rfc1679.txt

来自「RFC 的详细文档！」· 文本 代码 · 共 564 行 · 第 1/2 页

Network Working Group                                           D. Green
Request for Comments: 1679                                       P. Irey
Category: Informational                                        D. Marlow
                                                           K. O'Donoghue
                                                                 NSWC-DD
                                                             August 1994


     HPN Working Group Input to the IPng Requirements Solicitation

Status of this Memo

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

Abstract

   This document was submitted to the IETF IPng area in response to RFC
   1550.  Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by the
   IPng area of any ideas expressed within.  Comments should be
   submitted to the [e-mail] mailing list.

Executive Summary

   The Navy's High Performance Network (HPN) working group has studied
   the requirements of mission critical applications on Navy platforms.
   Based on this study, three basic categories of issues for IPng have
   been identified.  The assumptions identified include accommodation of
   current functionality, commercial viability, and transitioning. The
   general requirements identified include addressing, integrated
   services architecture, mobility, multicast, and rapid route
   reconfiguration. Finally, the additional considerations identified
   include fault tolerance, policy based routing, security, and time
   synchroniztion. The HPN working group is interested in participating
   with the IETF in the development of standards which would apply to
   mission critical systems. In particular, the HPN working group is
   interested in the development of multicast functionality, an
   integrated services architecture, and support for high performance
   subnetworks.

1.   Introduction

   The HPN working group has been established to study future network
   architectures for mission critical applications aboard Navy
   platforms.  As a result, the HPN working group is interested in the
   results of the IPng selection and development process. This document
   is a product of discussions within the HPN working group.



Green, Irey, Marlow & O'Donoghue                                [Page 1]

RFC 1679                 HPN IPng Requirements               August 1994


   The purpose of this document is to provide what the HPN working group
   perceives as requirements for an IPng protocol set. Many of the
   necessary capabilities exist in current Internet and ISO network
   protocols; however, the HPN working group has identified needed
   capabilities that are beyond the existing standards.

   The HPN working group has identified three categories of topics for
   discussion in this document. The first category is assumptions or
   those topics that the HPN working group believes the IPng process
   will solve satisfactorily without specific Navy input. The second
   category is general requirements. These are capabilities that are
   felt to be insufficiently addressed in existing network protocols and
   of key importance to Navy mission critical applications. Finally, a
   set of additional considerations has been identified. These are also
   issues of importance to the HPN working group. However, no guidance
   or specific requests can be provided at this time.

2.   Background

   The US Navy has set up a program through the Space and Naval Warfare
   Systems Command called the Next Generation Computer Resources (NGCR)
   Program. The purpose of this program is to identify the evolving
   needs for information system technology in Navy mission critical
   systems. The NGCR High Performance Network (HPN) working group was
   recently established by the NGCR program to examine high performance
   networks for use on future Navy platforms (aircraft, surface ships,
   submarines, and certain shore-based applications). This working group
   is currently reviewing Navy needs. The requirements provided below
   are based on the HPN working group's current understanding of these
   Navy application areas. The application areas of interest are further
   examined below. The time frame for design, development, and
   deployment of HPN based systems and subsystems is 1996 into the
   twenty first century.

   Three general problem domains have been identified by the HPN working
   group. These are the particular problem domains within a mission
   critical environment that the HPN working group is targeting. The
   first is a distributed combat system environment.  This problem
   domain is analogous to a collection of workstations involved in many
   varied applications involving multiple sources and types of
   information.  Analog, audio, digital, discrete, graphic, textual,
   video, and voice information must be coordinated in order to present
   a single concise view to a commander, operator, or any end user. The
   second problem area highlights the general internetworking
   environment. The task of moving information to many heterogeneous
   systems over various subnetworks is addressed. Finally, the problem
   of providing a high speed interconnect for devices such as sensors
   and signal processors is identified. [1]



Green, Irey, Marlow & O'Donoghue                                [Page 2]

RFC 1679                 HPN IPng Requirements               August 1994


2.1   Application Area

   The application area of HPN is the communication network which is a
   component of the mission critical systems of Navy platforms. The
   expected end points or users of the HPN include humans, computers,
   and the many devices (cameras, etc.) found on such platforms. The
   function of these end points includes sensor input, signal
   processors, operator consoles, navigation systems, etc. The endpoints
   are typically grouped into systems both on platforms and at shore-
   based sites. These systems perform functions including long range
   planning, analysis of sensor information, and machinery control in
   real-time.

   Information types that have been identified as required by the HPN
   working group include voice, live and pre-recorded audio ranging from
   voice to CD quality (e.g., from sensors), video (1 to 30 frames per
   second in both monochrome and color), image data (static or from
   real-time sensors), reliable and connectionless data transfer, and
   very high-bandwidth (gigabits per second) unprocessed sensor data.

2.2   Services

   Another way of categorizing the HPN application area is by
   considering the user services that need to be supported. Some of
   these services are the following:

     1.   process to process message passing

     2.   distributed file and database manipulation

     3.   e-mail (both within the platform and off the platform)

     4.   teleconferencing (with the platform, between platforms, and
          across the Internet)

     5.   video monitoring of various physical environments

     6.   voice distribution (as a minimum between computer processes
          and people)

     7.   image services

     8.   time synchronization

     9.   name or directory services

     10.  network and system management




Green, Irey, Marlow & O'Donoghue                                [Page 3]

RFC 1679                 HPN IPng Requirements               August 1994


     11.  security services (support of multilevel data security,
          privacy and protection)

3.   Assumptions

   The assumptions documented below are concerns that the HPN working
   group presumes will be accommodated in the IPng process.  However,
   they are of enough importance to this working group to merit
   identification.

3.1   Accommodation of Current Functionality

   The IPng protocols need to provide for at least the existing
   functionality. In particular, the following issues have been
   identified.


     1)   The IPng protocols need to provide for the basic
          connectionless transfer of information from one end-point to
          another.

     2)   The IPng protocols need to support multiple subnetwork
          technologies. This includes but is not limited to Ethernet,
          FDDI, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), Fiber Channel, and
          Scalable Coherent Interface (SCI). These are the subnetwork
          technologies that are of particular interest to the HPN
          working group. Ideally, IPng protocols should be subnetwork
          independent.

     3)   The IPng protocols need to support hosts that may be
          multihomed. Multihomed in this context implies that a single
          host may support multiple different subnetwork technologies.
          Multihomed hosts must have the capability to steer the traffic
          to selected subnetworks.

     4)   The IPng process needs to recognize that IPng may be only one
          of several network protocols that a host utilizes.

     5)   The IPng process needs to provide for appropriate network
          management in the finished product. Network management is of
          vital importance to the applications of interest to the HPN
          working group.

3.2   Commercial Viability

   As is the case in the commercial world, the HPN working group feels
   strongly that the IPng protocols must be commercially viable. This
   includes but is not limited to the following issues:



Green, Irey, Marlow & O'Donoghue                                [Page 4]

RFC 1679                 HPN IPng Requirements               August 1994


     1)   The IPng protocols must function correctly. The Navy cannot
          afford to have network protocol problems in mission critical
          systems. There must be a high degree of confidence that the
          protocols are technically sound and multi-vendor
          interoperability is achievable.

     2)   The IPng protocols must have the support of the
          commercial/industrial community. This may first be
          demonstrated by a strong consensus within the IETF community.

3.3   Transition Plan

   The Navy has a large number of existing networks including both
   Internet and ISO protocols as well as a number of proprietary
   systems.  As a minimum, the IPng effort must address how to
   transition from existing IP based networks. Additionally, it would be
   desirable to have some guidance for transitioning from other network
   protocols including, but not limited to, CLNP and other commonly used
   network protocols. The transition plan for IPng needs to recognize
   the large existing infrastructure and the lack of funds for a full
   scale immediate transition. There will, in all likelihood, be a long
   period of co-existence that should be addressed.

4.   General Requirements

   The general requirements documented below are topics that the HPN
   working group considers to be of vital importance in a network
   protocol solution. It is hoped that the IPng solution will address
   all of these issues.

4.1   Addressing

   The HPN working group has identified initial addressing requirements.
   First, a large number of addresses are required.  In particular, the
   number of addressable entities on a single platform will range from
   the 100's to 100,000. The number of large platforms (ships,
   submarines, shore based sites) will range from a few hundred to
   several thousand. In addition, there will be 500 to 1000 or more
   small platforms, primarily aircraft.  Since it is expected that in
   the future many of these platforms will be connected to global
   networks, the addresses must be globally unique.

   The second requirement identified is for some form of addressing
   structure. It is felt that this structure should be flexible enough
   to allow for logical structures (not necessarily geographical) to be
   applied. It is also felt that this is important for the
   implementation of efficient routing solutions.  In addition, the
   addressing structure must support multicast group addressing. At a



Green, Irey, Marlow & O'Donoghue                                [Page 5]