info is needed - look at what is duplicated - create info "way stations" - share tools; techniques - keep general centers informed of who to hand off users to - distribute data collection - SRI-NIC acts as reference and replicates data strategically Basic model - interlibrary loan system for traditional libraries; everybody contributes; everybody wins; nobody pays too much or foots the whole bill; some systems are shared others are translated; the general NICs hand off to the specialized ones Coordinate host liaison, host administrators, etc., by holding meetings; getting input for net administrators IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Name Servers (1) Get root servers off heavily loaded hosts (2) See that name servers are well distributed (3) Migration of name service to login hosts (service then part of backbone service) and (equipment maintained by backbone) Severity: Medium Time Frame: 6 months Owner: DDN Plan/Options: (1) Can negotiate immediately to get servers off heavily loaded hosts; evenly distributed throughout net (2) NIC can coordinate Berkeley to get good BIND (UNIX/VAX version) of domain service (3) Bring NIC into BARNET so we are on NSF net (4) Need more capacity in login hosts; needs $ but easy to solve IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: No organization exists to attend to problems which transcend network boundaries, Internet O&M is not defined Severity: High Time Frame: Immediate Owner: NSF/DARPA/NASA/DDN Plan/Options: (1) Define network and Internet O&M at next IETF (2) Determine organization suitable to do O&M (3) Draft RFC defining Internet O&M IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: IOP Facility in PSN 6 can drop messages. The current IOP module in PSN Release 6 behaves very much like a gateway; if an 1822 host sends messages faster than a standard X.25 host can receive them, some percentage of the messages will be dropped. The impact of this feature on future Internet performance should be considered. Severity: Low Time Frame: (Next PSN Release) Owner: DDN/BBN Plan/Options: a) Determine whether this feature will exist in future PSN releases. b) If so, evaluate potential impact on Internet performance as standard X.25 gateways are more widely deployed. IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Lack of protocol testing is a severe problem in gateways and hosts. Incompatible implementations abound. Severity: High Time Frame: Immediate Owner: OSD/DCA Plan/Options: 1) Accept the situation - ISO is coming anyway 2) Establish testing center(s) funded by a gov't b vendors c private enterprise 3) If none of 2) can get funded then spend money on advertising who the apparent "winners" are anyway; i.e., let the marketplace decide Problem Description: Networking research must continue into the forseeable future. Should its operational base be TCP/IP or ISO? TCP/IP is more accessible for manipulation, but IS will be more prevalent and thus more realistic in terms of providing the problems to be researched. But will ISO implementations be "modifiable" for/by researchers? and how will vendors track the research? Severity: High Time Frame: 5 years Owner: IAB Plan/Options: Establish a study group IETF to outline the problem and report to all interested parties: gov't, researchers, vendors, users. While this looks like it overlaps with FCCSET, if they don't succeed in addressing it, the problem won't disappear. IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Although several agencies have cross-country trunks, some of these are seriously congested while others are unused. Sharing of under-utilized trunking may help solve network congestion. Severity: ARPA 10 NASA 0 NSF 2 Time Frame: Immediate Owner: TAB Plan/Options: Interagency agreements? IRI? IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Procedures for making changes in DDN and the internet are too cumbersome; eg, * Line-in/ line-out coordination; * line-at-a-time acquisition leasing wastes available leverage; * new nodes, new hosts, additional circuits. Severity: High Time Frame: Immediate Owner: DECCO Plan/Options: Review of current administration procedures by sponsoring agencies. Develop new management organization. Study NASA trunking concept. IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Insufficient processing and memory capacity at some some Arpanet PSNs. Several sites are either memory or CPU-bound because of the growth of users and gateways Severity: High Time Frame: Immediate Owner: DDN Plan/Options: Upgrade approporiate nodes from C30E's to C300's. The sites are * SRI 51, * ISI 27, * RCC 5, * WIS 94 IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Insufficient cross-country bandwidth on ARPANET. Highly utilized lines induce retransmissions at the store and forward level resulting in long delays for traffic between the two coasts. This in turn increases the congestion and resource use seen at the source and destination of the traffic. Severity: High Time Frame: Immediate Owner: DDN Plan/Options: Install 2 new cross-country links: o MIT44 - SRI151; o ISI22 - Columbia (APL) IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Internet audit trail/billing sharing Severity: Low Time Frame: Owner: JAB Plan/Options: This is probably part of larger Network Operations. Toward this end - We can share audit trail/billing system - Cooperate in building a useful interagency billing system - Make capacity planning reports available for ARPANET, MILNET, etc. IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: EGP Severity: High Time Frame: 6-12 Months Owner: DDN/DARPA Plan/Options: Draft of EGP2 by Jose Rodrigues (SDC) and Mike StJohns (DDN) for next IETF IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: EGP Topology Restrictions A) Common metric B) Core gateway computation load C) Information hiding by cores leads to lost information and suboptimal routes D) Political restrictions - autonomy Severity: High (very important to NSF) Time Frame: Immediate Owner: NSF/DARPA Plan/Options: 1) Remove 3rd party routing restrictions 2) Increase base of trusted gateways/ autonomous systems Likeliest is new (unspecified) protocol IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Gateway authentications A) What's a real gateway? B) What routes can a gateway advertise? Severity: Low Time Frame: 2 years Owner: OSD, IETF Plan/Options: Non-authenticated gateways present denial-of-service threats, as well as wiretapping traffic IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Interior Gateway Protocol Problems; eg, A) GGP traffic volume B) GGP/EGP interactions C) Common metrics, algorithmically converted to EGP common metric D) Current IGP's not published (RIP, SPF, CISCO) Severity: Medium Time Frame: 12-24 Months Owner: IETF, DDN, BBN Plan/Options: 1. Document existing IGP's 2. Define standard (suggested/example) IGP IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Mail Bridges 1) Administrative restrictions/routing interactions 2) Name servers use Mail Bridges Severity: Medium Time Frame: 12 year Owner: DDN Plan/Options: When Mail Bridges are shut down to non-mail transit traffic, there will be a furor aimed at DCA. IETF Internet Problem Descriptions Problem Description: Gateway Redirection. Intermediate gateway decides that an alternate route is better, has no way to inform previous gateway. Severity: Medium Time Frame: 12-24 Months Owner: DDN/DARPA Plan/Options: Develop improved Internet routing/ICMP model.