From braden  Wed Nov 30 13:38:02 1988
Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 13:38:02 PST
Received: from braden.isi.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.54/5.51)
	id AA00884; Wed, 30 Nov 88 13:38:02 PST
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 13:37:42 PST
From: braden
Posted-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 13:37:42 PST
Message-Id: <8811302137.AA02855@braden.isi.edu>
Received: by braden.isi.edu (5.54/5.51)
	id AA02855; Wed, 30 Nov 88 13:37:42 PST
To: end2end-interest
Subject: Still more Minutes of the E2E TF
Status: R





                   END-TO-END TASK FORCE

                Minutes of the 12th Meeting

                    November 3-4 at MIT LCS

                MINUTES TAKEN BY: Bill Nowicki

1. INTRODUCTION

The meeting was held in the Laboratory for Computer Science building on
the MIT Campus.  The major excitement was the discovery of a virus
(more properly, a "worm") that had infected not only MIT, but thousands
of machines throughout the Internet.  Through Dave Clark we received
blow-by-blow descriptions of the progress of its eradication.

              Present:              Unable to Attend:
        Bob Braden (ISI, Chair)        Lorenzo Aguilar (SRI)   
        Eric Cooper (CMU)              Gerd Beling (FGAN)
        Dave Cheriton (Stanford)       Jon Crowcroft (UCL)
        Dave Clark (MIT)               Steve Deering (Stanford)
        Joel Emer (DEC/MIT)            Van Jacobson (LBL)
        Bill Nowicki (Sun)
        Craig Partridge (BBN)


2. STATUS REPORTS

  Bill Nowicki - Sun

      The manager and some of the principal designers of NFS have
      started a new company (Legato Systems), but it is not known 
      exactly what they are planning to do.  NFS v3 is back to
      the original plan; copies of the spec were circulated to
      the NFS vendor group, and it is available on request. Both v3
      and NFS v2 should be put out in RFC format. 

      Eric Cooper asked whether anyone was thinking about extending
      or changing the socket interface to support transactions. The
      answer appeared to be "no."
      
      Sun is developing the TCP/IP software for System V release 4.0,
      which will use the AT&T streams framework rather than the BSD
      sockets framework, but will emulate the socket interface to
      user programs.
	      
      Bill has identified some laboratories for doing network 
      performance testing, but the actual testing still needs to be
      done.  Someone has contracted with Sun to port a ProNet-80 driver to
      the Sun-4/260, which should provide an interesting test-bed for
      extending network performance beyond Ethernet speeds.

      Bill noted that the etherfind command in SunOS 4.0 has most of the
      capabilities of Van's tcpdump.  Bill is looking at recasting the
      program into a more general form and adding a capability of saving
      packets in a file.  Cooper suggested an RFC be written to describe
      a standard packet trace file format, to allow us to develop more
      modular trace analysis tools and to exchange traces.  ACTION:
      Nowicki.

      A proposed paper on datagram transport issues (discussing
      NFS, Domain Name Service, and SNMP) was discouraged,
      because of philisophical conflicts with the members of the
      task force.    

  Eric Cooper - CMU

      Eric is spending 100% time on the CMU Nectar project, building a
      high-performance host interface that is generally similar to Dave
      Clark's proposed architecture.  They are building an electronic/
      fiber-optic crossbar switch for 100 Mbps point-to-point.  VME
      boards are being debugged, with a SPARC processor, some fast static
      RAM, and the AMD fiber-optic chip set.  This technology could also
      be applied to FDDI ring interfaces, or to DS3 speed packet switches.
      Eric has had a paper accepted for ASPLOS [Reference??]

      Some version of MACH has Van's TCP improvements.  [Bill Nowicki
      mentioned that Sun installed Van's header prediction but saw no
      performance improvement.]
     
      An implementation of NFS for Mach was obtained from NeXT and
      incorporated into the CMU Mach release.  There is some interest in
      using Multicast for replicated file systems, but it is currently
      not being stressed.

  Craig Partridge - BBN (+Harvard, CSNET, etc.)

      BBN's multicast funding went away in August.  The code was sent to
      Stanford for release.  David Waitzman's RFC on his distance-
      vector-based multicast routing has been submitted to Postel for 
      publication [see bibliography below].

      For the experimental implementation, it was necessary to "tunnel"
      multicast datagrams through gateways that did not understand the
      class D addresses. This was done by using a Loose Source Route IP
      option, with the class D address hidden inside the option. This was
      necessary because "most" gateways discard packets containing
      unknown option types (!)

      BBNCC is close to completing an enhanced SPF routing algorithm
      in the Butterfly gateways, to handle multicast routing.  Craig
      feels that an SPF base is much better than distance-vector base for
      multicast routing.  There was a question if this can be published,
      since the work was done at the request of a three-letter U.S.
      Government Agency.  ACTION: Braden and Partridge, ask Hinden about
      publication.  It would be very desirable to get multicast routing
      into OSPFIGP.  ACTION: Partridge -- get Alan Dahlbom (?) to give
      paper on SPF multicast routing at next IETF meeting.

      Craig would like to work on performance of data representation
      layers, and on transient IP address assignment.

  Dave Cheriton - Stanford

      Steve Deering was unable to attend since he is working furiously
      on his thesis.  

      Cheriton plans a release of the Unix (4.3BSD and SunOS 4.0) code for
      multicasting and VMTP on November 15, 1988. The multicasting code
      will include the BBN code.  He is trying to resolve Stanford
      licensing issues on this release; there is hope that it can be
      easier (e.g. anonymous FTP).  This release will include a major
      cleanup of VMTP code and many simplifications by the use of
      recursion (as described at previous meetings.)  There is only one
      new system call added to Unix, but no security or streaming.

      A graduate student is looking at VMTP performance improvements
      using "header prediction", including "response prediction."  He is
      also looking at caching the mapping of process ID's to IP
      addresses; obtaining these mappings requires multicasting.  Some
      measurements have shown multicast traffic to be about 2% of the
      received packets, up from 1% in previous measurements, but still a
      very small part of the total traffic.

      A "pigeon mode" (random (packet) droppings) in VMTP has helped to
      make the implementation more robust.  VMTP is using Van's RTT
      estimator to set the packet rate.  The question was discussed:  is
      it important or meaningful to distinguish between read and write
      operation times; the concensus was "no."

      There was some discussion about a flashy demo of multicasting, such
      as a nation-wide mazewar game.  ACTION: Cheriton, Clark.

      Finally, Dave is trying to complete an FDDI NAB board.

  Joel Emer - DEC/MIT

      Joel's work at Mercury is being wrapped up. He distributed two
      papers (see biblography).  One interesting demonstration of this
      mechanism was an Emacs with RPC in it, that could query a database
      of New York Times and Associated Press wire service articles.

      Ultrix 3.0 will have the XTCP with Van's congestion control, and
      should be shipping Real Soon Now.

      DEC is serious about OSF (Open Software Foundation.)  OSF is
      looking for a standard RPC package, and is looking seriously at
      Apollo's NCS. Partidge reminded us that Apollo's data description
      layer has the N X M problem.

  Dave Clark - MIT

      Dave distributed copies of a paper "An Analysis of TCP Processing
      Overhead" (see bibliography). This paper discusses the limits of
      TCP performance, and concludes that memory speeds become a
      bottleneck rather than TCP protocol overhead.  On a 10 MIPS
      processor, it was estimated that TCP protocol processing could run
      at 800 Mbps, while most memory systems will require 4 cycles per
      byte, resulting in about 32 Mbps maximum.  Dave would like to
      verify these figures experimentally (!)

      A new Professor Tennenhouse has been hired from Cambridge;
      he is interested in practical network problems.  He is discussing
      collaboration with Bellcore, building a fibre net using Bellcore's
      Batcher-Banyan switching fabrics.

      Using the MIT simulation package, experiments have been done on
      adaptive NETBLT rate control algorithms, similar to the slow-start
      and congestion control policies of Jacobson for TCP. Although the
      rates can be made to converge, fairness is not necesarily
      guaranteed without putting state into gateways. Lixia Zhang is
      working on the problem of measuring flows in gateways to see if
      they meet contracted rates; she sees a sharp "phase transition" at
      81%-82% load.
      
      The host multicast code has been installed in the MIT Unix
      kernels, but it has not been stressed.

      Clark wants to have some private T1 lines across the country to
      experiment with real gateways.  Cheriton indicated interest in
      collaboration on experiments.  The MIT gateway code can handle
      about 1200 packets per second on a MicroVAX, and Dave Boggs is
      working on a simple T1 card.  The MIT gateways will have SNMP and
      OSPFIGP, so they could provide a suitable testbed.
      
3. DISCUSSION

  3.1 "CONNECTION-ORIENTED IP"

      There have been a number of proposals for adding state at the
      IP level; terms which have been used include "soft state",
      "streams", and "connection-oriented IP". Bob Braden raised this
      topic to determine whether there are research topics in this area
      that ought to be of concern to the End-to-End Task Force.
      Is it something that can and should be addressed only in the context
      of high-speed networking, or is there a separable set of issues?

      This issue is mixed up with ST, which apparently provides a
      valuable service that IP cannot.  Dave Clark gave the background on
      the ST issue.  ST provides the multi-media (packetized video and
      voice) transport for teleconferencing.  As an expedient and with
      the agreement of the IAB, BBN put the ST protocol into the
      Butterfly gateways, but now "some people love it," and the IETF has
      started a working group on connection-oriented IP.  It was noted
      that an important player in this effort, Ross Callon, favors
      connection-oriented protocols as a general model.
      
      Cheriton claimed that it only makes sense to look at totally new
      architectures, while Braden wanted to investigate intermediate
      approaches, including modifications to current IP
      architecture.

      Cheriton: given that the real problem is how to provide the
      different types of service that real-time voice and video require,
      one solution would be just to increase the raw data rates; "there
      is no magic".  Clark: since offered load will rise to fill any
      capacity, control of that offered load is essential.  Partridge:
      the Arpanet was over-controlled in some ways, and too much overhead
      was wasted sending the control information ("thrashing").  Clark:
      when switches are the bottlenecks, then of course it is important
      to keep the control overhead very small.

      Cheriton: need more memory in switches.  Clark: real resource
      bottlenecks are either switch (CPU) or link (bandwidth) capacity,
      not memory (buffers).

      Clark: we need a model of how to control resource overloads in the
      network.  One extreme is circuit switching, a very long term
      allocation of resources.  Another approach would be to put all the
      state in the packet (e.g. source routing or Batcher-Banyan bits),
      but then the gateways have no control.  Cheriton: has graduate
      student looking at rate-based hop-by-hop flow control in gateways.

      There was some discussion on the difference between "soft state"
      and "caches": "soft state" may be visible to the higher layers,
      even if it can be recreated after a crash, while caches must be
      totally transparent without changing the architecture.  Clark: soft
      state is part of the architecture, while caches are "just"
      performance improvement; however, caches will become important.
      His measurements show that IP-level processing in current gateways
      is only 10% of total, so caches not expected to help much today.
      However, as we add additional complexity to gateway processing for
      accounting, policy-based routing, QOS routing and queueing, etc.,
      caches will become vital for performance.  We need more data on
      locality to figure out where to put caches.  He notes that OMB 
      Circular 3, which mandates usage accounting for all shared
      telecommunications systems used by more than one government agency,
      is real requirement.
 
      The topic of gateway state was structured somewhat into three areas:
      
         *  Cacheing for gateway performance
         
         *  History-based allocation to support policy-based routing
         
         *  Multiple QOS, e.g., controlled latency for video, speech.        

      The second item led to another discussion of Fair queueing vs.
      random dropping. More people are interested in random dropping,
      especially as the range of compute powers on the network (Cray-2
      vs. PC) broadens.

      Clark: does not see any driving force behind ST capabilities in
      IP.  Braden suggested vendors and users will want packet video on a
      large scale, and that if we don't do something, there will be a
      proliferation of ST-like protocols from vendors, especially for use
      on isolated corporate internets.  Clark claimed that real-time
      video across country was more interesting than down the hall, but
      Cooper said that higher speed services are always available locally
      first.  There was some feeling that IETF would be the right place
      to address this issue, since it is specific to video.
      
      Finally, the discussion focussed on the possible role for the 
      End-to-End Task Force.  As a general model, engineering of the
      current Internet architecture is consigned to the IETF, while
      other task forces are supposed to be taking longer-range views.
      In practice, of course, task force boundaries are fuzzy.
      Braden pointed out that the End-to-End Task Force early took
      on IP multicasting, which noticeably stretched its host-centric
      charter.  He suggested that if there were areas which are 
      long-term and researchy in character and which are of interest to
      the current membership, we should consider taking them on.  On the
      other hand, tackling new topics may suggest new members for the
      Task Force.
      
      Clark offered the following list of important topics for new
      work:
      
            1. high-performance host interfaces
            2. multiple types of service
            3. congestion control
            4. accounting
            5. administration
            6. security
            7. addressing

      It was observed that the TF already has 3 members actively working
      on high performance host interfaces, so we OUGHT to take (1) on
      officially.  There was some feeling that the End-to-End TF should
      consider officially adopting (2) and (3) as well, and consider
      additional members who would contribute to these topics.  The
      other topics seem to fall clearly into the bailiwick of another
      TF.
      
      Since there were many absentees at this meeting, the chair postponed
      a final decision on these issues.
 
  3.2 NATIONAL FILE SYSTEM

      The CMU ITC is promoting the use of the the Andrew File System
      across domains (called cells) as a national file system.  There
      was a recent conference at CMU discussing this, and the main
      issue was concern on IBM's licensing policy.  Andrew has its
      own RPC protocol, with actual file transfer as a side-effect.
      A new protocol called RX was invented, but not much was known
      about it.  Drew Perkins was a contact.  ACTION: Cooper.

  3.3 IP TIME-TO-LIVE  
      
      Braden presented a set of foils on the problems with TTL as it is
      currently defined in IP and used by TCP to bound segment lifetime.
      There is an immediate issue of what the Host Requirements RFC
      should say about it, and there is a general transport protocol
      issue of how to bound segment lifetime to provide reliable
      delivery.
      
      TTL is used for two different purposes:
            1. Transport layer life-time limit
                A. bounding segment lifetime to prevent wrap
                  2**32 wrap: DS1 ~ 1 Day, FDDI ~ 6 minutes
                B. prevent confusion with packet from previous
                      connection
            2. Internet layer routing loop prevention

      The specification links reassembly timeouts to TTL on incoming
      fragments, but on long-delay connections you want LONGER
      reassembly timeouts, not shorter ones.  In general, maintaining
      TTL as a timer is awkward issue for gateways since it is a
      "layer violation" -- once the IP layer has put it into the output
      driver's data-link or physical layer queue, the device driver
      usually knows nothing about the IP layer itself.

      Some possible fixes were discussed:
      
            A. Use as a hop count, hope nobody sends 2**32 bytes.
            
            B. Expand sequence number space beyond 2**32.
              
               There was zero enthusiasm for this solution. Kludgy way:
               a session layer that opens a new TCP connection (with
               different port pair) if first threatens to wrap around.
               
            C. Engineer gateways to bound delays.

	           Again, zero enthusiasm, although Braden suggested that
	       t   his could be the real-world answer to the problem.
            
            D. Expiration time in each segment.
                           
               Cheriton: this is the architecturally-correct solution,
               so that bounded segment lifetime will be an end-to-end 
               transport-level property.
               
               Note: this requires synchronized clocks in gateways 
               and hosts. Someone suggested milliseconds, but seconds
               might be good enough.  Also probablistic synchronization
               might be good enough, especially if higher levels would 
               prevent replays (e.g., by authentication).

       Clark: if did a new architecture, how much easier would it be if
       assume synchronized clocks?  Suspects quite a bit.  Cooper: can
       eliminate three-way handshakes; transactions are natural limit;
       replicated database updates easier.  Clark: mechanism must
       provide well-defined graceful recovery (e.g., simply lose 
       efficiency, not reliability) if lose synchronization.

       Braden: but what should be in Host Requirements RFC? The Internet
       Architect went into deep-hum mode, and then offered the following
       proposal, which was agreed to:
       
          (1)  Think carefully about TCP exposures if TTL is not available
               to bound segment lifetime.  ACTION: Braden.
               
          (2)  Assuming (1) does not upset us too much, declare TTL is a
               hop count.
               
          (3)  The TF to think about synchronized clocks, etc.     

  3.4 TOOL DEMOS

      Tim Shepard (who was famous after appearing on the front page of
      the Boston Globe that morning, along with somebody else also named
      Tim Shepard who died) gave some demos of the tool that takes packet
      traces and draws modified "Jacobson diagrams".  Currently the tool
      produces only hard copy graphs, but an interactive version is being
      developed.  He showed us a number of bizarre examples.

      Andrew Heybey gave some demonstrations of the network simulator
      running on X.11 on a Color VAXstation.  He is working on
      simulating rate control.

      Eman Hashem was also doing simulations to detect oscilatory
      phenomena, varying retransmission algorithms and other parameters.
      Slow start works well with or a few connections, but there are more
      interesting interactions between many simultaneous connections,
      including a remarkably constant sinusoidal oscillation with a
      5-second period (Van should see the graph!)


  3.5 MULTICASTING
  
      Several people were interested in multicast transport 
      protocols.  There is commercial interest in the news service
      companies to use efficient multicast to distribute their
      information.  Braden wanted to understand the status of
      incorporation of multicast support into a Berkeley release,
      but the question had to be tabled since Van was absent.
      ACTION: Jacobson.
      
  3.6 VMTP

      Cheriton asked if VMTP should be proposed as a draft 
      Internet standard, and if not, why not, and if so, how
      soon?   Several issues were raised.

      *  Too complex, too many features.

	     Cooper: e.g., wants to be able to replace the security parts
	     but use the rest.  Cheriton replied that since the recursive
	     design (as described in the RFC of February 1988) is now
	     used, there are only two packet types on the wire, and other
	     functions like security are built on top of these, so this
	     issue should not stand in the way.

      *  Rate-based Flow Control not tested over Internet

	     Braden: could test VMTP between Stanford and ISI over
	     Arpanet, WideBand Net, and the Los Nettos - BARRnet
	     connection.  ACTION: Braden, Cheriton.

      *  No independent implementation.

	     It was pointed out that there are already two
	     implementations (V-System and Unix), and a third ought not
	     to be required for a DIS status, although it might be
	     required before final standard status.

      Cheriton discussed the proposal to use the 32-bit bitmask used in
      selective retransmission with 1024 bytes per bit instead of 512.
      Since Arpanet and SATnet are going away, only MILnet was of
      concern.  Clark: could avoid the pain by a different ACK model:
      return left edge plus mask, where mask names first 32 segments from
      left window edge.  This would allow the protocol to send an
      indefinite amount of data. Cheriton was not enthused.  The group
      generally thought that the 512/1024 choice should not make a big
      difference.

      Nowicki: an interesting bake-off would be between an implementation
      of NFS using VMTP transport, and the current experimental UDP-based
      NFS.  It was estimated to be about one person-month of work for a
      "competant kernel hacker".

      Authentication without encryption is not available in VMTP.
      According to Clark there are laws that specify that in many
      international transactions, data must NOT be encrypted.  The lack
      of encryption hardware, and concern for integrity of data only and
      not disclosure (e.g. world-read databases), suggest that this
      compromise would be useful. Cheriton disagrees and wants the total
      solution.  Steve Kent at BBN is the contact for the Privacy Task
      Force, and there is a working group formed in IETF to add security
      to SNMP.


4. NEXT MEETING

      A Video conference was tenatively scheduled for Friday February
      24.  This will be a three way meeting between ISI, BBN, and SRI.
      The next face-to-face meeting will be sponsored by ISI, tenatively
      June 7-8.  Several suggestions were offered for venues, including a
      beach house at Malibu.
      

5. ACTION ITEMS

Nowicki     Try again to get high resolution timer information
            out to the people who need it.  The person to contact
            is Chris Rigatuso, rifrig@Sun.COM.  Please send him
            email and Cc me so that we can narrow down how many 
            we are talking about.  I think it will be one or two.

Nowicki     Propose a standard packet trace file format, after
            discussing it with other tracers in the research
            community.
 
Cooper,
 Cheriton   Produce reference on TOCS paper on timestamps
            for packet lifetime limitation.

Braden, 
Partridge   Ask Hinden about the avilability of the 
            documentation on the SPF multicast routing
            implementation done for the butterfly gateways.

Partridge   Get Alan Dahlbom (?) to give paper on SPF multicast routing 
            at next IETF meeting.
            
Cheriton    Inform Task Force of progress on Stanford release
            conditions.
            
Cheriton    Send a message when VMTP&multicast release is available.

Braden, Cheriton 
            Set up some Internet VMTP tests at ISI.

Cooper      Get new VMTP version installed into MACH and test.

Cooper      Obtain documents for RX protocol

Cheriton, Clark            
            Develop multicast demo, such as mazewar.

Braden      Write up resolved TCP TTL issues for the Host
            Requitements RFC.



6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
      
Clark, D., Romkey, J., and Salwen, H., "An Analysis of TCP Processing
      Overhead", 13th Local Area Network conference ??
      
Emer, J., "Mercury Communication Subsystem", Common System Design
      Note 27, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, August 29, 1988.
      
Emer, J. and Weihl, W., "Integrated Interactive Access to Heterogeneous
      Distributed Services", ???
      
Feldmeier, D., "Estimated Performance of a Gateway Routing Cache",
      TM-352, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, March 1988.

Waitzman, D., Partridge, D., and Deering, S., "Distance Vector Multicast
      Routing Protocol", RFC-1075, November 1988.

