Click for next page ( 32


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 31
v. MARKETS The committee reviewed the market demand and its potential with re- spect to both TOP and TP-4 to provide an indication of the likelihood and rapidity with which competition and its benefits will bevel opt The com- mittee concludes that the market demand for TOP protocols will be small outside the United States. The demand for TP-4 , on the other hand, is expected to be worldwide. In this report we use the term market demand to indicate the potential or actual demand for products using the protocols under discussion. A large market is characterized by a broad demand from all sectors of the marketplace: consumers, businesses, and governments. The broadest demand is an international demand in all sectors. We distinguish the demand for products from the supply that usually develops as a result of the demand. It is assumed here that a broad market demand will result in a broad range of products, competitive in price, quality, function, and performance. The demand for products implementing computer communication protocols is discussed in relation to the requirements placed on the potential cus- tomer. Specifically, the customer may be required to acquire products that meet one or the other of the standards under discussion or may have no obligation to use either of the two. That is, customers will fall into one of the following classes with respect to these standards: 3. l. DOD standards required. 2. International or National standards required. No requirement with respect to standards. Although customers in the third class may be under no formal obliga- tion to use standards, they may still prefer a standard solution for several possible real or perceived benefits. They may, for example, obtain a broader selection of products using the standard solution or may obtain a more competitive price. They may also require a specific com- munication protocol in order to share information with products that are required by fiat to implement certain standard protocols. This need for compatible protocols to communicate is a powerful driving force toward communication standards DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NETWORKS MARKET STATUS AND PLANS The major networks of the Defense Data Network include the following: -31 -

OCR for page 31
Military Network (MILNET)--operational and growing. Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET)--operationa] and growing. WWMCCS Intercomputer Network (WIN)--to be upgraded. DOD Intelligence Information System (DODITS)--to be upgraded. Strategic Air Command Digital Information Network (SACDIN)--to be upgraded. Movement Information Network (MINET)--to be established in 1984. Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) net--to be established in 1985. TOP SECRET (TS) net--to be established in 1985. SECRET net--to be established in 1986. Initially, each of these networks has its own backbone. The networks will be integrated into a common Defense Data Network in a series of phases starting in 1984 with the integration of MILNET and MINET. It is planned that by 1988 they will al] be integrated but communities of inter- est will operate at different security classifications interconnected with Internet Private Line Interfaces (IPLIs). When appropriate technology becomes avai J able i n the l ate 1 98Os, the network wi ] l have the capabi l ity for multilevel security, including end-to-end encryption, and will achieve i nteroperab i ~ i ty between a ~ ~ u sers . The following observations are relevant to the TCP and TP-4 issue: The DOD currently has two major networks, MILNET and ARPANET, currently comprising the DDN. About sixty subnets and hundreds of hosts are internetted and most use TCP. This year a European network, MINET, will be activated and inte- grated into the DDN. It uses TCP. In the second half of 1983, fifteen additional subscribers have been added to MILNET and current planning estimates hundreds more additional subscribers in 1984 and 1985. For the many DDN users that are, or shortly wild be, intercon- nected over common backbones, there are groups of users that need interoperability within the group. These groups are deter- mined by the military department they are part of as weld as by functions such as logistics, maintenance, training, and many others. The Air Force and the Army are both committed to the use of TCP for some of their networks or subnetworks (including Local Area -32-

OCR for page 31
Networks) and active acquisition programs are underway, or will be initiated, during the next twelve to eighteen months. The DON Program Office has procured, or shortly will procure, devices to facilitate terminal and host access to DON hosts and terminals. These devices employ TCP. NATO has discussed protocol standards and has selected ISO as an approach, subject to its being adapted to meet military require- ments, if such adaptation is necessary. There is no definitive planning underway, however, to develop a NATO computer network. The Mail Bridge that will allow traffic to pass between the clas- sified segment and the unclassified segment will use TCP and is scheduled for a 1987 Initial Operational Capability (IOC). In general, the backbone in the various networks provides func- tions at layers below TCP and TP-4. As a result a backbone (such as MILNET) could support users of either protocol set. The users of one set could not, however, interoperate with the users of another unless additional steps are taken. In summary, there is a large TCP community operational today and the community is growing rapidly. In addition, there are, or shortly will be, procurements underway that plan to use TCP. The rate of growth cannot be precisely estimated in part because of uncertainties in demand and avail- ability of trunks and cryptographic equipment. On the other hand, inter- connection of several major networks will not take place until 1987 or later; and for those elements that are interconnected, there are many groups of users that primarily require interoperability with each other. System Descriptions MILNET is a network for handling the unclassified operational data of the DOD. It was created after the decision in 1982 to cancel the AUTODIN I ] system by dividing the ARPANET into two nets, MILNET and ARPA Research Net. The majority of the capacity of ARPANET was assigned to MILNET, and the number of subscribers is growing rapidly. The network backbone does not require the use of TCP but its use is generally mandated for subscri- bers. To achieve TCP functions, the DON will procure some interface devices and thereby take the burden off some subscribers. ARPANET supports most of the research organizations sponsored by DARPA. It generally uses TCP but some users continue to use NCP. MINET is a European network scheduled for Initial Operational Cap- ability (IOC) in 1984 to handle unclassified operational traffic, mostly logistical, and tie into the MItNET. It will have ~ nodes, ~ TACs, and 3 hosts to process electronic mail. These hosts and others to be added to the net will use TCP and the File Transfer Protocol (FTP). -33-

OCR for page 31
The Department of Defense Intelligence Information System currently uses a home-grown protocol. Sometime after 1984 its plans are to upgrade it to TOP. It will be a 3-node, 3-host net with plans to upgrade it to 20 to 30 nodes and about 50 hosts. The net is run at a high-security level (SCI) for communicating compartmented data. The SC] network con- sists of those users of SCT who are outside of DODITS. SACDIN is an upgrade of the digital communications system of the Strategic Air Command. The TOC is planned for about 1985. At present, TOP is not planned initially as a protocol. SACDIN will operate witn multilevel security up to Top Secret sensitive information. WIN is the WWMCCS Information Network. It is currently operational and uses NCP as a transport protocol. There is a major effort underway to modernize the WWMCCS, including upgrading or replacing current computers, providing Local Area Networks at major centers throughout the world, and providing common software packages for utilities and some applications. The upgrading of the transport protocols is part of this effort. Sche- dules are stir] uncertain but there is a target of 1986 for the protocol upgrading. TOP SECRET is a network that will support top secret users other than WIN and SACDIN. SECRET net is a network that will operate at the Secret level. It should be very useful for a large community that does not routinely need top secret or compartmented information. This is a community primarily outside the command and intelligence communities and includes missions such as logistics, procurement, and research and development. DOD will start the system as soon as there is sufficient cryptographic equipment; by 1986 they hope to have a 90-node network with several hundred subscribers. The Army plans to establish a Headquarters Net tying together major headquarters with an TOO of 1986. It wild use TOP. The Air Force has established a Program Office to help in the develop- ment of Local Area Networks at major Air Force installations. These could be internetted using the DON and thereby also gain access to other nodes. TOP has been mandated. Initial procurements are underway. Mail Bridge will provide gateways between ARPA Research Net and other elements of the DDN. These would use TOP and are scheduled for TOO in 1987. During 1984 the DDN is procuring two capabilities that will facilitate use of the network and higher-level protocols. The first capability will be provided shortly by Network Access Con- trollers (NAC). The NACs provide three elements all based on TOP: 1 - 1 Terminal Access Controllers (TACs) allow a cluster of terminals to access hosts on the DDN. Many are in operation today as a -34-

OCR for page 31
legacy of the ARPANET developments. New ones will be competi- tively procured. 2. Terminal Emulation Processes (TEP) allow the connection of a high-capacity host to the DDN through a number of terminal-l ~ ines. Host Front-End Processors (HFP) allow high-capacity host connec- tion to the DDN through use of a Network Front End that off- loads much processing capacity from the host. The second capability will be provided by software the DDN is cur- rent~y procuring for up to seventeen families of specific combinations of hosts and their commercially available operating systems. The software packages will include 1822 or X.25, TOP, and utility protocols for ter- minal access, mail, and file transfer. Initial operational capability is planned for late 1985. Integration MINET wild be connected to MILNET in 1984. This will be an unclass, fled network. WIN, DODIIS, SECRET, and SACDIN will be integrated as a classified network in 1987 at the earliest. Since they all operate at different security levels, they will be able to use the same DDN backbone but wild be cryptologically isolated. Integration and interoperability of all the networks will not be pos- sible until the late 198Os at the earliest, since this will require suc- cessfu] implementation of an advanced technology for end-to-end crypto- logical networking and the development of techniques for muitileve] security in individual and netted computer systems. The use of gateways as elements to integrate networks is under con- sideration. Gateways are currently operational to interconnect MILNET with (~) ARPANET (six gateways primarily used to exchange mail between authorized users), (2) MINET (one gateway for use prior to integration of the two networks into one), and (3) eight developmentally oriented net- works. There are many more g ateways i ntern ett i ng ARPANET with other research nets. Most of these gateways use the ARPA-developed Gateway-to- Gateway Protocol. It is now realized that this protocol is deficient for widespread use and ARPA has been investigating alternatives. The earliest requirement for additional gateways in the operational elements of the DDN will be to internet Local Area Networks into global networks of the DDN. A new "stub" protocol has been developed that might meet this need. The DDN is reviewing its requirements for available gateways and approaches. -35 -

OCR for page 31
INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL STANDARD MARKET DEMAND FOR TP-4 In the United States and most countries of the world, national stan- dards organizations adoot international data communication standards. In the United States the standards for the transport protocols are established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The same standards for the federal sector are established by the NBS with an exception for DOD's military needs which may be established by MIL stan- dards. Market demand for the latter was previously discussed. Outside the DOD there are numerous government agencies and organiza- tions such as the Federal Aviation Agency, Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Reserve Banks which have, or will have, networks that fall under the guidance of the NBS and will probably use the NBS-specified standard protocols when the NBS standard is issued. Already the Federal Reserve is procuring its computer net- working products using the X.25 protocol. National Support of International Standards The earliest evidence of demand for TP-4 products is in countries that give strong support for ISO standards. Most countries outside of the United States give the international standards much stronger govern- mental support than the United States does for a variety of reasons. First, in most cases these governments own the postal and telecommunica- tion monopolies. Frequently, the responsibility for these organizations is at a ministerial level in the government. Furthermore, many of the modern countries have concluded that the information industry is a national resource and one of the growth industries of the future. Inter- nationa] standards that are neutral, in the sense that no manufacturer has a head start, give the companies in these countries the additional . margin they fee] is necessary to compete in the worldwide market. It is also recognized by many that a worldwide market is much better than a market demand fragmented by national Geographic and political consider- ations. Finally, the PTTs have traditionally provided information ser- vices equivalent to those for which some of the ISO computer communica- tion protocols are designed. The best example is Teletext, which is an upgraded version of the Telex system used widely outside the United States. Consequently, government networks in many countries use the interna- tional ISO standards or the national standards derived from the interna- tional standards. Bid requests for government networks in France and Germany, for example, have required support for ISO protocols for over a year even though the standards are not yet fully approved. These bids ask the respondent only to state support for the protocols. No doubt, as the ISO protocols become stable, these countries will require the proto- cols for their networks. These government networks will further influence the implementation of networks not actually required to use the interna- tional and national standards. -36-

OCR for page 31
MARKET SEGMENTS NOT REQUIRED TO USE TCP OR TP-4 Most of the demand for communication protocols comes from potential customers who are under no government fiat to use either TCP or TP-4 protocols in their networks or network products. Many of these will use existing supplier-specified protocols. Such protocols have been embedded in products for over ten years and are well tested both formally and through field experience in thousands of networks. Continuing demand for these protocols will not contribute to the relative demand for either TCP or TP-4. There are widely recognized advantages in using international standard protocols for computer communications. First, there is tremendous value in exchanging information with other information users. As the standard protocols become widely used, the value of the information accessible through networks using these protocols is normally greater than the value of information accessible through less widely used networks protocols. This is the reason that industry groups such as airlines, banks, and insurance companies band together to set up common networks. Similarly, it is recognized that there are economies of scale for widely used net- working protocols both in the sense that equipment can be obtained at lower cost and in the sense that the manufacturer's improvements in per- formance, function, and cost will be repaid by market demand. In addi- tion, many network protocol users wish to have the option to procure equipment from a wide variety of vendors. Sometimes international stan- dards encourage this environment. Finally, international organizations would prefer to have common procurement of equipment and software for worldwide operations. Thus international standards are preferred for operational as well as logistic considerations. In the United States much of the demand for TP-4 will develop in the industries that exchange information regularly with entities of the federal government. If the Federal Reserve were to use the TP-4 standard for exchanging information with member banks, for example, there would be pressure on the banks to use TP-4. Similarly, if DOU suppliers wish to have easy access to DOD employees using a system based on TCP, they would need to use TCP. Also many of the university-oriented networks use the ARPANET protocols to exchange information with other university ARPANET users. The committee concludes that the demand for TP-4 in the United States will significantly outweigh the demand for TCP independent of DOD's adop- tion of TP-4. If DOD adopts the ISO TP-4 immediately or if DOD adopts TP-4 after a demonstration, the U.S. market demand for TCP protocols will disappear as the current networks are converted to TP-4. If DOD chooses to use the DOD TCP indefinitely, clearly the DOD and ARPANET demand for TCP will continue. A similar set of market forces operates outside the United States except that the foreign governments are more strongly in favor of inter- national and national standards and have smaller investments in nonstan- dard equipment. Thus there are even more industries drawn to the stan- dards in order to share information. This is illustrated by the extremely -37-

OCR for page 31
strong support for ISO efforts. The European Computer Manufacturers Asso- ciation has been active in the TP-4 standardization effort. NATO appears committed to TP-4 implementations, and there is likely to be intense com- petition in this arena. Lacking the federal government support of two different protocol suites, there is a stronger force to adopt a single international standard in most countries. There are other countries with a similar problem, however. Germany is beginning to install systems based on its unique national standard but has committed to convert eventually to ISO protocols. The committee concludes that there will be little market demand for the TOP protocols outside the United States. The strong international demand will be for ISO protocols, including TP-4. 1 -38- .