rfc1527.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

Network Working Group                                            G. Cook
Request for Comments: 1527                                   Cook Report
Category: Informational                                   September 1993


         What Should We Plan Given the Dilemma of the Network?

Status of this Memo

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

Abstract

   Early last year, as the concluding effort of an 18 month appointment
   at the US Congress Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), I drafted a
   potential policy framework for Congressional action on the National
   Research and Education Network (NREN).

   The Internet community needs to be asking what the most important
   policy issues facing the network are.  And given agreement on any
   particular set of policy issues, the next thing we should be asking
   is, what would be some of the political choices that would follow for
   Congress to make?

   It is unfortunate that this was never officially done for or by the
   Congress by OTA.  What we have as a result is network policy making
   being carried out now by the Science Subcommittee on the House side
   in consultation with a relatively small group of interested parties.
   The debate seems to be more focused on preserving turf than on any
   sweeping understanding of what the legislation is doing.  That is
   unfortunate.

   In the hope that it may contain some useful ideas, I offer a
   shortened version of the suggested policy draft as information for
   the Internet community.

Table of Contents

   The Dilemma of an Unregulated Public Resource in a Free Market
   Environment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    2
   Regulation is a key NREN policy issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . .    3
   Technology Transfer Goals Achieved?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    4
   The Context for Policy Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    4
   Whom Shall the Network Serve?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    5
   Access to the NREN is a key policy issue . . . . . . . . . . . .    6
   How Far To Extend Network Access?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    6



Cook                                                            [Page 1]

RFC 1527                Cook Report on Internet           September 1993


   A Corporation for Public Networking? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    9
   Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   14
   Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   17
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   17

The Dilemma of an Unregulated Public Resource in a Free Market
Environment

   As currently structured, the NSFnet and american Internet provide
   access to several million researchers and educators, hundreds of
   thousands of remote computers, hundreds of databases, and hundreds of
   library catalogues.  Money being invested in the network as a result
   of the High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) initiative
   should considerably increase the numbers and variety behind this
   unprecedented collection of resources.  No other computer network on
   earth currently comes close to providing access to the breadth and
   depth of people and information.  If access to information is access
   to power, access to the national computer network will mean access to
   very significant power.

   Furthermore, access to the american Internet and NREN is also
   access to the worldwide Internet.  According to the Director for
   International Programs at the NSF in February 1992, the development
   of the Internet over the past twelve years has been one of
   exponential growth:

               Date           Connected Hosts

               August 1981    213
               October 1985   1,961
               December 1987  28,174
               January 1989   80,000
               January 1991   376,000
               January 1992   727,000

   These hosts are computers to which anyone in the world with Internet
   access can instantaneously connect and use if there are publically
   available files.  Any host may also be used for remote computing if
   the system administrator gives the user private access.  These seven
   hundred thousand plus hosts are located in more than 38 nations.  But
   they are only part of the picture.  By system-to-system transfer of
   electronic mail they are linked to probably a million additional
   hosts.  According to Dr. Larry Landweber of the University of
   Wisconsin, as of February 10, 1992, Internet electronic mail was
   available in 106 nations and territories.






Cook                                                            [Page 2]

RFC 1527                Cook Report on Internet           September 1993


   Unfortunately, our current regulatory system does not distinguish
   between the unique nature of the Internet and commercial systems like
   Prodigy and Compuserve where perhaps a million people pay monthly
   fees for access to systems offering a few dozen databases run from
   two or three hosts and electronic mail to several hundred thousand
   people instead of many millions.  (The picture is made somewhat fuzzy
   by the fact that Compuserve does provide electronic mail access to
   the Internet through a gateway and for an extra charge.)  The Federal
   Communications Commission (FCC) considers all three to be Value Added
   Networks (VANs) run by Enhanced Service Providers.  All use common
   carriers to provide their enhanced services and the FCC, in refusing
   to regulate them, reasons that all services are roughly alike.  If,
   for example, Compuserve charges too much, the consumer can quit
   Compuserve and move to Prodigy.  Or, if the monthly cost of access to
   the Internet were to become too much, access to Prodigy or Compuserve
   would be basically the same thing.  Here unfortunately the analogy
   fails: the Internet now and the NREN to be, with its unparalleled
   resources, is not the same.  Nevertheless, the FCC points out that
   without Congressional action it is powerless to regulate NREN service
   providers.

Regulation is a key NREN policy issue.

   Perhaps there will be no need for regulation.  Hopefully, the
   marketplace for the provision of network services will remain
   competitive and higher prices and cream skimming will not keep the
   national network out of the reach of the general public who wish to
   avail themselves of what it has to offer.  However, given the scope
   and power of what is contemplated here, Congress should realize that
   there are important considerations of social and economic equity
   behind the question of access to the network.  This is especially
   true since libraries and groups representing primary and secondary
   schools are demanding what could be considered as universal access to
   the network without having any knowledge of how such access might be
   funded.

   The economic stakes are huge.  Other players such as US West's
   Advanced Communications division are entering the market and AT&T is
   expected to do so by the spring.  When combined with the award of the
   EINet backbone to Uunet, their entry should help to level the playing
   field.  While one company is less likely to dominate such an
   uncontrolled, unregulated market, those concerned about widespread
   affordable access to the network would do well to watch unfolding
   events with care.







Cook                                                            [Page 3]

RFC 1527                Cook Report on Internet           September 1993


Technology Transfer Goals Achieved?

   Policy makers may ask how much priority the Federal government should
   continue to give technology transfer in a market where the technology
   that allegedly still needs aiding is showing remarkable signs of
   maturity?  As they debate the course on which they wish to take the
   network over the next five years, policy makers may find that one
   answer to the apparent disparity between the emphasis in the
   legislation on the provision of the network by the government, and
   the growing number of commercial sources of network availability is
   that the market matured very rapidly while the HPCC legislation
   remained unchanged.

   In view of all the remarkable commercial achievements (outlined in
   this essay) in the four years since the NREN idea arose, perhaps the
   policy objective of technology transfer for economic competitiveness
   could be considered to be achieved!  A commercially viable high speed
   data networking industry, with the entrance of Sprint in January 1992
   and the anticipated entrance of AT&T, has reached maturity.

   Therefore, having successfully achieved its technology transfer
   goals, the Congress must decide whether to continue to underwrite the
   network as a tool in support of science and education goals.  It
   seems reasonable to assume that this support could be undertaken in a
   way that would not seriously undermine the commercial TCP/IP data
   networking market place.

The Context for Policy Setting

   In order to make informed choices of goals for the network, Congress
   must understand the context of a rapidly commercializing network.
   The resulting context is likely to produce serious impacts both on
   the user community and the development of future network technology.
   It is likely to make some goals more easily attainable than others.
   Given its maturity, the commercialization of TCP/IP wide area
   networking technology is inevitable.

   Some have already begun to question whether the government should be
   providing backbone services where commercial alternatives are
   currently available and are expected to grow in number.

   Supporters of the NREN vision argue that the NSF is using government
   funds to build a leading edge network faster than the commercial
   alternatives.  They say that use of public funds on such technology
   development is appropriate.  Their critics state that the T-3
   technology (also called DS-3) is dead end and point out that the next
   logical step is refining the network so that it can use ATM and
   SONET.  For aggregate gigabit speeds along the backbone, use of ATM



Cook                                                            [Page 4]

RFC 1527                Cook Report on Internet           September 1993


   and SONET will be necessary.  Critics claim that the T-1 backbone
   could be engineered to accommodate the network for a while longer
   while Federal funds would be more appropriately invested now in an
   ATM and SONET development effort.  They say that Federal policy is
   being used to enable IBM to have a testbed for the development of
   DS-3 TCP/IP routers when Network Technologies makes a comparable
   product that is already proven and reliable.  Whether the Federal
   Government should be providing backbone services or merely support
   for access and improved network features is a key policy issue.