Tài liệu Internet Routing Architectures P2 doc

Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 26 • Information services for various federal agency backbone networks were provided by the sponsoring agencies. NASA, for example, provided NSI information services. • Internet registration services were provided by DISA NIC, operated by Government Services, Inc. (GSI). • Information services for campus-level providers were provided by NSFNET mid-level network organizations. • Information services for NSFNET mid-level network providers were provided by Merit, Inc. Under the new solicitation, NIS managers should provide services to end-users and to campus and mid-level network service providers. They should also coordinate with other mid-level and network organizations, such as Merit, Inc. Creation of the InterNIC In response to NSF's solicitation for NIS managers, in January 1993 the InterNIC was established as a collaborative project among AT&T, General Atomics, and Network Solutions, Inc. [] It was to be supported by three five-year cooperative agreements with the NSF. During the second-year performance review, funding by the NSF to General Atomics stopped. AT&T was awarded the Database and Directory Services, and Network Solutions was awarded the Registration and NIC Support Services. Directory and Database Services The implementation of this service should utilize distributed database and other advanced technologies. The NIS manager could coordinate this role with respect to other organizations that have created and maintained relevant directories and databases. AT&T was providing the following services under the NSF agreement: • Directory services (white pages): This provides access to Internet White Pages information using X.500, WHOIS, and netfind systems. The X.500 directory standard enables the creation of a single worldwide directory of information about various objects of interest, such as information about people. The WHOIS lookup service provides unified access to three Internet WHOIS servers for person and organization queries. It searches the InterNIC directory and Database Services server for nonmilitary domain and non-Point-of-Contact data. The search for MIL (military) domain data is done via the DISA NIC server, and the POC data is done via the InterNIC Registration Services server. Netfind is a simple Internet white pages directory search facility. Given the name of an Internet user and a description of where the user works, the tool attempts to locate information about the user. Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 27 • Database services: This should include databases of communications documents such as Request For Comments (RFCs), Internet Drafts (IDs), IETF Meeting Minutes, IETF Steering Group (IESG) documents, and so on. The service could also contain databases maintained for other groups with a possible fee. AT&T also offered a database service listing of public databases, which contains information of interest to the Internet community. • Directory of directories: This service points to other directories and databases, such as those listed previously. This is an index of pointers to resources, products, and services accessible through the Internet. It includes pointers to resources such as computing centers, network providers, information servers, white and yellow pages directories, library catalogs, and so on. As part of this service, AT&T stores a listing of information resources, including type, description, how to access the resource, and other attributes. Information providers are given access to update and add to the database. The information can be accessed via different methods, such as Telnet, ftp, e-mail, and World Wide Web. Registration Services The NIS manager was required to act in accordance with RFC 1174, which states the following: The Internet system has employed a central Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [] for the allocation and assignment of various numeric identifiers needed for the operation of the Internet. The IANA function is performed by the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute. The IANA has the discretionary authority to delegate portions of this responsibility and, with respect to numeric network and autonomous system identifiers, has lodged this responsibility with an Internet Registry (IR). The NIS manager would become either the IR or a delegate registry authorized by the IR. The Internet registration services included the following: • Network number assignment • Autonomous system number assignment • Domain name registration • Domain name server registrations From 1993 to 1998, NSI was the only provider of domain name registration services for the .com, .net, and .org top-level domains, following the Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Government. The agreement was amended in 1998, and NSI is now working to develop software supporting a "Shared Registration System" for these top-level domains. Today the U.S. Government has begun to privatize the management of domain name space in hopes of introducing competition in order to benefit the global Internet community. Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 28 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [] is responsible for overseeing this process. ICANN is responsible for the registrar accreditation process. It also assumes responsibility for certain Internet domain name system functions, as set forth by the U.S. Government. ICANN is a nonprofit international organization. NIC Support Services The original solicitation for "Information Services" was granted to General Atomics in April 1993 and was taken away in February 1995. At that time, NSI took over the proposal, and it was renamed NIC Support Services. The goal of the service was to provide a forum for the research and education community, Network Information Centers (NICs) staff, and the academic Internet community, within which the responsibilities of the InterNIC may be defined. Other Internet Registries With the privatization of registration services came a change in the way IP space and AS numbers are allocated. Currently, three Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) provide registration services to all regions around the globe: American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), Reseaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Center (RIPE NCC), and Asian Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC). ARIN In late 1997, IANA transferred responsibility for IP number administration from Network Solutions, Inc. to ARIN [] . ARIN officially opened for operation on October 22, 1997. ARIN is responsible for the allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) numbers in the following geographical areas: • North America • South America • The Caribbean • Sub-Saharan Africa ARIN currently manages allocation and registration services for IP numbers, AS numbers, IN-ADDR.ARPA, and IP6.INT inverse mappings. They also provide routing registry services where network operators can register, maintain, and retrieve router configuration information and WHOIS services to view specific information associated with a given allocation. ARIN is a nonprofit organization. It recovers the costs of administration and management of IP numbers by charging fees for registration, transfer, maintenance, and membership. RIPE NCC Created in 1989, RIPE [] is a collaborative organization that consists of European Internet service providers. It aims to provide the necessary administration and coordination to enable the operation of the European Internet. RIPE acts as an RIR for Europe and surrounding areas. Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 29 RIPE distributes Internet numbers, coordinates the Domain Name System (DNS), and maintains a network management database with information on IP networks, DNS and IP routing policies, and contact information. They also provide an Internet software repository, a RIPE document store, routing registry services, and interactive information services. Like ARIN, RIPE is a nonprofit organization and obtains funding from fees associated with its services. APNIC APNIC [] was created in 1993 and provides registration services similar to ARIN. APNIC provides these services to the Asian Pacific region, including 62 countries/regions in South and Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Indochina, and Oceania. APNIC is currently not involved in the administration of DNS services, although it does work with others in the region involved with these services. APNIC provides other services, including training and education, policy development, and regional networking activities. Notably, APNIC helped found APRICOT (Asian Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies), which is now the premier regional forum for network operators and policy makers. Internet Routing Registries With the creation of a new breed of ISPs that want to interconnect with one another, offering the required connectivity while maintaining flexibility and control has become more challenging. Each provider has a set of rules, or policies, that describe what to accept and what to advertise to all other neighboring networks. Sample policies include determining route filtering from a particular ISP and choosing a particular path to a specific destination. The potential for various policies from interconnected providers to conflict with and contradict one another is enormous. Internet Routing Registries (IRRs) also serve as a public database for accessing routing contact information used for coordination and troubleshooting. To address these challenges, a neutral routing registry (RR) for each global domain had to be created. Each RR maintains a database of routing policies created and updated by each service provider. The collection of these different databases is known as the Internet Routing Registry (IRR). The role of the RR is not to determine policies, but rather to act as a repository for routing policy and administration information. This should provide a globally consistent view of all policies used by all providers all over the globe. A large number of network operators use routing information obtained from the routing registries to dynamically generate routing policies. Autonomous systems (ASs) use Exterior Gateway Protocols (EGPs) such as BGP to work with one another. In complex environments, there should be a formal way of describing and communicating policies between different ASs. Maintaining a huge database containing all registered policies for the whole world would be cumbersome and difficult. This is why a more distributed approach was created. Each RR maintains its own database and must Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 30 coordinate extensively to achieve consistency between the different databases. Here are some of the different IRR databases in existence today: • RIPE Routing Registry (European Internet service providers) • Cable & Wireless Routing Registry (C&W customers) • CA*net Routing Registry (CA*net customers) • JPRR Routing Registry (Japanese Internet service providers) • Routing Arbiter Database (public) • ARIN Routing Registry (public) Each of the preceding registries serves a specific service provider's customer base, with the exception of the Routing Arbiter Database (RADB) and ARIN, which provide registration services to anyone. As mentioned earlier, the RADB is part of the Routing Arbiter project. Because of the flexibility and benefits of maintaining a local registry, other companies such as Qwest, Level(3), and Verio have developed RRs as well. The Once and Future Internet Surprisingly enough, although commercialization of the Internet has resulted in a phenomenal rate of growth over the past 10 years, it hasn't hindered innovation. Instead, it has inspired it. Development of new technologies by the commercial sector, as well as research and educational organizations, is occurring at an astounding rate. New technologies can no longer be immediately deployed in the now "production" Internet; they need to be thoroughly debugged and optimized for realistic conditions. Testbeds were created for early adoption of new technologies. Next-Generation Internet Initiative The federally funded Next-Generation Internet (NGI) Initiative [] is a multiagency U.S. federal research and development program that is developing advanced network technologies and revolutionary applications and demonstrating these capabilities on testbeds that are 100 to 1,000 times faster end-to-end than today's Internet. The NGI initiative began October 1, 1997, with the following participating agencies: • DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) • DoE (Department of Energy) • NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) • NIH (National Institute of Health) • NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) • NSF (National Science Foundation) The NGI initiative is managed by individual agency program managers and is coordinated by the Large-Scale Networking Working Group of the Subcommittee on Computing, Information, and Communications (CIC) R&D of the White House National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Technology. Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 31 NGI goals include the following: • Conduct R&D in advanced end-to-end networking technologies • Establish and operate two testbeds • Conduct R&D in revolutionary applications Conduct R&D in Advanced End-to-End Networking Technologies The NGI is fostering early deployment of new technologies that will one day be an integral part of the commercial Internet. These technologies are focused on enhancing many aspects of computer networking, to include the following: • Reliability • Robustness • Security • Quality of service/differentiation of service (including multicasting and video) • Network management (including allocation and sharing of bandwidth) Establish and Operate Two Testbeds Ensuring availability of capable testbeds is key to accomplishing the goals of the NGI. Two testbeds, referred to loosely as the "100x" testbed and the "1000x" testbed, will be developed for this purpose. The "100x" testbed will connect at least 100 sites—universities, federal research institutions, and other research partners—at speeds 100 times faster end-to-end than today's Internet. The testbed will be built on the following federal networks: • NSF's very high-speed Backbone Network Service (vBNS) • NASA's Research and Educational Network (NREN) • DoD's Defense Research and Education Network (DREN) • DoE's Energy Sciences network (ESnet) The "1000x" testbed will connect about 10 sites with end-to-end performance at least 1,000 times faster than today's Internet. The "1000x" testbed will be built upon DARPA's SuperNet. These testbeds will be used for system-scale testing of advanced technologies and services and for developing and testing advanced applications. Conduct R&D in Revolutionary Applications NGI research and development will focus on enabling applications and technologies such as these: • Collaborative technologies • Digital libraries • Distributed computing • Privacy and security • Remote operation and simulation Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 32 It will also focus on disciplinary applications such as these: • Basic science • Crisis management • Education • The environment • Federal information services • Health care • Manufacturing Internet2 Internet2 [] is a project of the University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development (UCAID). It was announced in October 1996 by 34 research universities with a mission of helping to sustain U.S. leadership in development, deployment, and operation of next- generation network applications and infrastructure. The primary role of Internet2 is to provide focus on fostering the growth of advanced Internet applications and networking protocols that will strengthen the work of universities in their research and education roles. With the exponential growth of the Internet, commercial networks controlled by service providers are deploying bandwidth and technologies as rapidly as research and education networks. One of the primary goals of Internet2 is to re-create the leading-edge capabilities of testbed networks and then facilitate transfer of these technologies to the global Internet. Internet2 is now a collaborative effort of more than 160 U.S. universities in partnership with more than 50 major corporations. UCAID's member universities and corporations fund Internet2. Many of the member institutions receive funding through competitively awarded grants from the NSF and other federal agencies participating in the NGI initiative. Funding is also made available through other initiatives such as the NSF's Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI) program. Internet2's goal is not to replace the Internet, but rather to enhance it by making available technologies and experiences developed by Internet2 members. Member universities will still require commodity Internet connections from commercial service providers, and utilization of those connections will continue to grow. Abilene Abilene [] is another project of UCAID. It's complementary to Internet2 in the sense that the main goal of Abilene is to provide a primary backbone network for the Internet2 project. UCAID, in partnership with Qwest Communications, Nortel Networks, and Cisco Systems, has developed the Abilene network. Abilene provides the high-performance interconnect services among the Internet2 regional aggregation points. The primarily OC48c (2.5 Gbps) POS (Packet Over SONET) Abilene network became operational in January 1999 and provides OC3 and OC12 access services. Much like the vBNS, Abilene will continually explore emerging Internet technologies, but because of the importance of network stability, Abilene will develop a separate high- performance test network for support of applications that cannot yet be deployed on the leading-edge-but-stable Abilene network. Internet2 working groups are in the process of hashing out Abilene deployment details, focusing on native multicast services, optimizing Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 33 routing configurations and policies, IPv6, and QoS. Abilene provides native multicast services and is planning deployment of IPv6 and QoS. Figure 1-8 represents the current Abilene network. Figure 1-8. Abilene Network: Peering Map Looking Ahead The decommissioning of the NSFNET in 1995 marked the beginning of a new era. The Internet today is a playground for thousands of providers competing for market share. Research networks such as Abilene and vBNS are struggling to stay ahead of the curve, as an evolving multibillion-dollar industry continues to exceed all expectations. For many businesses and organizations, connecting their networks to the global Internet is no longer a luxury, but a requirement for staying competitive. The structure of the contemporary Internet has implications for service providers and their customers in terms of access speed, reliability, and cost of use. Here are some of the questions organizations that want to connect to the Internet should ask: • Are potential providers (whether established or relatively new to the business) well versed in routing behaviors and architectures? • How much do customers of providers need to know and do with respect to routing architectures? Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 34 • Do the customer and provider have a common definition of what constitutes a stable network? • Is the bandwidth of the access connection the only thing customers need to worry about in order to have the "faster" Internet connection? The next chapter is intended to help ISPs and their customers evaluate these questions in a basic way. Later chapters go into the details of routing architecture. Although interdomain routing has been around for more than a decade, it is still new to everybody, and it continues to evolve every day. The rest of this book builds upon this chapter's overview of the structure of the Internet in explaining and demonstrating current routing practices. Frequently Asked Questions Q— Are there other NAPs besides the four NSF-awarded NAPs? A— Yes. As connectivity needs to keep growing, more NAPs are being created. Many exchange points are spread over North America, Europe, Asia/Pacific, South America, Africa, and the Middle East. Q— If I am a customer of a provider, do I have to connect to a NAP? A— No. NAPs are mainly for interconnections between service providers. If you are a customer of a provider, your connection will be to the provider only. However, how your provider is connected to one or more NAPs, or via direct interconnections, can affect the quality of your service. Q— Is the function of the route server at the NAP to switch traffic between providers? A— No. The route server keeps a database of routing policies used by providers. Providers use the NAP physical media to exchange traffic directly between one another. Q— Do all providers that connect to a NAP have to peer with the route server? Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 35 A— Although this is a recommended procedure, it is not a requirement, and most actually don't. Q— What is the difference between IRs and IRRs? A— Internet Registries (IRs) such as Network Solutions, Inc. are responsible for registration services such as registering Internet domain names. Internet Routing Registries (IRRs) such as RADB are responsible for maintaining databases of routing policies for service providers. Q— How are database services different from the Routing Arbiter Databases? A— Database services are part of the network information services. These databases include communication documents such as RFCs. The RADB is a database of routing policies. References 1. http://www.darpa.mil/ 2. http://www.nsf.gov/ 3. http://www.merit.edu/ 4. http://www.ra.net/ 5. http://www.isi.edu/ 6. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1786.txt 7. http://www.merit.edu/ 8. http://www.ietf.org/ 9. http://www.nanog.org/ 10. http://www.vbns.net/ 11. http://www.internic.net/ 12. http://www.iana.org/ 13. http://www.icann.org/ 14. http://www.arin.net/ 15. http://www.ripe.net/ 16. http://www.apnic.net/ 17. http://www.ngi.gov/ 18. http://www.internet2.edu/ 19. http://www.internet2.edu/abilene [...]... link and then backhaul the data to an IP network, prices associated with Frame Relay and ATM Internet access services are usually much lower than dedicated access Figure 2-2 illustrates a typical Frame Relay Internet access model page 37 Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition Figure 2-2 Frame Relay Internet Access Frame Relay and ATM access services are particularly appealing to corporations... providers can be categorized by their method of physical Internet access, the applications they provide to customers, and the security services they provide The following sections cover the service models that are most common throughout the Internet service provider market today As you'll see, these services range from providing page 36 Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition dial-up access via a... redundancy, stability, bottlenecks, provider/customer equipment arrangements, and so on Routing behaviors on the Internet are affected by how routing protocols and data traffic behave over an already established physical infrastructure Good infrastructure design and maintenance are primary factors in achieving healthy routing on the Internet ISP Services Different ISPs offer different services, depending on how.. .Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition Chapter 2 ISP Services and Characteristics This chapter covers the following key topics: • ISP services— A basic categorization of Internet service providers in terms of physical access methods, basic services, and security options • ISP service... (DSL) services provide high-speed, low-cost Internet access They fit nicely between dialup and dedicated access services in terms of both price and speed DSL service types vary based on which DSL technology is employed The term xDSL is commonly used to refer to generic DSL services, where x can represent any of a number of different page 38 Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition encoding techniques... carefully selected and managed, they can quickly result in congestion page 42 Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition Figure 2-3 An ISP's Weakest Link Limits Performance Another example of a potential bottleneck is high-speed sites trying to access information from low-speed sites A Web server located at a site connected to the Internet via a 56 kbps link can be accessed at a maximum aggregate speed... for this service? What are typical subscription ratios for your backbone network and interconnection points? What is the theoretical bottleneck for this service? page 43 Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition Level of ISP Internet Access Redundancy Murphy is out there, ready to make your life miserable Whether because of bad weather, carrier problems, or just plain bad luck, an ISP's connection... service's cost Understanding the amount of aggregation performed by the Frame Relay or ATM network, in addition to the Internet Gateway's capacity and resiliency design, is important For example, an oversubscribed Internet Gateway could result in significant performance degradation on your Internet access circuit Dialup Services Dialup services include traditional modem access, with speeds up to 56 kbps... where you collocate your equipment and obtain connectivity locally Dedicated Internet Access Dedicated Internet access is commonly provided at speeds of 56 kbps or 64 kbps up to T1/E1 lines (1.5 and 2 Mbps, respectively) on the lower end and T3/E3 (45 and 34 Mbps, respectively) and OC3 (155 Mbps) on the higher end Dedicated Internet access providers are also beginning to provide OC12 (622 Mbps) and... of subscribers and service availability is growing rapidly There are nearly 2 million cable modem subscribers in the U.S today, with projections as high as 16 million by the end of 2003 page 39 Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition Dedicated Hosting Services Although hosting has been around almost as long as dedicated access services, it has become very popular over the past few years, with . competition in order to benefit the global Internet community. Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 28 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names. customers of providers need to know and do with respect to routing architectures? Internet Routing Architectures, Second Edition page 34 • Do the customer