Avian Carriers QoS: IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service
Extending IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service mechanisms
Waitzman, D., "IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service", RFC 2549, DOI 10.17487/RFC2549, April 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2549>.
@misc{rfc2549,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 2549,
howpublished = {RFC 2549},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC2549},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2549},
author = {D. Waitzman},
title = {{IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service}},
pagetotal = 6,
year = 1999,
month = apr,
} RFC text
Contents
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.
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.
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
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 ...
Author's Address
David Waitzman
IronBridge Networks
55 Hayden Ave
Lexington, MA 02421
Phone: (781) 372-8161
EMail: djw@vineyard.net
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.
AI ELI5
On this page
§1Introduction
This memo amends RFC 1149, the 1990 April Fools' standard for carrying IP datagrams on avian carriers, with Quality of Service information. It is a follow-up joke RFC that borrows real networking vocabulary (queueing, MPLS, NAT, multicast, MIBs) and applies it to birds. The RFC's own abstract calls the result "an experimental, not recommended standard".
Published on 1 April 1999, nine years after RFC 1149. The document labels itself Experimental (the RFC Editor index now lists it as Informational), and it updates RFC 1149.
Years ago, someone wrote a joke instruction manual for sending internet messages by pigeon. This is the joke sequel: now the pigeons come in fancy classes, just like airplane seats.
§2Improvements over RFC 1149
RFC 1149 carried datagrams but had no notion of service levels. RFC 2549 adds four service levels, a way to mark and queue carriers, and two security classes.
Birds now get seat classes, a sticker on the wing says which one, and a scanner at the door lines them up in the right waiting line.
- Carrier arrivesService level is bar-coded on the wing
- Bar-code reader scans the carrier
- Enqueue in the proper queue
- Released at the proper timeGated to prevent exit until then; carriers may sleep
- Carrier flies on
§3Quality of Service
The memo borrows queueing terms from real routers. Weighted fair queueing (WFQ) MAY be implemented using scales, and packets MAY be marked for deletion using RED paint while enqueued. Round-robin queueing is not recommended: robins make for well-tuned networks but do not support the necessary auto-homing feature. Ostriches are an alternate carrier with much greater bulk transfer capability but slower delivery, and they require bridges between domains.
Carriers in the queue too long may leave log entries, as shown on the scale in the RFC's ASCII drawing.
Birds wait in line and a bird scale decides whose turn it is. Red paint means "throw this one away", and robins are no good because they do not know the way home.
| Class | What the RFC says |
|---|---|
| Concorde | Expedited data delivery; earns 50% bonus miles per packet |
| First | Earns 50% bonus miles per packet |
| Business | Named as a service level; no further detail |
| Coach | Named as a service level; no further detail |
| Prime | Secure-network class; self-keying with public key encryption |
| Choice | Secure-network class; sometimes falsely sold as Prime |
§4MIB and Security
RFC 2549 includes a mock SNMP MIB. AvCarrier2 defines the carrier as a taxonomic path down to Columba livia, and PulseRate is a read-only gauge of the carrier's pulse "as measured in neck". The carriers will not line up in lexicographic order but will naturally order in a large V shape, and bulk retrieval uses the Powerful Get-Net operator.
The Security Considerations say there are privacy issues with stool pigeons and that agoraphobic carriers are very insecure in operation. The Patent Considerations note ongoing litigation about which is the prior art: carrier or egg.
Even the joke has a rulebook for checking on the birds, such as measuring a pigeon's pulse in its neck. Scaredy-cat birds are not good at keeping secrets.
PulseRate OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Gauge(0..300)
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "Pulse rate of carrier, as measured in neck.
Frequent sampling is disruptive to operations."
::= { AvCarrier 1}§5Encapsulation and Routing
RFC 2549 does not define a frame layout. Instead it jokes about how familiar networking techniques fare with birds. Encapsulation may be done with saran wrappers, though unintentional encapsulation in hawks has been known to occur, with decapsulation being messy and the packets mangled. Carriers normally bypass bridges and tunnels but will seek out worm hole tunnels, and they may be confused by mirrors.
The carriers have an average TTL of 15 years, so their use in expanding ring searches is limited. Multicasting is supported but requires a clone device, and carriers may be lost if they are based on a tree as it is being pruned.
You can wrap a bird's message in plastic wrap, but hawks sometimes eat it first. Birds also live a long time, so they are not good for quick "who is out there?" shouting.
| Technique | Verdict | Reason given |
|---|---|---|
| Round-robin queueing | Not recommended | Robins do not support the necessary auto-homing feature |
| NAT | Not recommended | Modifying brain-embedded IP addresses is difficult, and carriers MAY eat the NATs |
| Loose source routes | Viable | An evolutionary alternative |
| Strict source routes | MUST NOT be used | They are a choke-point |
| Multicast | Supported | Requires a clone device |
| MPLS | Carriers think it is great | Attempts at attaching labels to carriers have met resistance |