The Hitchhikers Guide to the Internet.

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Internet

25 August 1987

Ed Krol

krol@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu

This document was produced through funding of the National

Science Foundation.

sity of Illinois. Permission to duplicate this document, in

whole or part, is granted provided reference is made to the

source and this copyright is included in whole copies.

_P_u_r_p_o_s_e _a_n_d _A_u_d_i_e_n_c_e

This document assumes that one is familiar with the workings

of a non-connected simple IP network (e.g. a few 4.2 BSD

systems on an Ethernet not connected to anywhere else).

Appendix A contains remedial information to get one to this

point. Its purpose is to get that person, familiar with a

simple net, versed in the "oral tradition" of the Internet

to the point that that net can be connected to the Internet

with little danger to either. It is not a tutorial, it con-

sists of pointers to other places, literature, and hints

which are not normally documented. Since the Internet is a

dynamic environment, changes to this document will be made

regularly. The author welcomes comments and suggestions.

This is especially true of terms for the glossary (defini-

tions are not necessary).

_W_h_a_t _i_s _t_h_e _I_n_t_e_r_n_e_t?

In the beginning there was the ARPAnet, a wide area experi-

mental network connecting hosts and terminal servers

together. Procedures were set up to regulate the allocation

of addresses and to create voluntary standards for the net-

work. As local area networks became more pervasive, many

hosts became gateways to local networks. A network layer to

allow the interoperation of these networks was developed and

called IP (Internet Protocol). Over time other groups

created long haul IP based networks (NASA, NSF, states...).

These nets, too, inter-operate because of IP. The collec-

tion of all of these interoperating networks is the Inter-

net.

Two groups do much of the research and information work of

the Internet (ISI and SRI). ISI (the Informational Sciences

Institute) does much of the research, standardization, and

allocation work of the Internet. SRI International provides

information services for the Internet. In fact, after you

are connected to the Internet most of the information in

this document can be retrieved from the Network Information

Center (NIC) run by SRI.

_O_p_e_r_a_t_i_n_g _t_h_e _I_n_t_e_r_n_e_t

Each network, be it the ARPAnet, NSFnet or a regional net-

work, has its own operations center. The ARPAnet is run by

BBN, Inc. under contract from DARPA. Their facility is

called the Network Operations Center or NOC. Cornell

University temporarily operates NSFnet (called the Network

Information Service Center, NISC). It goes on to the

-2-

regionals having similar facilities to monitor and keep

watch over the goings on of their portion of the Internet.

In addition, they all should have some knowledge of what is

happening to the Internet in total. If a problem comes up,

it is suggested that a campus network liaison should contact

the network operator to which he is directly connected. That

is, if you are connected to a regional network (which is

gatewayed to the NSFnet, which is connected to the

ARPAnet...) and have a problem, you should contact your

regional network operations center.

_R_F_C_s

The internal workings of the Internet are defined by a set

of documents called RFCs (Request for Comments). The gen-

eral process for creating an RFC is for someone wanting

something formalized to write a document describing the

issue and mailing it to Jon Postel (postel@isi.edu). He

acts as a referee for the proposal. It is then commented

upon by all those wishing to take part in the discussion

(electronically of course). It may go through multiple

revisions. Should it be generally accepted as a good idea,

it will be assigned a number and filed with the RFCs.

The RFCs can be divided into five groups: required, sug-

gested, directional, informational and obsolete. Required

RFC's (e.g. RFC-791, The Internet Protocol) must be imple-

mented on any host connected to the Internet. Suggested

RFCs are generally implemented by network hosts. Lack of

them does not preclude access to the Internet, but may

impact its usability. RFC-793 (Transmission Control Proto-

col) is a suggested RFC. Directional RFCs were discussed

and agreed to, but their application has never come into

wide use. This may be due to the lack of wide need for the

specific application (RFC-937 The Post Office Protocol) or

that, although technically superior, ran against other per-

vasive approaches (RFC-891 Hello). It is suggested that

should the facility be required by a particular site, an

implementation be done in accordance with the RFC. This

insures that, should the idea be one whose time has come,

the implementation will be in accordance with some standard

and will be generally usable. Informational RFCs contain

factual information about the Internet and its operation

(RFC-990, Assigned Numbers). Finally, as the Internet and

technology have grown, some RFCs have become unnecessary.

These obsolete RFCs cannot be ignored, however. Frequently

when a change is made to some RFC that causes a new one to

be issued obsoleting others, the new RFC only contains

explanations and motivations for the change. Understanding

the model on which the whole facility is based may involve

reading the original and subsequent RFCs on the topic.

-3-

(Appendix B contains a list of what are considered to be the

major RFCs necessary for understanding the Internet).

_T_h_e _N_e_t_w_o_r_k _I_n_f_o_r_m_a_t_i_o_n _C_e_n_t_e_r

The NIC is a facility available to all Internet users which

provides information to the community. There are three

means of NIC contact: network, telephone, and mail. The

network accesses are the most prevalent. Interactive access

is frequently used to do queries of NIC service overviews,

look up user and host names, and scan lists of NIC docu-

ments. It is available by using

%telnet sri-nic.arpa

on a BSD system and following the directions provided by a

user friendly prompter. From poking around in the databases

provided one might decide that a document named

NETINFO:NUG.DOC (The Users Guide to the ARPAnet) would be

worth having. It could be retrieved via an anonymous FTP.

An anonymous FTP would proceed something like the following.

(The dialogue may vary slightly depending on the implementa-

tion of FTP you are using).

%ftp sri-nic.arpa

Connected to sri-nic.arpa.

220 SRI_NIC.ARPA FTP Server Process 5Z(47)-6 at Wed 17-Jun-87 12:00 PDT

Name (sri-nic.arpa:myname): anonymous

331 ANONYMOUS user ok, send real ident as password.

Password: myname

230 User ANONYMOUS logged in at Wed 17-Jun-87 12:01 PDT, job 15.

ftp> get netinfo:nug.doc

200 Port 18.144 at host 128.174.5.50 accepted.

150 ASCII retrieve of NUG.DOC.11 started.

226 Transfer Completed 157675 (8) bytes transferred

local: netinfo:nug.doc remote:netinfo:nug.doc

157675 bytes in 4.5e+02 seconds (0.34 Kbytes/s)

ftp> quit

221 QUIT command received. Goodbye.

(Another good initial document to fetch is NETINFO:WHAT-

THE-NIC-DOES.TXT)!

Questions of the NIC or problems with services can be asked

of or reported to using electronic mail. The following

addresses can be used:

NIC@SRI-NIC.ARPA General user assistance, document requests

REGISTRAR@SRI-NIC.ARPA User registration and WHOIS updates

HOSTMASTER@SRI-NIC.ARPA Hostname and domain changes and updates

ACTION@SRI-NIC.ARPA SRI-NIC computer operations

-4-

SUGGESTIONS@SRI-NIC.ARPAComments on NIC publications and services

For people without network access, or if the number of docu-

ments is large, many of the NIC documents are available in

printed form for a small charge. One frequently ordered

document for starting sites is a compendium of major RFCs.

Telephone access is used primarily for questions or problems

with network access. (See appendix B for mail/telephone

contact numbers).

_T_h_e _N_S_F_n_e_t _N_e_t_w_o_r_k _S_e_r_v_i_c_e _C_e_n_t_e_r

The NSFnet Network Service Center (NNSC) is funded by NSF to

provide a first level of aid to users of NSFnet should they

have questions or encounter problems traversing the network.

It is run by BBN Inc. Karen Roubicek

(roubicek@nnsc.nsf.net) is the NNSC user liaison.

The NNSC, which currently has information and documents

online and in printed form, plans to distribute news through

network mailing lists, bulletins, newsletters, and online

reports. The NNSC also maintains a database of contact

points and sources of additional information about NSFnet

component networks and supercomputer centers.

Prospective or current users who do not know whom to call

concerning questions about NSFnet use, should contact the

NNSC. The NNSC will answer general questions, and, for

detailed information relating to specific components of the

Internet, will help users find the appropriate contact for

further assistance. (Appendix B)

_M_a_i_l _R_e_f_l_e_c_t_o_r_s

The way most people keep up to date on network news is

through subscription to a number of mail reflectors. Mail

reflectors are special electronic mailboxes which, when they

receive a message, resend it to a list of other mailboxes.

This in effect creates a discussion group on a particular

topic. Each subscriber sees all the mail forwarded by the

reflector, and if one wants to put his "two cents" in sends

a message with the comments to the reflector....

The general format to subscribe to a mail list is to find

the address reflector and append the string -REQUEST to the

mailbox name (not the host name). For example, if you

wanted to take part in the mailing list for NSFnet reflected

by NSFNET@NNSC.NSF.NET, one sends a request to

-5-

NSFNET-REQUEST@NNSC.NSF.NET. This may be a wonderful

scheme, but the problem is that you must know the list

exists in the first place. It is suggested that, if you are

interested, you read the mail from one list (like NSFNET)

and you will probably become familiar with the existence of

others. A registration service for mail reflectors is pro-

vided by the NIC in the files NETINFO:INTEREST-GROUPS-1.TXT,

NETINFO:INTEREST-GROUPS-2.TXT, and NETINFO:INTEREST-GROUPS-

3.TXT.

The NSFNET mail reflector is targeted at those people who

have a day to day interest in the news of the NSFnet (the

backbone, regional network, and Internet inter-connection

site workers). The messages are reflected by a central

location and are sent as separate messages to each sub-

scriber. This creates hundreds of messages on the wide area

networks where bandwidth is the scarcest.

There are two ways in which a campus could spread the news

and not cause these messages to inundate the wide area net-

works. One is to re-reflect the message on the campus.

That is, set up a reflector on a local machine which for-

wards the message to a campus distribution list. The other

is to create an alias on a campus machine which places the

messages into a notesfile on the topic. Campus users who

want the information could access the notesfile and see the

messages that have been sent since their last access. One

might also elect to have the campus wide area network

liaison screen the messages in either case and only forward

those which are considered of merit. Either of these

schemes allows one message to be sent to the campus, while

allowing wide distribution within.

_A_d_d_r_e_s_s _A_l_l_o_c_a_t_i_o_n

Before a local network can be connected to the Internet it

must be allocated a unique IP address. These addresses are

allocated by ISI. The allocation process consists of get-

ting an application form received from ISI. (Send a message

to hostmaster@sri-nic.arpa and ask for the template for a

connected address). This template is filled out and mailed

back to hostmaster. An address is allocated and e-mailed

back to you. This can also be done by postal mail (Appendix

B).

IP addresses are 32 bits long. It is usually written as

four decimal numbers separated by periods (e.g.,

192.17.5.100). Each number is the value of an octet of the

32 bits. It was seen from the beginning that some networks

might choose to organize themselves as very flat (one net

with a lot of nodes) and some might organize hierarchically

-6-

(many interconnected nets with fewer nodes each and a back-

bone). To provide for these cases, addresses were differen-

tiated into class A, B, and C networks. This classification

had to with the interpretation of the octets. Class A net-

works have the first octet as a network address and the

remaining three as a host address on that network. Class C

addresses have three octets of network address and one of

host. Class B is split two and two. Therefore, there is an

address space for a few large nets, a reasonable number of

medium nets and a large number of small nets. The top two

bits in the first octet are coded to tell the address for-

mat. All of the class A nets have been allocated. So one

has to choose between Class B and Class C when placing an

order. (There are also class D (Multicast) and E (Experi-

mental) formats. Multicast addresses will likely come into

greater use in the near future, but are not frequently used

now).

In the past sites requiring multiple network addresses

requested multiple discrete addresses (usually Class C).

This was done because much of the software available (not-

ably 4.2BSD) could not deal with subnetted addresses.

Information on how to reach a particular network (routing

information) must be stored in Internet gateways and packet

switches. Some of these nodes have a limited capability to

store and exchange routing information (limited to about 300

networks). Therefore, it is suggested that any campus

announce (make known to the Internet) no more than two

discrete network numbers.

If a campus expects to be constrained by this, it should

consider subnetting. Subnetting (RFC-932) allows one to

announce one address to the Internet and use a set of

addresses on the campus. Basically, one defines a mask

which allows the network to differentiate between the net-

work portion and host portion of the address. By using a

different mask on the Internet and the campus, the address

can be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, if a

campus requires two networks internally and has the 32,000

addresses beginning 128.174.X.X (a Class B address) allo-

cated to it, the campus could allocate 128.174.5.X to one

part of campus and 128.174.10.X to another. By advertising

128.174 to the Internet with a subnet mask of FF.FF.00.00,

the Internet would treat these two addresses as one. Within

the campus a mask of FF.FF.FF.00 would be used, allowing the

campus to treat the addresses as separate entities. (In

reality you don't pass the subnet mask of FF.FF.00.00 to the

Internet, the octet meaning is implicit in its being a class

B address).

A word of warning is necessary. Not all systems know how to

do subnetting. Some 4.2BSD systems require additional

software. 4.3BSD systems subnet as released. Other devices

-7-

and operating systems vary in the problems they have dealing

with subnets. Frequently these machines can be used as a

leaf on a network but not as a gateway within the subnetted

portion of the network. As time passes and more systems

become 4.3BSD based, these problems should disappear.

There has been some confusion in the past over the format of

an IP broadcast address. Some machines used an address of

all zeros to mean broadcast and some all ones. This was

confusing when machines of both type were connected to the

same network. The broadcast address of all ones has been

adopted to end the grief. Some systems (e.g. 4.2 BSD) allow

one to choose the format of the broadcast address. If a

system does allow this choice, care should be taken that the

all ones format is chosen. (This is explained in RFC-1009

and RFC-1010).

_I_n_t_e_r_n_e_t _P_r_o_b_l_e_m_s

There are a number of problems with the Internet. Solutions

to the problems range from software changes to long term

research projects. Some of the major ones are detailed

below:

Number of Networks

When the Internet was designed it was to have about 50

connected networks. With the explosion of networking,

the number is now approaching 300. The software in a

group of critical gateways (called the core gateways of

the ARPAnet) are not able to pass or store much more

than that number. In the short term, core reallocation

and recoding has raised the number slightly. By the

summer of '88 the current PDP-11 core gateways will be

replaced with BBN Butterfly gateways which will solve

the problem.

Routing Issues

Along with sheer mass of the data necessary to route

packets to a large number of networks, there are many

problems with the updating, stability, and optimality

of the routing algorithms. Much research is being done

in the area, but the optimal solution to these routing

problems is still years away. In most cases the the

routing we have today works, but sub-optimally and

sometimes unpredictably.

Trust Issues

-8-

Gateways exchange network routing information.

Currently, most gateways accept on faith that the

information provided about the state of the network is

correct. In the past this was not a big problem since

most of the gateways belonged to a single administra-

tive entity (DARPA). Now with multiple wide area net-

works under different administrations, a rogue gateway

somewhere in the net could cripple the Internet. There

is design work going on to solve both the problem of a

gateway doing unreasonable things and providing enough

information to reasonably route data between multiply

connected networks (multi-homed networks).

Capacity & Congestion

Many portions of the ARPAnet are very congested during

the busy part of the day. Additional links are planned

to alleviate this congestion, but the implementation

will take a few months.

These problems and the future direction of the Internet are

determined by the Internet Architect (Dave Clark of MIT)

being advised by the Internet Activities Board (IAB). This

board is composed of chairmen of a number of committees with

responsibility for various specialized areas of the Inter-

net. The committees composing the IAB and their chairmen

are:

_C_o_m_m_i_t_t_e_e _C_h_a_i_r

Autonomous Networks Deborah Estrin

End-to-End Services Bob Braden

Internet Architecture Dave Mills

Internet Engineering Phil Gross

EGP2 Mike Petry

Name Domain Planning Doug Kingston

Gateway Monitoring Craig Partridge

Internic Jake Feinler

Performance & Congestion ControlRobert Stine

NSF Routing Chuck Hedrick

Misc. MilSup Issues Mike St. Johns

Privacy Steve Kent

IRINET Requirements Vint Cerf

Robustness & Survivability Jim Mathis

Scientific Requirements Barry Leiner

Note that under Internet Engineering, there are a set of

task forces and chairs to look at short term concerns. The

chairs of these task forces are not part of the IAB.

_R_o_u_t_i_n_g

-9-

Routing is the algorithm by which a network directs a packet

from its source to its destination. To appreciate the prob-

lem, watch a small child trying to find a table in a restau-

rant. From the adult point of view the structure of the

dining room is seen and an optimal route easily chosen. The

child, however, is presented with a set of paths between

tables where a good path, let alone the optimal one to the

goal is not discernible.

A little more background might be appropriate. IP gateways

(more correctly routers) are boxes which have connections to

multiple networks and pass traffic between these nets.

They decide how the packet is to be sent based on the infor-

mation in the IP header of the packet and the state of the

network. Each interface on a router has an unique address

appropriate to the network to which it is connected. The

information in the IP header which is used is primarily the

destination address. Other information (e.g. type of ser-

vice) is largely ignored at this time. The state of the

network is determined by the routers passing information

among themselves. The distribution of the database (what

each node knows), the form of the updates, and metrics used

to measure the value of a connection, are the parameters

which determine the characteristics of a routing protocol.

Under some algorithms each node in the network has complete

knowledge of the state of the network (the adult algorithm).

This implies the nodes must have larger amounts of local

storage and enough CPU to search the large tables in a short

enough time (remember this must be done for each packet).

Also, routing updates usually contain only changes to the

existing information (or you spend a large amount of the

network capacity passing around megabyte routing updates).

This type of algorithm has several problems. Since the only

way the routing information can be passed around is across

the network and the propagation time is non-trivial, the

view of the network at each node is a correct historical

view of the network at varying times in the past. (The

adult algorithm, but rather than looking directly at the

dining area, looking at a photograph of the dining room.

One is likely to pick the optimal route and find a bus-cart

has moved in to block the path after the photo was taken).

These inconsistencies can cause circular routes (called

routing loops) where once a packet enters it is routed in a

closed path until its time to live (TTL) field expires and

it is discarded.

Other algorithms may know about only a subset of the net-

work. To prevent loops in these protocols, they are usually

used in a hierarchical network. They know completely about

their own area, but to leave that area they go to one par-

ticular place (the default gateway). Typically these are

used in smaller networks (campus, regional...).

-10-

Routing protocols in current use:

Static (no protocol-table/default routing)

Don't laugh. It is probably the most reliable, easiest

to implement, and least likely to get one into trouble

for a small network or a leaf on the Internet. This

is, also, the only method available on some

CPU-operating system combinations. If a host is con-

nected to an Ethernet which has only one gateway off of

it, one should make that the default gateway for the

host and do no other routing. (Of course that gateway

may pass the reachablity information somehow on the

other side of itself).

One word of warning, it is only with extreme caution

that one should use static routes in the middle of a

network which is also using dynamic routing. The

routers passing dynamic information are sometimes con-

fused by conflicting dynamic and static routes. If

your host is on an ethernet with multiple routers to

other networks on it and the routers are doing dynamic

routing among themselves, it is usually better to take

part in the dynamic routing than to use static routes.

RIP

RIP is a routing protocol based on XNS (Xerox Network

System) adapted for IP networks. It is used by many

routers (Proteon, cisco, UB...) and many BSD Unix sys-

tems. BSD systems typically run a program called

_r_o_u_t_e_d to exchange information with other systems run-

ning RIP. RIP works best for nets of small diameter

where the links are of equal speed. The reason for

this is that the metric used to determine which path is

best is the hop-count. A hop is a traversal across a

gateway. So, all machines on the same Ethernet are

zero hops away. If a router connects connects two net-

works directly, a machine on the other side of the

router is one hop away.... As the routing information

is passed through a gateway, the gateway adds one to

the hop counts to keep them consistent across the net-

work. The diameter of a network is defined as the

largest hop-count possible within a network. Unfor-

tunately, a hop count of 16 is defined as infinity in

RIP meaning the link is down. Therefore, RIP will not

allow hosts separated by more than 15 gateways in the

RIP space to communicate.

The other problem with hop-count metrics is that if

links have different speeds, that difference is not

-11-

reflected in the hop-count. So a one hop satellite link

(with a .5 sec delay) at 56kb would be used instead of

a two hop T1 connection. Congestion can be viewed as a

decrease in the efficacy of a link. So, as a link gets

more congested, RIP will still know it is the best

hop-count route and congest it even more by throwing

more packets on the queue for that link.

The protocol is not well documented. A group of people

are working on producing an RFC to both define the

current RIP and to do some extensions to it to allow it

to better cope with larger networks. Currently, the

best documentation for RIP appears to be the code to

BSD _r_o_u_t_e_d.

Routed

The _r_o_u_t_e_d program, which does RIP for 4.2BSD systems,

has many options. One of the most frequently used is:

_r_o_u_t_e_d -_q (quiet mode) which means listen to RIP infor-

mation but never broadcast it. This would be used by a

machine on a network with multiple RIP speaking gate-

ways. It allows the host to determine which gateway is

best (hopwise) to use to reach a distant network. (Of

course you might want to have a default gateway to

prevent having to pass all the addresses known to the

Internet around with RIP).

There are two ways to insert static routes into _r_o_u_t_e_d,

the /_e_t_c/_g_a_t_e_w_a_y_s file and the _r_o_u_t_e _a_d_d command.

Static routes are useful if you know how to reach a

distant network, but you are not receiving that route

using RIP. For the most part the _r_o_u_t_e _a_d_d command is

preferable to use. The reason for this is that the

command adds the route to that machine's routing table

but does not export it through RIP. The /_e_t_c/_g_a_t_e_w_a_y_s

file takes precedence over any routing information

received through a RIP update. It is also broadcast as

fact in RIP updates produced by the host without ques-

tion, so if a mistake is made in the /_e_t_c/_g_a_t_e_w_a_y_s

file, that mistake will soon permeate the RIP space and

may bring the network to its knees.

One of the problems with _r_o_u_t_e_d is that you have very

little control over what gets broadcast and what

doesn't. Many times in larger networks where various

parts of the network are under different administrative

controls, you would like to pass on through RIP only

nets which you receive from RIP and you know are rea-

sonable. This prevents people from adding IP addresses

to the network which may be illegal and you being

responsible for passing them on to the Internet. This

-12-

type of reasonability checks are not available with

_r_o_u_t_e_d and leave it usable, but inadequate for large

networks.

Hello (RFC-891)

Hello is a routing protocol which was designed and

implemented in a experimental software router called a

"Fuzzball" which runs on a PDP-11. It does not have

wide usage, but is the routing protocol currently used

on the NSFnet backbone. The data transferred between

nodes is similar to RIP (a list of networks and their

metrics). The metric, however, is milliseconds of

delay. This allows Hello to be used over nets of vari-

ous link speeds and performs better in congestive

situations.

One of the most interesting side effects of Hello based

networks is their great timekeeping ability. If you

consider the problem of measuring delay on a link for

the metric, you find that it is not an easy thing to

do. You cannot measure round trip time since the

return link may be more congested, of a different

speed, or even not there. It is not really feasible

for each node on the network to have a builtin WWV

(nationwide radio time standard) receiver. So, you

must design an algorithm to pass around time between

nodes over the network links where the delay in

transmission can only be approximated. Hello routers

do this and in a nationwide network maintain synchron-

ized time within milliseconds.

Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP RFC-904)

EGP is not strictly a routing protocol, it is a reacha-

bility protocol. It tells only if nets can be reached

through a particular gateway, not how good the connec-

tion is. It is the standard by which gateways to local

nets inform the ARPAnet of the nets they can reach.

There is a metric passed around by EGP but its usage is

not standardized formally. Its typical value is value

is 1 to 8 which are arbitrary goodness of link values

understood by the internal DDN gateways. The smaller

the value the better and a value of 8 being unreach-

able. A quirk of the protocol prevents distinguishing

between 1 and 2, 3 and 4..., so the usablity of this as

a metric is as three values and unreachable. Within

NSFnet the values used are 1, 3, and unreachable. Many

routers talk EGP so they can be used for ARPAnet gate-

ways.

-13-

Gated

So we have regional and campus networks talking RIP

among themselves, the NSFnet backbone talking

Hello, and the DDN speaking EGP.

How do they interoperate? In the beginning there was

static routing, assembled into the Fuzzball software

configured for each site. The problem with doing

static routing in the middle of the network is that it

is broadcast to the Internet whether it is usable or

not. Therefore, if a net becomes unreachable and you

try to get there, dynamic routing will immediately

issue a net unreachable to you. Under static routing

the routers would think the net could be reached and

would continue trying until the application gave up (in

2 or more minutes). Mark Fedor of Cornell

(fedor@devvax.tn.cornell.edu) attempted to solve these

problems with a replacement for _r_o_u_t_e_d called _g_a_t_e_d.

_G_a_t_e_d talks RIP to RIP speaking hosts, EGP to EGP

speakers, and Hello to Hello'ers. These speakers fre-

quently all live on one Ethernet, but luckily (or

unluckily) cannot understand each others ruminations.

In addition, under configuration file control it can

filter the conversion. For example, one can produce a

configuration saying announce RIP nets via Hello only

if they are specified in a list and are reachable by

way of a RIP broadcast as well. This means that if a

rogue network appears in your local site's RIP space,

it won't be passed through to the Hello side of the

world. There are also configuration options to do

static routing and name trusted gateways.

This may sound like the greatest thing since sliced

bread, but there is a catch called metric conversion.

You have RIP measuring in hops, Hello measuring in mil-

liseconds, and EGP using arbitrary small numbers. The

big questions is how many hops to a millisecond, how

many milliseconds in the EGP number 3.... Also,

remember that infinity (unreachability) is 16 to RIP,

30000 or so to Hello, and 8 to the DDN with EGP. Get-

ting all these metrics to work well together is no

small feat. If done incorrectly and you translate an

RIP of 16 into an EGP of 6, everyone in the ARPAnet

will still think your gateway can reach the unreachable

and will send every packet in the world your way. For

these reasons, Mark requests that you consult closely

with him when configuring and using _g_a_t_e_d.

-14-

_N_a_m_e_s

All routing across the network is done by means of the IP

address associated with a packet. Since humans find it dif-

ficult to remember addresses like 128.174.5.50, a symbolic

name register was set up at the NIC where people would say

"I would like my host to be named 'uiucuxc'". Machines con-

nected to the Internet across the nation would connect to

the NIC in the middle of the night, check modification dates

on the hosts file, and if modified move it to their local

machine. With the advent of workstations and micros,

changes to the host file would have to be made nightly. It

would also be very labor intensive and consume a lot of net-

work bandwidth. RFC-882 and a number of others describe

domain name service, a distributed data base system for map-

ping names into addresses.

We must look a little more closely into what's in a name.

First, note that an address specifies a particular connec-

tion on a specific network. If the machine moves, the

address changes. Second, a machine can have one or more

names and one or more network addresses (connections) to

different networks. Names point to a something which does

useful work (i.e. the machine) and IP addresses point to an

interface on that provider. A name is a purely symbolic

representation of a list of addresses on the network. If a

machine moves to a different network, the addresses will

change but the name could remain the same.

Domain names are tree structured names with the root of the

tree at the right. For example:

uxc.cso.uiuc.edu

is a machine called 'uxc' (purely arbitrary), within the

subdomains method of allocation of the U of I) and 'uiuc'

(the University of Illinois at Urbana), registered with

'edu' (the set of educational institutions).

A simplified model of how a name is resolved is that on the

user's machine there is a resolver. The resolver knows how

to contact across the network a root name server. Root

servers are the base of the tree structured data retrieval

system. They know who is responsible for handling first

level domains (e.g. 'edu'). What root servers to use is an

installation parameter. From the root server the resolver

finds out who provides 'edu' service. It contacts the 'edu'

name server which supplies it with a list of addresses of

servers for the subdomains (like 'uiuc'). This action is

repeated with the subdomain servers until the final sub-

domain returns a list of addresses of interfaces on the host

in question. The user's machine then has its choice of

which of these addresses to use for communication.

-15-

A group may apply for its own domain name (like 'uiuc'

above). This is done in a manner similar to the IP address

allocation. The only requirements are that the requestor

have two machines reachable from the Internet, which will

act as name servers for that domain. Those servers could

also act as servers for subdomains or other servers could be

designated as such. Note that the servers need not be

located in any particular place, as long as they are reach-

able for name resolution. (U of I could ask Michigan State

to act on its behalf and that would be fine). The biggest

problem is that someone must do maintenance on the database.

If the machine is not convenient, that might not be done in

a timely fashion. The other thing to note is that once the

domain is allocated to an administrative entity, that entity

can freely allocate subdomains using what ever manner it

sees fit.

The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) Server implements

the Internet name server for UNIX systems. The name server

is a distributed data base system that allows clients to

name resources and to share that information with other net-

work hosts. BIND is integrated with 4.3BSD and is used to

lookup and store host names, addresses, mail agents, host

information, and more. It replaces the /_e_t_c/_h_o_s_t_s file for

host name lookup. BIND is still an evolving program. To

keep up with reports on operational problems, future design

decisions, etc, join the BIND mailing list by sending a

request to _b_i_n_d-_r_e_q_u_e_s_t@_u_c_b_a_r_p_a._B_e_r_k_e_l_e_y._E_D_U. BIND can also

be obtained via anonymous FTP from ucbarpa.berkley.edu.

There are several advantages in using BIND. One of the most

important is that it frees a host from relying on /_e_t_c/_h_o_s_t_s

being up to date and complete. Within the .uiuc.edu domain,

only a few hosts are included in the host table distributed

by SRI. The remainder are listed locally within the BIND

tables on uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (the server machine for most of

the .uiuc.edu domain). All are equally reachable from any

other Internet host running BIND.

BIND can also provide mail forwarding information for inte-

rior hosts not directly reachable from the Internet. These

hosts can either be on non-advertised networks, or not con-

nected to a network at all, as in the case of UUCP-reachable

hosts. More information on BIND is available in the "Name

Server Operations Guide for BIND" in _U_N_I_X _S_y_s_t_e_m _M_a_n_a_g_e_r'_s

_M_a_n_u_a_l, 4.3BSD release.

There are a few special domains on the network, like SRI-

NIC.ARPA. The 'arpa' domain is historical, referring to

hosts registered in the old hosts database at the NIC.

There are others of the form NNSC.NSF.NET. These special

domains are used sparingly and require ample justification.

They refer to servers under the administrative control of

-16-

the network rather than any single organization. This

allows for the actual server to be moved around the net

while the user interface to that machine remains constant.

That is, should BBN relinquish control of the NNSC, the new

provider would be pointed to by that name.

In actuality, the domain system is a much more general and

complex system than has been described. Resolvers and some

servers cache information to allow steps in the resolution

to be skipped. Information provided by the servers can be

arbitrary, not merely IP addresses. This allows the system

to be used both by non-IP networks and for mail, where it

may be necessary to give information on intermediate mail

bridges.

_W_h_a_t'_s _w_r_o_n_g _w_i_t_h _B_e_r_k_e_l_e_y _U_n_i_x

University of California at Berkeley has been funded by

DARPA to modify the Unix system in a number of ways.

Included in these modifications is support for the Internet

protocols. In earlier versions (e.g. BSD 4.2) there was

good support for the basic Internet protocols (TCP, IP,

SMTP, ARP) which allowed it to perform nicely on IP ether-

nets and smaller Internets. There were deficiencies, how-

ever, when it was connected to complicated networks. Most

of these problems have been resolved under the newest

release (BSD 4.3). Since it is the springboard from which

many vendors have launched Unix implementations (either by

porting the existing code or by using it as a model), many

implementations (e.g. Ultrix) are still based on BSD 4.2.

Therefore, many implementations still exist with the BSD 4.2

problems. As time goes on, when BSD 4.3 trickles through

vendors as new release, many of the problems will be

resolved. Following is a list of some problem scenarios and

their handling under each of these releases.

ICMP redirects

Under the Internet model, all a system needs to know to

get anywhere in the Internet is its own address, the

address of where it wants to go, and how to reach a

gateway which knows about the Internet. It doesn't

have to be the best gateway. If the system is on a

network with multiple gateways, and a host sends a

packet for delivery to a gateway which feels another

directly connected gateway is more appropriate, the

gateway sends the sender a message. This message is an

ICMP redirect, which politely says "I'll deliver this

message for you, but you really ought to use that gate-

way over there to reach this host". BSD 4.2 ignores

these messages. This creates more stress on the gate-

ways and the local network, since for every packet

-17-

sent, the gateway sends a packet to the originator.

BSD 4.3 uses the redirect to update its routing tables,

will use the route until it times out, then revert to

the use of the route it thinks is should use. The

whole process then repeats, but it is far better than

one per packet.

Trailers

An application (like FTP) sends a string of octets to

TCP which breaks it into chunks, and adds a TCP header.

TCP then sends blocks of data to IP which adds its own

headers and ships the packets over the network. All

this prepending of the data with headers causes memory

moves in both the sending and the receiving machines.

Someone got the bright idea that if packets were long

and they stuck the headers on the end (they became

trailers), the receiving machine could put the packet

on the beginning of a page boundary and if the trailer

was OK merely delete it and transfer control of the

page with no memory moves involved. The problem is

that trailers were never standardized and most gateways

don't know to look for the routing information at the

end of the block. When trailers are used, the machine

typically works fine on the local network (no gateways

involved) and for short blocks through gateways (on

which trailers aren't used). So TELNET and FTP's of

very short files work just fine and FTP's of long files

seem to hang. On BSD 4.2 trailers are a boot option

and one should make sure they are off when using the

Internet. BSD 4.3 negotiates trailers, so it uses them

on its local net and doesn't use them when going across

the network.

Retransmissions

TCP fires off blocks to its partner at the far end of

the connection. If it doesn't receive an acknowledge-

ment in a reasonable amount of time it retransmits the

blocks. The determination of what is reasonable is

done by TCP's retransmission algorithm. There is no

correct algorithm but some are better than others,

where better is measured by the number of retransmis-

sions done unnecessarily. BSD 4.2 had a retransmission

algorithm which retransmitted quickly and often. This

is exactly what you would want if you had a bunch of

machines on an ethernet (a low delay network of large

bandwidth). If you have a network of relatively longer

delay and scarce bandwidth (e.g. 56kb lines), it tends

to retransmit too aggressively. Therefore, it makes

the networks and gateways pass more traffic than is

really necessary for a given conversation. Retransmis-

sion algorithms do adapt to the delay of the network

-18-

after a few packets, but 4.2's adapts slowly in delay

situations. BSD 4.3 does a lot better and tries to do

the best for both worlds. It fires off a few

retransmissions really quickly assuming it is on a low

delay network, and then backs off very quickly. It

also allows the delay to be about 4 minutes before it

gives up and declares the connection broken.

-19-

Appendix A

References to Remedial Information

Quaterman and Hoskins, "Notable Computer Networks",

_C_o_m_m_u_n_i_c_a_t_i_o_n_s _o_f _t_h_e _A_C_M, Vol 29, #10, pp. 932-971

(October, 1986).

Tannenbaum, Andrew S., _C_o_m_p_u_t_e_r _N_e_t_w_o_r_k_s, Prentice

Hall, 1981.

Hedrick, Chuck, _I_n_t_r_o_d_u_c_t_i_o_n _t_o _t_h_e _I_n_t_e_r_n_e_t _P_r_o_t_o_c_o_l_s,

Anonymous FTP from topaz.rutgers.edu, directory

pub/tcp-ip-docs, file tcp-ip-intro.doc.

-20-

Appendix B

List of Major RFCs

RFC-768 User Datagram Protocol (UDP)

RFC-791 Internet Protocol (IP)

RFC-792 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)

RFC-793 Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)

RFC-821 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)

RFC-822 Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages

RFC-854 Telnet Protocol

RFC-917 * Internet Subnets

RFC-919 * Broadcasting Internet Datagrams

RFC-922 * Broadcasting Internet Datagrams in the Presence of Subnets

RFC-940 * Toward an Internet Standard Scheme for Subnetting

RFC-947 * Multi-network Broadcasting within the Internet

RFC-950 * Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure

RFC-959 File Transfer Protocol (FTP)

RFC-966 * Host Groups: A Multicast Extension to the Internet Protocol

RFC-988 * Host Extensions for IP Multicasting

RFC-997 * Internet Numbers

RFC-1010 * Assigned Numbers

RFC-1011 * Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

RFC's marked with the asterisk (*) are not included in

the 1985 DDN Protocol Handbook.

Note: This list is a portion of a list of RFC's by

topic retrieved from the NIC under NETINFO:RFC-SETS.TXT

(anonymous FTP of course).

The following list is not necessary for connection to

the Internet, but is useful in understanding the domain

system, mail system, and gateways:

RFC-882 Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities

RFC-883 Domain Names - Implementation

RFC-973 Domain System Changes and Observations

RFC-974 Mail Routing and the Domain System

RFC-1009 Requirements for Internet Gateways

-21-

Appendix C

Contact Points for Network Information

Network Information Center (NIC)

DDN Network Information Center

SRI International, Room EJ291

333 Ravenswood Avenue

Menlo Park, CA 94025

(800) 235-3155 or (415) 859-3695

NIC@SRI-NIC.ARPA

NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)

NNSC

BBN Laboratories Inc.

10 Moulton St.

Cambridge, MA 02238

(617) 497-3400

NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NET

-22-

Glossary

core gateway The innermost gateways of the ARPAnet. These

gateways have a total picture of the reacha-

bility to all networks known to the ARPAnet

with EGP. They then redistribute reachabil-

ity information to all those gateways speak-

ing EGP. It is from them your EGP agent

(there is one acting for you somewhere if you

can reach the ARPAnet) finds out it can reach

all the nets on the ARPAnet. Which is then

passed to you via Hello, gated, RIP....

count to infinityThe symptom of a routing problem where

routing information is passed in a circular

manner through multiple gateways. Each gate-

way increments the metric appropriately and

passes it on. As the metric is passed around

the loop, it increments to ever increasing

values til it reaches the maximum for the

routing protocol being used, which typically

denotes a link outage.

hold down When a router discovers a path in the network

has gone down announcing that that path is

down for a minimum amount of time (usually at

least two minutes). This allows for the pro-

pagation of the routing information across

the network and prevents the formation of

routing loops.

split horizon When a router (or group of routers working in

consort) accept routing information from mul-

tiple external networks, but do not pass on

information learned from one external network

to any others. This is an attempt to prevent

bogus routes to a network from being pro-

pagated because of gossip or counting to

infinity.

-23-