The document summarizes the need to reengineer the Global Information Grid (GIG) to better support warfighters. The current GIG (GIG1) does not provide the capabilities needed for GIG 2.0, which aims to provide warfighters with global access to required data. GIG 2.0 requires support for network-aware distributed information services, reliable transport over heterogeneous networks, and global coordination of heterogeneous subnetworks. The document argues that reengineering is needed to develop these capabilities, including new transport protocols, network control planes, and a master control plane for coordination.

1. Reengineering the GIG to Support the Warfighter John Chapin IEEE COMSOC Boston Chapter 8 January 2009 Version 9: 8 Jan 2009

9. Innovative tactical wireless networks support the new uses 1000x the old network bandwidth SRW, WNW TTNT WNW

10. Beyond Line Of Sight capacity will not keep up 1000x the old network bandwidth Commercial C/Ku/Ka Connexion/INMARSAT ETP WGS Int Polar MILSTAR IRIDIUM AEHF/EHF ADV/ Polar BLOS capacity grows slowly and is very expensive SRW, WNW TTNT WNW

11. BLOS congestion impairs access to information services Generates critical data that tactical leaders can’t discover Can’t get latest intelligence covering operational area Can’t collaborate with on-shore units Can’t see synthesized operational picture GigBE Out of theater In theater Servers major bases CONUS Congested GIG1 information services rely on out of theater servers Creating services and adding tactical net capacity will fail to deliver the planned benefits of GIG2

16. Transport layer in GIG1: middleboxes For security: intercept TCP at edge of red enclave with HAIPE box TCP IP HAIPE IP TCP IP PEP TCP IP PEP TCP is de-facto obsolete as an end-to-end protocol for tactical use For performance: intercept TCP at edge of challenged link with PEP box TCP IP TCP IP HAIPE IP TCP IP TCP IP TCP IP

17. GIG is evolving towards a “black core” Joint network infrastructure Army user Army user Army user Army network infrastructure IC network infrastructure IC user IC user gateway Army user Army crypto IC user IC crypto Army user Army crypto IC user IC crypto Legacy systems: Crypto is part of the network. Dedicated infrastructure for groups of users with same priveleges Future systems: Crypto is part of the end device Joint infrastructure shared by users with different priveleges

18. GIG1 reliable transport cannot evolve to a black core IP PEP Single tent, vehicle or device Joint tactical wireless network PEP fails since it cannot operate on (encrypted) TCP headers. Giving it all session keys is undesirable. IP SATCOM PEP fails because dynamics of the tactical network interfere with its ability to manage satellite link effects. SATCOM terminal TCP IP TCP IP HAIPE IP TCP IP TCP IP HAIPE + PEP IP

23. GIG1 net management: independent per subnetwork WGS MILSTAR AEHF/EHF TTNT mgmt SRW mgmt WNW mgmt AEHF mgmt Milstar mgmt WGS mgmt This approach loses effectiveness as internetwork and pass-through traffic flows become significant SRW TTNT WNW

24. GIG2: unified control plane and NOC? (Bad idea) WGS MILSTAR AEHF/EHF GIG2 network management Each subnetwork type has unique management requirements. It would be expensive and risky to try to replace existing systems. SRW TTNT WNW

25. GIG2 solution: global coordination by MCP WGS MILSTAR AEHF/EHF TTNT mgmt SRW mgmt WNW mgmt AEHF mgmt Milstar mgmt WGS mgmt Master Control Plane coordinates subnetwork control planes and network operations centers for global optimization Master Control Plane SRW TTNT WNW