RFC1152

Network Working Group C. Partridge Request for Comments: 1152 BBN Systems and Technologies

                                                             April 1990

                           Workshop Report
             Internet Research Steering Group Workshop on
                       Very-High-Speed Networks

Status of this Memo

  This memo is a report on a workshop sponsored by the Internet
  Research Steering Group.  This memo is for information only.  This
  RFC does not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo
  is unlimited.

Introduction

  The goal of the workshop was to gather together a small number of
  leading researchers on high-speed networks in an environment
  conducive to lively thinking.  The hope is that by having such a
  workshop the IRSG has helped to stimulate new or improved research in
  the area of high-speed networks.

  Attendance at the workshop was limited to fifty people, and attendees
  had to apply to get in.  Applications were reviewed by a program
  committee, which accepted about half of them.  A few key individuals
  were invited directly by the program committee, without application.
  The workshop was organized by Dave Clark and Craig Partridge.

  This workshop report is derived from session writeups by each of the
  session chairman, which were then reviewed by the workshop
  participants.

Session 1: Protocol Implementation (David D. Clark, Chair)

  This session was concerned with what changes might be required in
  protocols in order to achieve very high-speed operation.

  The session was introduced by David Clark (MIT LCS), who claimed that
  existing protocols would be sufficient to go at a gigabit per second,
  if that were the only goal.  In fact, proposals for high-speed
  networks usually include other requirements as well, such as going
  long distances, supporting many users, supporting new services such
  as reserved bandwidth, and so on.  Only by examining the detailed
  requirements can one understand and compare various proposals for
  protocols.  A variety of techniques have been proposed to permit
  protocols to operate at high speeds, ranging from clever

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  implementation to complete relayering of function.  Clark asserted
  that currently even the basic problem to be solved is not clear, let
  alone the proper approach to the solution.

  Mats Bjorkman (Uppsala University) described a project that involved
  the use of an outboard protocol processor to support high-speed
  operation.  He asserted that his approach would permit accelerated
  processing of steady-state sequences of packets.  Van Jacobson (LBL)
  reported results that suggest that existing protocols can operate at
  high speeds without the need for outboard processors.  He also argued
  that resource reservation can be integrated into a connectionless
  protocol such as IP without losing the essence of the connectionless
  architecture.  This is in contrast to a more commonly held belief
  that full connection setup will be necessary in order to support
  resource reservation.  Jacobson said that he has an experimental IP
  gateway that supports resource reservation for specific packet
  sequences today.

  Dave Borman (Cray Research) described high-speed execution of TCP on
  a Cray, where the overhead is most probably the system and I/O
  architecture rather than the protocol.  He believes that protocols
  such as TCP would be suitable for high-speed operation if the windows
  and sequence spaces were large enough. He reported that the current
  speed of a TCP transfer between the processors of a Cray Y-MP was
  over 500 Mbps.  Jon Crowcroft (University College London) described
  the current network projects at UCL.  He offered a speculation that
  congestion could be managed in very high-speed networks by returning
  to the sender any packets for which transmission capacity was not
  available.

  Dave Feldmeier (Bellcore) reported on the Bellcore participation in
  the Aurora project, a joint experiment of Bellcore, IBM, MIT, and
  UPenn, which has the goal of installing and evaluating two sorts of
  switches at gigabit speeds between those four sites.  Bellcore is
  interested in switch and protocol design, and Feldmeier and his group
  are designing and implementing a 1 Gbps transport protocol and
  network interface.  The protocol processor will have special support
  for such things as forward error correction to deal with ATM cell
  loss in VLSI; a new FEC code and chip design have been developed to
  run at 1 Gbps.

  Because of the large number of speakers, there was no general
  discussion after this session.

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

Session 2: High-Speed Applications (Keith Lantz, Chair)

  This session focused on applications and the requirements they impose
  on the underlying networks.  Keith Lantz (Olivetti Research
  California) opened by introducing the concept of the portable office
  - a world where a user is able to take her work with her wherever she
  goes.  In such an office a worker can access the same services and
  the same people regardless of whether she is in the same building
  with those services and people, at home, or at a distant site (such
  as a hotel) - or whether she is equipped with a highly portable,
  multi-media workstation, which she can literally carry with her
  wherever she goes.  Thus, portable should be interpreted as referring
  to portability of access to services rather than to portability of
  hardware.  Although not coordinated in advance, each of the
  presentations in this session can be viewed as a perspective on the
  portable office.

  The bulk of Lantz's talk focused on desktop teleconferencing - the
  integration of traditional audio/video teleconferencing technologies
  with workstation-based network computing so as to enable
  geographically distributed individuals to collaborate, in real time,
  using multiple media (in particular, text, graphics, facsimile,
  audio, and video) and all available computer-based tools, from their
  respective locales (i.e., office, home, or hotel).  Such a facility
  places severe requirements on the underlying network.  Specifically,
  it requires support for several data streams with widely varying
  bandwidths (from a few Kbps to 1 Gbps) but generally low delay, some
  with minimal jitter (i.e., isochronous), and all synchronized with
  each other (i.e., multi-channel or media synchronization).  It
  appears that high-speed network researchers are paying insufficient
  attention to the last point, in particular.  For example, the bulk of
  the research on ATM has assumed that channels have independent
  connection request and burst statistics; this is clearly not the case
  in the context of desktop teleconferencing.

  Lantz also stressed the need for adaptive protocols, to accommodate
  situations where the capacity of the network is exceeded, or where it
  is necessary to interoperate with low-speed networks, or where human
  factors suggest that the quality of service should change (e.g.,
  increasing or decreasing the resolution of a video image).  Employing
  adaptive protocols suggests, first, that the interface to the network
  protocols must be hardware-independent and based only on quality of
  service.  Second, a variety of code conversion services should be
  available, for example, to convert from one audio encoding scheme to
  another.  Promising examples of adaptive protocols in the video
  domain include variable-rate constant-quality coding, layered or
  embedded coding, progressive transmission, and (most recently, at
  UC-Berkeley) the extension of the concepts of structured graphics to

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  video, such that the component elements of the video image are kept
  logically separate throughout the production-to-presentation cycle.

  Charlie Catlett (National Center for Supercomputing Applications)
  continued by analyzing a specific scientific application, simulation
  of a thunderstorm, with respect to its network requirements.  The
  application was analyzed from the standpoint of identifying data flow
  and the interrelationships between the computational algorithms, the
  supercomputer CPU throughput, the nature and size of the data set,
  and the available network services (throughput, delay, etc).

  Simulation and the visualization of results typically involves
  several steps:

     1.  Simulation

     2.  Tessellation (transform simulation data into three-dimensional
         geometric volume descriptions, or polygons)

     3.  Rendering (transform polygons into raster image)

  For the thunderstorm simulation, the simulation and tessellation are
  currently done using a Cray supercomputer and the resulting polygons
  are sent to a Silicon Graphics workstation to be rendered and
  displayed.  The simulation creates data at a rate of between 32 and
  128 Mbps (depending on the number of Cray-2 processors working on the
  simulation) and the tessellation output data rate is in typically in
  the range of 10 to 100 Mbps, varying with the complexity of the
  visualization techniques.  The SGI workstation can display 100,000
  polygons/sec which for this example translates to up to 10
  frames/sec.  Analysis tools such as tracer particles and two-
  dimensional slices are used interactively at the workstation with
  pre-calculated polygon sets.

  In the next two to three years, supercomputer speeds of 10-30 GFLOPS
  and workstation speeds of up to 1 GFLOPS and 1 million
  polygons/second display are projected to be available.  Increased
  supercomputer power will yield a simulation data creation rate of up
  to several Gbps for this application.  The increased workstation
  power will allow both tessellation and rendering to be done at the
  workstation.  The use of shared window systems will allow multiple
  researchers on the network to collaborate on a simulation, with the
  possibility of each scientist using his or her own visualization
  techniques with the tessellation process running on his or her
  workstation.  Further developments, such as network virtual memory,
  will allow the tessellation processes on the workstations to access
  variables directly in supercomputer memory.

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  Terry Crowley (BBN Systems and Technologies) continued the theme of
  collaboration, in the context of real-time video and audio, shared
  multimedia workspaces, multimedia and video mail, distributed file
  systems, scientific visualization, network access to video and image
  information, transaction processing systems, and transferring data
  and computational results between workstations and supercomputers.
  In general, such applications could help groups collaborate by
  directly providing communication channels (real-time video, shared
  multimedia workspaces), by improving and expanding on the kinds of
  information that can be shared (multimedia and video mail,
  supercomputer data and results), and by reducing replication and the
  complexity of sharing (distributed file systems, network access to
  video and image information).

  Actual usage patterns for these applications are hard to predict in
  advance.  For example, real-time video might be used for group
  conferencing, for video phone calls, for walking down the hall, or
  for providing a long-term shared viewport between remote locations in
  order to help establish community ties.  Two characteristics of
  network traffic that we can expect are the need to provide multiple
  data streams to the end user and the need to synchronize these
  streams.  These data streams will include real-time video, access to
  stored video, shared multimedia workspaces, and access to other
  multimedia data.  A presentation involving multiple data streams must
  be synchronized in order to maintain cross-references between them
  (e.g., pointing actions within the shared multimedia workspace that
  are combined with a voice request to delete this and save that).
  While much traffic will be point-to-point, a significant amount of
  traffic will involve conferences between multiple sites.  A protocol
  providing a multicast capability is critical.

  Finally, Greg Watson (HP) presented an overview of ongoing work at
  the Hewlett-Packard Bristol lab.  Their belief is that, while
  applications for high-speed networks employing supercomputers are the
  the technology drivers, the economic drivers will be applications
  requiring moderate bandwidth (say 10 Mbps) that are used by everyone
  on the network.

  They are investigating how multimedia workstations can assist
  distributed research teams - small teams of people who are
  geographically dispersed and who need to work closely on some area of
  research.  Each workstation provides multiple video channels,
  together with some distributed applications running on personal
  computers.  The bandwidth requirements per workstation are about 40
  Mbps, assuming a certain degree of compression of the video channels.
  Currently the video is distributed as an analog signal over CATV
  equipment.  Ideally it would all be carried over a single, unified
  wide-area network operating in the one-to-several Gbps range.

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  They have constructed a gigabit network prototype and are currently
  experimenting with uncompressed video carried over the same network
  as normal data traffic.

Session 3: Lightwave Technology and its Implications (Ira Richer, Chair)

  Bob Kennedy (MIT) opened the session with a talk on network design in
  an era of excess bandwidth.  Kennedy's research is focused on multi-
  purpose networks in which bandwidth is not a scarce commodity,
  networks with bandwidths of tens of terahertz.  Kennedy points out
  that a key challenge in such networks is that electronics cannot keep
  up with fiber speeds.  He proposes that we consider all-optical
  networks (in which all signals are optical) with optoelectronic nodes
  or gateways capable of recognizing and capturing only traffic
  destined for them, using time, frequency, or code divisions of the
  huge bandwidth.  The routing algorithms in such networks would be
  extremely simple to avoid having to convert fiber-optics into slower
  electronic pathways to do switching.

  Rich Gitlin (AT&T Bell Labs) gave a talk on issues and opportunities
  in broadband telecommunications networks, with emphasis on the role
  of fiber optic and photonic technology.  A three-level architecture
  for a broadband telecommunications network was presented.  The
  network is B-ISDN/ATM 150 (Mbps) based and consists of: customer
  premises equipment (PBXs, LANs, multimedia terminals) that access the
  network via a router/gateway, a Network Node (which is a high
  performance ATM packet switch) that serves both as a LAN-to-LAN
  interconnect and as a packet concentrator for traffic destined for
  CPE attached to other Network Nodes, and a backbone layer that
  interconnects the NODES via a Digital Cross-Connect System that
  provide reconfigurable SONET circuits between the NODES (the use of
  circuits minizes delay and avoids the need for implementation of
  peak-transmission-rate packet switching).  Within this framework, the
  most likely places for near-term application of photonics, apart from
  pure transport (ie, 150 Mbps channels in a 2.4 Gbps SONET system),
  are in the Cross-Connect (a Wavelength Division Multiplexed based
  structure was described) and in next-generation LANs that provide
  Gigabit per second throughputs by use of multiple fibers, concurrent
  transmission, and new access mechanisms (such as store and forward).

  A planned interlocation Bell Labs multimedia gigabit/sec research
  network, LuckyNet, was described that attempts to extend many of the
  above concepts to achieve its principal goals: provision of a gigabit
  per second capability to a heterogeneous user community, the
  stimulation of applications that require Gpbs throughput (initial
  applications are video conferencing and LAN interconnect), and, to
  the extent possible, be based on standards so that interconnection
  with other Gigabit testbeds is possible.

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

Session 4: High Speed Networks and the Phone System

          (David Tennenhouse, Chair)

  David Tennenhouse (MIT) reported on the ATM workshop he hosted the
  two days previous to this workshop.  His report will appear as part
  of the proceedings of his workshop.

  Wally St. John (LANL) followed with a presentation on the Los Alamos
  gigabit testbed.  This testbed is based on the High Performance
  Parallel Interface (HPPI) and on crossbar switch technology.  LANL
  has designed its own 16x16 crossbar switch and has also evaluated the
  Network Systems 8x8 crossbar switch. Future plans for the network
  include expansion to the CASA gigabit testbed.  The remote sites (San
  Diego Supercomputer Center, Caltech, and JPL) are configured
  similarly to the LANL testbed.  The long-haul interface is from HPPI
  to/from SONET (using ATM if in time).

  Wally also discussed some of the problems related to building a
  HPPI-SONET gateway:

     a)  Flow control.  The HPPI, by itself, is only readily extensible
         to 64 km because of the READY-type flow control used in the
         physical layer.  The gateway will need to incorporate larger
         buffers and independent flow control.

     b)  Error-rate expectations.  SONET is only specified to have a
         1E-10 BER on a per hop basis.  This is inadequate for long
         links.  Those in the know say that SONET will be much better
         but the designer is faced with the poor BER in the SONET spec.

     c)  Frame mapping.  There are several interesting issues to be
         considered in finding a good mapping from the HPPI packet
         to the SONET frame.  Some are what SONET STS levels will be
         available in what time frame, the availability of concatenated
         service, and the error rate issue.

  Dan Helman (UCSC) talked about work he has been doing with Darrell
  Long to examine the interconnection of Internet networks via an ATM
  B-ISDN network.  Since network interfaces and packet processing are
  the expensive parts of high-speed networks, they believe it doesn't
  make sense to use the ATM backbone only for transmission; it should
  be used for switching as well.  Therefore gateways (either shared by
  a subnet or integrated with fast hosts) are needed to encapsulate or
  convert conventional protocols to ATM format.  Gateways will be
  responsible for caching connections to recently accessed
  destinations.  Since many short-lived low-bandwidth connections as
  foreseen (e.g., for mail and ftp), routing in the ATM network (to set
  up connections) should not be complicated - a form of static routing

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  should be adequate.  Connection performance can be monitored by the
  gateways.  Connections are reestablished if unacceptable.  All
  decision making can be done by gateways and route servers at low
  packet rates, rather than the high aggregate rate of the ATM network.
  One complicated issue to be addressed is how to transparently
  introduce an ATM backbone alongside the existing Internet.

Session 5: Distributed Systems (David Farber, Chair)

  Craig Partridge (BBN Systems and Technologies) started this session
  by arguing that classic RPC does not scale well to gigabit-speed
  networks.  The gist of his argument was that machines are getting
  faster and faster, while the round-trip delay of networks is staying
  relatively constant because we cannot send faster than the speed of
  light.  As a result, the effective cost of doing a simple RPC,
  measured in instruction cycles spent waiting at the sending machine,
  will become extremely high (millions of instruction cycles spent
  waiting for the reply to an RPC).  Furthermore, the methods currently
  used to improve RPC performance, such as futures and parallel RPC, do
  not adequately solve this problem.  Future requests will have to be
  made much much earlier if they are to complete by the time they are
  needed.  Parallel RPC allows multiple threads, but doesn't solve the
  fact that each individual sequence of RPCs still takes a very long
  time.

  Craig went on to suggest that there are at least two possible ways
  out of the problem.  One approach is to try to do a lot of caching
  (to waste bandwidth to keep the CPU fed).  A limitation of this
  approach is that at some point the cache becomes so big that you have
  to keep in consistent with other systems' caches, and you suddenly
  find yourself doing synchronization RPCs to avoid doing normal RPCs
  (oops!).  A more promising approach is to try to consolidate RPCs
  being sent to the same machine into larger operations which can be
  sent as a single transaction, run on the remote machine, and the
  result returned.  (Craig noted that he is pursuing this approach in
  his doctoral dissertation at Harvard).

  Ken Schroder (BBN Systems and Technologies) gave a talk on the
  challenges of combining gigabit networks with wide-area heterogeneous
  distributed operating systems.  Ken feels the key goals of wide area
  distributed systems will be to support large volume data transfers
  between users of conferencing and similar applications, and to
  deliver information to a large number of end users sharing services
  such as satellite image databases.  These distributed systems will be
  motivated by the natural distribution of users, of information and of
  expensive special purpose computer resources.

  Ken pointed to three of the key problems that must be addressed at

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  the system level in these environments: how to provide high
  utilization; how to manage consistency and synchronization in the
  presence of concurrency and non-determinism; and how to construct
  scalable system and application services.  Utilization is key only to
  high performance applications, where current systems would be limited
  by the cost of factors such as repeatedly copying messages,
  converting data representations and switching between application and
  operating system.  Concurrency can be used improve performance, but
  is also likely to occur in many programs inadvertently because of
  distribution.  Techniques are required both to exploit concurrency
  when it is needed, and to limit it when non-determinism can lead to
  incorrect results.  Extensive research on ensuring consistency and
  resolving resource conflicts has been done in the database area,
  however distributed scheduling and the need for high availability
  despite partial system failures introduce special problems that
  require additional research.  Service scalability will be required to
  support customer needs as the size of the user community grow.  It
  will require attention both ensuring that components do not break
  when they are subdivided across additional processors to support a
  larger user population, and to ensure that performance does to each
  user can be affordably maintained as new users are added.

  In a bold presentation, Dave Cheriton (Stanford) made a sweeping
  argument that we are making a false dichotomy between distributed
  operating systems and networks.  In a gigabit world, he argued, the
  major resource in the system is the network, and in a normal
  operating system we would expect such a critical resource to be
  managed by the operating system.  Or, put another way, the gigabit
  network distributed operating system should manage the network.
  Cheriton went on to say that if a gigabit distributed operating
  system is managing the network, then it is perfectly reasonable to
  make the network very dumb (but fast) and put the system intelligence
  in the operating systems on the hosts that form the distributed
  system.

  In another talk on interprocess communication, Jonathan Smith (UPenn)
  again raised the problem of network delay limiting RPC performance.
  In contrast to Partridge's earlier talk, Smith argued that the
  appropriate approach is anticipation or caching.  He justified his
  argument with a simple cost example.  If a system is doing a page
  fetch between two systems which have a five millisecond round-trip
  network delay between them, the cost of fetching n pages is:

                        5 msec + (n-1) * 32 usec

  Thus the cost of fetching an additional page is only 32 usec, but
  underfetching and having to make another request to get a page you
  missed costs 5000 usec.  Based on these arguments, Smith suggested

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  that we re-examine work in virtual memory to see if there are
  comfortable ways to support distributed virtual memory with
  anticipation.

  In the third talk on RPC in the session, Tommy Joseph (Olivetti), for
  reasons similar to those of Partridge and Smith, argued that we have
  to get rid of RPC and give programmers alternative programming
  paradigms.  He sketched out ideas for asynchronous paradigms using
  causal consistency, in which systems ensure that operations happen in
  the proper order, without synchronizing through a single system.

Session 6: Hosts and Host Interfaces (Gary Delp, Chair)

  Gary Delp (IBM Research) discussed several issues involved in the
  increase in speed of network attachment to hosts of increasing
  performance.  These issues included:

     -  Media Access - There are aspects of media access that are
        best handled by dedicated silicon, but there are also aspects
        that are best left to a general-purpose processor.

     -  Compression - Some forms of compression/expansion may belong
        on the network interface; most will be application-specific.

     -  Forward Error Correction - The predicted major packet loss
        mode is packet drops due to internal network congestion, rather
        than bit errors, so forward error correction internal to a
        packet may not be useful.  On the other hand, the latency cost
        of not being able to recover from bit errors is very high.
        Some proposals were discussed which suggest that FEC among
        packet groups, with dedicated hardware support, is the way
        to go.

     -  Encryption/Decryption - This is a computationally intensive
        task.  Most agree that if it is done with all traffic, some
        form of hardware support is helpful.  Where does it fit in the
        protocol stack?

     -  Application Memory Mapping - How much of the host memory
        structure should be exposed to the network interface?
        Virtual memory and paging complicate this issue considerably.

     -  Communication with Other Channel Controllers - Opinions were
        expressed that ranged from absolutely passive network
        interfaces to interfaces that run major portions of the
        operating system and bus arbitration codes.

     -  Blocking/Segmentation - The consensus is that B/S should

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

        occur wherever the transport layer is processed.

     -  Routing - This is related to communications with other
        controllers.  A routing-capable interface can reduce the bus
        requirements by a factor of two.

     -  Intelligent participation in the host structure as a gateway,
        router, or bridge.

     -  Presentation Layer issues - All of the other overheads can be
        completely overshadowed by this issue if it is not solved well
        and integrated into the overall host architecture.  This points
        out the need for some standardization of representation (IEEE
        floating point, etc.)

  Eric Cooper (CMU) summarized some initial experience with Nectar, a
  high-speed fiber-optic LAN that has been built at Carnegie Mellon.
  Nectar consists of an arbitrary mesh of crossbar switches connected
  by means of 100 Mbps fiber-optic links.  Hosts are connected to
  crossbar switches via communication processor boards called CABs.
  The CAB presents a memory-mapped interface to user processes and
  off-loads all protocol processing from the host.

  Preliminary performance figures show that latency is currently
  limited by the number of VME operations required by the host-to-CAB
  shared memory interface in the course of sending and receiving a
  message.  The bottleneck in throughput is the speed of the VME
  interface: although processes running on the CABs can communicate
  over Nectar at 70 Mbps, processes on the hosts are limited to
  approximately 25 Mbps.

  Jeff Mogul (DEC Western Research Lab) made these observations:
  Although off-board protocol processors have been a popular means to
  connect a CPU to a network, they will be less useful in the future.
  In the hypothetical workstation of the late 1990s, with a 1000-MIPS
  CPU and a Gbps LAN, an off-board protocol processor will be of no
  use.  The bottleneck will not be the computation required to
  implement the protocol, but the cost of moving the packet data into
  the CPU's cache and the cost of notifying the user process that the
  data is available.  It will take far longer (hundreds of instruction
  cycles) to perform just the first cache miss (required to get the
  packet into the cache) than to perform all of the instructions
  necessary to implement IP and TCP (perhaps a hundred instructions).

  A high-speed network interface for a reasonably-priced system must be
  designed with this cost structure in mind; it should also eliminate
  as many CPU interrupts as possible, since interrupts are also very
  expensive.  It makes more sense to let a user process busy-wait on a

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  network-interface flag register than to suspend it and then take an
  interrupt; the normal CPU scheduling mechanism is more efficient than
  interrupts if the network interactions are rapid.

  David Greaves (Olivetti Research Ltd.) briefly described the need for
  a total functionality interface architecture that would allow the
  complete elimination of communication interrupts.  He described the
  Cambridge high-speed ring as an ATM cell-like interconnect that
  currently runs at 500-1000 MBaud, and claims that ATM at that speed
  is a done deal.   Dave Tennenhouse also commented that ATM at high
  speeds with parallel processors is not the difficult thing that
  several others have been claiming.

  Bob Beach (Ultra Technologies) started his talk with the observation
  that networking could be really fast if only we could just get rid of
  the hosts.   He then supported his argument with illustrations of
  80-MByte/second transfers to frame buffers from Crays that drop to
  half that speed when the transfer is host-to-host.  Using null
  network layers and proprietary MAC layers, the Ultra Net system can
  communicate application-to-application with ISO TP4 as the transport
  layer at impressive rates of speed.  The key to high-speed host
  interconnects has been found to be both large packets and large (on
  the order of one megabyte) channel transfer requests.  Direct DMA
  interfaces exhibit much smaller transfer latencies.

  Derek McAuley (University Cambridge Computer Laboratory) described
  work of the Fairisle project which is producing an ATM network based
  on fast packet switches.  A RISC processor (12 MIPS) is used in the
  host interface to do segmentation/reassembly/demultiplexing.  Line
  rates of up to 150 Mbps are possible even with this modest processor.
  Derek has promised that performance and requirement results from this
  system will be published in the spring.

  Bryan Lyles (XEROX PARC) volunteered to give an abbreviated talk in
  exchange for discussion rights.  He reported that Xerox PARC is
  interested in ATM technology and wants to install an ATM LAN at the
  earliest possible opportunity.  Uses will include such applications
  as video where guaranteed quality of service (QOS) is required.  ATM
  technology and the desire for guaranteed QOS places a number of new
  constraints on the host interface.  In particular, they believe that
  they will be forced towards rate-based congestion control.  Because
  of implementation issues and burst control in the ATM switches, the
  senders will be forced to do rate based control on a cell-by-cell
  basis.

  Don Tolmie (Los Alamos National Laboratory) described the High-
  Performance Parallel Interface (HPPI) of ANSI task group X3T9.3.  The
  HPPI is a standardized basic building block for implementing, or

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  connecting to, networks at the Gbps speeds, be they ring, hub,
  cross-bar, or long-haul based.  The HPPI physical layer operates at
  800 or 1600 Mbps over 25-meter twisted-pair copper cables in a
  point-to-point configuration.  The HPPI physical layer has almost
  completed the standards process, and a companion HPPI data framing
  standard is under way, and a Fiber Channel standard at comparable
  speeds is also being developed.  Major companies have completed, or
  are working on, HPPI interfaces for supercomputers, high-end
  workstations, fiber-optic extenders, and networking components.

  The discussion at the end of the session covered a range of topics.
  The appropriateness of outboard protocol processing was questioned.
  Several people agreed that outboarding on a Cray (or similar
  cost/performance) machines makes economic sense.  Van Jacobson
  contended that for workstations, a simple memory-mapped network
  interface that provides packets visible to the host processor may
  well be the ideal solution.

  Bryan Lyles reiterated several of his earlier points, asserting that
  when we talk about host interfaces and how to build them we should
  remember that we are really talking about process-to-process
  communication, not CPU-to-CPU communication.  Not all processes run
  on the central CPU, e.g., graphics processors and multimedia.
  Outboard protocol processing may be a much better choice for these
  architectures.

  This is especially true when we consider that memory/bus bandwidth is
  often a bottleneck.  When our systems run out of bandwidth, we are
  forced towards a NUMA model and multiple buses to localize memory
  traffic.

  Because of QOS issues, the receiver must be able to tell the sender
  how fast it can send.  Throwing away cells (packets) will not work
  because unwanted packets will still clog the receiver's switch
  interface, host interface, and requires processing to throw away.

Session 7: Congestion Control (Scott Shenker, Chair)

  The congestion control session had six talks.  The first two talks
  were rather general, discussing new approaches and old myths.  The
  other four talks discussed specific results on various aspects of
  packet (or cell) dropping: how to avoid drops, how to mitigate their
  impact on certain applications, a calculation of the end-to-end
  throughput in the presence of drops, and how rate-based flow control
  can reduce buffer usage.  Thumbnail sketches of the talks follow.

  In the first of the general talks, Scott Shenker (XEROX PARC)
  discussed how ideas from economics can be applied to congestion

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  control.  Using economics, one can articulate questions about the
  goals of congestion control, the minimal feedback necessary to
  achieve those goals, and the incentive structure of congestion
  control.  Raj Jain (DEC) then discussed eight myths related to
  congestion control in high-speed networks.  Among other points, Raj
  argued that (1) congestion problems will not become less important
  when memory, processors, and links become very fast and cheap, (2)
  window flow control is required along with rate flow control, and (3)
  source-based controls are required along with router-based control.

  In the first of the more specific talks, Isidro Castineyra (BBN
  Communications Corporation) presented a back-of-the-envelope
  calculation on the effect of cell drops on end-to-end throughput.
  While at extremely low drop rates the retransmission strategies of
  go-back-n and selective retransmission produced similar end-to-end
  throughput, at higher drop rates selective retransmission achieved
  much higher throughput.  Next, Tony DeSimone (AT&T) told us why
  high-speed networks are not just fast low-speed networks.   If the
  buffer/window ratio is fixed, the drop rate decreases as the network
  speed increases.  Also, data was presented which showed that adaptive
  rate control can greatly decrease buffer utilization.  Jamal
  Golestani (Bellcore) then presented his work on stop-and-go queueing.
  This is a simple stalling algorithm implemented at the switches which
  guarantees no dropped packets and greatly reduces delay jitter.  The
  algorithm requires prior bandwidth reservation and some flow control
  on sources, and is compatible with basic FIFO queues.  In the last
  talk, Victor Frost (University of Kansas) discussed the impact of
  different dropping policies on the perceived quality of a voice
  connection.  When the source marks the drop priority of cells and the
  switch drops low priority cells first, the perceived quality of the
  connection is much higher than when cells are dropped randomly.

Session 8: Switch Architectures (Dave Sincoskie, Chair)

  Dave Mills (University of Delaware) presented work on a project now
  under way at the University of Delaware to study architectures and
  protocols for a high-speed network and packet switch capable of
  operation to the gigabit regime over distances spanning the country.
  It is intended for applications involving very large, very fast, very
  bursty traffic typical of supercomputing, remote sensing, and
  visualizing applications.  The network is assumed to be composed of
  fiber trunks, while the switch architecture is based on a VLSI
  baseband crossbar design which can be configured for speeds from 25
  Mbps to 1 Gbps.

  Mills' approach involves an externally switched architecture in which
  the timing and routing of flows between crossbar switches are
  determined by sequencing tables and counters in high-speed memory

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  local to each crossbar.  The switch program is driven by a
  reservation-TDMA protocol and distributed scheduling algorithm
  running in a co-located, general-purpose processor.  The end-to-end
  customers are free to use any protocol or data format consistent with
  the timing of the network.  His primary interest in the initial
  phases of the project is the study of appropriate reservation and
  scheduling algorithms.  He expect these algorithms to have much in
  common with the PODA algorithm used in the SATNET and WIDEBAND
  satellite systems and to the algorithms being considered for the
  Multiple Satellite System (MSS).

  John Robinson (JR, BBN Systems and Technologies) gave a talk called
  Beyond the Butterfly, which described work on a design for an ATM
  cell switch, known as MONET.  The talk described strategies for
  buffering at the input and output interfaces to a switch fabric
  (crossbar or butterfly).  The main idea was that cells should be
  introduced to the switch fabric in random sequence and to random
  fabric entry ports to avoid persistent traffic patterns having high
  cell loss in the switch fabric, where losses arise due to contention
  at output ports or within the switch fabric (in the case of a
  butterfly).  Next, the relationship of this work to an earlier design
  for a large-scale parallel processor, the Monarch, was described.  In
  closing, JR offered the claim that this class of switch is realizable
  in current technology (barely) for operation over SONET OC-48 2.4
  Gbps links.

  Dave Sincoskie (Bellcore) reported on two topics: recent switch
  construction at Bellcore, and high-speed processing of ATM cells
  carrying VC or DG information.  Recent switch design has resulted in
  a switch architecture named SUNSHINE, a Batcher-banyan switch which
  uses recirculation and multiple output banyans to resolve contention
  and increase throughput.  A paper on this switch will be published at
  ISS '90, and is available upon request from the author.  One of the
  interesting traffic results from simulations of SUNSHINE shows that
  per-port output queues of up to 1,000 cells (packets) may be
  necessary for bursty traffic patterns.  Also, Bill Marcus (at
  Bellcore) has recently produced Batcher-banyan (32x32) chips which
  test up to 170Mb/sec per port.

  The second point in this talk was that there is little difference in
  the switching processing of Virtual Circuit (VC) and Datagram (DG)
  traffic that which has been previously broken into ATM cells at the
  network edge.  The switch needs to do a header translation operation
  followed by some queueing (not necessarily FIFO).  The header
  translation of the VC and DG cells differs mainly in the memory
  organization of the address translation tables (dense vs. sparse).

  The discussion after the presentations seemed to wander off the topic

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  of switching, back to some of the source-routing vs. network routing
  issues discussed earlier in the day.

Session 9: Open Mike Night (Craig Partridge, Chair)

  As an experiment, the workshop held an open mike session during the
  evening of the second day.  Participants were invited to speak for up
  to five minutes on any subject of their choice.  Minutes of this
  session are sketchy because the chair found himself pre-occupied by
  keeping speakers roughly within their time limits.

  Charlie Catlett (NSCA) showed a film of the thunderstorm simulations
  he discussed earlier.

  Dave Cheriton (Stanford) made a controversial suggestion that perhaps
  one could manage congestion in the network simply by using a steep
  price curve, in which sending large amounts of data cost
  exponentially more than sending small amounts of data (thus leading
  people only to ask for large bandwidth when they needed it, and
  having them pay so much, that we can afford to give it to them).

  Guru Parulkar (Washington University, St. Louis) argued that the
  recent discussion on appropriateness of existing protocol and need
  for new protocols (protocol architecture) for gigabit networking
  lacks the right focus.  The emphasis of the discussion should be on
  what is the right functionality for gigabit speeds, which is simpler
  per packet processing, combination of rate and window based flow
  control, smart retransmission strategy, appropriate partitioning of
  work among host cpu+os, off board cpu, and custom hardware, and
  others.  It is not surprising that the existing protocols can be
  modified to include this functionality.  By the same token, it is not
  surprising that new protocols can be designed which take advantage of
  lessons of existing protocols and also include other features
  necessary for gigabit speeds.

  Raj Jain (DEC) suggested we look at new ways to measure protocol
  performance, suggesting our current metrics are insufficiently
  informative.

  Dan Helman (UCSC) asked the group to consider, more carefully, who
  exactly the users of the network will be.  Large consumers? or many
  small consumers?

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

Session 10: Miscellaneous Topics (Bob Braden, Chair)

  As its title implies, this session covered a variety of different
  topics relating to high-speed networking.

  Jim Kurose (University of Massachussetts) described his studies of
  scheduling and discard policies for real-time (constrained delay)
  traffic.  He showed that by enforcing local deadlines at switches
  along the path, it is possible to significantly reduce overall loss
  for such traffic.  Since his results depend upon the traffic model
  assumptions, he ended with a plea for work on traffic models, stating
  that Poisson models can sometimes lead to results that are wrong by
  many orders of magnitude.

  Nachum Shacham (SRI International) discussed the importance of error
  correction schemes that can recover lost cells, and as an example
  presented a simple scheme based upon longitudinal parity.  He also
  showed a variant, diagonal parity, which allows a single missing cell
  to be recreated and its position in the stream determined.

  Two talks concerned high-speed LANs.  Biswanath Muhkerjee (UC Davis)
  surveyed the various proposals for fair scheduling on unidirectional
  bus networks, especially those that are distance insensitive, i.e.,
  that can achieve 100% channel utilization independent of the bus
  length and data rate.  He described in particular his own scheme,
  which he calls p-i persistant.

  Howard Salwen (Proteon), speaking in place of Mehdi Massehi of IBM
  Zurich who was unable to attend, also discussed high-speed LAN
  technologies.  At 100 Mbps, a token ring has a clear advantage, but
  at 1 Gbps, the speed of light kills 802.6, for example.  He briefly
  described Massehi's reservation-based scheme, CRMA (Cyclic-
  Reservation Multiple-Access).

  Finally, Yechiam Yemeni (YY, Columbia University) discussed his work
  on a protocol silicon compiler.  In order to exploit the potential
  parallelism, he is planning to use one processor per connection.

  The session closed with a spirited discussion of about the relative
  merits of building an experimental network versus simulating it.
  Proponents of simulation pointed out the high cost of building a
  prototype and limitation on the solution space imposed by a
  particular hardware realization.  Proponents of building suggested
  that artificial traffic can never explore the state space of a
  network as well as real traffic can, and that an experimental
  prototype is important for validating simulations.

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

Session 11: Protocol Architectures (Vint Cerf, Chair)

  Nick Maxemchuk (AT&T Bell Labs) summarized the distinctions between
  circuit switching, virtual circuits, and datagrams.  Circuits are
  good for (nearly) constant rate sources.  Circuit switching dedicates
  resources for the entire period of service.  You have to set up the
  resource allocation before using it.  In a 1.7 Gbps network, a 3000-
  mile diameter consumes 10**7 bytes during the circuit set-up round-
  trip time, and potentially the same for circuit teardown.  Some
  service requirements (file transfer, facsimile transmission) are far
  smaller than the wasted 2*10**7 bytes these circuit management delays
  impose.  (Of course, these costs are not as dramatic if the allocated
  bandwidth is less than the maximum possible.)

  Virtual circuits allow shared use of bandwidth (multiplexing) when
  the primary source of traffic is idle (as in Voice Time Assigned
  Speech Interpolation).  The user notifies the network of planned
  usage.

  Datagrams (DG) are appropriate when there is no prior knowledge of
  use statistics or usage is far less than the capacity wasted during
  circuit or virtual circuit set-up.  One can adaptively route traffic
  among equivalent resources.

  In gigabit ATMs, the high service speed and decreased cell size
  increases the relative burstiness of service requests.  All of these
  characteristics combine to make DG service very attractive.

  Maxemchuk then described a deflection routing notion in which traffic
  would be broken into units of fixed length and allowed into the
  network when capacity was available and routed out by any available
  channel, with preference being given to the channel on the better
  path.  This idea is similar to the hot potato routing of Paul Baran's
  1964 packet switching design.  With buffering (one buffer), Maxemchuk
  achieved a theoretical 90% utilization.  Large reassembly buffers
  provide for better throughput.

  Maxemchuk did not have an answer to the question: how do you make
  sure empty "slots" are available where needed? This is rather like
  the problem encountered by D. Davies at the UK National Physical
  Laboratory in his isarythmic network design in which a finite number
  of crates are available for data transport throughout the network.

  Guru Parulkar (Washington University, St. Louis) presented a broad
  view of an Internet architecture in which some portion of the system
  would operate at gigabit speeds.  In his model, internet, transport,
  and application protocols would operate end to end.  The internet
  functions would be reflected in gateways and in the host/net

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

  interface, as they are in the current Internet.  However, the
  internet would support a new type of service called a congram which
  aims at combining strengths of both soft connection and datagram.

  In this architecture, a variable grade of service would be provided.
  Users could request congrams (UCON) or the system could set them up
  internally (Picons) to avoid end-to-end setup latency.  The various
  grades of service could be requested, conceptually, by asserting
  various required (desired) levels of error control, throughput,
  delay, interarrival jitter, and so on.  Gateways based on ATM
  switches, for example, would use packet processors at entry/exit to
  do internet specific per packet processing, which may include
  fragmentation and reassembly of packets (into and out of ATM cells).

  At the transport level, Parulkar argued for protocols which can
  provide application-oriented flow and error control with simple per
  packet processing.  He also mentioned the notion of a generalized RPC
  (GRPC) in which code, data, and execution might be variously local or
  remote from the procedure initiator.  GRPC can be implemented using
  network level virtual storage mechanisms.

  The basic premise of Raj Yavatkar's presentation (University of
  Kentucky) was that processes requiring communication service would
  specify their needs in terms of peak and average data rate as well as
  defining burst parameters (frequency and size).  Bandwidth for a
  given flow would be allocated at the effective data rate that is
  computed on the basis of flow parameters.  The effective data rate
  lies somewhere between the peak and average data rate based on the
  burst parameters.  Statistical multiplexing would take up the gap
  between peak and effective rate when a sudden burst of traffic
  arrives.  Bounds on packet loss rate can be computed for a given set
  of flow parameters and corresponding effective data rate.

  This presentation led to a discussion about deliberate disciplining
  of inter-process communication demands to match the requested flow
  (service) profile.  This point was made in response to the
  observation that we often have little information about program
  behavior and might have trouble estimating the network service
  requirements of any particular program.

Architectural Discussion

  An attempt was made to conduct a high-level discussion on various
  architectural questions.  The discussion yielded a variety of
  opinions:

     1.  The Internet would continue to exist in a form similar
         to its current incarnation, and gateways would be required,

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

         at least to interface the existing facilities to the high
         speed packet switching environment.

     2.  Strong interest was expressed by some participants in access
         to raw (naked ATM) services.  This would permit users
         to construct their own gigabit nets, at the IP level, at any
         rate.  The extreme view of this was taken by David Cheriton
         who would prefer to have control over routing decisions and
         other behavior of the ATM network.

     3.  The speed of light problem (latency, round-trip delay)
         is not going to go away and will have serious impact on
         control of the system.  The optimistic view was taken,
         for example, by Craig Partridge and Van Jacobson, who felt
         that many of the existing network and communications
         management mechanisms used in the present Internet protocols
         would suffice, if suitably implemented, at higher speeds.
         A less rosy view was taken by David Clark who observed
         (as did others) that many transactions would be serviced in
         much less than one round-trip time, so that any end-to-end
         controls would be largely useless.

     4.  For applications requiring fixed, periodic service,
         reservation of resource seemed reasonably attractive to many
         participants, as long as the service period dominated the
         set-up time (round-trip delay) by an appreciable
         margin.

     5.  There was much discussion throughout the workshop of
         congestion control and flow control.  Although these
         problems were not new, they took on somewhat newer
         character in the presence of much higher round-trip delays
         (measured in bits outstanding).  One view is that end-to-end
         flow control is needed, in any case, to moderate sources
         sending to limited bandwidth receivers.  End-to-end flow
         control may not, however, be sufficient to protect the
         interior of the network from congestion problems, so
         additional, intra-network means are needed to cope with
         congestion hot spots.   Eventually such conditions
         have to be reflected to the periphery of the network to
         moderate traffic sources.

     6.  There was disagreement on the build or simulate
          question.  One view was in favor of building network
         components so as to collect and understand live application
         data.  Another view held that without some careful
         simulation, one might have little idea what to build
         (for example, Sincoskie's large buffer pool requirement was

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

         not apparent until the system was simulated).

Comments from Workshop Evaluation Forms

  At the end of the IRSG workshop, we asked attendees to fill out an
  evaluation form.  Of the fifty-one attendees, twenty-nine (56%)
  turned in a form.

  The evaluation form asked attendees to answer two questions:

     #1.  Do you feel that having attended this workshop will help you
          in your work on high speed networks during the next year?

     #2.  What new ideas, questions, or issues, did you feel were
          brought up in the workshop?

  In this section we discuss the answers we got to both questions.

Question #1

  There was a satisfying unanimity of opinion on question #1.  Twenty-
  four attendees answered yes, often strongly (e.g., Absolutely and
  very much so).  Of the remaining five respondents, three said they
  expected it to have some effect on their research and only two said
  the workshop would have little or no effect.

  Some forms had some additional notes about why the workshop helped
  them.  Several people mentioned that there was considerable benefit
  to simply meeting and talking with people they hadn't met before.  A
  few other people noted that the workshop had broadened their
  perspective, or improved their understanding of certain issues.  A
  couple of people noted that they'd heard ideas they thought they
  could use immediately in their research.

Question #2

  Almost everyone listed ideas they'd seen presented at the conference
  which were new to them.

  It is clear that which new ideas were important was a matter of
  perspective - the workshop membership was chosen to represent a broad
  spectrum of specialties, and people in different specialities were
  intrigued by different ideas.  However, there were some general
  themes raised in many questionnaires:

     (1)  Limitations of our traffic models.  This particular subject
          was mentioned, in some form, on many forms.  The attendees

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

          generally felt we didn't understand how network traffic would
          behave on a gigabit network, and were concerned that people
          might design (or worse, standardize) network protocols for
          high speed networks that would prove inadequate when used
          with real traffic.  Questions were raised about closed-loop
          vs. open-loop traffic models and the effects of varying types
          of service.  This concern led several people to encourage the
          construction of a high-speed testbed, so we can actually see
          some real traffic.

     (2)  Congestion control.  Despite the limitations of our traffic
          models, respondents felt that congestion control at both
          switching elements and network wide was going to be even more
          important than today, due to the wider mix of traffic that
          will appear on gigabit networks.  Most forms mentioned at
          least one of the congestion control talks as a containing a
          new idea.  The talks by Victor Frost, Jamal Golestani and
          Scott Shenker received the most praise.  Some attendees were
          also interested in methods for keeping the lower-layer
          switching fabric from getting congested and mentioned the
          talks by Robinson and Maxemchuk as of interest.

     (3)  Effects of fixed delay.  While the reviews were by no means
          unanimous, many people had come to the conclusion that the
          most serious problem in gigabit networking was not bandwidth,
          but delay.  The workshop looked at this issue in several
          guises, and most people listed at least one aspect of fixed
          delay as a challenging new problem.  Questions that people
          mentioned include:

   -    How to avoid a one round-trip set up delay, for less than one
        round-trip time's worth of data?

   -    How to recover from error without retransmission (and thus
        additional network delays)?  Several people were intrigued by
        Nachum Shacham's work on error detection and recovery.

   -    Should we use window flow-control or rate-based flow control
        when delays were long?

   -    Can we modify the idea of remote procedure calls to deal with
        the fact that delays are relatively long?

A couple of attendees noted that while some of these problems looked similar to those of today, the subtle differences caused by operating a network at gigabit speeds led them to believe the actual approaches to solving these problems would have to be very different from those of

Partridge

RFC 1152 IRSG Workshop Report April 1990

today.

Security Considerations

  Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

Author's Address

  Craig Partridge
  Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
  50 Moulton Street
  Cambridge, MA 02138

  Phone: (617) 873-2459

  EMail: [email protected]

Partridge