GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc2549

Network Working Group D. Waitzman Request for Comments: 2549 IronBridge Networks Updates: 1149 1 April 1999 Category: Experimental

           IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service

Status of this Memo

 This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
 community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
 Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
 Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 This memo amends RFC 1149, "A Standard for the Transmission of IP
 Datagrams on Avian Carriers", with Quality of Service information.
 This is an experimental, not recommended standard.

Overview and Rational

 The following quality of service levels are available: Concorde,
 First, Business, and Coach.  Concorde class offers expedited data
 delivery.  One major benefit to using Avian Carriers is that this is
 the only networking technology that earns frequent flyer miles, plus
 the Concorde and First classes of service earn 50% bonus miles per
 packet.  Ostriches are an alternate carrier that have much greater
 bulk transfer capability but provide slower delivery, and require the
 use of bridges between domains.
 The service level is indicated on a per-carrier basis by bar-code
 markings on the wing.  One implementation strategy is for a bar-code
 reader to scan each carrier as it enters the router and then enqueue
 it in the proper queue, gated to prevent exit until the proper time.
 The carriers may sleep while enqueued.
 For secure networks, carriers may have classes Prime or Choice.
 Prime carriers are self-keying when using public key encryption.
 Some distributors have been known to falsely classify Choice carriers
 as Prime.
 Packets MAY be marked for deletion using RED paint while enqueued.

Waitzman Experimental [Page 1] RFC 2549 IP over Avian Carriers with QoS 1 April 1999

 Weighted fair queueing (WFQ) MAY be implemented using scales, as
 shown:
                                                __
                                _____/-----\   / o\
                               <____   _____\_/    >--
               +-----+              \ /    /______/
               | 10g |               /|:||/
               +-----+              /____/|
               | 10g |                    |
               +-----+          ..        X
             ===============================
                            ^
                            |
                        =========
 Carriers in the queue too long may leave log entries, as shown on the
 scale.
 The following is a plot of traffic shaping, from coop-erative host
 sites.
      Alt |       Plot of Traffic Shaping showing carriers in flight
          |
       2k |           ....................
          |          .                    .
          |         .                      .
       1k |        .                        .
          |   +---+                          +---+
          |   | A |                          | B |
          |   +---+                          +---+
          |_____________________________________________
 Avian carriers normally bypass bridges and tunnels but will seek out
 worm hole tunnels.  When carrying web traffic, the carriers may
 digest the spiders, leaving behind a more compact representation.
 The carriers may be confused by mirrors.
 Round-robin queueing is not recommended.  Robins make for well-tuned
 networks but do not support the necessary auto-homing feature.
 A BOF was held at the last IETF but only Avian Carriers were allowed
 entry, so we don't know the results other than we're sure they think
 MPLS is great.  Our attempts at attaching labels to the carriers have
 been met with resistance.

Waitzman Experimental [Page 2] RFC 2549 IP over Avian Carriers with QoS 1 April 1999

 NATs are not recommended either -- as with many protocols, modifying
 the brain-embedded IP addresses is difficult, plus Avian Carriers MAY
 eat the NATs.
 Encapsulation may be done with saran wrappers.  Unintentional
 encapsulation in hawks has been known to occur, with decapsulation
 being messy and the packets mangled.
 Loose source routes are a viable evolutionary alternative enhanced
 standards-based MSWindows-compliant technology, but strict source
 routes MUST NOT be used, as they are a choke-point.
 The ITU has offered the IETF formal alignment with its corresponding
 technology, Penguins, but that won't fly.
 Multicasting is supported, but requires the implementation of a clone
 device.  Carriers may be lost if they are based on a tree as it is
 being pruned.  The carriers propagate via an inheritance tree.  The
 carriers have an average TTL of 15 years, so their use in expanding
 ring searches is limited.
 Additional quality of service discussion can be found in a Michelin's
 guide.

MIB and Management issues

 AvCarrier2 OBJECT-TYPE
   SYNTAX     SEQUENCE OF DNA
   MAX-ACCESS can't-read
   STATUS     living
   DESCRIPTION "Definition of an avian carrier"
   ::= { life eukaryotes mitochondrial_eukaryotes crown_eukaryotes
         metazoa chordata craniata vertebrata gnathostomata
         sarcopterygii terrestrial_vertebrates amniota diapsida
         archosauromorpha archosauria dinosauria aves neornithes
         columbiformes columbidae columba livia }
 AvCarrier OBJECT-TYPE
   SYNTAX     SET OF Cells
   MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
   STATUS     obsolete
   DESCRIPTION "Definition of an avian carrier"
   ::= { life animalia chordata vertebrata aves
         columbiformes columbidae columba livia }
 PulseRate OBJECT-TYPE
   SYNTAX     Gauge(0..300)
   MAX-ACCESS read-only

Waitzman Experimental [Page 3] RFC 2549 IP over Avian Carriers with QoS 1 April 1999

   STATUS     current
   DESCRIPTION "Pulse rate of carrier, as measured in neck.
                Frequent sampling is disruptive to operations."
   ::= { AvCarrier 1}
 The carriers will not line up in lexigraphic order but will
 naturally order in a large V shape.  Bulk retrieval is possible
 using the Powerful Get-Net operator.

Specification of Requirements

 In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
 of the specification.  These words are often capitalized.
 MUST      Usually.
 MUST NOT  Usually not.
 SHOULD    Only when Marketing insists.
 MAY       Only if it doesn't cost extra.

Security Considerations

 There are privacy issues with stool pigeons.
 Agoraphobic carriers are very insecure in operation.

Patent Considerations

 There is ongoing litigation about which is the prior art: carrier or
 egg.

References

 Waitzman, D., "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on
 Avian Carriers", RFC 1149, 1 April 1990.

ACKnowledgments

 Jim.Carlson.Ibnets.com > Jon.Saperia . ack 32 win 123 (DF)
 Ross Callon, Scott Bradner, Charlie Lynn ...

Waitzman Experimental [Page 4] RFC 2549 IP over Avian Carriers with QoS 1 April 1999

Author's Address

 David Waitzman
 IronBridge Networks
 55 Hayden Ave
 Lexington, MA 02421
 Phone: (781) 372-8161
 EMail: djw@vineyard.net

Waitzman Experimental [Page 5] RFC 2549 IP over Avian Carriers with QoS 1 April 1999

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.
 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
 English.
 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Waitzman Experimental [Page 6]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc2549.txt · Last modified: 1999/03/31 16:52 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki