CSE 524: TCP/IP Internetworking Protocols

1. CSE 524: TCP/IP Internetworking Protocols Wu-chang Feng

2. CSE524: Lecture 1 Overview, Internet architecture

3. Quiz • How much do you know?

4. Syllabus • http://www.cse.ogi.edu/class/cse524/ • TA • Guangzhi Liu gliu@cse.ogi.edu • Office hours: • Thursday 3pm-6pm • CSE Central 146 • Required book • Kurose/Ross, “Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach Featuring the Internet”

5. Syllabus • Grading • Exams • 25% Midterm (10/29/2001: Chapters 2, 3) • 25% Final (11/28/2001: Chapters 1, 4, 5) • Other • 25% Research paper (12/5/2001) • 25% Homework, quizzes, class participation • Coarse-grained grading

6. Research paper • You become the expert on “X”. You teach me. • Current survey and projected future of “X” • “X” not covered in course • Any length, no more than 10 pages • Topic and scope negotiated by e-mail • Approval by 10/29/2001, Due by 12/5/2001 • Topics I’d like to know more about • Ultra-wide band, sensor networks, high-speed switching and routing products, web switching products, peer-to-peer networks, content-addressable networks, overlay networks, IPv6, mobile IP, intrusion detection systems, IP traceback, DDoS attacks, DDoS prevention, MPLS, lambda switching, Internet worms, …

7. Research paper • Grading • Correctness • Completeness • Content • References • Originality • Each paper will be “Google” tested • Quoting and referencing is fine • Wholesale copying is not

8. Goals of course • Higher-level design decisions and their impact • Encyclopedia of essential protocols and algorithms

9. Outline of course • Internet architecture, history, future (Chapter 1) • Physical, data-link layers (Chapter 5) • Network layer (Chapter 4) • Transport layer (Chapter 3) • Application layer (Chapter 2)

10. About the course • Extremely condensed • Not comprehensive • Hundreds of protocols • PSU/OCATE 510 - Internet Routing • PSU/OCATE 510 - Network Management/Security • OHSU 58X - Multimedia Networking • OHSU 58X – Internet Technology and Research

11. Internet Architecture • http://www.nap.edu/html/coming_of_age/ • http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1958.txt • Packet switching over circuit switching • “Hourglass” design • End-to-end architecture • Layering of functionality • Distributed design, decentralized control • Superior organizational process

12. mesh of interconnected routers the fundamental question: how is data transferred through net? circuit switching: dedicated circuit per call: telephone net packet-switching: data sent thru net in discrete “chunks” The Network Core

13. Resources reserved for “call” on an end to end basis link bandwidth, switch capacity dedicated resources: no sharing circuit-like (guaranteed) performance call setup required Network Core: Circuit Switching

14. network resources (e.g., bandwidth) divided into “pieces” pieces allocated to calls resource piece idle if not used by owning call (no sharing) dividing link bandwidth into “pieces” frequency division time division Network Core: Circuit Switching

15. Network Core: Circuit Switching Example • 1890-current: Phone network • Fixed bit rate • Mostly voice • Not fault-tolerant • Components extremely reliable • Global application-level knowledge throughout network

16. each end-end data stream divided into packets user A, B packets share network resources each packet uses full link bandwidth resources used as needed, Bandwidth division into “pieces” Dedicated allocation Resource reservation Network Core: Packet Switching resource contention: • aggregate resource demand can exceed amount available • congestion: packets queue, wait for link use • store and forward: packets move one hop at a time • transmit over link • wait turn at next link

17. D E Network Core: Packet Switching 10 Mbs Ethernet C A statistical multiplexing 1.5 Mbs B queue of packets waiting for output link 45 Mbs

18. Network Core: Packet Switching Example • 1981-current: Internet network • Variable bit rate • Mostly data • Fault-tolerant • Components not extremely reliable (versus phone components) • Distributed control and management

19. 1 Mbit link each user: 100Kbps when “active” active 10% of time circuit-switching: 10 users packet switching: with 35 users, probability > 10 active less that .004 Packet switching allows more users to use network! Packet switching versus circuit switching N users 1 Mbps link

20. Great for bursty data resource sharing no call setup Excessive congestion: packet delay and loss protocols needed for reliable data transfer, congestion control Q: How to provide circuit-like behavior? bandwidth guarantees needed for audio/video apps still an unsolved problem (chapter 6) Is packet switching a “slam dunk winner?” Packet switching versus circuit switching

21. Hourglass design

22. Hourglass design • D. Clark, “The design philosophy of the DARPA internet”, SIGCOMM 1988, August 16 - 18, 1988. • http://www.acm.org/pubs/citations/proceedings/comm/52324/p106-clark/

23. Hourglass design • Only one protocol at the Internet level • Minimal required elements at the narrowest point • IP – Internet Protocol • http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc791.txt • http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1812.txt • Unreliable datagram service • Addressing and connectionless connectivity • Fragmentation and assembly • Innovation at the edge • Phone network: dumb edge devices, intelligent network • Internet: dumb network, intelligent edge devices

24. Hourglass design • Simplicity allowed fast deployment of multi-vendor, multi-provider public network • Ease of implementation • Limited hardware requirements • Eventual economies of scale • Designed independently of hardware • Hardware addresses decoupled from IP addresses • IP header contains no data/physical link specific information • Allows IP to run over any fabric

25. Hourglass design • Waist expands at transport layer • Two dominant services layered above IP • TCP – Transmission Control Protocol • Connection-oriented service • http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc793.txt • UDP – User Datagram Protocol • Connectionless service • http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc768.txt

26. Hourglass design • TCP – Transmission Control Protocol • Reliable, in-order byte-stream data transfer • Acknowledgements and retransmissions • Flow control • Sender won’t overwhelm receiver • Congestion control • Senders won’t overwhelm network

27. Hourglass design • UDP – User Datagram Protocol • Unreliable data transfer • No flow control • No congestion control

28. Hourglass design • Check out /etc/services on *nix or C:\WIN*\system32\services • IANA • http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers • What uses TCP? • HTTP, FTP, Telnet, SMTP, NNTP, BGP • What uses (mainly) UDP? • SNMP, NTP, NFS, RTP (streaming media, IP telephony, teleconferencing), multicast applications • Many protocols can use both

29. Hourglass design • Question? • Are TCP, UDP, and IP enough? • What other functionality would applications need?

30. Hourglass design • Security? • Quality-of-service? • Reliable, out-of-order delivery service? • Handling greedy sources? • Accounting and pricing support? • IPsec, DiffServ, SCTP, ….

31. End-to-end principle • J. H. Saltzer, D. P. Reed and D. D. Clark “End-to-end arguments in system design”, Transactions on Computer Systems, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1984 • http://www.acm.org/pubs/citations/journals/tocs/1984-2-4/p277-saltzer/

32. End-to-end principle • Where to put the functionality? • In the network? At the edges? • End-to-end functions best handled by end-to-end protocols • Network provides basic service: data transport • Intelligence and applications located in or close to devices at the edge • Violate principle as a performance enhancement

33. End-to-end principle • The good • Basic network functionality allowed for extremely quick adoption and deployment using simple devices • The bad • New network features and functionality are impossible to deploy, requiring widespread adoption within the network • IP Multicast, QoS

34. Layering • Modular approach to network functionality • Example: Application Host-to-host connectivity Link hardware

35. Layering Characteristics • Each layer relies on services from layer below and exports services to layer above • Interface defines interaction • Hides implementation - layers can change without disturbing other layers (black box) • Examples • Topology and physical configuration • Routing • Applications require no knowledge of this • New applications deployed without coordination with network operators or operating system vendors

36. Protocols • Module in layered structure • Set of rules governing communication between network elements (applications, hosts, routers) • Protocols define: • Interface to higher layers (API) • Interface to peer • Format and order of messages • Actions taken on receipt of a message

37. Layering User A User B Application Transport Network Link Host Host Layering: technique to simplify complex systems

38. Layer Encapsulation User A User B Get index.html Connection ID Source/Destination Link Address

39. E.g.: OSI Model: 7 Protocol Layers • Physical: how to transmit bits • Data link: how to transmit frames • Network: how to route packets • Transport: how to send packets end2end • Session: how to tie flows together • Presentation: byte ordering, security • Application: everything else

40. OSI Layers and Locations Application Presentation Session Transport Network Data Link Physical Switch Host Router Host

41. Example: Transport Layer • First end-to-end layer • End-to-end state • May provide reliability, flow and congestion control

42. Example: Network Layer • Point-to-point communication • Network and host addressing • Routing

43. Layering • Is Layering always good? • Sometimes.. • Layer N may duplicate lower level functionality (e.g., error recovery) • Layers may need same info (timestamp, MTU) • Strict adherence to layering may hurt performance

44. Layering • Need for exposing underlying layers for optimal application performance • D. Tennenhouse and D. Clark. Architectural Considerations for a New Generation of Protocols. SIGCOMM 1990. • Intel employees: Tennenhouse is a networking “rock star” and your head of research • Application Layer Framing (ALF) • Enable application to process data as soon as it can • Expose application processing unit (ADU) to protocols • Integrated Layer Processing (ILP) • Layering convenient for architecture but not for implementations • Combine data manipulation operations across layers

45. Distributed design and control • Reliability from intelligent aggregation of unreliable components • Alternate paths, adaptivity, lack of centralized control • Each network owned and managed separately • Exception: TLDs and TLD servers, IP address allocation (ICANN)

46. Superior organizational process • IAB/IETF process allowed for quick specification, implementation, and deployment of new standards • Free and easy download of standards • Rough consensus and running code • 2 interoperable implementations • Bake-offs • http://www.ietf.org/ • ISO/OSI • Comparison to IETF left as an exercise

47. Acknowledgements • Portions of this lecture and all subsequent lectures are taken from course slides by Kurose/Ross and course slides by Srini Seshan’s Computer Networking course at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~srini/15-744/S01/