1. What does it take to define an architecture? (Part 2) David D. Clark July, 2012

2. Describing an architecture IETF has published over 6630 RFCs. Too much, for sure. A CCR paper proposed a minimalist answer in 6 pages*. Enough? * Koponen, T., S. Shenker, et al. (2011). "Architecting for innovation." SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 41(3): 24-36.

3. What needs to be specified? Primary specifications: Those things about which we all have to agree on the same answer. Secondary specifications: Those things about which it is convenient/necessary to have a common agreement, but there can be more than one answer.

4. The current Internet as example TCP: secondary DNS: secondary IP: primary, but Global address space: we thought so, but no. TTL semantics: primary, but not important. What actually matters?

5. Look at the IP address We thought it had to represent a global address space. Then we got NATs, intranets, etc. We thought it addressed a port on a host. Then we did multicast, anycast, etc. What is the persistent constraint? It is 32 bits long.

6. The actual semantics of IP The IP address field, at each end of the connection, must remain constant for a given connection. But the TCP pseudo-header was a bad idea. But see discussion of security. The IP address field can be rewritten anywhere in the network, so long as: The rewriting complies with rule 1. There is matching routing state in the region routers. That is the core of the Internet: the primary specification. A painful discovery.

7. Packet forwarding In some respects, this is “all” that a network does. What else actually matters? Go back to that CCR paper.

8. Framework for Internet Innovation (FII) Define the service provided They propose an API with version number. Version number primary, API secondary. Warning: IP has a version number. Not enough… Support inter-domain routing They propose pathlets*. Support security/availability They conclude DDoS is the only issue. Availability may imply other requirements. * P. B. Godfrey, I. Ganichev, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica. Pathlet Routing. In Proc. SIGCOMM, 2009.

9. What is missing? Packet format and how forwarding works. Their claim: packets can look different in different parts of the network. How forwarding/addressing state is managed is a regional matter. (Too optimistic: does not really solve migration.) Resource management. They say multiplexing and QoS is a regional matter. (I do not agree: need inter-region interface.)

10. Summary of minimalist view Agreement on the service model. Inter-region interface specifications Routing Resource allocation Tools to support availability Tools to support anti-availability (DDoS)

11. Courtesy of Pamela Zave, AT&T

12. What might we conclude The minimalist approach was about the base set of primary specifications to allow evolution. Has nothing to say about what we actually build at any one time. Begs the question: what aspects of what networks actually do should be recognized in their core design.

13. Generalize/formalize Generalize what a “router” does: Per-hop behavior (PHB). Simple forwarding Authorization (indirection, capabilities) Encryption Overlay/tunnel (e.g. TOR) Inspection/blocking (e.g. firewall) Resource management Redirection (e.g. mobility) Successful operation (but what does that mean?) occurs when the forwarding mechanisms have connected the intended set of PHBs in the right order.

14. Tussle Network delivery is a adversarial game. Sender, receiver, ISPs, third parties all have preferred outcomes. Sender and receiver may be aligned (normal) or not (attack). ISPs may be aligned with users (normal) or not (blocking content, etc.) Third parties (e.g. governments, rights- holders, employers) may attempt to intervene.

15. Composing PHBs Each PHB: Executes its internal operation Compute the correct forwarding to the next PHB. If a PHB can compute “anything”, is this some sort of generalized processor? Perhaps, but composed out of steps that are adversarial. Ross Anderson: “Programming Satan’s computer”.

16. How to use forwarding tools Sender picks the PHBs Source routing, TOR, etc. The PHB (the network) picks the next PHB Normal IP routing (explicit L2 addresses) MPLS (explicit labels) The topology picks the next PHB Firewall (representing the interests of the receiver). The receiver coerces the sender to pick Indirection, capabilities.

17. And my conclusion? If “forwarding” is all a network does, forwarding is a complex process. Many goals, many actors. We have a choice of incorporating this complexity inside the design, or having the design be only part of the larger outcome that addresses the complexity. Zave again…

18. Security—the recurring theme Security (however we choose to define it) is one of the things we did not understand in the 1970’s. Any proposal to improve the Internet must have better security as a key objective. But note earlier comments that we still don’t understand the topic. It would be easy to design an Internet if all the parts could be trusted to do the right thing.