Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/drafts/draft_ietf_j_p/draft-ietf-lsma-scenarios-01.txt

Text File | 1997-07-21 | 24KB | 451 lines

IETF Large-Scale Multicast Applications (LSMA)    Steve Seidensticker, ed.,
                                                  [e-mail]
Working Internet Draft                            W. Garth Smith,
<draft-ietf-lsma-scenarios-01.txt>                [e-mail]
                                                  Michael Myjak
 26 March 1997                                    [e-mail]


                  Scenarios and Appropriate Protocols for
                    Distributed Interactive Simulation

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents
of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and
may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It
is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite
them other than as ``work in progress.''

To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet- Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au
(Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West
Coast).

Distribution of this document is unlimited.
Current schedule:

June 1996. Meet in Montreal, approve charter, refine goal documents and
finalize the appoint of editors for documents.

Sept. 1996. Produce initial draft.

Dec. 1996. Review document drafts and accept changes and comments on the
documents.

March 1997. Publish documents as Informational RFCs. Close group.

Mailing lists for comments:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]


Abstract

We describe distributed interactive simulation (DIS) scenarios from the
vantage point of hardware and software vendors who would need to address
the network implications and requirements to enable large scale networked
multiplayer virtual worlds. This document is meant to migrate the knowledge
of the traditional Department of Defense (DoD) modeling and simulation
community into tangible design metrics for the commercial networking
community [2]. [Note: The term "DIS" is used here generically to describe
the type of simulations used to implement these scenarios. It does not
imply the use of IEEE 1278.1 protocols[1], frequently referred to as DIS
protocols.]

1. Introduction

Distributed simulations are collections of individual simulations linked at
a peer level. That is, there is no client/server or centralized kernel.
Each simulation application maintains it's own copy of a common virtual
environment. Representations of this environment (e.g. terrain databases)
are distributed by various means to all simulation applications prior to
any real time operation. Issues associated with the distribution of the
static environment are not within the scope of this discussion.

During real time operation each simulation application models the behavior
of the simulated entity(s) for which it is responsible. Whenever specific
events occur in the virtual environment or when the state of the simulated
entities have changed significantly, the simulation application transmits
this new information to the other simulation applications on the network.
This information is encapsulated in packets and is transmitted via the
UDP/IP datagram service. Anomalies and lack of precise causality due to
dropped packets are tolerated in order to get the latency needed for real
time operations.

Effective distributed simulation depends on low latency between the time a
new state/event occurs for a simulated entity to the time that that
state/event is perceived by another entity that must react to it (e.g. two
high performance aircraft maneuvering to get in position to launch weapons
at each other). In contrast, during event driven simulations increased
latency merely slows the simulation down but causality is maintained. In
real time simulations excessive latency destroys interactions and the
simulation collapses.

The recommended practice for communications architecture (IEEE 1278.2)
indicates that the underlying communications structure should provide 100
ms or less latency for packet exchange for closely coupled interactions
between simulated entities (e.g. high performance aircraft in a dog fight).
This requirement is based on human reaction times that have been the basis
of human-in-the-loop (HITL) flight simulator designs for many years. This
requirement eases to 300 ms for loosely coupled interactions (e.g.
simulated voice radio).

To some extent real time simulations can compensate for excessive latency
by extrapolating continuously changing values (e.g. dead reckoning of
entity movement based on initial position plus velocity and acceleration).
However, discrete events (e.g. voice exchanges between humans on a
simulated radio net) cannot be predicted and therefore no latency
compensation is possible.

1.1 Types of Data Exchanged

In real time distributed simulations any data may be sent between
applications, however the following categories of data dominate and tend to
tax network services:

Entity State -- Information includes appearance, location, velocity,
orientation, accelerations, and position/movement of articulated parts of
simulated entities. Location and movement are dead reckoned and this packet
is only sent to correct dead reckoned parameters. It may also be sent
periodically as a heartbeat, or to compensate for lost packets. Radically
maneuvering entities transmit up to 15 packets/second. An average rate is
two/sec for land vehicles and five/sec for aircraft.

Emissions -- Information includes point of origin, power, frequency,
direction, scan pattern, and other parameters of electronic or acoustic
emissions. This information is used to stimulate simulated sensors capable
of detecting and responding to such information. In electronic warfare (EW)
environments these parameters change frequently. In an active EW
environment emission packets are sent as frequently as entity state
packets.

Bit Stream Packets -- These represent voice samples, computer-to-computer
communications, images, or any other digital bit stream. These are heavily
used in simulations that include voice radio, intelligence, and tactical
command and control systems.

Environment -- Atmospheric or oceanographic data is broken up into a series
of packets to describe changes in the simulated environment. The update
rate is relatively low, but the number of packets needed to represent
complex patterns induces a significant network load.

Fire & Detonation -- Packet pairs carry the information needed to describe
the firing of a ballistic (unguided) weapon and the detonation of the
projectile. The amount of information per packet is modest and the total
packets are limited to the amount of ammunition the participants can carry,
but weapon firing tends to come in bursts and those bursts can impact
network performance.

In real-time simulations all the data listed above shares an important
characteristic that is often overlooked when designing reliability
mechanisms.  The data is perishable.  It becomes stale quickly.  Most
reliability mechanisms attempt to retransmit the original data to correct
for packet loss.  This approach may be required for convention applications
(e.g. file transfer), but in distributed real-time simulation such recovery
is of little use.  A better approach is a recovery mechanism that
retransmits a fresh version of the data in a lost packet.

1.2 Network Requirements

The following are extracted and summarized from a companion informational
RFC by Pullen, Bouwens, and Myjak [4].

1.2.1 Multicasting

In early DIS simulations all applications simply broadcast packets to all
other applications in the exercise using the IP broadcast address in UDP
datagrams. More recent simulations use static multicast addresses to
segregate different kinds of packets (e.g. entity state, emissions, bit
streams). This reduces the processing required to throw away packets by
those applications that cannot process them.

While static multicasting is a significant improvement over broadcasting,
it is not adequate for the large scale simulations. For that a mechanism
must be found that can efficiently route packets only when and where they
are needed. Dynamic multicasting is the key. But to use dynamic
multicasting it must be supported by the communications community.

Much has been said and written about dynamic multicasting. There is no
single view of it. Dynamic multicasting can have many characteristics.
Different applications will emphasize different characteristics. Those most
important to the DIS community are:

* Ability to support and manage thousands of simultaneous multicast groups.

* Sustain join/leave times of less than one second at rates of hundreds of
join/leaves per second with complete end-to-end propagation.

This must be done using a many-to-many paradigm in which 90% or more of the
group members act as senders and receivers within any given multicast group.

1.2.2 Real-time Packet Delivery

Packets must be delivered with low packet loss and predictable latency on
the order of a few hundred milliseconds, after buffering to account for
jitter (variation of latency) such that less than 2% of packets fail to
arrive within the specified latency, in a shared network.

1.2.3 Resource Reservation

Simulation exercises using the Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) will need to
reserve a maximum overall networking capacity that would could be
dynamically shared among various groups of information flows.  With regards
to distributed simulation environments, this implies that Information flows
will need to be dynamically grouped in relation to multicast groups,
regions of interest, or some possibly some other paradigm as the exercise
evolves.

1.2.4 Resource Sensitive Routing

Forwarding datagrams from one network node to the next is performed by
routing protocols such as Multicast Open Shortest Path First (MOSPF). In
order to make the overall network function, many knowledgeable IETF people
believe a routing protocol is needed that determines paths through the
network within the context of a quality of service requirement.

2. Scenarios

2.1. Local, small scale, real-time simulation.

A dedicated 10 megabit/second Ethernet 10Base-T Local Area Network (LAN)
has been established for a 200 entity exercise. The simulation platforms
are Silicon Graphics (SGI) Indigo 2 Extremes running IRIX 5.3, SGI Maximum
Impacts, and SUN Solaris 5.4 SPARC Ultra UNIX workstations. Three
stand-alone hosts running an embedded real-time operating system are
functioning as high speed aircraft simulators. The aircraft simulators
provide high resolution out-the- window views of the virtual world. All
simulations are using the IEEE 1278.1 protocol for entity to entity
interaction. Primary entity information is being passed as UDP/IP datagrams
via the UNIX UDP port 3000. All simulation hosts are located on the same
subnetwork on the LAN. All simulations are using a 20 X 20 kilometer
terrain database so as to orient in a common virtual world.

All UNIX workstations are configured with Internet Group Management
Protocol (IGMP) and all simulations are using static IP multicast. No
reliability via retransmissions is provided at the network transport
protocol level as no standard for reliable multicast has yet been adopted
by the community [3]. A small number of predefined multicast groups are
being used to delineate network traffic to interested users. These groups
do not change during the course of the exercise. As in typical DIS
scenarios, all simulation applications are acting like senders and
receivers. Some simulation applications emit multiple entities (up to 40)
while others are responsible for only a single entity's behavior.

The majority of entities are low speed ground vehicles transmitting IEEE
1278.1 Entity State packets of 1152 bits at an average of two packets per
second. These ground entities are controlled by a rule based system that
mimics behavior of transportation on four of the SGI simulation hosts. One
of the rule-based simulation applications is generating six high speed
rotary wing aircraft generating on average six Entity State packets per
second. Occasionally, these rotary wing entities emit bursts of 704 bit
Fire packets with subsequent emission of 832 bit Detonation packets (on the
order of 20 to 100 packets a second for both Detonation and Fire). All
Entity state based information must arrive at all the designated receivers
at the 100 millisecond constraint to remain real-time.

The three high speed aircraft simulation emit from 5 to 10 Entity State
packets per second. Additionally, the aircraft are using experimental radio
communication bit stream packets for transmitting voice between the users.
Pregenerated background voice traffic is being transmitted along with the
pilot communications. An air-borne control aircraft simulation transmitting
voice to the pilots is also issuing voice bit stream packets. These packets
are on the order of several hundred bytes and are randomly dispersed
through the exercise with occasional bursting. To limit the impact of the
voice traffic on simulation applications that cannot process such traffic,
a predefined static multicast group is used for all voice communications.

One of the simulation applications provides weather changes to exercise
participants via a predefined static multicast group. Due to the very large
size of the precipitation and wind data (five megabits), the transmitting
applications fragment the data into manageable packet sizes (i.e., up to
the Ethernet datalink size limitation). Receiving applications reassemble
the packets into the formats needed by the simulation. The weather data
need only arrive at the specified users host at 10 minute intervals to
remain real-time.

The scenario is periodically compromised when the network traffic exceeds
the 10 megabit/second rate. This usually occurs when the radio and weather
packets and detonations are all simultaneously occurring. Other loss of
network information occurs when the host receiver buffers get overloaded
and drop packets when receiving bursts of voice and weather data
simultaneously. Exercises that experience such loss are considered invalid
and are replayed.

2.2. Synthetic Theater of War (STOW)

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is funding the
expansion of the simulation in scenario one above to a much larger scale.
The original goal of the STOW program was to demonstrate in real time the
simulated interaction of 100,000 or more entities via applications at 50 or
more sites. The general purpose is to rehearse theater level military
operations using actual players. Budget and other constraints have reduced
the goals of the demonstration significantly. However the techniques,
technology, and architecture used in the demonstrations must show that they
will support simulations of larger scale.

The STOW program started with the IEEE 1278.1 message based protocol for
the exchange of data but is shifting to a new approach being developed by
the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO), called the High Level
Architecture (HLA). The HLA moves the interface from the messages to an API
that resides between the simulation applications and a layer of standard
services called the Runtime Infrastructure (RTI). The RTI itself is
distributed. Parts of it reside with each application and parts of it may
reside in processors dedicated to providing RTI functions.

The RTI services include the exchange of simulation data between the
applications. The mechanism employed is an object request broker (ORB) that
sets up communications channels between publishers and subscribers.
Whenever a publishing application updates an attribute the RTI moves it to
the subscribing application(s). The RTI relies on standard UDP/IP services
to move the data. The HLA publish/subscribe mechanism is quite
sophisticated and allows subscriptions based on the values of attributes
(e.g. give me the location of all air vehicles within sector x). The RTI
determines the flow of data based on the publications/subscriptions and
establishes data channels via multicast addresses that carry the flow from
senders to groups of receivers. As the values change on which the
subscriptions are based, the membership of the multicast address based on
that value range must also change. This change must occur rapidly if the
data flow is to remain correct and the simulation is to remain valid.

Although the ORB used by the HLA RTI is different from the message based
protocol used in older simulations, the fundamental multicast address
requirements will not change. As long as the data sources, the
destinations, and circumstances under which the data flow remain the same,
the multicast service requirements will remain the same.

2.3. VR on the Internet

Phase I -- You are interested in cathedrals and you have chosen that
subject for the paper you have to present next week in your European
history class. You jump into the WWW with your favorite browser and ask
Lycos to find you something about cathedrals. In a few seconds it comes
back with a list of several hundred articles. You click on one that
promises exciting pictures. The view of the front of Chartres that fills
your 20" monitor is just amazing. The spires, the arches, the detail look
almost real. You zoom in on the entrance but the detail disappears into
blocks of pixels.

This is the state of the WWW today. It provides you copies of two dimension
representations that someone else has created and put onto the web for you
to fetch.

Phase II -- You are again looking at the image of Chartres. Only this time
you click on a "move forward" control. The entrance gets larger. The detail
of the doors comes into view. As you approach the doors swing open and you
enter. The vaulted ceiling and stained glass windows are magnificent. You
look right and left. You move about the interior and examine the detail.

This is the state of the WWW tomorrow morning. That is, the capability of
representing an object on the WWW in three dimensions, viewing that object
from any point in space, along with simple animations (doors opening on
approach) is available on a few WWW servers and browsers using the Virtual
Reality Modeling Language (VRML).

Phase III -- You turn back to the altar. Now see and hear a priest saying
mass. He stops and turns to the choir. You hear the strains of a familiar
hymn. You look at the choir. They look quite real. The quality of their
voices convinces you that they are not a professional group. One of them
turns to you and beckons. You move toward them and take a spot in the front
row. You begin singing into the microphone attached to your computer. Your
voice is combined with theirs' and is heard by the priest, the other
members of the choir and a few people you notice in the pews.

This is the state of the WWW the day after tomorrow where individuals will
be able to share common virtual environments. In these shared environments
individuals will be represented by what the industry is calling "avatars".
Such avatars will be under the direct control of the real person they
represent. For an excellent extrapolation of where this concept might go,
read Neal Shephenson's "Snowcrash."

Although such shared virtual environments are not simulations in the
classic sense, they have many of the same requirements of the supporting
communications structure. That is, they are very similar MC requirements.

2.4. Recreations of Historic Battles

The year is 2010 or thereabout. The world's major powers have been at peace
since the resolution of the Balkans conflict in 1997. Several generations
have grown up without the taste of battle. But there is something in the
psyche of these generations that yearns for the excitement of engaging an
enemy with skill and determination, but without the shedding of their own
blood. This yearning has been behind the development of more and more
realistic real time simulations. It has culminated in the simulated
recreation of historic battles on a grand scale.

A culture has grown up around these simulations. Above all they strive for
historic accuracy. The simulated planes, ships, tanks, horses, and weapons
have the same capabilities as the original. Logistics, planning, and
initial conditions are the same. The participants are trained to the same
point as their original counterparts. They are tested and qualified before
they can participate. Some take on the names and habits of real characters.
Many assemble at annual conventions to exchange tales and see the latest in
simulation equipment.

These simulations have become a very popular spectator sport. Millions of
viewers watch the battles unfold from any vantage point that they choose.
They can go into the command centers. They can tether themselves to any
participant and see and hear what he sees and hears. They can tune in to
various commentators in different languages for an explanation or critique
of what is going on at various points. The recreations are both scheduled
and reported on the popular net sport pages.

The scenario described below is the recreation of a series of B-17 raids
that the US Eighth Air Force made over Europe in 1943. These raids were
fiercely and effectively defended by the Luftwaffe and German anti-aircraft
artillery (the dreaded flak).

The participants are a mix of humans and software models. The humans tend
to take the more interesting roles. The software models are sophisticated
enough that they cannot be easily distinguished from human participants.
Total number of participants roughly corresponds to the number of
participants in the original battle and varies between 100,000 and 500,000.
Number of spectators ranges in the tens of millions and is governed by the
factors that control the watching of any sport.

The simulation equipment ranges from simple VR goggles to elaborate
cockpits and gun turrets with sophisticated motion and sound cuing. All
simulations share visual cues that are indistinguishable from what the
unaided eye can see. The participants own or rent the hardware and
software. As with any avocation the cost varies depending on taste and
finances. Participation is not governed by cost but by the dedication and
capability of individuals.

The participants and spectators are located throughout the world and are
connected on a virtual net that reaches into each participant's and
spectator's home. Crew station simulations that are part of one simulated
platform (e.g. a single B-17) are themselves distributed.

Sophisticated multicasting schemes, clever interest management algorithms,
and simulation tricks have effectively removed any limits to the potential
scale of distributed simulations. Local bandwidth limitations sometimes
restrict what a spectator can see. Dropped packets and latency spikes
occasionally cause anomalies, but they are seldom serious enough to effect
the outcome of the simulation.

References:

[1] IEEE Standard for Information Technology - Protocols for distributed
interactive simulation Applications, IEEE Std. 1278-1993.

[2] http://www.herring.com/mag/issue30/games.html

[3] http://www.tascnets.com/mist/doc/mcpCompare.html

[4] Pullen, J.,  M. Myjak and C. Bouwens, "Limitations of The Internet
Protocol Suite for Distributed Simulation in the Large Multicast
Environment", IETF Large Scale Multicast Applications Working Group,
draft-ietf-lsma-scenarios-xx.txt, work in progress.

Steve Seidensticker    |Internet:   [e-mail]
2223 Commonwealth Ave  |Voice+fax:  [phone]
San Diego CA 92104     |Alternate:  619/283-2849