Standardization

Henning Schulzrinne

Dept. of Computer Science

Columbia University

Fall 2003

2

Time Line of the Internet

•Source: Internet Society

Standards

Mandatory vs. voluntary– Allowed to use vs. likely to sell– Example: health & safety standards UL listing for electrical appliances,

fire codes Telecommunications and networking always focus of standardization

– 1965: International Telegraph Union (ITU)– 1956: International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative Committee

(CCITT) Five major organizations:

– ITU for lower layers, multimedia collaboration– IEEE for LAN standards (802.x)– IETF for network, transport & some applications– W3C for web-related technology (XML, SOAP)– ISO for media content (MPEG)

Who makes the rules? - ITU

ITU = ITU-T (telecom standardization) + ITU-R (radio) + development

– http://www.itu.int– 14 study groups– produce Recommendations:

E: overall network operation, telephone service (E.164) G: transmission system and media, digital systems and networks

(G.711) H: audiovisual and multimedia systems (H.323) I: integrated services digital network (I.210); includes ATM V: data communications over the telephone network (V.24) X: Data networks and open system communications Y: Global information infrastructure and internet protocol aspects

ITU

Initially, national delegations Members: state, sector, associate

– Membership fees (> 10,500 SFr) Now, mostly industry groups doing work Initially, mostly (international) telephone services Now, transition from circuit-switched to packet-

switched universe & lower network layers (optical) Documents cost SFr, but can get three freebies for

each email address

IETF

IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)– see RFC 3233 (“Defining the IETF”)

Formed 1986, but earlier predecessor organizations (1979-) RFCs date back to 1969 Initially, largely research organizations and universities, now

mostly R&D labs of equipment vendors and ISPs International, but 2/3 United States

– meetings every four months– about 300 companies participating in meetings

but Cisco, Ericsson, Lucent, Nokia, etc. send large delegations

IETF

Supposed to be engineering, i.e., translation of well-understood technology standards

– make choices, ensure interoperability– reality: often not so well defined

Most development work gets done in working groups (WGs)– specific task, then dissolved (but may last 10 years…)– typically, small clusters of authors, with large peanut gallery– open mailing list discussion for specific problems– interim meetings (1-2 days) and IETF meetings (few hours)– published as Internet Drafts (I-Ds)

anybody can publish draft-somebody-my-new-protocol also official working group documents (draft-ietf-wg-*) versioned (e.g., draft-ietf-avt-rtp-10.txt) automatically disappear (expire) after 6 months

IETF process

WG develops WG last call IETF last call approval (or not) by IESG publication as RFC

IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group) consists of area directors – they vote on proposals

– areas = applications, general, Internet, operations and management, routing, security, sub-IP, transport

Also, Internet Architecture Board (IAB) – provides architectural guidance– approves new working groups– process appeals

IETF activities

general (3): ipr, nomcom, problem applications (25): crisp, geopriv, impp, ldapbis, lemonade,

opes, provreg, simple, tn3270e, usefor, vpim, webdav, xmpp internet (18) = IPv4, IPv6, DNS, DHCP: dhc, dnsext, ipoib,

itrace, mip4, nemo, pana, zeroconf oam (22) = SNMP, RADIUS, DIAMETER: aaa, v6ops, netconf,

… routing (13): forces, ospf, ssm, udlr, … security (18): idwg, ipsec, openpgp, sasl, smime, syslog, tls,

xmldsig, … subip (5) = “layer 2.5”: ccamp, ipo, mpls, tewg transport (26): avt (RTP), dccp, enum, ieprep, iptel, megaco,

mmusic (RTSP), nsis, rohc, sip, sipping (SIP), spirits, tsvwg

RFCs

Originally, “Request for Comment” now, mostly standards documents that are well

settled published RFCs never change always ASCII (plain text), sometimes PostScript anybody can submit RFC, but may be delayed by

review (“end run avoidance”) see April 1 RFCs (RFC 1149, 3251, 3252) accessible at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/ and

http://www.rfc-editor.org/

IETF process issues

Can take several years to publish a standard– see draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement

Relies on authors and editors to keep moving– often, busy people with “day jobs” spurts three times a year

Lots of opportunities for small groups to delay things Original idea of RFC standards-track progression:

– Proposed Standard (PS) = kind of works– Draft Standard (DS) = solid, interoperability tested (2 interoperable

implementations for each feature), but not necessarily widely used– Standard (S) = well tested, widely deployed

IETF process issues

Reality: very few protocols progress beyond PS– and some widely-used protocols are only I-Ds

In addition: Informational, Best Current Practice (BCP), Experimental, Historic

Early IETF: simple protocols, stand-alone– TCP, HTTP, DNS, BGP, …

Now: systems of protocols, with security, management, configuration and scaling

– lots of dependencies wait for others to do their job

Other Internet standards organizations

ISOC (Internet Society)– legal umbrella for IETF, development work

IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)– assigns protocol constants

NANOG (North American Network Operators Group) (http://www.nanog.org)

– operational issues– holds nice workshop with measurement and “real world” papers

RIPE, ARIN, APNIC– regional IP address registries dole out chunks of address space

to ISPs– routing table management

ICANN

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers– manages IP address space (at top level)– DNS top-level domains (TLD)

ccTLD: country codes (.us, .uk, …) gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org) uTLD (unsponsored): .biz, .info, .name, and .pro sTLD (sponsored): .aero, .coop, and .museum

actual domains handled by registrars

Modern Internet architecture & technology

Advanced Internet ServicesDept. of Computer ScienceColumbia UniversityHenning SchulzrinneFall 2003

Internet applications

Variations on three themes– distinguish protocol vs. application behavior

Messaging– datagram model no direct confirmation of final receipt– email (optional confirmation now) and IM– emphasis on interoperation (SMS, pagers, …)– delays measured in minutes

Retrieval & query (request/response)– “client-server”– ftp, HTTP– RPC (Sun RPC, DCE, DCOM, Corba, XML-RPC, SOAP)– emphasis on fast & reliable transmission– delays measured in seconds

Internet applications, cont’d

Continuous media– generation rate ~ delivery rate ~ rendering rate– audio, video, measurements, control

Internet telephony Multimedia conferencing

– related: streaming media slightly longer timescales for rate matching

video-on-demand – emphasis is on timely and low-loss delivery real-time– delays measured in milliseconds– focus of this course

Internet protocols

Protocols support these applications:– data delivery

HTTP, ftp data part, SMTP, IMAP, POP, NFS, SMB, RTP– identifier mapping (id id, id data)

ARP, DNS, LDAP– configuration (= specialized version of identifier data)

DHCP, ACAP, SLP, NETCONF, SNMP– control and setup

RTSP, SIP, ftp control, RSVP, SNMP, BGP and routing protocols

May be integrated into one protocol or general service function (“middleware”?)

Networking is getting into middle years

idea current

IP 1969, 1980? 1981

TCP 1974 1981

telnet 1969 1983

ftp 1980 1985

Standardization

Really two facets of standardization:1. public, interoperable description of protocol, but

possibly many (Tanenbaum)2. reduction to 1-3 common technologies

LAN: Arcnet, tokenring, ATM, FDDI, DQDB, … Ethernet

WAN: IP, X.25, OSI IP

Have reached phase 2 in most cases, with RPC (SOAP) and presentation layer (XML) most recent 'conversions'

Technologies at ~30 years

Other technologies at similar maturity level:– air planes: 1903 – 1938 (Stratoliner)– cars: 1876 – 1908 (Model T)– analog telephones: 1876 – 1915 (transcontinental

telephone)– railroad: 1800s -- ?

Observations on progress

1960s: military professional consumer– now, often reversed

Oscillate: convergence divergence– continued convergence clearly at physical layer– niches larger support separate networks

Communications technologies rarely disappear (as long as operational cost is low):

– exceptions: telex, telegram, semaphores fax, email X.25 + OSI, X.400 IP, SMTP

– analog cell phones

History of networking

History of networking = non-network applications migrate– postal & intracompany mail, fax email, IM– broadcast: TV, radio– interactive voice/video communication VoIP– information access web, P2P– disk access iSCSI, Fiberchannel-over-IP

Network evolution

Only three modes, now thoroughly explored:– packet/cell-based– message-based (application data units)– session-based (circuits)

Replace specialized networks– left to do: embedded systems

need cost(CPU + network) < $10 cars industrial (manufacturing) control commercial buildings (lighting, HVAC, security; now LONworks) remote controls, light switches keys replaced by biometrics

New applications

New bandwidth-intensive applications– Reality-based networking– (security) cameras

Distributed games often require only low-bandwidth control information

– current game traffic ~ VoIP

Computation vs. storage vs. communications– communications cost has decreased less rapidly than

storage costs

Commercial access cost (T1)

1996 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003

T1

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$/month

Year

Transit cost (OC-3, NY – London)

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

9-Feb-99 28-Aug-99 15-Mar-00 1-Oct-00 19-Apr-01 5-Nov-01 24-May-02 10-Dec-02

Date

Disk storage cost (IDE)

Cost

$1.00

$10.00

$100.00

$1,000.00

$10,000.00

$100,000.00

May-79 Feb-82 Nov-84 Aug-87 May-90 Jan-93 Oct-95 Jul-98 Apr-01 Jan-04

Date

$/GB

Transition of networking

Maturity cost dominates– can get any number of bits anywhere, but at

considerable cost and complexity– casually usable bit density still very low

Specialized commodity– OPEX (= people) dominates– installed and run by 'amateurs'– need low complexity, high reliability

Security challenges

DOS, security attacks permissions-based communications

– only allow modest rates without asking– effectively, back to circuit-switched

Higher-level security services more application-layer access via gateways, proxies, …

User identity– problem is not availability, but rather over-abundance

Scaling

Scaling is only backbone problem Depends on network evolution:

– continuing addition of AS to flat space deep trouble

– additional hierarchy

Quality of Service (QoS)

QoS is meaningless to users care about service availability reliability as more and more value depends on network

services, can't afford random downtimes

Textbook Internet vs. real Internet

end-to-end (application only in 2 places)

middle boxes (proxies, ALGs, …)

permanent interface identifier (IP address)

time-varying (DHCP)

globally unique and routable

network address translation (NAT)

multitude of L2 protocols (ATM, ARCnet, Ethernet, FDDI, modems, …)

dominance of Ethernet, but also L2’s not designed for networks (1394 Firewire, Fibre Channel, MPEG2, …)

Textbook Internet vs. real Internet

mostly trusted end users hackers, spammers, con artists, pornographers, …

small number of manufacturers, making expensive boxes

Linksys, Dlink, Netgear, …, available at Radio Shack

technical users, excited about new technology

grandma, frustrated if email doesn’t work

4 layers (link, network, transport, application)

layer splits

transparent network firewalls, L7 filters, “transparent proxies”

Internet architecture documents (readings)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfcXXXX.txt RFC 1287 RFC 2101 RFC 2775 RFC 3234

email WWW phone...

SMTP HTTP RTP...

TCP UDP…

IP

ethernet PPP…

CSMA async sonet...

copper fiber radio...

The Internet Protocol Hourglass(Deering)

Why the hourglass architecture?

Why an internet layer?– make a bigger network– global addressing– virtualize network to isolate end-to-end

protocols from network details/changes Why a single internet protocol?

– maximize interoperability– minimize number of service interfaces

Why a narrow internet protocol?– assumes least common network functionality

to maximize number of usable networks

Deering, 1998

email WWW phone...

SMTP HTTP RTP...

TCP UDP…

IP + mcast

+ QoS +...

ethernet PPP…

CSMA async sonet...

copper fiber radio...

Putting on Weight

• requires more functionality from underlying networks

email WWW phone...

SMTP HTTP RTP...

TCP UDP…

IP4 IP6

ethernet PPP…

CSMA async sonet...

copper fiber radio...

Mid-Life Crisis

• doubles number of service interfaces

• requires changes above & below

• major interoper-ability issues

Layer splitting

Traditionally, L2 (link), L3 (network = IP), L4 (transport = TCP), L7 (applications)

Layer 2: Ethernet PPPoE (DSL) Layer 2.5: MPLS, L2TP Layer 3: tunneling (e.g., GPRS) Layer 4: UDP + RTP Layer 7: HTTP + real application

Layer violations

Layers offer abstraction avoid “Internet closed for renovation”

Cost of information hiding Cost of duplication of information when nothing changes

– fundamental design choice of Internet = difference between circuit and datagram-oriented networks

Assumption: packets are large and getting larger– wrong for games and audio

Cost prohibitive on wireless networks– will see: 10 bytes of payloads, 40 bytes of packet header– header compression compress into state index on one link

Internet acquires presentation layer

All learn about OSI 7-layer model OSI: ASN.1 as common rendering of

application data structures– used in LDAP and SNMP (and H.323)

Internet never really had presentation layer– approximations: common encoding (TLV, RFC

822 styles) Now, XML as the design choice by default

Internet acquires session layer

Originally, meant for data sessions Example (not explicit): ftp control connection Now, separate data delivery from session

setup– address and application configuration– deal with mobility– will see as RTSP, SIP and H.323