[1598] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
NSFNET Backbone services after November, 1992
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Wolff)
Tue Nov 26 14:30:45 1991
To: com-priv@psi.com, members@farnet.org
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 14:23:29 EST
From: Stephen Wolff <steve@cise.cise.nsf.gov>
On Friday, 22nd November, the National Science Board met and approved two
actions proposed by NSF's Division of Networking and Communications Research
and Infrastructure.
The first is a Project Development Plan for the continued provision of NSFNET
Backbone services after the current agreement with Merit Inc. expires in
November 1992. The text of the Plan is attached below. In numbered
paragraph 3, reference is made to an "IBM-MCI spinoff"; this should read
"IBM-MCI capitalized Merit spinoff".
The Plan has an agressive schedule, but even so does not show a new award
until April 1993. Accordingly, as the second action, permission was
requested and granted to extend the current Cooperative Agreement with Merit
at approximately the current spending rate ($10m per year) for a period not
to exceed 18 months.
Those - quite literally too numerous to mention - whom we consulted,
beginning with the first Harvard Workshop over a year ago, who cared enough
to listen, comment, challenge, and debate, we gratefully thank. All of you
helped inform our decision and shape the Plan.
A Postscript version of the Project Development Plan will be available by
anonymous ftp from nis.nsf.net, in directory CISE.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Continuation and Enhancement of NSFNET Backbone Services
Summary
This Plan fosters growth and competition in the business of
networking while maintaining the stability and reliability of a
service that has become a valuable tool of the US research and
education enterprise. It also provides for enhancement of the
Backbone by allowing vendors to offer services based on emerging
digital offerings of the telecommunications industry. The
duration of the Project is three years and involves two
concurrent solicitations, under one of which multiple awards are
contemplated. Based on costs of the current Backbone, the
three-year cost of the Project is estimated to be $18 million.
Background
The current NSFNET Backbone interconnects sixteen nodes and is
operated by Merit, Inc. under a competitively awarded five year
cooperative agreement with the NSF. Connected to each of the
sixteen Backbone nodes are one or more "resource centers" such as
a supercomputer center or a national laboratory, or regional
networks (e.g., SURANET, CERFNET) which aggregate network traffic
from scholars and scholarly resources at academic, industrial,
and government campuses. Regional networks are autonomous
entities, supported by their campus clients and, in many cases,
by a subsidy from the NSF. Although they are, collectively, in a
state of rapid change and growth in clientele and traffic, their
existence and support is not at present an issue. The NSFNET
Backbone is the only government-sponsored source of non-mission-
restricted trans-national connectivity for the scholarly
community; this request to the National Science Board concerns
continuation of this connectivity after the cooperative agreement
with Merit ends.
Issues
1. Emergence of competition and maintenance of stability
When the competition for management and operation of the current
NSFNET Backbone was conducted in 1987, the ARPANET operator (BBN)
was the only organization with experience in operating a
nationwide network using the (now standard) Transmission Control
Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). Indeed, there was
widespread skepticism that the winner of the competition, Merit,
and its joint study partners IBM and MCI, would be successful in
1
the NSFNET Backbone enterprise since none of the three had any
TCP/IP experience.
Subsequent events proved these doubts unwarranted, and Merit's
success, by triggering rapid and sustained growth in number of
users and in usage, catalysed the emergence of new private
enterprises offering national-scale TCP/IP networking. Within
the networking community there is broad consensus that, in
"recompeting the Backbone", the NSF must build on and sustain
this new diversity of competitive TCP/IP offerors.
Hundreds of thousands of researchers, students, and other
scholars - including many engaged in "mission-critical
activities" sponsored by agencies such as NASA and the Department
of Energy - depend on the NSFNET Backbone and system of regional
networks for uninterrupted, reliable service every day. This
community's natural concern for stability in the provision of
national networking services presents, to a degree, a
countervailing force to the pressure for competition and multiple
providers discussed above.
The challenge to the Foundation is to construct a continuation of
Backbone services so that the two worthy goals, stability and
competition, are both fostered to the greatest extent possible.
2. Fair competition
In September, 1990 (the third year of the cooperative agreement
between Merit and the NSF), Merit subcontracted the management
and operation of the NSFNET Backbone to a new not-for-profit
concern capitalized by IBM and MCI. There is substantial
agreement in the networking community that, while providing for
continued Backbone services, the NSF should assure both that the
incumbent is not favored and that there is an equitable
opportunity for other firms to participate in the long-haul
TCP/IP networking business.
3. Timing
The complexity of these issues has been compounded by their
timing: a credibly competitive TCP/IP networking arena has only
arisen within the past two years, and became an urgent issue with
the September 1990 IBM-MCI spinoff.
In the past year, NSF has sponsored and participated in several
workshops and meetings, and has consulted affected communities,
networking experts, and representatives of other government
agency networks in a variety of other forums. Only now is this
process leading to an emerging community consensus on the future
of the Backbone.
2
In August, 1991, the Federation of American Research Networks
(FARNET), a trade association of regional networks that use the
NSFNET Backbone for trans-national connectivity, organized a
workshop under NSF sponsorship to consider the future provision
of Backbone services. Their report(1) affirms the need for
continued strong NSF support for top-level Backbone services and
recommends a recompetition during Fiscal Year 1992 with multiple
awardees.
In the early Fall of 1991, the Networking and Telecommunications
Task Force (NTTF) of EDUCOM which represents academic campus
networks and computer centers met and issued a report(2) on the
same subject. They say "Uncertainty prevails because of the
expiration... It is imperative that... NSF take immediate steps
to clarify their intentions with respect to the stability of
backbone services", and later strongly recommend "A new,
competitively awarded cooperative agreement" for continued
Backbone services.
The Division Advisory Committee (DAC) for Networking and
Communications Research and Infrastructure met on November 4 and
5, 1991, and considered all currently known options for the
post-1992 Backbone. They overwhelmingly preferred a
recompetition with multiple awardees.
4. NREN involvement
Further complexity has been introduced by the five-year High
Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) initiative in the
President's fiscal year 1992 budget, which gives NSF the
responsibility for implementing the National Research and
Education Network (NREN) and coordinating the participation of
other federal agency networks. Since the NSFNET Backbone will be
a central feature of the NREN, the management of acquiring its
services post 1992 is complicated by the need to treat the NSFNET
as part of a total national information infrastructure for the
support of research and education, and by the necessity of
multiple agency coordination.
In order to help meet its NREN responsibilities, the Division of
Networking and Communications Research and Infrastructure engaged
an independent engineering group (the NSF NREN Engineering Group,
or NEG) to advise on technical matters of the implementation.
Their preliminary architectural report is completed, and will
inform the proposed solicitations.
1. "Recommendations to the National Science Foundation from the
Board of FARNET, Inc. Regarding Inter-midlevel Connectivity after
the Expiration of the Current NSFNET Backbone Agreement", FARNET,
Inc., Waltham, MA, 11/91
2. "EDUCOM Networking and Telecommunications Task Force
Statement on the Structure of the National Research and Education
Network", EDUCOM, Washington, DC, 10/91
3
Plan Overview
An analysis of the tasks performed by Merit and its subcontractor
Advanced Networks and Systems (ANS) under the existing
cooperative agreement suggests a resolution of the
stability/competition dilemma. In addition to furnishing and
operating telecommunication circuits and packet switches, Merit
staff serve in a higher-order technical capacity known as the
"Internet routing authority" (the tactical and technical
maintenance of the database that drives the dynamic packet
routing algorithms of the worldwide Internet). Although Merit
now carries out both functions, the NEG have pointed out that it
is not necessary they be vested in the same organization; the DAC
observed that in the case of multiple awardees for connectivity,
separation of the routing authority function is desirable in
order not to give one connectivity awardee a tactical advantage
over the other(s). Since the provision of circuits and switches
is highly competitive, but the key to network stability lies in
careful and conservative operation of the routing authority, the
NSF will address the issue of stability vs. competition post-1992
by issuing two solicitations: one (for connectivity) crafted to
promote competition, and a second (for the routing authority)
designed to maintain continuity and stability. These
solicitations will be developed with community consultation and
advice, and the resulting proposed awards brought to the National
Science Board for approval.
Over the past five or more years, the telecommunications industry
has been developing a new set of standards for digital
communication; these standards extend to speeds of 2.4 gigabits
per second, and their adoption and implementation are likely to
fundamentally alter the ways in which computer communication is
done. Vendors have begun implementing the standards in switching
equipment, and early examples are being installed by the
carriers. The awards to be made under this Plan will be
structured as Cooperative Agreements so that these new
technologies, such as the Switched Multimegabit Data Stream,
(SMDS), Frame Relay, and others can be experimentally
incorporated.
There are several ways to foster competition in Internet
connectivity. NSF staff intend to follow the recommendation of
their advisors by specifying, in the competition for Backbone
connectivity services, that "more than one award will be made."
4
Since the major telecommunication carriers have begun to move
aggressively into the Internet arena, effective and sustained
competition is likely.
5
Schedule
3 Feb 92 draft solicitations for connectivity and for
routing authority prepared
4 May 92 solicitations finalized, mailed out
20 May 92 public information meeting for proposers
3 Aug 92 proposals due
10 Sep 92 merit review panels meet
Oct 92 as required: site visits, reconvene panel
Feb 92 present recommendations to National Science Board
Apr 93 awards made
Cost Projections
Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
($m) ($m) ($m)
CONNECTIVITY $6.0 $5.0 $4.0
ROUTING AUTHORITY 1.2 0.9 0.9
These projections anticipate a decreasing schedule of costs for
high-bandwidth services from the telecommunications carriers, and
allow for equipment acquisition by the Routing Authority in its
first year of operation.
6
