[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker]
INFORMATIONAL
Network Working Group ACM SIGUCCS
Request for Comments: 1359 Networking Taskforce
FYI: 16 August 1992
Connecting to the Internet
What Connecting Institutions Should Anticipate
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
This FYI RFC outlines the major issues an institution should consider
in the decision and implementation of a campus connection to the
Internet.
In order to provide clarity to the reader, some specific information
has been detailed. In doing so, the document has been directed
toward U.S. academic institutions that have not yet connected to the
Internet.
However, the issues for which specific information has been provided
can be generalized for any organization that wishes to participate in
the world-wide Internet community. It will be necessary for those
organizations to obtain the correct and detailed information from
their local or national IP service providers. In addition, this
document may be used as an evaluation checklist for organizations
that are currently connected. Readers are expected to have general
familiarity with networking concepts and terminology.
Table of Contents
1. Acknowledgements.............................................. 2
2. Introduction.................................................. 2
3. Initial Planning/Pre-Internet Installation Phase............... 4
3.1 Ask the Vital Question...................................... 4
3.2 Reasons Why to Participate................................... 5
3.3 Connection Options........................................... 6
3.4 Connection Service Providers................................. 7
3.5 Sample Questions for Connection Services Providers........... 8
3.5.1 Sample Questions........................................... 8
3.6 Cost Assessment.............................................. 9
4. Initial Implementation and Startup Phase....................... 10
4.1 Policy Issues................................................ 10
NETTF [Page 1]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
4.2 Connection to the Mid-level Network.......................... 11
4.3 IP Addresses and Domain Names................................ 11
4.4 Technical Issues............................................. 12
4.5 Support...................................................... 12
4.6 Training..................................................... 13
4.7 Promotion.................................................... 13
5. Full Production/Maintenance................................... 13
5.1 Technical Issues............................................. 14
5.2 Human Factors................................................ 14
6. Evaluation Strategies......................................... 15
7. Appendix A. Partial List of IP Service Providers.............. 16
8. Appendix B. NSFNet Backbone Services Acceptable Use Policy.... 22
9. References.................................................... 23
10. Security Considerations....................................... 24
11. Authors' Addresses............................................ 24
1. Acknowledgements
This document was created through the efforts of the ACM SIGUCCS
Networking Taskforce. NETTF was created in 1989 under the direction
of Martyne Hallgren and with the approval and support of the SIGUCCS
Executive Board.
The Networking Taskforce was created to increase awareness and
understanding of the Internet, to disseminate information and
research on development and use of the Internet, to promote
innovative and appropriate use of Internet resources, and to initiate
and encourage cooperation between the SIGUCCS membership and other
organizations, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),
with similar goals towards networking.
2. Introduction
The Internet is a world-wide network of networks with gateways
linking organizations in North and South America, Europe, The Pacific
Basin and other countries not previously included. The organizations
are administratively independent from one another. There is no
central, worldwide, technical control point. Yet, working together
these organizations have created what to a user seems to be a single
virtual network that spans the globe.
The networks all use a common suite of networking protocols, TCP/IP.
It is because of this commonality of protocols, this commonality of
network functionality and interoperability that the networks provide
what may appear to be a seamless, integrated virtual network,
irregardless of the underlying heterogeneity of the underlying
computer hardware or communications transport.
NETTF [Page 2]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
The most basic functions provided are electronic mail, access to
remote computational and informational facilities and file transfer.
The networking protocols were first deployed in the late 1960's in
the United States. For several years, they were only used for very
specific research activities and in some computer science
departments.
In 1985, at a meeting of National Science Foundation networking
specialists and higher educations representatives, a new national
data networking backbone, using these protocols, was outlined and
acted as a catalyst resulting in dramatic changes in data networking
technologies and usage.
Originally conceived to connect the six national supercomputing
centers that had been established, in the ensuing years, the NSFNet
backbone network and its associated mid-level networks have grown
dramatically. The networks built for mission and discipline specific
uses have also grown dramatically. More importantly, because of the
common technology, they have been able to be connected together,
increasing their reach and as a result, their usefulness to the user
community with very little additional expense. The end result is a
robust technology supporting the higher education and research
community. Its continued development and growth are essential to
maintaining excellence in education and research.
The use of the Internet has steadily and dramatically grown over the
past years. More and more sites have connected. Each site may have
more and more uses of the network, as existing users expand and new
users are added resulting in exponential growth of network traffic.
But even more dramatic are the explosions in growth due to the
innovative applications. Networks are having a dramatic effect on
everything from libraries to elementary schools, from sharing
expensive scientific instruments to using databases to access
atmospheric data to electronic publishing and interpersonal
collaborations building "workplaces without walls".
The number of organizations connected at present is constantly
growing. At present, the organizations that connect through the
Internet include universities and colleges, research laboratories,
government and private, libraries, specialized scientific centers,
state agencies, K-12 (Kindergarten-12th Grade) organizations,
individuals, and individual research labs. But no matter what kind
of organization it is, they all have the same need to understand what
it means to connect to the Internet.
An institution must anticipate and prepare for four critical phases
in the deployment of an Internet connection. The list of issues
discussed within this document is not exhaustive but rather the
NETTF [Page 3]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
information provided should alert decision makers to major concerns
they should address during the different phases of network
deployment.
As each issue is discussed, both soft and hard cost items will be
identified. Both must be considered when determining the real cost
of deploying an Internet connection. The hard cost items include
costs for which invoices are created. They include the costs for new
circuits or phone lines, the purchase of modems or csu's and routers,
network membership dues and upgrades to existing hardware to make it
network compatible. Soft costs are harder to quantify but no less
important. These costs include training and education of staff,
faculty, and students, modifications to support staffing and
structure, deployment of new network applications or network services
such as FTP servers, centralized electronic mail services, or
campus-wide information systems. It should also be recognized that
the soft costs involved also result in benefits that can easily be
seen as people investment and organizational investment.
The four phases of an Internet Connection deployment are:
A. Initial planning/Pre-Internet installation phase
B. Initial Implementation and Startup phase
C. Full Production/Maintenance phase
D. Evaluation/Upgrade phase
3. Initial Planning/Pre-Internet Installation Phase
3.1 Ask the Vital Question
An institution must first address the question, "What does my
community/institution gain from participating in the Internet
community?".
Both commercial and non-profit education and research institutions
rightfully spend a great deal of high level effort to define their
mission and goals. Any introduction of new technology --
particularly one which involves new modes and methodologies of
communication -- should be assessed in light of the institution's own
mission and goals as well as the wants and needs of the user
community it serves.
Following, and as part of this evaluation, key institution decision
makers (at the highest levels of the organization) will require
information not only on the cost of connection, but more importantly
on the purpose and scope of participation in the Internet. The
decision to participate requires not only the strong commitment of
senior administration but also the support and endorsement of the
NETTF [Page 4]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
general institutional community. In the case of an educational
institution, it is critical to have the support and active interest
of the faculty. This decision will also involve a campus wide needs
assessment to determine the interest and support of the campus
community.
3.2 Reasons Why to Participate
The deployment of an Internet connection provides the impetus for the
development of a campus wide strategy for the use of information
technology which may otherwise never be accessible. It may be
difficult to quantify such benefits but they must be included in the
justification process. Many institutions have already done this and
are very likely already connected. An interested institution might
will consult with a nearby, connected organization to see what
benefit they have derived from the connection. An institution
looking at a connection for the first time must decide if a major
reason is simply to participate in a technology that has already
proven itself as being important to education; more importantly, it
may be a requirement now to compete with peer organizations.
This is especially important to consider when recruiting both new
faculty and students. New faculty will want to continue with their
research and academic collaborations which may require resources not
affordable to the institution. These resources can be made available
via the network. As a result, a university or college may be able to
recruit students and offer a new curriculum that demands access to
resources that would only be available via the network. The
potential gain in prestige, research participation and dollars is
well work the investment.
Many universities have also discovered economic efficiencies. Many
subscription services have traditionally required a dedicated and
expensive access method. More and more of these services are now
accessible via the Internet. This trend will undoubtedly continue as
more and more commercial companies make their services available.
While the subscription fee may not alter, the cost of the dedicated
connection may by used to finance an Internet connection; not only
will the availability of the particular service be greater but the
underlying access medium can be used for multiple functions.
Libraries, many already with automated catalogs, are looking at
various new applications to deal with the glut of information,
shrinking dollars and limited shelf space. Electronic journals,
image-based text, publishing on demand are all issues that are being
evaluated for the digital library. Universities are automating and
integrating a variety of activities and providing access to the
students and staff via a campus network. At some universities,
NETTF [Page 5]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
students are able to register for classes, look at their grades, and
check their bill from their dorm room instead of having to suffer
through long lines. Some universities are able to keep in contact
with their alumni, through a variety of on-line information
resources.
NSFNet was first created to facilitate access to five national
supercomputer centers, centers which still provide to researchers
leading edge computational technologies to support research in a
variety of areas, from black holes to pollution in the L.A. basin.
Today, researchers and students alike have access to a broad range of
computational, informational, and scientific instrumentation that can
be used remotely, with no loss of productivity. For some
organizations, this means that they now can recruit faculty with
research requirements that they themselves could never afford. It
means access to research funding. At the same time, it opens up the
opportunity to faculty and students to select their next institution
for reasons other than the hardware currently owned.
3.3 Connection Options
There are a variety of connection options. Factors besides costs may
be used to select the appropriate option or a series of options.
These factors include size and projected use (traffic) of the
connection, nature of the use and purpose of the enterprise driving
the effort.
There are three basic categories of IP service connection available
at this time. All three categories support essentially the same set
of functions. They support a variety of line speeds (which affects
total capacity of the connection) and will run on a variety of
hardware platforms. Performance depends on the line speed, the
hardware and software used, and the use.
The three basic connection categories are:
a) dedicated connection
b) dialup connection
c) dialup access to a connection service
A dedicated connection requires a dedicated, point-to-point
telecommunications circuit and an IP router (a dedicated networking
device), linking the organization to the Internet. Line speeds range
from 9.6 Kb to 45 Mb, with the most common connection speeds being
56Kb and 1.54 Mb. A dedicated connection to the Internet most
commonly connects to a campus-wide network with several hosts and
workstations.
NETTF [Page 6]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
A dialup connection requires a workstation, which may or may not be
dedicated to networking, with appropriate networking software and an
attached modem. It uses a regular phone line. When a network
connection is needed, the workstation is used to establish a
connection over the modem and phone line. At the end of use, the
connection is broken. Line speeds range from 9.6Kb to 56Kb, with
lower speeds being most common. It can be used to connect a single
workstation or a LAN. However, if it is used to connect a LAN, the
workstation must provide some routing functionality.
Several IP service providers offer dialup access to a connection
service. Such a service provides only remote login capabilities or
other limited functions by calling a local phone number and setting
up a single function environment. A terminal emulator is used from a
MAC or a PC. The service can support speeds from 2.4Kb - 19.2 Kb.
Providers usually charge a flat-rate connection fee as opposed to a
connection fee and traffic charge.
As each type of connection alternative is examined, the organization
must consider the technical evolution and cost projections. The
appropriate campus agency (usually an information or
telecommunications area) should inventory the existing campus
networking. For those organizations that do currently have a campus
network, the inventory will provide valuable input to the development
of a short and long term technology evolution strategy.
If a campus network does not yet exist, the development of a campus
networking strategy may have the effect of an upgrade of technology
throughout the campus. In either case, the question of how to get
network connectivity to the workstations on the faculty and staff
desks, large user rooms, residence halls, libraries and campus stores
must eventually be addressed.
A connection to the Internet does not always imply the development of
a campus-wide network. In some cases, it may be appropriate for only
a small segment of the organization's community to have access to the
Internet. Often, organizations will use such a strategy as a way to
introduce the technology to a small group of enthusiastic customers
who become champions in their own right.
3.4 Connection Service Providers
There are several organizations, not-for-profit and commercial, that
now offer connectivity services to the Internet. Refer to Appendix A
for a partial list.
There is no hard and fast rule specifying to whom an organization
should approach for a connection. Historically, there has been a
NETTF [Page 7]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
tendency for an academic institution to become a member of the
closest mid-level network. The best approach, given the growing
number of IP service providers, is to consider all the providers that
offer services in the region, consider the variety and quality of
services offered within in the framework of the organization's
requirements and make an informed decision based on that information.
3.5 Sample Questions for Connection Services Providers
It is often hard to know what questions should be asked while
evaluating different service providers. The following set of
questions have been included at a starting point for any discussion
with an IP service provider.
3.5.1 Sample Questions
a) What connection services do they offer? Please describe in
detail (i.e., until you understand what they are talking
about).
b) What is the cost?
c) What is included in the cost?
-the circuit cost (installation and monthly charge)
-the router (cost of onsite router, cost of offsite
router)
-hardware/software
-maintenance, of what??
-membership fee
d) Is there any other kind of charge not included in the upfront
cost?
e) What are their support services?
-NOC?
-NIC?
-What do they mean by either organization?
f) Do they fix the router when it's broken?
g) Do they require 24 hour access to the physical location?
h) Do they require an onsite person be available to them to
assist in problem diagnosis?
i) What training is available? Is it included in above cost??
j) Do they have an acceptable use policy?
NETTF [Page 8]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
k) Is there an annual meeting?
l) Do they have dedicated (i.e., full time), professional staff?
m) Are there limitations to connecting to other parts of the
Internet (i.e., can you everywhere you need to get?)?
n) To whom else do they provide service?
-references?
If any of this information is confidential, consider finding another
service provider.
3.6 Cost Assessment
An organization contemplating a connection to the Internet should be
careful to consider not only the physical connection and startup
costs but also the costs of supporting the resulting service
infrastructure. This infrastructure includes the development and
continued support of a campus-wide network. At some universities,
this network may only support data, but at many universities and
other organizations, the development of a campus-wide network must
evolve to consider data, voice, and video as the applications and
requirements of information technologies supported by internetworking
technologies expand.
The Internet provides access to a wide variety of resources and a
broad set of functions and services which may or may not have been
available locally. Support staff will require education and training
to support and in turn train the faculty, other staff, and students
in the use of the new technology and new resources made available.
This training may mean strategic re-orientation and deployment of
campus networking information services. The costs of such added-
value services should be planned for in advance.
Increased use of the campus network will make additional demands on
existing network technical staff. Areas of the institution not
currently participating in data network services will want to
participate. While not all of these services can be exactly
quantified in terms of costs, they must be anticipated and
incorporated into campus planning for an Internet connection. These
areas may include libraries, dormitories, student services, and data
depositories.
The implementation of an Internet connection provides the impetus for
the development of a campus-wide strategy for the use of information
technologies which may otherwise have never been accessible. It may
be difficult to quantify such benefits but they must be included in
NETTF [Page 9]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
the justification process. The benefits can include access to
expensive, scientific instruments such as computational services
(i.e., massively parallel supercomputers) or particle accelerators.
Clearly, this access means that the organization will have the use of
these facilities without the cost of buying one, thus provide an
effective recruiting tool for bright, young PHD's who require this
kind of resource.
4. Initial Implementation and Startup Phase
Once the institution decides to connect to the Internet, several
tasks should get underway. In rough terms, the tasks relate to
policy, process definition, education, promotion, technical and
fiscal issues. Several of these tasks should be addressed
simultaneously.
4.1 Policy Issues
The campus community should develop guidelines for acceptable use of
the network. These guidelines not only include policies governing
the use of the campus net, but now extend to guidelines for the
appropriate use of the Internet as well. Appropriate use policy must
include policies developed by the Internet community. NSF has an
acceptable use policy which applies to use of the backbone networks
they provide. See Appendix B. Each of the mid-level networks as
well as other organizations with their own backbone networks have
their own acceptable use policy, which may not be the same as that of
NSF's. It is important to be aware of the limitations or lack of
limitations when connecting and using various networks.
The development of an acceptable use policy, in addition to providing
protection to the institution provides an excellent opportunity to
develop campus guidelines for privacy and security issues for
computing in general. Guidelines about data available on the network
and the proper use of that data and how data may be properly used and
who may properly use it, issues of copyright and attribution
requirements of FTP-able documents; all these topics should be
considered.
Ethical guidelines concerning the use and possible misuse of software
and data banks available over the Internet must be carefully
developed and published across the institution and in the hands of
faculty, staff, and students. Considerable work has already been
expended in developing several good references which can be used to
guide the development of these policies. See FYI 8, RFC 1244, "Site
Security Handbook" [1].
NETTF [Page 10]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
In order to maximize usage for the entire Internet community, the
campus community must learn proper etiquette in the use of the
network, including such issues as the management of large files, data
compression, and the efficient use of electronic mail. See RFC 1087,
"Ethics and the Internet" [2].
4.2 Connection to the Mid-level Network
By this time, the organization should have decided what type of
connection they want and with which service provider they will be
working. There are specific technical details which must be
addressed in the initial deployment of the connection. There is the
evaluation of hardware and software. The mid-level network or
institution providing the connection is often an excellent resource
to complement the on-campus group in determining the best
configuration. It is vital to understand before this time exactly
what items the organization will be required to purchase or that will
be provided at part of a fee-based service. (Refer back to the
sample set of questions.)
4.3 IP Addresses and Domain Names
Every organization connecting to the network must have a unique
identifier. This identifier is known as the campus IP network
address. In addition to a numerical identifier, most organizations
also get what is known as a domain name. It is through the numerical
address and the domain name that the organization's hosts will become
know throughout the Internet.
An organization must register with the authority that assigns a IP
addresses and for a domain name. The IP address is assigned by the
Internet Address Naming Authority (IANA). The Domain Name is picked
by the organization. A domain name is simply a character string that
maps to the IP address. It makes it easier for humans to remember
than a unique set of numbers. It is beyond the scope of this
document to include a tutorial on IP addresses and domain names. For
more information on IP addresses and domain names, refer to Doug
Comer's textbook, "Internetworking with TCP/IP: Principles,
Protocols, and Architectures" [3]. (See also FYI 5, RFC 1178,
"Choosing a Name for Your Computer" [4].)
There are different classes of Internet addresses, which correspond
to the number of hosts an organization anticipates connecting to its
networks. Thus the campus should carefully consider the planned
growth of its own network in applying for the appropriate class of
membership. The IP service provider is an excellent source of advice
in choosing a membership class.
NETTF [Page 11]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
At this time, there is no cost associated with registration for IP
addresses or domain names.
The actual procedure for applying for the IP address and domain name
should be explained and is often provided to the connecting
organization by the IP service provider.
4.4 Technical Issues
The installation itself should occur with with as little disruption
to the campus network as possible. To accomplish a such deployment,
the organization should develop a complete plan of action, which
would include the following steps (some may be simultaneous; some may
be done by the service provider; the list is not exhaustive):
a) order, install, test circuit or phone line
b) IP address and domain name registration
c) hardware purchasing/delivery
d) routing configurations/reconfig campus network
e) bring up router, test end-to-end connectivity
f) make available to campus
4.5 Support
Perhaps the most challenging task in the initial deployment of the
Internet connection is the resulting reorientation of network
technical and network information services. There are added
responsibilities for network management as well as added network
information services to support the connection. Cognizant
administrators must recognize, plan and budget for these added tasks.
Administration must also ensure that there is a clear delineation of
duties among technical and network information services staff to
avoid needless duplication of effort or conflict.
Concurrent with the deployment of the network, the education of the
user community is critical. This includes creation of documentation
on basic information about the Internet and specific campus resources
as well as details on remote resources (library catalogs, information
servers, etc) and how to use them.
Many organizations have already created excellent documentation that
they are willing to share. They generally only require attribution
in return for distribution rights (for educational purposes only).
NETTF [Page 12]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
4.6 Training
Networking problems experienced by end-users are often the result of
mis-information or campus-specific configurations as opposed to
problems at the mid-level or backbone. An investment in staff and
user training and documentation at the beginning of the network
deployment is an investment that will show a clear return in the long
term.
User training is critical but depending on the size of the campus, it
is impossible to expect the support staff to train users on an
individual basis. Rather, it's important to consider developing and
promoting a hierarchy of support personal, so the central support
staff is actually training the trainers who then go out and support
their particular group of users.
The most critical course taught to users is on local information on
the basic functions of the network, electronic mail, file transfer,
and remote login. Good documentation will help promote the
successful use of the network. Documentation should be clear,
concise and to the point. During the training, it is important to
address the most commonly asked questions first.
4.7 Promotion
A network is only as successful as the users say it is. From the
very beginning, the network must be presented to them as a useful
tool. Promotion, through newsletters and other appropriate
communication vehicles must be considered a required activity. An
active promotion strategy will allow an organization to set the
expectations of the users in regards to service and performance,
especially important for a networking staff that is just learning.
Faculty involvement from the very beginning is vital. It is
important to gain their support and to build on it. Whether it is
through faculty advisory committees or direct contact with
individuals, their feedback and support can be a healthy measure of
success.
5. Full Production/Maintenance
As the campus community incorporates the Internet as part as its
usual routine, those responsible for the campus network and the
Internet connection must ensure the accessibility, reliability, and
relative ease of use of the network. This ongoing maturation of the
network constitutes a vital service to the user community.
NETTF [Page 13]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
As the network becomes a crucial tool in the user community's daily
routine, so does the interface between the operations, information,
and user services staffs and the end users gain in importance.
Responding to end-user problems with courtesy and accepting
responsibility for resolving the end-user concern (as opposed the
actual technical problem) creates a working environment of trust and
partnership.
5.1 Operation Services
There will be hardware and software support, including updating and
maintaining compatible software revisions, planned replacement and
maintenance of communications hardware to make use of new technology,
and routine network operations center activities. This includes IP
number administration, monitoring of the network to determine usage
patterns, optimal routing, continuous and accurate updates of known
problems as well as trouble shooting problem areas of the campus net.
The network staff will have to maintain its campus routing tables.
If the site serves as a backbone site, it may have to maintain tables
for its designated area.
It is important to continue to have a close relationship between the
operations staff and the engineering staff. The operations staff
must have a quick inroad to engineering to ensure quick responses to
the user community as problems are reported.
The scope of these technical activities depend upon the size of the
campus network and the level of campus responsibility for the
Internet connection. The responsibilities grow both in scale and
importance as the institution comes to rely on the services of the
network and its access to the Internet.
5.2 Information and User Services
The education, training and promotion activities associated with the
network continue but mature both in scope and the level of network
expertise. Documentation efforts continue. Documents are refined
and reviewed periodically for accuracy and completeness, but
individual consultation will change as network users become more
sophisticated and experienced in using the network. As more and more
consulting and information services are made available through the
network itself, network information staff will likely find themselves
increasingly involved in "training the trainers" or in individual
consultation and help sessions with faculty and researchers actively
involved in collaborative research over the network.
Promotion activities must also continue to involve new faculty and
staff, to promote and advertise major campus network activities and
NETTF [Page 14]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
projects, and to highlight new services and projects available on the
Internet. The continuing effort, which can include a campus
newsletter or periodic seminars on network services, is a necessary
and crucial part of recruiting new and innovative uses of the
Internet, which will act to justify continued development and
investment.
6. Evaluation Strategies
A system as complex and ubiquitous as the campus data network
requires periodic review and evaluation. As the campus network
provides the primary access to the larger Internet community,
evaluation strategies must include analyses of how and where the
Internet is most heavily used and how campus data flows might
optimize that traffic.
Evaluation of network statistics provide key information on how the
network is used and who is using it. In turn, this must lead to
assessment mechanisms to gauge user satisfaction with the network and
the tools used to make use of the network. At the base level, there
are the tools provided within the network protocol itself -- Telnet,
FTP, SMTP mail -- that provide fundamental access to the Internet.
But as campus use of the network and the Internet matures, the campus
network community itself will build on those tools to provide special
"campus customized" tools used on the network. Network services
should evaluate user needs and, where appropriate, design user
friendly interface mechanisms especially suited to special campus
area needs.
While the use of quantitative methods of evaluation are important,
they can not replace qualitative methods. If end-users are unhappy,
if problems continue to be reported even though the statistics and
technical monitors show few errors, organizations must recognize that
serious problems do exist and take immediate action to resolve them.
The use of the Internet itself and its impact on campus research and
instruction goals must be reviewed and evaluated. The introduction
of new technology inevitably involves reorientation and new means of
communication. While this should be a benefit to the campus
community as a whole, the new technologies may leave some segments of
the community disoriented. A careful evaluation of the impact of
this new technology should determine not only which areas of campus
benefit from Internet participation, but also which areas are not
benefitting from the new technology. Planning strategies should
include special attention to areas not making use of network
resources to make those areas aware of the potential benefits and to
provide training in the use of the network. In summary,
universities, schools, colleges and institutions in the Internet
NETTF [Page 15]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
community must incorporate a mechanism to evaluate both hidden
benefits as well as hidden costs of that participation.
7. Appendix A. Partial List of U.S. IP Service Providers
ANS
Joel Maloff
Vice President - Client Services
Advanced Network and Services
2901 Hubbard Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(313) 663-7610
maloff@nis.ans.net
BARRNET
William Yundt
Pine Hall Rm. 115
Stanford, CA 94305-4122
(415) 723-3104
gd.why@forsythe.stanford.edu
Fax: (415) 723-0010
CERFnet
Susan Estrada
San Diego Supercomputer Center
P.O. Box 85608
San Diego, CA 92186-9784
(619) 534-5067
estradas@sdsc.edu
Fax: (619) 534-5167
CICnet
Michael Staman
President
ITI Building
2901 Hubbard Drive Pod G
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
staman@cic.net
(313) 998-6101
Fax: (313) 998-6105
NETTF [Page 16]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
Colorado Supernet
Ken Harmon
CSM Computing Center
Colorado School Mines
1500 Illinois
Golden, Colorado 80401
(303) 273-3471
kharmon@csn.org
Fax: (303) 273-3475
CONCERT
Joe Ragland
CONCERT (Communications for NC
Education, Research, and Technology)
P.O. Box 12889
3021 Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919) 248-1404
jrr@concert.net
Fax: (919) 248-1405
CREN
Jim Conklin
EDUCOM
1112 16th Street NW
Washington D.C. 20036
(202) 872-4200
conklin@bitnic.bitnet
Fax: (202) 872-4318
CSUNET
Chris Taylor
Manager, Network Technology
Office of the Chancellor
Information Resources and Technology
P.O. Box 3842
Seal Beach, CA 90740-7842
(213) 985-9669
chris@calstate.edu
Fax: (213) 985-9400
NETTF [Page 17]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
JVNCnet
Sergio Heker
6 von Neumann Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544
(609) 258-2411
heker@jvnc.net
Fax: (609) 258-2424
LOS NETTOS
Ann Cooper
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, Ca 90292
(310) 822-1511
Fax: (310) 823-6714
Merit
Eric Aupperle
Merit Network
2200 Bonisteel Blvd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2112
(313) 764-9423
ema@merit.edu
Fax: (313) 747-3745
MIDnet
Dale Finkelson
29 WSEC
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68588
(402) 472-5032
dmf@westie.unl.edu
Fax: (402) 472-5280
MRNET
Dennis Fazio
Executive Director
The Minnesota Regional Network
511 11th Avenue South, Box 212
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
(612) 342-2570
dfazio@MR.NET
Fax: (612) 344-1716
NETTF [Page 18]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
NCAR
Joseph H. Choy
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
(303) 497-1222
choy@ncar.ucar.edu
Fax: (303) 497-1137
NEARnet
John Rugo
Accounts Manager
BBN Systems and Technologies
10 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 873-2935
jrugo@nic.near.net
NETILLINOIS
Ed Krol
University of Illinois
Computing Services Office
1304 W. Springfield
Urbana, IL 61801
(217) 333-7886
e-krol@uiuc.edu
NevadaNet
University of Nevada System
Computing Services
4505 Maryland Pkwy
Las Vegas, NV 89154
(702) 739-3557
NorthWestNet
Eric S. Hood
Executive Director
NorthWestNet
2435 233rd Place NE
Redmond, WA 98053
(206) 562-3000
ehood@nwnet.net
NETTF [Page 19]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
NYSERnet
Jim Luckett
NYSERNET INC
111 College Place
Room 3-211
Syracuse, New York 13244
(315) 443-4120
luckett@nysernet.org
Fax: (315) 425-7518
OARnet
Alison A. Brown
Ohio Supercomputer Center
1224 Kinnear Road
Columbus, Ohio 43085
(614) 292-9248
alison@osc.edu
Fax: (614) 292-7168
Onet
Eugene Siciunas
4 Bancroft Ave., Rm. 116
University of Toronto
Toronto
Ontario M5S 1A1
Canada
(416) 978-5058
eugene@vm.utcs.utoronto.ca
Fax: (416) 978-6620
PREPnet
Thomas W. Bajzek
530 North Neville Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
(412) 268-7870
twb+@andrew.cmu.edu
Fax: (412) 268-7875
PSCnet
Eugene F. Hastings, II
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
4400 5th Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
(412) 268-4960
hastings@psc.edu
Fax: (412) 268-5832
NETTF [Page 20]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
PSINet
William L. Schrader
President & CEO
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive
Suite 1100
Reston, VA 22091
(703) 620-6651
wls@psi.com
Fax: (703) 620-4586
SDSCnet
E. Paul Love, Jr.
San Diego Supercomputer Center
P.O. Box 85608
San Diego, CA 92186-9784
(619) 534-5043
loveep@sdsc.edu
Fax: (619) 514-5152
Sesquinet
Farrell Gerbode
Office of Networking and
Computing Systems
Rice University
Houston, TX 77251-1892
(713) 527-4988
farrell@rice.edu
FAX: (713) 527-6099
SURAnet
Jack Hahn
1353 Computer Science Center
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742-2411
(301) 454-5434
hahn@umd5.umd.edu
THEnet
Tracy LaQuey Parker
Computation Center
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
(512) 471-5046
tracy@utexas.edu
NETTF [Page 21]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
VERnet
James A. Jokl
VERnet
Academic Computing Center
Gilmer Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
jaj@boole.acc.virginia.edu
Westnet
Pat Burns
UCC
601 S. Howes, 6th Floor South
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(303) 491-7260
pburns@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU
Fax: (303) 491-2293
8. Appendix B. NSFNet Backbone Services Acceptable Use Policy
THE NSFNET BACKBONE SERVICES ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY - released
February 1992
GENERAL PRINCIPLE:
(1) NSFNET Backbone services are provided to support open research
and education in and among US research and instructional
institutions, plus research arms of for-profit firms when
engaged in open scholarly communication and research. Use for
other purposes is not acceptable.
SPECIFICALLY ACCEPTABLE USES:
(2) Communication with foreign researchers and educators in
connection with research or instruction, as long as any network
that the foreign user employs for such communication provides
reciprocal access to US researchers and educators.
(3) Communication and exchange for professional development, to
maintain currency, or to debate issues in a field or subfield of
knowledge.
(4) Use for disciplinary-society, university-association,
government-advisory, or standards activities related to the
user's research and instructional activities.
NETTF [Page 22]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
(5) Use in applying for or administering grants or contracts for
research or instruction, but not for other fundraising or public
relations activities.
(6) Any other administrative communications or activities in direct
support of research and instruction.
(7) Announcements of new products or services for use in research or
instruction, but not advertising of any kind.
(8) Any traffic originating from a network of another member agency
of the Federal Networking Council if the traffic meets the
acceptable use policy of that agency.
(9) Communication incidental to otherwise acceptable use, except for
illegal or specifically unacceptable use.
UNACCEPTABLE USES:
(10) Use for for-profit activities (consulting for pay, sales or
administration of campus stores, sale of tickets to sports
events, and so on) or use by for-profit institutions unless
covered by the General Principle or as a specifically acceptable
use.
(11) Extensive use for private or personal business.
This statement applies to use of the NSFNET Backbone only. NSF
expects that connecting networks will formulate their own use
policies. The NSF Division of Networking and Communications Research
and Infrastructure will resolve any questions about this Policy or
its interpretation.
9. References
[1] Holbrook, P., and J. Reynolds, Editors, "Site Security
Handbook", FYI 8, RFC 1244, CICNet, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, July 1991.
[2] Internet Activities Board, "Ethics and the Internet", RFC 1087,
IAB, January 1989.
[3] Comer, Douglas, "Internetworking with TCP/IP: Principles,
Protocols, and Architectures", Second Edition, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J, 1991.
[4] Libes, D., "Choosing a Name for Your Computer", FYI 5, RFC 1178,
Integrated Systems Group/NIST, August 1990.
NETTF [Page 23]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
10. Security Considerations
Institutions who wish to connect to the Internet should be aware that
the Internet network is, by nature, and open network. As such,
connecting institutions must make sure that security mechanisms are
in force on their own campus network to ensure that unauthorized or
inappropriate use of campus resources is not exploited by either the
internal campus or by the external Internet community. Moreover, it
is incumbent on the institution to ensure that the campus community
is aware of the proper use of the Internet. The institution bears
the responsibility to educate its users on the appropriate use of
campus systems within the context of proper and ethical use of the
Internet.
An assessment of security on the campus network prior to connecting
to the Internet should ensure that all required security patches are
installed on all campus connected systems as well as on the campus
network. Systems with sensitive data or information should be
physically secure as well as up to date with software security
patches. In so far as possible, network addressable devices should
be secure. Changes to these devices should only be effected by
authorized network management personnel to avoid potential security
risks.
For more information on security issues, refer to FYI 8, RFC 1244,
"Site Security Handbook" [1].
In summary, it is only the cooperation and attention of each
connecting institution on the Internet to security issues that will
ensure the security of the Internet as a whole.
11. Authors' Addresses
ACM SIGUCCS Networking Taskforce
E-Mail discussion list: nettf@comet.cit.cornell.edu
Martyne M. Hallgren, Chairman
Cornell University
143 Caldwell Hall
Ithaca, NY
Phone: (607) 255-5510
EMail: martyne@nr-tech.cit.cornell.edu
Jack Pope
University of San Diego
San Diego, CA
NETTF [Page 24]
RFC 1359 Connecting to the Internet August 1992
Pat Smith
MERIT, Inc.
Ann Arbor, MI
John Cordani
Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, MI
Steven Sather
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA
Joyce McGowan
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas
NETTF [Page 25]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/
