home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1994 March
/
Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso
/
inet
/
ien
/
ien-185
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1988-12-01
|
47KB
|
1,239 lines
IEN-185
INDRA Note 1101
May 26, 1981
DEVELOPMENT OF UK/US NETWORK SERVICES
AT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON
Robert T. Braden
Peter L. Higginson
IEN-185
May 26, 1981
ABSTRACT: This document describes the second-
generation service facility under development at
UCL, to connect the DARPA Catenet with X25-based
networks in the UK. The facilities will include
a Terminal Protocol Converter, a Transport
Service Gateway, and an "IP Tunnel".
INDRA Note # 1101
Department of Computer Science
University College, London
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...........................................3
2. PROTOCOL CONSIDERATIONS................................5
2.1 Routing and Addressing.............................5
2.2 Protocol Conversion................................7
2.3 Cost Minimisation..................................8
2.4 Access Control.....................................8
3. SERVICE FACILITIES.....................................9
3.1 Terminal Service...................................9
3.2 File Transfer Traffic..............................10
3.3 MOD Services.......................................11
4. TERMINAL PROTOCOL CONVERTER............................15
5. CONCLUSIONS............................................19
6. REFERENCES.............................................20
[Page 1]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the network interconnection facilities
being developed at University College, London (UCL) to support
US/UK collaborative research computing. Briefly, these
facilities will link users and resources connected to the ARPA
Catenet of the US Department of Defense with users and resources
on several public and private networks in the UK. Terminal
access to remote time-sharing systems, file transfer, and mail
services are to be provided [1,2].
The facility to be described will be a "second generation" US/UK
network interconnection at UCL, replacing a UK/ARPANET link
established at UCL in 1974. UK users accessed the earlier
service through SRCNET [3,15], a network operated by the Science
Research Council; through EPSS [4], an experimental public data
network; or by direct dial-in to a TIP at UCL. This service is
now almost totally obsolete, as the networking worlds have
changed markedly on both sides of the Atlantic.
(1) Protocol Changes
The ARPANET has been embedded in the "Catenet", i.e., a
network of networks. To support host communication
across the Catenet, the ARPANET host-to-host protocol
"NCP" [5] has been replaced by an end-to-end protocol
TCP, operating over an internetwork datagram protocol
layer, IP [6,7]. On the other hand, the ARPANET higher-
level terminal protocol Telnet and the file transfer
protocol FTP have been kept essentially unchanged by the
Catenet [5].
Meanwhile, the UK has generally adopted the CCITT-
recommended X25 network-level protocol as well as the
terminal access protocols X3, X28, X29 (commonly
collected under the rubric "XXX" or "Triple-X") [8].
Furthermore, UK working groups have adopted a transport
service, NITS [9,14] (known as "Yellow Book" from the
colour of the document's cover), and a file transfer
protocol, NIFTP [10] (known as "Blue Book"). Both are de
facto UK standards and have been submitted to the
international standards bodies CCITT and ISO.
Thus, the UK has moved to adopt international standard
protocols, all of which differ from the corresponding
DARPA Catenet protocols.
[Page 3]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
(2) Network Changes
The DARPA Catenet includes the ARPANET, a number of local
networks, and a satellite network SATNET [11]. In
particular, SATNET links the US continental ARPANET with
PPSN [13], a packet-switching network of the UK Ministry
of Defense (MOD). The gateway between PPSN and SATNET,
which is located at UCL, has local ports into SATNET
which provide one of the paths for US/UK interconnection.
Public data networks have become a reality both in the US
and in the UK. In the US, "Valued-Added Networks"
(VAN's) such as Telenet and Tymnet have come into
existence. In the UK, the government-owned British
Telecom has installed a public packet-switched network
PSS [12].
PSS uses the standard protocols X25, X28, and X29. PSS
users have agreed to use NITS, NIFTP, and an enhancement
of X29 called TS29 (the "Green Book") [13]. PSS has
created a set of de facto national protocol standards for
the UK, and private data networks are likely to strive
for compatibility with it. In particular, SRCNET has been
moving towards almost complete compatibility with PSS
protocols [15].
Finally, an international packet switching service, IPSS,
now links the UK with the Value-Added networks in the US,
Canada, and many other countries. In the UK, IPSS will
shortly be linked to PSS. In the US, BBN is developing a
"VAN Gateway" which will link the ARPANET to Telenet.
Thus there will shortly be two paths linking UCL with the
US ARPANET -- the X25-based public carrier facility of
PSS/IPSS/VAN, and the private DARPA Catenet facility of
SATNET.
(3) New Administrative Requirements
Public data networks have usage charges for their
services. This in turn will force UCL to provide both
access control and accounting for these services, and
leads to cost minimisation considerations that have not
been necessary previously.
Furthermore, there are now at least two different classes
of users for the internetwork services provided by UCL;
these classes will see quite different kinds of services.
The SATNET path to the US, which is available only to
authorised DARPA Catenet users, has no usage-dependent
charge. Both the MOD and British Telecom are concerned to
[Page 4]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
limit the use of this route. Others in the UK must use
the IPSS path, whose usage costs are very significant.
The magnitude of the packet and connect charges on IPSS, together
with the technology of SATNET, will force important changes in
the mode of ARPANET use from the UK.
(a) The character-at-a-time, server-echo mode of terminal use
which is customary on most ARPANET hosts will be far too
costly on the IPSS path. It will still be feasible
(although somewhat awkward, because of long delays) on
SATNET, but it makes very inefficient use of the limited
channel capacity.
(b) The ARPANET practice of effectively broadcasting mail,
i.e., sending individual copies of the same message to
all recipients, is uneconomic over IPSS.
(c) Since file transfer is expected to make more cost-
effective use of the channel than does terminal traffic,
it will generally be cheaper for UK users to send and
receive their ARPANET mail in the UK, transferring it
across IPSS only in bulk. This implies that UCL should
provide a service host for receiving and composing mail.
2. PROTOCOL CONSIDERATIONS
The preceding section described the current environment for the
network interconnection facilities under development at UCL. This
section covers the communication protocol issues relevant to the
design of these facilities. Later sections will give more
details of the software and hardware required.
In general, two entirely different protocol domains are being
linked -- the CCITT/public data network world of X25, XXX, NITS,
and NIFTP, and the DARPA internetwork world of IP, TCP, Telnet,
and FTP. There are several different types of problems, which
will be considered in turn: divergent mechanisms for handling
routing and addressing, protocol conversions, cost, and access-
control.
2.1 Routing and Addressing
To design the interconnection facility, we need to identify those
protocols that provide (essentially) the same functionality,
[Page 5]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
i.e., which occupy the same "protocol layer". We will use the
following terminology:
(a) Network Layer
The network layer provides reliable, ordered transmission
across virtual circuits spanning a single address domain.
(b) Transport Layer
The transport provides the same services of the network
layer, and in addition provides them end-to-end across
multiple address domains.
(c) User Layer
We use this term for all protocols "above" the transport
layer, for example terminal and file transfer protocols.
To indicate the relative position of two protocols in the
heierarchy, we will use the notation:
A > B
for (higher-level) protocol "A" implemented "over" protocol "B".
Obviously Telnet, XXX, NIFTP, and FTP occupy the user layer as
defined here. Furthermore, by definition NITS occupies the
transport layer. However, TCP and X25 may each be assigned to
either the transport or the network layer, depending upon the
situation.
For example, the public data networks use a uniform, globally-
unique set of 14-digit addresses, and therefore form a single
address domain. The gateways between public data networks also
provide a routing mechanism. As a result, "bare" X25 can be
used as a transport service over a single network or across
interconnected public data networks (e.g., U.S. VAN to IPSS to
PSS).
However, private UK networks (e.g., SRCNET) constitute different
address domains. An X25 virtual call whose two ends lie in
different address domains requires a transport service to specify
the addressing and routing for setting up concatenated virtual
calls. NITS (Network Independent Transport Service) [9] provides
a general source-route addressing facility to handle such
multiple address domains. NITS is then the transport service,
and X25 is demoted to the network layer.
NITS allows multiple independent address domains, but provides no
global routing or addressing mechanism. Routing decisions are
[Page 6]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
assumed to be sufficiently static that they can be built into
tables in the originating host and in intermediate gateways.
The DARPA internet protocol, on the other hand, assumes a single
global addressing domain and dynamic routing implemented by
cooperating gateways. Addresses are limited to 32-bit numbers.
The protocol combination "TCP > IP", used within its "home"
Catenet, constitutes a transport service. However, TCP > IP
fails to provide general end-to-end addressing between a Catenet
host and an X25 host, since TCP > IP cannot specify X25-domain
addresses.
One solution to this problem of end-to-end addressing has been
proposed for the BBN VAN gateway [24]: the gateway will contain a
fixed table to map X25 addresses to and from "fake" internet
addresses. To simplify maintenance of this and other equivalent
tables, it may be desirable for the gateway to do the address
mapping by referencing a "Name Server", available to all relevant
gateways.
Another type of solution is provided by Bennett's proposal [18]
for a true transport service protocol, based on NITS, to be used
above TCP/IP. In practice, a combination of these techniques may
be used.
Finally, we can solve the addressing problem for terminal users
by forcing them to interact with each gateway between address
domains to specify the target address in the new domain. This
was the solution in the UK/US service being replaced.
2.2 Protocol Conversion
Both paths between the US and UCL will carry DARPA Catenet
protocols, using TCP > IP. Over the VAN/IPSS/PSS route, IP
datagrams will be encapsulated in X25 packets; this is sometimes
referred to as an "internet tunnel" or "IP tunnel". The BBN VAN
Gateway will form the Catenet end of such an IP tunnel. Since
Catenet protocols are being brought to the UK, the conversion
facilities must in general be in the UK; in particular, they will
be at UCL.
For interactive terminal service, the protocols used on the
Catenet and the UK sides of the gateway differ at both the
transport level and the user level. Thus, the ARPANET uses
Telnet > TCP while XXX > X25 (or TS29 > NITS > X25) will be used
in the UK. In addition, SRCNET uses a private terminal
protocol called ITP [15], in the hierarchy: ITP > NITS(subset) >
X25.
[Page 7]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
Therefore, UCL must provide a "terminal gateway", i.e., a gateway
which operates at the terminal protocol level. This facility
will terminate each of the terminal protocols, transforming one
protocol into another. We refer to this protocol conversion
gateway as the "Terminal Protocol Converter".
2.3 Cost Minimisation
The encapsulation of IP datagrams over the VAN, IPSS and PSS
public data networks raises some difficult problems [23]. First,
it is essential to minimise usage cost on these networks,
particularly on IPSS. Since IPSS calls accumulate both connect-
time and packet charges, cost can be reduced by multiplexing all
the encapsulated traffic over a single virtual call; this call
should be open only when the path is in use.
It is not clear whether it will be worthwhile to pack multiple
internet datagrams into a single X25 packet. PSS and IPSS
charges are based on a data unit of 64 bytes; at most two small
TCP packets would fit into a single unit, so the average lost due
to internal fragmentation is roughly equivalent to one small TCP
packet. Hence, packing datagrams will save less than a factor of
2 in cost.
As an end-to-end protocol, TCP raises some very great
difficulties with controlling cost inflation due to unwise
retransmissions [24].
2.4 Access Control
The use of an IP tunnel through public data networks raises an
urgent access control problem [23], again because of usage
charges.
At the UCL end of the IP tunnel, the Terminal Protocol Converter
will require UK users to log in before opening a virtual call
over PSS/IPSS. This log in will provide positive identification
to check authorization and record usage.
However, the "BBN VAN Gateway", at the US end of the tunnel, is
planned as a pure internet datagram gateway [24]. This implies
that it will be able to apply access control only on the basis of
the source and destination internet addresses and the VAN address
(of UCL). For example, it will contain a list of "authorised"
Catenet hosts which are allowed to send packets to UCL through
the VAN. Clearly, such a low-level mechanism cannot limit access
to specific users or record user costs.
[Page 8]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
3. SERVICE FACILITIES
This section will describe the network interconnection facilities
under development at UCL. These facilities will handle two major
types of traffic -- interactive terminals and file transfer --
which pose different problems.
3.1 Terminal Service
Figure 1 shows schematically the terminal service operation for
those users required to use IPSS.
The Terminal Protocol Converter must implement a command
language, reached by an appropriate escape sequence. This
language will include a "login" command and a "connect" command.
The "connect" command will specify the address in the destination
domain. The Protocol Converter must enforce user login, because
the use of PSS or IPSS will result in the expenditure of UCL
funds. This will solve UCL's access control problem for terminal
service, and allow the proper recording of usage.
Since the terminal protocols on the two sides differ quite
significantly in facilities, fully-automatic conversion of
terminal protocols is not possible [22]. The command language
must allow the user to modify the conversion or to override it in
a particular case.
We can give a simple example of the need for user control over
conversion. ARPANET hosts typically use Telnet negotiation to
cause character echoing at the host end rather than the terminal
end of the connection. Our Terminal Protocol Converter could
easily translate "WILL ECHO" from the Catenet automatically into
the equivalent in ITP or XXX. However, the use of host echo mode
seriously increases IPSS costs, and cannot be dictated by the
hosts. The Protocol Converter will therefore refuse the remote-
echo negotiation, but will provide a command (available to
authorised users) to allow host echo.
Access to the UNIX system shown in Figure 1 will be primarily
(and perhaps excusively) for UK users to compose and read mail.
Bulk movement of mail files between this UNIX system and the US
will be performed by NIFTP, as shown later (Figure 2).
From the DARPA Catenet viewpoint, the Terminal Protocol Converter
will terminate the IP, TCP and Telnet protocol layers; it
therefore will be addressed as an internet host. Between the BBN
VAN Gateway and the UCL facility labelled "IP Tunnel", internet
datagrams will be transported over the public data networks (VAN,
IPSS and PSS) by encapsulation in X25 packets. The "IP Tunnel"
[Page 9]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
will perform this encapsulation, but we do not plan to make it a
gateway; that is, it will not perform routing functions or
implement GGP.
Notice that PSS appears twice in Figure 1 -- as the link to IPSS,
transporting encapsulated internet datagrams to the US, and also
for terminal access to UCL from UK users. This is an indication
the data paths on this diagram are logical; in fact, there will
initially be only one physical path (line) to PSS from UCL.
3.2 File Transfer Traffic
NIFTP [10] will be used for the transfer of files and bulk mail
between the DARPA Catenet and the UK. This requires the use of
suitable relays for file and mail transfer in the US.
UCL has therefore created an NIFTP implementation on a TOPS-20
machine (ISIE), using either NCP or TCP as its transport service
[17]. We plan to implement an automatic file transfer relay at
ISIE, based upon this implementation.
A mail relay is also being planned [16], to interface to the
ARPANET mail service.
Although the same user-level protocol, NIFTP, is used throughout,
there will be different transport-level protocols on the UK and
the Catenet sides. For file transfer, therefore, UCL need only
provide a gateway operating at the transport service level,
essentially independent of the user-level protocol on top.
On the UK side, the transport service will be NITS > X25. On the
Catenet side, a true transport protocol with end-to-end
addressing is needed, since the X25 call is to be "concatenated"
with the TCP connection. As discussed previously, "bare" TCP is
not capable of transmitting the required X25 address. We
therefore plan to adopt Bennett's proposal [18] for (a simple
subset of) NITS above TCP. As shown in Figure 2, therefore, file
transfers from the US across IPSS will use the (incredible)
protocol hierarchy:
NIFTP > NITS > TCP > IP > X25
Figure 2, which shows schematically the file tranfer paths seen
by users who are are required to use IPSS, is topologically very
similar to Figure 1. Instead of the Terminal Protocol Converter,
Figure 2 has a Transport Service Gateway.
The Transport Service Gateway does create a new access control
and accounting problem. The NIFTP initiating the call should
[Page 10]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
"log in" at the Transport Service Gateway, but NIFTP has no
mechanism for such a log in. We plan to use the SRCNET solution
for this problem [20] -- the necessary login information will be
buried at the appropriate point in the NITS address string, to be
interpreted by the Transport Service Gateway.
3.3 MOD Services
Finally, Figure 3 shows the service facility as seen by the MOD
users. The two datagram gateways shown in this diagram are both
in service, maintained and controlled by BBN.
Most of the paths shown on this diagram are part of the internet
catenet. The "IP tunnel" is used here to provide an alternate
route to PPSN.
In these diagrams, we have generally omitted PSTN access for
terminals. However, UCL will have a TAC to provide such access
for the MOD. In addition, MOD users are expected to access UCL
via a PSS PAD using X25.
The UNIX system for mail services will be a PDP-11/34 initially,
but might be upgraded in the future to a PDP-11/44. This machine
will also be used to monitor and control the service functions,
to accumulate accounting data, and to maintain the login data
base.
The function labeled "UCL Datagram Gateway" in Figure 3 is a PDP
11/35 running BBN's gateway code. All the other UCL
interconnection functions will be implemented within LSI/11's
running under MOS, using code written mostly in "C".
[Page 11]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
FIGURE 1. VIEW OF UK/US SERVICE FOR SRC TERMINAL USER
/////////
// // /////// /////// ///////
// C // _____ // // // // // //
// D a // | | // // ___ // I // ___ // //
// A t // | BBN | // V // | | // P // | | // P //
// R e //---| VAN |---// A //--| G |--// S //--| G |--// S //---
// P n // | Gwy | // N // |___| // S // |___| // S // |
// A e // |_____| // // // // // // |
// t // /////// /////// // // |
// // /////// |
///////// |
|
|
Telnet > TCP > IP > X25 |
____________________________________________________________|
|
| ///////
..|........................................... // //
. | . // //
. | U C L . XXX > X25 // P //
. | . ____________ // S //
. | ________________ . | // S //
. | ______ | | . | // //
. | | | Telnet > | |-------- // //
. | | IP | TCP > IP | Terminal | . ///////
. --| |----------| Protocol | .
. |Tunnel| | Converter | .
. |______| | |-------- ///////
. | | . | ITP > X25 // //
. |________________| . | and // S //
. | Front | . | XXX > X25 // R //
. | End | . |____________ // C //
. |_______| . // N //
. | . // E //
. | . // T //
. | . // //
. (terminal access for | . ///////
. msg service) | .
. ==================== .
. || || .
. || || .
. || U N I X || .
. || || .
. || || .
. ==================== .
..............................................
[Page 12]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
FIGURE 2. VIEW OF US/UK NIFTP SERVICE FOR SRC USERS
To: PSS-IPSS-VAN-DARPA Catenet (see Fig. 1)
^
|
|
| NITS > TCP > IP > X25
| ///////
| // //
| // //
..|............................................. // P //
. | . __________ // S //
. | . | // S //
. | ______ ______________ . | // //
. | | | NITS > | |NITS > X25 | // //
. | | IP | TCP > IP | Transport |----------- ///////
. ---| |----------| Service | .
. |Tunnel| | Gateway |-----------
. |______| | |NITS > X25 | ///////
. |______________| . | // //
. | . | // S //
. | . | // R //
. | . |__________ // C //
. | . // N //
. (local | . // E //
. transport| . // T //
. service) | . // //
. | . ///////
. | .
. =========|========== .
. || U N |I X || .
. || | || .
. || _____|______ || .
. || | NIFTP | || .
. || | / mailer | || .
. || |____________| || .
. || || .
. ==================== .
................................................
[Page 13]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
FIGURE 3. VIEW OF US/UK CONNECTIONS FOR MOD
///////// ///////
// A C // ______ // S //
// R a // | | // A //
// P t // | Data-| // T //
// A e //---------| gram |----------// N //------
// n // | Gwy | // E // |
// e // |______| // T // |
// t // /////// |
///////// |
TCP > IP |
________________________________________________| ///////
| // //
| ........................................................ // P //
| . . // P //
| . ---------------------------------------------------- // S //
| . | IP . // N //
| . | _________ . // //
| . _______ IP | "IP | . ///////
| . | UCL |-------------------------------| Tunnel"| . IP ___|___
| . | Data- | TCP > IP |_________| . | MOD |
-----| gram |-------------------------- | . | VAN |
. | Gate- | _____|_____ | . | Gwy |
. | way | TCP > IP | | | . |_______|
. |_______|------> (IMP | Transport | | . IP >|X25
. | +TAC) | Service | | . |
. | | Gateway | | . ///////
. | _______________ |___________| |________ // //
. | | | | IP > X25 // //
. | | UCL | | . // P //
. ----| Terminal |------------------------------- // S //
.Telnet > | Protocol | | XXX > X25 // S //
. TCP > IP | Converter | | . // //
. |_______________| | . // //
. | F.E.| | . ///////
. |_____| | .
. |___________ | (file .
. | | transfer) .
. (terminal access for | | .
. msg service) =========|========== .
. || U N |I X || .
. || | || .
. || _____|______ || .
. || | NIFTP | || .
. || | / mailer | || .
. U C L || |____________| || .
. ==================== .
........................................................
[Page 14]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
4. TERMINAL PROTOCOL CONVERTER
In order to summarize the conversions to be performed by the
Protocol Converter, we introduce the symbol "<==>" to mean
"conversion to/from". For example,
TCP < Telnet <==> ITP > X25
indicates that the terminal protocol Telnet operating "over" the
transport protocol TCP is to be converted into the terminal
protocol ITP operating over the transport service X25.
The two primary conversions to be performed are:
(1) TCP < Telnet <==> ITP > X25
(2) TCP < Telnet <==> XXX > X25
As mentioned earlier, we want to incorporate access to a UNIX
system as a server. It is convenient to consider the UNIX server
as a new protocol, and add the pseudo-conversions:
(3) TCP < Telnet <==> UNIX
(4) UNIX <==> XXX > X25
(5) UNIX <==> ITP > X25
Finally, we will add a terminal user process which will allow us
to access each of the other four terminal protocol modules for
testing. We call this terminal user process "TTY" and add the
pseudo-transformations:
(6) TCP < Telnet <==> TTY
(7) TTY <==> ITP > X25
(8) TTY <==> XXX > X25
(9) TTY <==> UNIX
You will note that we have listed all but one of the ten
different conversions possible with the five protocols or
pseudo-protocols. That omission is:
(10) X25 < XXX <==> ITP > X25
Someone will probably find a use for this conversion, although it
would not be related to US-UK service.
[Page 15]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
FIGURE 4. TERMINAL PROTOCOL CONVERTER
__________________________________________________________
| |
| _______________ |
| | | | |
| ____________________ | | | |
| | | | | | I | | |
| | | | T |<=============>| T | | |
| | | T | E | | P | X | |
| | I | | L | ======>| | | |
--------| | C | N | | |_______| 2 |--------
| | P | | E | | | | | |
| | | P | T |<=============>| | 5 | |
| | | | |<=== | | X | | |
| |_____|_______|______| | | | X | | |
| | | ===>| X | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | |_______|_______| |
| ___|__|__|__ |
| | | |
|________________________| UNIX |____________________|
| Terminal |
| Front End |
|____________|
|
|
The Terminal Protocol Converter is implemented as a set of
"Protocol Processes", one for each terminal-level protocol, and a
common User Command Decoder Process. Each Protocol Process (PP)
executes an appropriate terminal protocol module (Telnet, ITP,
X28, X29, etc.) which in turn calls on the appropriate transport
process (TCP, X25, UNIX, local-TTY). The User Command Decoder
controls the establishment and termination of user sessions, and
the consequent accounting and access control. It also decodes
user commands.
A session generally requires the collaboration of two PP's -- one
to handle the "terminal" (user) side of the conversation, while
the other handles the "host" (server) side; see Figure 5. Each
PP is able to act in either role.
A session is initiated when a user opens a "call" or "connection"
to a terminal PP, which we will call "PP.term". PP.term makes a
logical connection to the UCD, which starts a dialog with the
user. The user will log in and request connection to a
particular remote host using some protocol. The UCD will then
[Page 16]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
request the appropriate host PP, "PP.host", to open the call to
the selected server host.
This mechanism is unsymmetrical with respect to the role of the
two PP's. The User Command Decoder monitors the input from the
terminal side, to detect and parse Protocol Converter commands.
User messages generated as a result, and host output messages,
are sent directly to PP.term.
FIGURE 5. TYPICAL PROTOCOL CONVERTER SESSION
____________________________________________________
| |
| User Command Decoder |
| ____________ |
| +-------> | | host input |
| | | UCD |------> |
| | <----| | | |
| | | |____________| | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | V <<Protocol V |
| __________ Processes>> __________ |
| | | | | |
| | PP.term | <------------- | PP.host | |
| | | host | | |
| |..........| output |..........| |
| | | |
| V V |
| Interface Interface |
| to Transport to Transport |
| Service Service |
| |
|____________________________________________________|
This scheme using two PP's for each session is an attempt to
avoid the combinatorics implied by five different terminal
protocol handlers. It does have a cost, however -- we must
design an internal protocol for communication between the PP's
and with the UCD. The conversion function is effectively split
into two parts, in each of the PP's.
The internal protocol includes a flow control mechanism. No
session can obtain more than its maximum share of the buffers,
and if a PP stops writing data, back-pressure will soon stop the
corresponding PP from reading new data for the same session.
[Page 17]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
Each session has a guaranteed minimum number of buffers, so it
can keep going, although perhaps slowly, when the system is
congested. In the absence of congestion, the number of buffers
in use by each session will fluctuate between this minimum and a
maximum, depending upon the relative rates of input and output of
data.
As mentioned earlier, the Terminal Protocol Converter is being
implemented in "C" and executed under MOS on LSI/11's. As shown
in Figure 4, the Terminal Protocol Converter must include code
for IP, TCP, Telnet, ITP, X28, X29, X25, as well as the UNIX
driver, a command interpreter, and access control, monitoring,
and accounting facilities. This code greatly exceeds the
standard 16-bit address space of an LSI/11. At a later stage, we
may use a virtual-memory MOS system on an PDP 11/23; at present,
however, a much more straight-forward approach is being taken.
The code is being split across three LSI/11s. The Transport
Service Gateway and the IP Tunnel will also be contained in the
same LSI/11s, since they share many modules.
The Terminal Protocol Converter LSI/11s must be able to
intercommunicate and to communicate with the UNIX system. In the
early development of the service facility, we have been using
1822 interfaces for this purpose. However, as soon as the
drivers are fully debugged, we will start using a local network
-- specifically, a Cambridge Ring -- for these inter-LSI/11
links within the Terminal Protocol Converter. The Ring will
similarly implement some of the other intra-UCL paths shown in
Figures 1-3.
To maximise our flexibility in assigning modules to particular
LSI/11s, we defined a standard form for all transport (and
network) services, including TCP and X25 [25]. This standardized
interface, shown as a dotted line in Figure 5, is known at UCL as
the "MOS Clean and Simple" interface. We then built an
"Interprocessor Clean and Simple" (IPCS), which may be considered
to be the software equivalent to an "extender board". IPCS
allows the two sides of the interface to operate in different
LSI/11s as if they were in the same LSI/11. IPCS itself has been
implemented for LS/11's using either an 1822 connection or a
low-level transport protocol on the Cambridge Ring.
In assigning functions to LSI/11's, we have a number of
constraints. Many of these are purely programming
considerations, such as module pairs whose common interfaces
requires both modules to be in the same processor. However, some
constraints are imposed by the network protocols themeselves.
[Page 18]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
In particular, the use of datagrams by IP is well suited to a
distributed organization, but the problem appears harder with a
virtual-call protocol like X25. For example, the SRI Port
Expander multiplexes logical internet hosts onto a single host
port, permitting the operation of TCP in multiple processors.
However, there is no corresponding facility for X25. For
example, the single PSS line must be attached to a particular
processor, which then becomes THE "PSS access machine".
5. CONCLUSIONS
This document has described the second-generation service
facility under development at UCL, to connect the DARPA Catenet
with X25-based networks in the UK. This facility is implemented
as a complex set of protocol handling modules, operating an a set
of inter-communicating LSI/11's. A local network, the Cambridge
Ring, will be used for these interconnections. The operation and
monitoring of this system will be performed by a program running
under UNIX on a PDP/11-34.
Linking the DARPA Catenet with public data networks has created
important problems of access control, in addition to the familiar
ones of addressing and routing. At the UCL end, we will force
user login in order to apply access controls and distribute costs
on a per-user basis.
The complexity of the total systems leads to difficult problems
of reliability. Further research will be necessary in this area.
In the future, we intend to consider a generalisation of the
present rather ad hoc distribution of functions in LSI/11's. The
protocol conversions and network interconnections could be
distributed into a pool of equivalent microprocessors, each
performing a particular network or conversion function [21]. The
Cambridge Ring would be used as a common communication bus for
the processors. The intent would be to improve reliability and
to more easily meet changing protocol requirements.
[Page 19]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
6. REFERENCES
[1] P. T. Kirstein, "Transatlantic Collaborative Computing".
Indra Note 1027, UCL, London, December 1980.
[2] P. T. Kirstein, "The Transition Requirements during 1981
for UK/US Services". Indra Note 1037, UCL, London,
February 1981.
[3] J. W. Burren, et. al., "Design for an SRC/NERC Computer
Network", RL 77-0371A, Rutherford Laboratory, Abingdon,
1977.
[4] C. F. Broomfield, "Packet Switching - The Experimental
Packet Switched Service". Comp. Commun. Rev., 2, 7-11,
1975.
[5] "ARPANET Protocols Handbook". NIC 7104, SRI
International, Menlo Park, 1978.
[6] J. B. Postel, "DOD Standard Transmission Control
Protocol", RFC 761, USC Information Sciences Institute,
Marina del Ray, 1979.
[7] J. B. Postel, "DOD Standard Internet Protocol", RFC
760, USC Information Sciences Institute, Marina del Ray,
1979.
[8] CCITT, "Recommendations X3, X25, X28, and X29 on Packet
Switched Data Services". Int. Telecom. Union, Geneva
1978.
[9] P. F. Linington, Ed., "A Network Independent Transport
Service". SG3/CP(80)2, Post Office PSS User Forum, Study
Group 3, The Computer Laboratory, Cambridge, England,
February 1980.
[10] (anon.), "A Network Independent File Transfer Protocol".
FTP-B(80), Data Communication Protocols Unit, National
Physical Laboratory, Teddington, February 1981.
[11] I. M. Jacobs, et.al., "General Purpose Satellite
Network". Proc. IEEE, 66, 11, 1448-1467, 1978.
[12] P. T. F. Kelly, "Non-Voice Services - Future Plans".
Proc. Conf. Business Telecommunications, Online, 65-82,
1980.
[13] P. H. Masterman, "The RSRE Pilot Packet Switched
Network". Proc. Intern. Conf. on Data Networks:
[Page 20]
UK/US Service at UCL IEN-185
Development and Use, London, pp 277-292, 1980.
[14] "Character Terminal Protocols over PSS". PSS User Forum,
Study Group 3, British Telecom, London, 1979.
[15] P. M. Girard, "Protocols in the SRC/NERC Network". Issue
No. 5, Rutherford Laboratory, September 1980.
[16] C. J. Bennett, "A Simple NIFTP-Based Mail System". Indra
Note 1025, UCL, London, January 1981.
[17] C. J. Bennett, "TOPS20/TENEX NIFTP Overview
Documenation". Indra Note 849, UCL, London, December,
1979.
[18] C. J . Bennett, "Realization of the Yellow Book Transport
Service Above TCP". IEN-154, UCL, London, July 1980.
[19] C. J. Bennett, "The Yellow Book Transport Service:
Principles and Status". IEN-155, UCL, London, August
1980.
[20] A. S. Dunn, "A User Authorisation Scheme for SRCNET".
Rutherford Laboratory, Abingdon, December 1981.
[21] P. L. Higginson, "Plans for the Service Project". Indra
Note 1007, UCL, London, November 1980.
[22] P. L. Higginson, "Mapping Telnet to ITP". Indra Note
963, UCL, London, July 1980.
[23] P. T. Kirstein, "The Facilities Needed in U.S. VAN
Gateways to ARPANET at Different Levels". Indra Note
957, UCL, London, July 1980.
[24] J. H. Haverty, "VAN Gateway: Some Routing and Performance
Issues". IEN-181, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc.,
Cambridge, Mass., May 1981.
[25] R. T. Braden and P. L. Higginson, "Clean and Simple
Interface under MOS". Indra Note 1054, UCL, London,
February 1981.
[Page 21]