Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                      E. FleischmanRequest for Comments: 1687                      Boeing Computer ServicesCategory: Informational                                      August 1994A Large Corporate User's View of IPngStatus 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 toRFC1550.  Publication of this document does not imply acceptance by the   IPng area of any ideas expressed within.  Comments should be   submitted to the big-internet@munnari.oz.au mailing list.Disclaimer and Acknowledgments   Much of this draft has been adapted from the article "A User's View   of IPng" by Eric Fleischman which was published in the September 1993   edition of ConneXions Magazine (Volume 7, Number 9, pages 36 - 40).   The original ConneXions article represented an official position of   The Boeing Company on IPng issues.  This memo is an expansion of that   original treatment.  This version also represents a Boeing corporate   opinion which we hope will be helpful to the on-going IPng   discussions.  An assumption of this paper is that other Fortune 100   companies which have non-computing-related products and services will   tend to have a viewpoint about IPng which is similar to the one   presented by this paper.Executive Summary   Key points:   1)  Large corporate users generally view IPng with disfavor.   2)  Industry and the IETF community have very different values       and viewpoints which lead to orthogonal assessments concerning       the desirability of deploying IPng.   3)  This paper provides insight into the mindset of a large       corporate user concerning the relevant issues surrounding an       IPng deployment.  The bottom line is that a new deployment of       IPng runs counter to several business drivers.  A key point toFleischman                                                      [Page 1]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994       highlight is that end users actually buy applications -- not       networking technologies.   4)  There are really only two compelling reasons for a large end       user to deploy IPng:       A) The existence of must-have products which are tightly coupled           with IPng.       B) Receipt of a command to deploy IPng from senior management.          The former would probably be a function of significant          technological advances.  The latter probably would be a          function of a convergence of IPng with International          Standards (OSI).   5)  Five end user requirements for IPng are presented:       A) The IPng approach must permit piecemeal transitions.       B) The IPng approach must not hinder technological advances.       C) The IPng approach is expected to foster synergy with          International Standards (OSI).       D) The IPng approach should have "Plug and Play" networking          capabilities.       E) The IPng approach must have network security characteristics          which are better than existing IPv4 protocols.Introduction   The goal of this paper is to examine the implications of IPng from   the point of view of Fortune 100 corporations which have heavily   invested in TCP/IP technology in order to achieve their (non-computer   related) business goals.   It is our perspective that End Users currently view IPng with   disfavor.  This note seeks to explain some of the reasons why an end   user's viewpoint may differ significantly from a "traditional IETF"   perspective.  It addresses some of the reasons which cause IPng to be   viewed by end users as a "threat" rather than as an "opportunity".   It enumerates some existing End User dissatisfactions with IPv4   (i.e., current TCP/IP network layer).  These dissatisfactions may   perhaps be eventually exploited to "sell" IPng to users.  Finally, it   identifies the most compelling reasons for end users to deploy IPng.   In any case, the IETF community should be warned that their own   enthusiasm for IPng is generally not shared by end users and that   convincing end users to deploy IPng technologies may be very   difficult -- assuming it can be done at all.Fleischman                                                      [Page 2]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994The Internet and TCP/IP Protocols are not Identical   The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) community closely   associates TCP/IP protocols with the Internet.  In many cases it is   difficult to discern from the IETF perspective where the world-wide   Internet infrastructure ends and the services of the TCP/IP Protocol   Suite begin -- they are not always distinguishable from each other.   Historically they both stem from the same roots:  DARPA was the   creator of TCP/IP and of the seminal "Internet".  The services   provided by the Internet have been generally realized by the "TCP/IP   protocol family".  The Internet has, in turn, become a primary   vehicle for the definition, development, and transmission of the   various TCP/IP protocols in their various stages of maturity.  Thus,   the IETF community has a mindset which assumes that there is a strong   symbiotic relationship between the two.   End users do not share this assumption -- despite the fact that many   end users have widely deployed TCP/IP protocols and extensively use   the Internet.  It is important for the IETF community to realize,   however, that TCP/IP protocols and the Internet are generally viewed   to be two quite dissimilar things by the large end user.  That is,   while the Internet may be a partial selling point for some TCP/IP   purchases, it is rarely even a primary motivation for the majority of   purchases.  Many end users, in fact, have sizable TCP/IP deployments   with no Internet connectivity at all.  Thus, many end users view the   relationship between the Internet and TCP/IP protocols to be tenuous   at best.   More importantly, many corporations have made substantial investments   in (non-Internet) external communications infrastructures.  A variety   of reasons account for this including the fact that until recently   the Internet was excluded from the bilateral agreements and   international tariffs necessary for international commerce.  In any   case, end users today are not (in the general case) dependent upon   the Internet to support their business processes.  [Note: the   previous sentence does not deny that many Fortune 100 employees (such   as the author) are directly dependent upon the Internet to fulfill   their job responsibilities: The Internet has become an invaluable   tool for many corporations' "research and education" activities.   However, it is rarely used today for activities which directly affect   the corporations' financial "bottom line":  commerce.]  By contrast,   large End Users with extensive internal TCP/IP deployments may   perhaps view TCP/IP technology to be critically important to their   corporation's core business processes.Fleischman                                                      [Page 3]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994Security Islands   Another core philosophical difference between large end users and the   IETF is concerning the importance of Security Islands (i.e.,   firewalls).  The prevalent IETF perspective is that Security Islands   are "A Bad Thing".  The basic IETF assumption is that the   applications they are designing are universally needed and that   Security Islands provide undesirable filters for that usage.  That   is, the IETF generally has a world view which presupposes that data   access should be unrestricted and widely available.   By contrast, corporations generally regard data as being a   "sensitive" corporate asset:  If compromised the very viability of   the corporation itself may in some cases be at risk.  Corporations   therefore presuppose that data exchange should be restricted.   Large end users also tend to believe that their employees have   differing data access needs:  Factory workers have different   computing needs than accountants who have different needs than   aeronautical engineers who have different needs than research   scientists.  A corporation's networking department(s) seeks to ensure   that each class of employee actually receives the type of services   they require.  A security island is one of the mechanisms by which   the appropriate service levels may be provided to the appropriate   class of employee, particularly in regards to external access   capabilities.   More importantly, there are differing classes of computer resources   within a corporation.  A certain percentage of these resources are   absolutely critical to the continuing viability of that corporation.   These systems should never (ever) be accessible from outside of the   company.  These "corporate jewels" must be protected by viable   security mechanisms.  Security islands are one very important   component within a much larger total security solution.   For these reasons we concur with the observation made by Yakov   Rekhter (of IBM) and Bob Moskowitz (of Chrysler) in their joint   electronic mail message of January 28, 1994.  They wrote:   "Hosts within sites that use IP can be partitioned into three   categories:    -    hosts that do not require Internet access.    -    hosts that need access to a limited set of Internet         services (e.g., Email, FTP, netnews, remote login) which can         be handled by application layer relays.    -    hosts that need unlimited access (provided via IP         connectivity) to the Internet."Fleischman                                                      [Page 4]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994   The exact mechanism by which a corporation will satisfy the differing   needs of these three classes of devices must be independently   determined by that corporation based upon a number of internal   factors.  Each independent solution will determine how that   corporation defines their own version of "security island".   Thus, if end users use the Internet at all, they will generally do so   through a "security island" of their own devising.  The existence of   the security island is yet another element to (physically and   emotionally) decouple the End User from the Internet.  That is, while   the end user may use the Internet, their networks (in the general   case) are neither directly attached to it nor are their core business   processes today critically dependent upon it.Networking from a Large End User's Perspective   The following five key characteristics describe Boeing's environment   and are probably generally representative of other large TCP/IP   deployments. The author believes that an understanding of these   characteristics is very important for obtaining insight into how the   large end user is likely to view IPng.   1) Host Ratio      Many corporations explicitly try to limit the number of their      TCP/IP hosts that are directly accessible from the Internet.  This      is done for a variety of reasons (e.g., security).   While the      ratio of those hosts that have direct Internet access capabilities      to those hosts without such capabilities will vary from company to      company, ratios ranging from 1:1000 to 1:10,000 (or more) are not      uncommon.  The implication of this point is that the state of the      world-wide (IPv4) Internet address space only directly impacts a      tiny percentage of the currently deployed TCP/IP hosts within a      large corporation.  This is true even if the entire population is      currently using Internet-assigned addresses.   2) Router-to-Host Ratio      Most corporations have significantly more TCP/IP hosts than they      have IP routers.  Ratios ranging between 100:1 to 600:1 (or more)      are common. The implication of this point is that a transition      approach which solely demands changes to routers is generally much      less disruptive to a corporation than an approach which demands      changes to both routers and hosts.Fleischman                                                      [Page 5]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994   3) Business Factor      Large corporations exist to fulfill some business purpose such as      the construction of airplanes, baseball bats, cars, or some other      product or service offering.  Computing is an essential tool to      help automate business processes in order to more efficiently      accomplish the business goals of the corporation.  Automation is      accomplished via applications.  Data communications, operating      systems, and computer hardware are the tools used by applications      to accomplish their goals.  Thus, users actually buy applications      and not networking technologies.  The central lesson of this point      is that IPng will be deployed according to the applications which      use it and not because it is a better technology.   4) Integration Factor      Large corporations currently support many diverse computing      environments. This diversity limits the effectiveness of a      corporation's computing assets by hindering data sharing,      application interoperability, "application portability", and      software re-usability.  The net effect is stunted application life      cycles and increased support costs.  Data communications is but      one of the domains which contribute towards this diversity.  For      example, The Boeing Company currently has deployed at least      sixteen different protocol families within its networks (e.g.,      TCP/IP, SNA, DECnet, OSI, IPX/SPX, AppleTalk, XNS, etc.).  Each      distinct Protocol Family population potentially implies unique      training, administrative, support, and infrastructure      requirements.  Consequently, corporate goals often exist to      eliminate or merge diverse Data Communications Protocol Family      deployments in order to reduce network support costs and to      increase the number of devices which can communicate together      (i.e., foster interoperability).  This results in a basic      abhorrence to the possibility of introducing "Yet Another      Protocol" (YAP).  Consequently, an IPng solution which introduces      an entirely new set of protocols will be negatively viewed simply      because its by-products are more roadblocks to interoperability      coupled with more work, expense, and risk to support the end      users' computing resources and business goals. Having said this,      it should be observed that this abhorrence may be partially      overcome by "extenuating circumstances" such as applications using      IPng which meet critical end-user requirements or by broad      (international) commercial support.Fleischman                                                      [Page 6]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994   5) Inertia Factor      There is a natural tendency to continue to use the current IP      protocol (IPv4) regardless of the state of the Internet's IPv4      address space. Motivations supporting inertia include the      following:  existing application dependencies (including      Application Programming Interface (API) dependencies); opposition      to additional protocol complexity; budgetary constraints limiting      additional hardware/software expenses; additional address      management and naming service costs; transition costs; support      costs; training costs; etc.  As the number of Boeing's deployed      TCP/IP hosts continues to grow towards the 100,000 mark, the      inertial power of this population becomes increasingly strong.      However, inertia even exists with smaller populations simply      because the cost to convert or upgrade the systems are not      warranted.  Consequently, pockets of older "legacy system"      technologies often exist in specific environments (e.g., we still      have pockets of the archaic BSC protocol).  The significance of      this point is that unless there are significant business benefits      to justify an IPng deployment, economics will oppose such a      deployment.  Thus, even if the forthcoming IPng protocol proves to      be "the ultimate and perfect protocol", it is unrealistic to      imagine that the entire IPv4 population will ever transition to      IPng.  This means that should we deploy IPng within our network,      there will be an ongoing requirement for our internal IPng      deployment to be able to communicate with our internal IPv4      community.  This requirement is unlikely to go away with time.Address Depletion Doesn't Resonate With Users   Thus, the central, bottom-line question concerning IPng from the   large corporate user perspective is:  What are the benefits which   will justify the expense of deploying IPng?   At this time we can conceive of only four possible causes which may   motivate us to consider deploying IPng:   Possible Cause:                        Possible Corporate Response:   1) Many Remote (external) Peers        Gateway external systems only.      solely use IPng.   2) Internet requires IPng usage.       Gateway external systems only.   3) "Must have" products are tightly    Upgrade internal corporate      coupled with IPng (e.g., "flows"    network to support IPng where      for real-time applications).        that functionality is needed.Fleischman                                                      [Page 7]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994   4) Senior management directs IPng      Respond appropriately.      usage.   It should explicitly be noted that the reasons which are compelling   the Internet Community to create IPng (i.e., the scalability of IPv4   over the Internet) are not themselves adequate motivations for users   to deploy IPng within their own private networks.  That is, should   IPng usage become mandated as a prerequisite for Internet usage, a   probable response to this mandate would be to convert our few hosts   with external access capabilities to become IPng-to-IPv4   application-layer gateways.  This would leave the remainder of our   vast internal TCP/IP deployment unchanged.  Consequently, given   gateways for external access, there may be little motivation for a   company's internal network to support IPng.User's IPv4 "Itches" Needing Scratching   The end user's "loyalty" to IPv4 should not be interpreted to mean   that everything is necessarily "perfect" with existing TCP/IP   deployments and that there are therefore no "itches" which an   improved IPv4 network layer -- or an IPng -- can't "scratch".  The   purpose of this section is to address some of the issues which are   very troubling to many end users:   A)  Security.  TCP/IP protocols are commonly deployed upon broadcast       media (e.g., Ethernet Version 2).  However, TCP/IP mechanisms to       encrypt passwords or data which traverse this media are       inadequate.  This is a very serious matter which needs to be       expeditiously resolved.  An integrated and effective TCP/IP       security architecture needs to be defined and become widely       implemented across all venders' TCP/IP products.   B)  User Address Space privacy.  Current IPv4 network addressing       policies require that end users go to external entities to obtain       IP network numbers for use in their own internal networks.  These       external entities have the hubris to determine whether these       network requests are "valid" or not.  It is our belief that a       corporation's internal addressing policies are their own private       affair -- except in the specific instances in which they may       affect others.  Consequently, a real need exists for two classes       of IPv4 network numbers: those which are (theoretically) visible       to the Internet today (and thus are subject to external       requirements) and those which will never be connected to the       Internet (and thus are strictly private).  We believe that the       concept of "local addresses" is a viable compromise between the       justifiable need of the Internet to steward scarce global       resources and the corporate need for privacy.  "Local addresses"       by definition are non-globally-unique addresses which shouldFleischman                                                      [Page 8]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994       never be routed (or seen) by the Internet infrastructure.       We believe that 16 contiguous Class B "local addresses" need to       immediately be made available for internal corporate usage.  Such       an availability may also reduce the long-term demand for new IPv4       network numbers (seeRFC 1597).   C)  Self-Defining Networks.  Large End Users have a pressing need for       plug-and-play TCP/IP networks which auto-configure, auto-address,       and auto-register.  End users have repeatedly demonstrated our       inability to make the current manual methods work (i.e., heavy       penalties for human error).  We believe that the existing DHCP       technology is a good beginning in this direction.   D)  APIs and network integration.  End users have deployed many       differing complex protocol families.  We need tools by which       these diverse deployments may become integrated together along       with viable transition tools to migrate proprietary       alternatives to TCP/IP-based solutions.  We also desire products       to use "open" multi-vendor, multi-platform, exposed Application       Programming Interfaces (APIs) which are supported across several       data communications protocol "families" to aid in this       integration effort.   E)  International Commerce.  End users are generally unsure as to       what extent TCP/IP can be universally used for international       commerce today and whether this is a cost-effective and "safe"       option to satisfy our business requirements.   F)  Technological Advances.  We have ongoing application needs which       demand a continual "pushing" of the existing technology.  Among       these needs are viable (e.g., integratable into our current       infrastructures) solutions to the following: mobile hosts,       multimedia applications, real-time applications, very       high-bandwidth applications, improved very low-bandwidth (e.g.,       radio based) applications, standard-TCP/IP-based transaction       processing applications (e.g., multi-vendor distributed       databases).   Only Two Motivations For Users To Deploy IPng   Despite this list of IPv4 problem areas, we suspect that there are   only two causes which may motivate users to widely deploy IPng:      (1) If IPng products add critical functionality which IPv4 can't      provide (e.g., real time applications, multimedia applications,      genuine (scalable) plug-and-play networking, etc.), users would be      motivated to deploy IPng where that functionality is needed.Fleischman                                                      [Page 9]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994      However, these deployments must combat the "Integration Factor"      and the "Inertia Factor" forces which have previously been      described.  This implies that there must be a significant business      gain to justify such a deployment.  While it is impossible to      predict exactly how this conflict would "play out", it is      reasonable to assume that IPng would probably be deployed      according to an "as needed only" policy.  Optimally, specific      steps would be taken to protect the remainder of the network from      the impact of these localized changes.  Of course, should IPng      become bundled with "killer applications" (i.e., applications      which are extremely important to significantly many key business      processes) then all bets are off:  IPng will become widely      deployed.  However, it also should be recognized that virtually      all (initial) IPng applications, unless they happen to be "killer      applications", will have to overcome significant hurdles to be      deployed simply because they represent risk and substantially      increased deployment and support costs for the end user.      (2) Should IPng foster a convergence between Internet Standards      and International Standards (i.e., OSI), this convergence could      change IPng's destiny.  That is, the networks of many large      corporations are currently being driven by sets of strong, but      contradictory, requirements:  one set demanding compliance with      Internet Standards (i.e., TCP/IP) and another set demanding      compliance with International Standards.  This paper assumes that      the reader is already familiar with the many reasons why end users      seek to deploy and use Internet Standards.  The following is a      partial list as to why End Users may be motivated to use      International Standards (i.e., OSI) as well:   A)  World-wide commerce is regulated by governments in accordance       with their treaties and legal agreements.  World-wide       telecommunications are regulated by the ITU (a United Nations       chartered/authorized organization).  International Standards       (i.e., OSI) are the only government-sanctioned method for       commercial data communications.  Aspects of this picture are       currently in the process of changing.   B)  The currently proprietary aeronautical world-wide air-to-ground       and ground-to-ground communications are being replaced by an       OSI-based (CLNP) Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN)       internet which is being built in a number of different national       and international forums including:       *  International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)       *  International Air Transport Association (IATA)       *  Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC)Fleischman                                                     [Page 10]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994       "Civil Aviation Authorities, airlines, and private aircraft will       use the ATN to convey two major categories of data traffic among       their computers: Air Traffic Services Communications (ATSC) and       Aeronautical Industry Services Communication (AISC)." [Note: The       data communications of airline passengers are not addressed by       the directive.]   C)  A corporation's customers may have data communications       requirements which are levied upon them by the governments in       which they operate which they, in turn, must support in their       own products in order to fulfill their customers' needs.  For       example, Boeing is influenced by existing:       * Computer Aided Logistics Support (CALS; i.e., these are GOSIP         (OSI)-based) requirements for US Department of Defense         contractors.       * Airline requirements emanating from A and B above.   D)  The end user perception that once we have deployed       International Standards we will not subsequently be compelled to       migrate by external factors to another technology.  Thus, we       would have a "safe" foundation to concentrate upon our real       computing issues such as increased customer satisfaction,       business process flow-time improvements, legacy system       modernization, and cost avoidance.   E)  The proposals of entities desiring to obtain contracts with       Governments are evaluated on many subjective and objective       bases.  One of the subjective issues may well be the       "responsibility" and "dependability" of the bidder company       including such intangibles as its corporate like-mindedness.       For this reason, as long as the Government has OSI as their       official standard, the bidder may have a subjective advantage if       its corporate policy also includes a similar standard,       particularly if data communications services are being       negotiated.   F)  The perception that the need for IPng may imply that IPv4 is       unfit to be a strategic end user alternative.  Also, IPng is not       a viable deployment option at this time.   G)  Doubts concerning IPv4 scalability (e.g., toasternet: an       algorithmic change in which currently "dumb devices" become       intelligent and suddenly require Internet connectivity).   It currently appears that many of these "OSI motivations" are   undergoing change at this time.  This possibility must be tracked   with interest.  However, a key point of this section is that aFleischman                                                     [Page 11]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994   corporation must base its data communications decisions upon business   requirements.  That is, corporations exist to sell products and   services, not to play "networking games".   Thus, if a means could be found to achieve greater synergy   (integration/ adoption) between Internet Standards and International   Standards then corporate management may be inclined to mandate   internal deployment of the merged standards and promote their   external use.  Optimally, such a synergy should offer the promise of   reducing currently deployed protocol diversity (i.e., supports the   "Integration Factor" force).  Depending on the specific method by   which this convergence is achieved, it may also partially offset the   previously mentioned "Inertia Factor" force, especially if IPng   proves to be a protocol which has already been deployed.User-based IPng Requirements   From the above one can see that a mandate to use IPng to communicate   over the Internet does not correspondingly imply the need for large   corporate networks to generally support IPng within their networks.   Thus, while the IPv4 scalability limitations are a compelling reason   to identify a specific IPv4 replacement protocol for the Internet,   other factors are at work within private corporate networks.  These   factors imply that large TCP/IP end users will have a continuing need   to purchase IPv4 products even after IPng products have become   generally available.   However, since the IETF community is actively engaged in identifying   an IPng solution, it is desirable that the solution satisfy as many   end user needs as possible.  For this reason, we would like to   suggest that the following are important "user requirements" for any   IPng solution:   1)  The IPng approach must permit users to slowly transition to IPng       in a piecemeal fashion.  Even if IPng becomes widely deployed,       it is unrealistic to expect that users will ever transition all       of the extensive IPv4 installed base to IPng.  Consequently, the       approach must indefinitely support corporate-internal       communication between IPng hosts and IPv4 hosts regardless of       the requirements of the world-wide Internet.   2)  The IPng approach must not hinder technological advances from       being implemented.   3)  The IPng approach is expected to eventually foster greater       synergy (integration/adoption) between Internet Standards and       International Standards (i.e., OSI).  [Note: This may be       accomplished in a variety of ways including having the InternetFleischman                                                     [Page 12]

RFC 1687         A Large Corporate User's View of IPng       August 1994       Standards adopted as International Standards or else having the       International Standards adopted as Internet Standards.]   4)  The IPng approach should have "self-defining network" (i.e.,       "plug & play") capabilities.  That is, large installations       require device portability in which one may readily move devices       within one's corporate network and have them autoconfigure,       autoaddress, autoregister, etc.  without explicit human       administrative overhead at the new location -- assuming that the       security criteria of the new location have been met.   5)  The approach must have network security characteristics which are       better than existing IPv4 protocols.Conclusion   In summary, the key factor which will determine whether -- and to   what extent -- IPng will be deployed by large end users is whether   IPng will become an essential element for the construction of   applications which are critically needed by our businesses.  If IPng   is bundled with applications which satisfy critical business needs,   it will be deployed.  If it isn't, it is of little relevance to the   large end user.  Regardless of what happens to IPng, the large mass   of IPv4 devices will ensure that IPv4 will remain an important   protocol for the foreseeable future and that continued development of   IPv4 products is advisable.Security Considerations   Security issues discussed throughout this memo.Author's Address   Eric Fleischman   Network Architect   Boeing Computer Services   P.O. Box 24346, MS 7M-HA   Seattle, WA 98124-0346 USA   EMail:  ericf@atc.boeing.comFleischman                                                     [Page 13]