IEN # 3 Jon Postel
Supercedes: None ISI
Replaces: None 18 August 1977
1.4.1 INTERNET Meeting Notes
15 August 1977
Editors Remarks
Here are some notes from the Internet meeting held at ISI on 15 August
1977. The notes are incomplete, and remarks attributed to individuals
may be in error.
Agenda
Opening Remarks - Danny Cohen
Meeting Objectives - Vint Cerf
Current Internet Plans - Vint Cerf
Issues in Internetting - Andrew Hinchley & Chris Bennett
Gateway Monitoring - Bob Bressler
International Standards - Vint Cerf
X.25 Gateway Interface Experiment - Peter Kirstein
Type of Service Issues - Danny Cohen
Internet Mail Service - Steve Crocker
Wrap Up - Vint Cerf
Future Meetings - Vint Cerf
Opening Remarks - Danny Cohen
Cohen discussed the agenda and the rules of the meeting, Danny is
moderator and can recognize people to speak or cut people off if
necessary.
Meeting Objectives - Vint Cerf
Cerf presented the following meeting objectives:
Review the current internet plans
Raise and discuss internet research issues
Compose a list of objectives of internet research
Prepare a prioritized list of internet tasks
Prepare a prioritized list of internet experiments
Section 1.4.1 [page 1]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
Current Internet Plans - Vint Cerf
Cerf reviewed the current (FY 78) Internet Plan:
TCP Development
UCLA - 360/91
MIT - Multics
BBN - Tenex, Tops 20, Unix
SRI - LSI-11
NDRE - NORD-10
UCL - PDP-9 (?)
Network Development
BBN - ARPANET (gateway routing, flow control, broadcasting)
MIT/LCS - LCSNET, CHAOSNET
Collins & BBN - Packet Radio Network Broadcasting
MIT/EE - Theory (spanning trees...)
Gateways
BBN - Packet Radio / ARPANET
BBN - Packet Satellite / ARPANET
BBN - ARPANET / RCCNET
BBN - Gateway Control Center
XEROX - Packet Radio / Ethernet
MIT - ARPANET / LCSNET(s)
UCL - EPSS / ARPANET
UCL - EPSS / Packet Satellite
UCL - X.25 Net Issues
BBN - Gateway flow control, routing, reporting, checks and
balances, etc.
UCLA - Internet performance modelling and analysis, gateway flow
and congestion control
MIT/EE - Relibility of internetworking, alternate routing
ISI - Fast network deployment, addressing, authentication
Section 1.4.1 [page 2]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
Internet Performance Measurement
UCLA - Internet Measurement Center
UCL - Internet Gateway traffic generation and performance
measurement
Internet Services
ISI - Internet Mail
Protocol Development
ISI - Internet Types of Service (TOS)
ISI - Conferencing, multi-connection synchronization
LL - Packet Satellite / internet speech [NDRE, UCL, LL, BBN,
LPCMs]
SRI - Impact of TOS on Packet Radio
ISI - Protocol Modelling and Testing/Evaluation System
Cerf: We need a specification for a gateway so that other
inplementations will come out the same.
Cerf reviews related working groups:
TCP working group ( V. Cerf - ARPA) focuses on TCP as an end to end
protocol in an internet environment, technical orentation.
Packet Radio working group (D. Neilson - SRI)
Packet Satellite working group (I. Jacobs - Linkabit)
Internet working group (D. Cohen - ISI) focuses on network
interconnection problems and plans internetwork experiments.
Section 1.4.1 [page 3]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
Cerf reviews the "number czars" for various note series etc:
PSPWNs - Lin-Nan Lee (Linkabit) [JACOBS@ISIE]
PRTNs - Ron Kunzelman (SRI) [PRSETD@ISIC]
IENs - Jon Postel (ISI) [POSTEL@ISIB]
Network Identifiers - Jon Postel (ISI) [POSTEL@ISIB]
Internet Messages Types - Jon Postel (ISI) [POSTEL@ISIB]
Cerf reviews the forecast of events in interneting:
TCP Development
Sep 77 - Experimental small-machine Top20 TCP
Oct 77 - Unix TCP
Nov 77 - Operational small-machine Tops20 TCP
Dec 77 - Nord 10 TCP
Jan 78 - Tenex TCP
May 78 - large-machine Tops20 TCP
Jul 78 - 360/91 TCP
Network Development
Sep 77 - 2 node PR test cell in Boston
Jan 78 - LCS Net
Jun 78 - PR Net Broadcast
Dec 78 - ARPANET Broadcast
Gateways
Oct 77 - Ethernet/PR net
Dec 77 - Gateway monitoring center
Jan 78 - LCSNet/ARPANET
Jan 78 - X.25 Epss interface / SATNET
Apr 78 - Gateway flowcontrol, routing etc specification
Oct 78 - Gateway flow control, routing, etc. Pass 1 implemented
Jan 79 - PR Net in Army C2 test bed
Section 1.4.1 [page 4]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
Performance Measurements
May 78 - SATNET/ARPANET/EPSS/PRNET performance tests (UCL)
Oct 78 - Internet Measurement Center (UCLA)
Jan 79 - Internet performance tests
Mar 79 - Rapid deployment tests
Protocol Development
Sep 77 - TCP 2.5 specification
Jan 78 - Unix telnet
Mar 78 - Tenex & Tops20 Telnet
Apr 78 - Draft TOS Specification
May 78 - Prototype FAX specification from UCL
Jul 78 - Prototype internet mail service
Aug 78 - Tenex & Tops20 FTP
Sep 78 - Internet speech conferencing specification
Oct 78 - 360/91 telnet & ftp
Mar 79 - Internet speech conferencing tests
Jun 79 - Speech & Video conferencing specification
Demos
Sep 77 - Point to point raw internet speech demo
May 79 - Internet services demo
Cerf: We need a specification of how a gateway should behave to
cooperate with a gateway control center.
Kirstein: EPSS and SATNET will have X.25 interfaces but there is no
plan for an X.25 interface to the ARPANET.
Cerf: The issue of secure internetting is postponed.
Cerf: There is consideration of an effort to develop a new ftp, but
there is no plan as yet.
Kirstein: FAX might be worked into the speech and video conferencing
system.
Section 1.4.1 [page 5]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
Kirstein: Are LLL or Commercial nets to be involved in internet
experiments?
Cerf: LLL is interested in TCP for the local to Livermore Octopus net
not the CTR net.
Cerf: No current plans to get commerical nets involved.
Kirstein: What is happening about AUTODIN II and ARPANET as described
at TCP Meeting?
Cerf: That plan is no longer active, and it is not expected that there
will be any move to get people off the ARPANET until 1980, after that
AUTODIN II service may be offered instead of ARPANET on a customer by
customer basis.
Kirstein: It seems more likely that university type users will have to
go to a commerical net than get on AUTODIN II, so shouldn't we be
exploring internetting with commercial nets now?
Issues in Internetting - Andrew Hinchley & Chris Bennett
Hinchley & Bennett discussed the paper (PSPWN 76, INDRA 637) "Issues
in the Interconnection of Datagram Networks" that was distributed
prior to the meeting.
Hinchley: there are three catagories of interconnections:
1) ARPA like datagram networks,
2) PTTs X.25 networks, note that the PTTs are moving very fast with
a model of an internetwork system composed of a small number of very
large national networks,
3) Interconnection of private networks via public X.25 networks.
The SATNET experience is the basis for these (PSPWN 76) comments.
Cerf: Is a gateway a piece of hardware physically connected to two or
Section 1.4.1 [page 6]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
more networks, or is it pair(s) of software modules connected by
physically complicated networks ?
Kirstein: We should be more aware of what is going to be possible with
PTT provided "virtual call networks".
Bennett: Addressing is a topic discussed in the memo.
Cerf: Up to now we have not had names for gateways, but now we may
need names if gateway control centers are to communicate directly with
gateways.
Cerf and Crocker discuss gateway models, one point was that one should
try a model with a three or more connected gateways since sometimes a
two connected model may make things seem simpler than they really are,
another point is that a gateway is a kind of a forwarder, and Crocker
argues that the forwarder is logically a network.
Postel: An address is just a string of bits, with each address parser
consuming part of the string, to give a gateway an address reserve one
value of the set of values representable in the bits the gateway
parses, that reserved value means "here".
Kirstein expressed concern about the address space in the individual
networks. Also concerned about translations necessary when going
between datagram and virtual call networks.
Cerf: Does the way a thing is named specify the way one gets to it?
Especially if a thing is multi-hommed?
Shoch: One way is all gates are in the same net and have exactly one
address. Another way is that a gateway has distinct host address on
each net it is connected to.
Cerf: If the gateway control center has to talk to the gateway and the
gateway has two names, which name does the control center use?
Shoch: Someone has to take responsibility for choosing.
Jacobs: Where do the global unique names come from?
Section 1.4.1 [page 7]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
Postel: They are external. We always have a unique description,
usually by location, for objects. The gateway control center will have
to have for each gateway a unique (external) name, and associated with
that a list of internal addresses.
Cerf designates that there be a committee to study addressing and
naming of gateways to (1) figure out what things there are, and (2)
figure out how to address them. Crocker is chairman.
Bennett: Routing in the Internet is discussed in PSPWN 76. The main
ideas are that adaptive routing in internet is not likely to be much
good due to the larger delays in information propagation. Fixed
routing with a number of alternatives (this is also called "Explicit
Path Routing") might be useful. [Naylor says this is explored by IBM
Zurich.] Could use alternate routing in a event driven form to recover
from service outages. One issue is what to base the adaptation on.
Postel: Most of the things normally used could get washed out by local
traffic.
Crocker: Perhaps there are some things...
Postel: for example queue lengths in the gateways.
Cerf: Adaptive routing is not a substitute for congestion control.
Jacobs: The information available to a gateway includs both facts
about its directly attached networks and information received from
other gateways.
Cerf: Gatways may have to exchange information about what paths are
viable. If one packet from a gateway to a host in the ARPANET results
in a "host dead" error what does the gateway do about other packets to
the ARPANET? We should avoid having a lot of state information in the
gateways.
Postel: What happens when the ARPANET says to a gateway "host dead"?
Jacobs: Nothing.
Section 1.4.1 [page 8]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
Cerf: Try to pass an error message back to source TCP. We have no
conventions for this as yet.
Mathis: Out thinking has been: Gateways do routing; TCPs do not do
routing.
Cohen: Routing algorithms need to be smarter.
Hinchley: Flow Control Possibilities
1) No control at gateway level (expect end-to-end control to take
care of any problems)
2) Gatway to Gateway control
3) Terminating Gateway Control (source - desination gateways
control flow)
4) X7X virtual circuit control
This is a range of possibilities.
Postel favors a hop by hop (that is gate by gate) flow control.
Cohen: Why should there be a single type of flow control? The type of
service (drops, streams, floods) should get different kinds of flow
control.
Jacobs: In SATNET there are a whole rage of stratagies from try once
to try very hard to get a message through.
There occured at this point a discussion of the cost of hop by hop
acknowledgements.
Jacobs: This should all be in terms of bump to bump, that is a
gateway consist of a bump for each connected network and a core, any
network is between a pair of bumps, and the bumps should decide how
much error control etc is needed across that network.
There was a discussion of status information, particularly error
Section 1.4.1 [page 9]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
reports. If a gateway has a problem then it is an internet error and
"the internet" ought to tell the source about it. If a destination
host has a problem then a service center could know the problem and a
query to the services center could tell the source what is happening.
Hinchley: Gateway Control, Once gateways get above a certain level of
complexity there needs to be a control function, that suggest that the
reshould be a gateway control language which is standard throught the
internet.
Gateway Monitoring - Bob Bressler
Bressler described the current gateway monitoring center as a fairly
simple program that summarized reports from the SIMP and some other
gateway. The information reported was:
number of messages sent and received on each port of each gateway
and the number of messages dropped by the gateway
The gateways spontaneously generate the reports to the control center,
the control center curently sends no messages to the gateways. There
are data generators and data sinks in the gateways now controled by
XNET a ddt like cross net debugger.
Kirstein: One of the simplest services one could provide is reliable
delivery but allow duplicates to be delivered as well.
Hinchley: What common functions can be listed?
restart
reload
run a diagnostic
update routing information
Shoch: Gateways exchange routing tables perodically gratuitously. Many
processes in a gateway for example time server, name lookup server,
boot loaders, measurement process, echo server, source, sink, trace.
Shoch: There is a distinction between Routing, Addressing, and Naming.
Section 1.4.1 [page 10]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
Kirstein: There will need to be several monitoring centers. There may
be a central control center that forwards suggestion for control to
national control centers.
Burchfiel: No gateway in the ARPANET currently does fragmentation.
International Standards - Vint Cerf
Cerf reviews international standards organizations:
ITU - International Telecommunications Union (established by treaty)
CCIR - International Radio Consultative Committee (issues
recommendations on the use of electromagnetic spectrum)
CCITT - International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative
Committee (issues recommendations on telephone and telegraph
communication)
PTTs - Government operated Post, Telephone & Telegraph Systems
ATT - American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation
IFIP - International Federation for Information Processing
ANSI - American National Standards Institute
cats & dogs
common carriers
manufacturers
EIA - Electronic Industry Association
government
NBS - National Bureau of Standards
DCA - Defense Communications Agency
ISO - International Standards Organization
ANSI
PTTs
manufacturers
IFIP
CEPT -
UK
France
DBP
Section 1.4.1 [page 11]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
ECMA - European Computer Manufacturers Association
CII
HB
Phillips
ICL
Cerf reviews relevent standards activity:
Analog
V.24 (CCITT recomendation) = RS232C (EIA)
Digital
X.21 <-> RS232C
HDLC (ISO) <-> [SDLC (IBM), UDLC (Univac), ADCCP (ANSI)]
X.25 packet network interface, virtual call, asymetric
X.C PAD control
X.7X packet net / packet net interface (virtual circuit)
X.25 Gateway Interface Experiment - Peter Kirstein
Kirstein discussed the work UCL is going to be doing with EPSS and
X.25 interfaces.
Section 1.4.1 [page 12]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
Type of Service Issues - Danny Cohen
Cohen discussed Type of Service issues. He suggests the following
dimensions to service selection:
priority
relibility/cost
delay/cost
Floods / Streams / Drops
Message/Wire
Sort Messages
Acknowledgement / Negative acknowledgement/ No acknowledgement
Security
Synchronization
Multidestination addressing
End of Letter
Buffer Runout
Receiver Wakeup
Cohen: Whether ACK or NACK or both or neither are used should depend
on statistics.
Jacobs: The Host-SIMP protocol paper may be relevant.
Hoversten: Is the user helping the network by telling it what type of
demands the user is going to make?
Internet Mail Service - Steve Crocker
Crocker discussed a model of how to make mail services available in
the internet system in a straightforward way. Also of interest is
possibility for authentication and privacy.
Section 1.4.1 [page 13]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
Wrap Up - Vint Cerf
Binders for an Internet Notebook were distributed, and Cerf explaind
the intention to use it to collect the current information for
internet experements. Jon Postel is the Notebook coordinator.
Cerf summarized as follows:
Addressing alternatives need to be written down - assigned Steve
Crocker to coordinate. Please supply him with your thoughts. What
objects exist and what names should they have. John Shoch will
provide a one page note on nomenclature. A Gateway Specification is
to be prepared by Bob Bressler. Cerf will distribute a current
version of the X.25 specification. Kirstein will distribute a
document on the UCL X.25 experiments.
Future Meetings - Vint Cerf
Cerf reviewed the plans for future meetings:
15 Aug 77 - Internet meeting at ISI
17-19 Aug 77 - PSPWG meeting at Linkabit
13-14 Oct 77 - TCP meeting at SRI
31Oct-2Nov77 - PSPWG meeting at BBN
3 Nov 77 - Internet meeting at BBN
30-31 Jan 78 - TCP meeting at ISI
1- 2 Feb 78 - PSPWG meeting at UCLA
3 Feb 78 - Internet meeting at UCLA
20-21 Apr 78 - TCP meeting at BBN
1- 2 May 78 - Internet meeting at UCL
3- 5 May 78 - PSPWG meeting at UCL
13-14 Jul 78 - TCP meeting at PARC
2- 3 Aug 78 - Internet meeting at LL
4 Aug 78 - PSPWG meeting at LL
12-13 Oct 78 - TCP meeting at LCS
2- 3 Nov 78 - Internet meeting at SRI
Section 1.4.1 [page 14]
18 Aug 77
IEN # 3 INTERNET Meeting Notes
Attendees:
Chris Bennett UCL UKSAT@ISIE (01)387-7059
Bob Bressler BBN BRESSLER@BBN (617)491-1850
Jerry Burchfiel BBN BURCHFIEL@BBNA (617)491-1850
Vint Cerf ARPA CERF@ISI (202)694-3049
Danny Cohen ISI COHEN@ISIB (213)822-1511
Steve Crocker ISI CROCKER@ISI (213)822-1511
Jin Forgie MIT-LL FORGIE@BBN (617)862-5500x7191
Andrew Hinchley UCL UKSAT@ISIE (01)387-7050x817
Estil Hoversten COMSAT HOVERSTEN@ISI (202)554-6092
Irwin Mark Jacobs LINKABIT JACOBS@ISIE (714)453-7007
Peter Kirstein UCL KIRSTEIN@ISI (01)387-7050
Ron Kunzelman SRI KUNZELMAN@ISIC (415)326-6200x4118
Jim Mathis SRI MATHIS@SRI-KL (415)326-6200x5150
Bill Naylor UCLA NAYLOR@ISI (213)825-4864
Jon Postel ISI POSTEL@ISIB (213)822-1511
John Shoch XEROX-PARC SHOCH@PARC (415)494-4000
Paal Spilling NDRE PAAL@SRI-KA
Dan Wilhelm SAMSO SAMSO@ISI (213)643-0131
Section 1.4.1 [page 15]