Mensaje original en formato texto

From: Salvador Petit Martí 
Newsgroups: es.comp.os.linux.redes
Subject: RFC 1149 y 2549
Date: 23 Aug 2000 17:14:55 GMT

Podeis buscarlos vosotros mismos en el repositorio de RFCs más cercano.
Pero, por si acaso os los transcribo aquí porque son la leche. Describen
como transmitir IP a través de "avian carriers" (esto es palomas
mensajeras, aguilas, helicopteros y demás fauna voladora).

Network Working Group                                        D. Waitzman
Request for Comments: 1149                                       BBN STC
                                                            1 April 1990


   A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers

Status of this Memo

   This memo describes an experimental method for the encapsulation of
   IP datagrams in avian carriers.  This specification is primarily
   useful in Metropolitan Area Networks.  This is an experimental, not
   recommended standard.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Overview and Rational

   Avian carriers can provide high delay, low throughput, and low
   altitude service.  The connection topology is limited to a single
   point-to-point path for each carrier, used with standard carriers,
   but many carriers can be used without significant interference with
   each other, outside of early spring.  This is because of the 3D ether
   space available to the carriers, in contrast to the 1D ether used by
   IEEE802.3.  The carriers have an intrinsic collision avoidance
   system, which increases availability.  Unlike some network
   technologies, such as packet radio, communication is not limited to
   line-of-sight distance.  Connection oriented service is available in
   some cities, usually based upon a central hub topology.

Frame Format

   The IP datagram is printed, on a small scroll of paper, in
   hexadecimal, with each octet separated by whitestuff and blackstuff.
   The scroll of paper is wrapped around one leg of the avian carrier.
   A band of duct tape is used to secure the datagram's edges.  The
   bandwidth is limited to the leg length.  The MTU is variable, and
   paradoxically, generally increases with increased carrier age.  A
   typical MTU is 256 milligrams.  Some datagram padding may be needed.

   Upon receipt, the duct tape is removed and the paper copy of the
   datagram is optically scanned into a electronically transmittable
   form.

Discussion

   Multiple types of service can be provided with a prioritized pecking
   order.  An additional property is built-in worm detection and
   eradication.  Because IP only guarantees best effort delivery, loss
   of a carrier can be tolerated.  With time, the carriers are self-



Waitzman                                                        [Page 1]

RFC 1149             IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers         1 April 1990


   regenerating.  While broadcasting is not specified, storms can cause
   data loss.  There is persistent delivery retry, until the carrier
   drops.  Audit trails are automatically generated, and can often be
   found on logs and cable trays.

Security Considerations

   Security is not generally a problem in normal operation, but special
   measures must be taken (such as data encryption) when avian carriers
   are used in a tactical environment.

Author's Address

   David Waitzman
   BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
   BBN Labs Division
   10 Moulton Street
   Cambridge, MA 02238

   Phone: (617) 873-4323

   EMail: dwaitzman@BBN.COM

Y el otro...

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.



Waitzman                      Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 2549            IP over Avian Carriers with QoS         1 April 1999


   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.

Waitzman                      Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 2549            IP over Avian Carriers with QoS         1 April 1999


   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



Waitzman                      Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 2549            IP over Avian Carriers with QoS         1 April 1999


     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 ...


Waitzman                      Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 2549            IP over Avian Carriers with QoS         1 April 1999


Author's Address

   David Waitzman
   IronBridge Networks
   55 Hayden Ave
   Lexington, MA 02421
   Phone: (781) 372-8161

   EMail: djw@vineyard.net

--
           @@@@@@@@@@
          @@        @@
         @@   @@@@@  @@           .         .
 spetit  @@  @@  @@  @@   disca  ...  upv  ...  es
         @@   @@@@@@@@            .         .
          @@           @@
           @@@@@@@@@@@@@