INTERNET-DRAFT V.Balaji Venkat Category : EXPERIMENTAL HCL-CISCO ODC, Title : draft-bvenkat-chips-on-avians-01.txt Chennai, Date : 17 December 1999 India. Avian calendar date : 1st April (year unknown) Robert G. Ferrell National Business Center US Dept. of the Interior A Method for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Chip-ridden Avian Carriers Status of this Memo This document is an individual contribution for consideration by the Network Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright (C) The Internet Society 1999. All Rights Reserved. Abstract This memo describes an experimental method for the funneling IP datagrams using tweets and chirps, through avian carriers which are embedded with a processor/chip that is biomedically Balaji, Ferrell expires May 2000 [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT December 1999 engineered to fit in their tiny brains. This specification is primarily useful in Metropolitan Area Networks where agile predatory domestic or feral species are not widespread. This is an experimental, not recommended method. Table of Contents 1.0 Overview and Rational. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.0 Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.0 Mobile ROUTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.0 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.0 Chirpy Chirpy Chip Chip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.0 Frame Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.0 Interoperation with existing network devices . . . . . . . . 7 8.0 Loss of a carrier in an arena. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.0 Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.0 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.0 Author's Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12.0 Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.0 Overview and Rational Biomedically engineered chips provide low delay, high throughput and low altitude service when fitted into avians. Mobility is the key word in this respect. Avians fitted with such chips can fly anywhere in a given metropolitan area. It is assumed that such an area is equipped with what one might call low altitude IP towers that look around for avians flying in their area. The connection topology can be non point-to-point for each carrier and as specified in RFC 1149 [1] each can be used without significant interference with another, so long appropriate species and seasonal parameters are chosen. For example, while members of the columbiformes traditionally employed in RFC 1149-type ASCII message vectoring might experience little if any routing variation throughout the year, an unfortunate selection of, say, _Sterna paradisaea_ in either late winter or early fall might result in an unacceptable latency period due to suboptimal routing. A standard avian carrier needs to be developed, perhaps by genetic engineering, which will have minimal reactions to seasonal variations in the local diurnal cycle. The development of such a carrier is outside the scope of this document and will not be addressed. The carriers as specified have an intrinsic collision avoidance system which is supplemented by a method that is described in this document. However, extensive experience in the field has led the authors to the conclusion that this collison avoidance mechanism is highly unreliable during periods of inclement weather, most notably thunderstorms. Avian/fixed structure contact, particularly Balaji, Ferrell expires May 2000 [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT December 1999 when such structures exhibit large expanses of transparent / translucent glass, are common and almost invariably result in loss of the carrier and thus of the transported data, since recovery success of out-of-service carriers is miserably low. Any quality of service (QoS) assessments should therefore take into account the weather conditions at the time of transmission and the architectural topology of the anticipated route. The biomedically engineered chip allows low frequency signals to be transmitted by these specially equipped avians that helps signals move around large objects such as skyscrapers and reach another such avian with whom negotiation has taken place prior to such a signal, or a low altitude IP tower in the area with whom negotiation has been arranged. In addition the chip also allows for high frequency signals to be transmitted that are inaudible to the human ear. Care must be taken that the signals are not inadvertently made audible en route, lest the carrier attract extraneous and detrimental predator attention. IP traffic funnelled through after such negotiation can be connection oriented as in TCP or unreliable transport as in UDP. Connection oriented traffic is somewhat problematic, however, due to the latency of transmission. The carrier might wander away or be distracted during the transport process, with an attendant loss of data integrity. The issues to be discussed include addressing for each such avian prior to the negotiation, after the negotiation and for each low altitude IP tower, the last of which provides for easy address allocation through static means from a central controlling authority. The layer 2 address for a avian ridden with a chip or more is unique for each such avian chip. Similarly the IP tower has a unique layer 2 address that fits in the piece of the puzzle. It should be noted that these towers must be constructed of a material that is highly resistant to the corrosive effects of uric acid deposits, a significant and unavoidable by-product of carrier physiology. The low delay is achieved by the high data content in the fast moving tweets and chirps, the variations of which are unheard of in the human hearable frequencies. Thus these tweets and chirps may be unheard by the normal human ear except for the upper range of lower frequency chirps that provide for high delay and low throughput for traffic of the kind that requires delivery but not instant delivery. 1.1 Requirements language In this document, the key words "MAY", "MUST, "MUST NOT", "optional", Balaji, Ferrell expires May 2000 [Page 3] INTERNET-DRAFT December 1999 "recommended", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT", are to be interpreted as described in [2]. 2.0 Addressing The layer 2 addressing is done by allocating a MAC address to every chip that is set on board an avian's brain. Since research has shown that many of the more desirable messaging carrier species possess small quantities of magnetite in their cranial cavities, the possible deleterious interactions of this material with the implant must be explored more fully before the reliability of either data integrity or signal routing can reasonably be assured. Appropriate surgical techniques may be used to implant the chip with connections to its auditory and vocal mechanisms. The chip is tuned to transmit in a particular frequency. If two chips are of the same frequency then two avians implanted with the same frequency may collide in their transmissions if they are in the same Avian Arena. For this reason each avian is tagged to be released in an area exclusive of the other's if the two happen to share the same send/receive frequency. It is the intention of this draft to treat each avian as a mobile router of packets that may be sent on the native frequency of the chip on that avian. Such collisions would require drastic action such as shooting down the colliding avian that has contravened its Avian Arena boundaries. Alternatively, avian carriers may be fitted with tiny collars that deliver mild electric shocks when the avian domain borders are approached, thus actively discouraging such transgressions. It remains to be seen whether or not these electrical discharges would in any way interfere with or compromise the integrity of the data being carried by that avian. Maintaining these electrically-defined boundaries might present a prohibitively high monetary and personnel investment, as well. The IP towers are equipped with sufficient instrumentation to pick up the varying frequencies of the various avian chips that are implanted. Each is considered a physical channel all by itself. IP datagrams may be funnelled on each such physical channel. Thus each such physical channel would carry data from one IP tower to another via these avians or from one IP tower to another avian and then onto another avian operating in a different Avian Arena (AA) that is adjacent to that of the first avian. Thus a sequence of Avian Arenas adjacent to each other would be serviced by one avian each per frequency. Transmission and reciept from one Avian Arena avian to another would be negotiated as well. A draft for recommending the guidelines for such negotiation can be taken up for further enquiry. It is an intrinsic advantage of this design that the MAC address (the prefix at least) can be learned from the frequency of the avian chip. The OUI (Ornithologically Unique Identifier) portion of the MAC address can be shorter Balaji, Ferrell expires May 2000 [Page 4] INTERNET-DRAFT December 1999 than the standard 24 bits. Thus a larger number of Avian Arenas can be arranged adjacent to each other thus providing for more coverage. However it is recommended that IP towers be placed in a manner that have not more than 3 or 4 AA's sequenced or adjacent to each other. Thus a collision domain is within an Avian Arena. Outside of the Avian Arena the frequencies may be weak and an old avian, for that matter, would serve as a weak link in the transmission. Appropriate guard bands are provided for a given "chirps and tweets" on a particular frequency so that collision of Z frequency type avian chip with Y frequency type avian chip is avoided. 3.0 Mobile ROUTING Avian arena changes can be negotiated through the mobility of an avian into another avian's arena. Thus two avians on the same frequency may arrange to swap one another or arrange to rearrange the distribution of same frequency avians through a protocol. This subject too is left for further enquiry. Among territorial individuals, however, uncontrolled avian-to-avian interactions of this type tend to be sufficiently traumatic to one or both of the carriers that data integrity would most likely be compromised. Standard routing protocols are run on avians with more than one chip. Each chip represents an interface. Each such chip would in turn transmit in a different frequency than from the other. This way traffic could be switched across multiple frequencies and carried to its end destination. Thus at any given time, an avian may be receiving on one frequency and transmitting on another interface at a different frequency. The IP towers or adjacent Avian Arena avians may capture that data and forward them further along the way. Route distribution through the standard protocols are thus sent on multiple frequencies through various avians in differing Avian Arenas. A single chipped avian (for example, a Chipping Sparrow, _Spizella passerina_) serves as a repeater (members of the mimidae and psittacidae also excel in this role). 4.0 Data A tweet, defined as a broad-spectrum monosyllabic burst of short duration, represents a one. A chirp, defined as a narrow-to-medium Balaji, Ferrell expires May 2000 [Page 5] INTERNET-DRAFT December 1999 spectrum polysyllabic burst (with a burst being delineated by one attack and release only) represents a zero. The chips implanted on these avians SHALL help the avian thereof to chirp and tweet very rapidly. The physical standards are determined by the chip manufacturer, and by the syringeal and neurological anatomy of the chosen avian carrier. 5.0 Chirpy Chirpy Chip Chip The chips implanted in such avians have a persistence capability as well, with on-board memory that can be retained while an avian flies across several Avian Arenas and into another avian domain. An Avian Domain consists of several Avian Arenas, and is the equivalent of an autonomous system. This persistent data can be exchanged in another domain where such data may be found useful. Uses for such trans-avian domain data include exchange of such data to the border avian routers of a given avian domain. Thus the topology of the interns of a given avian domain or a part of it can be transported to the border avian routers of another domain. 6.0 Frame Format The IP datagram is not printed on a small scroll of paper as specified in RFC 1149 [1]. It is available in the form of chirps and tweets in a combination of varying pitch/frequency. It is only known or recognizable to the chip-ridden avian, in reality to the chip alone rather than to the avian itself. So security is not a problem as the signals are not traceable except with the help of a very powerful mega-microphone. If availability of such mega-microphones is found to be a problem, the data can be encrypted using standard encryption techniques such as IPsec. No scrolls of paper are tied around the avian carrier thus saving a lot of payload. One might assume that it is offset by the embedding of a chip into the tiny brain of the avian but then again the ratio of the chip to paper is found to be well tilted in favour of the former. No duct tape need be used in this case. MTUs are found to be of a larger size in case of the chip-ridden avian as the CRC that ties in a frame is of a larger size than conventional protocols. Carrier age is a problem; although the chip does not degrade with increasing age of the avian, the soft tissue connecting the chip to its auditory and speech system may weaken as time passes. Retransmissions on an older avian may thus be found to be occurring very rapidly. Frame (not to mention carrier) Balaji, Ferrell expires May 2000 [Page 6] INTERNET-DRAFT December 1999 capture is less reliable as the carrier approaches its TTL value. A frequency of use and reliability of transmission expectation that varies inversely with carrier age is advisable. As the avian ages, degeneration of its chirp and tweet acoustical structures (beak and syrinx) may lead to degradation of the rate and quality of frame transmission, and thus to the terminal end of the avian's service, at which point the chip, if deemed still in working order, is removed from its brain. Such an operation may free the avian from further traffic forwarding service but may cause loss of auditory and speech functionalities. It MAY return to the normal pattern of chirps and tweets which would beaudible to the human ear. Or, more likely, NOT. One factor to be considered here is that a great many of the most suitable carrier species produce highly stylized but imperfectly predictable signals that must be filtered or suppressed in order to achieve an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio, given that message transmission is acoustically achieved. Any relatively rigorous application of Shannon's Theorem to the problem of avian IP transport demonstrates vividly the need for either very loud birds or very quiet surroundings. One might obviate this somewhat by use of carriers with limited spurious signal production in the frequency range in question, such as some members of the pelecaniformes or struthioniformes, but substitution of these species introduces an entirely different set of challenges (in the latter case, for example, lack of aerial locomotion is problematic). The layer 2 frame header for a set of data is similar to IEEE 802.3 with 802.2 LLC. Since the chirps and tweets are audible to a receiver in that range, they are picked up by the receiver (in a different Avian Arena) when the said receiver is not transmitting. If a collision occurs then ideally both avian carriers back off as per the CSMA/CD mechanism outlined in IEEE 802.3 standards. Experience has shown, however, that when collisions occur among avian carriers, the general rule of thumb is to expect at a minimum a considerable increase in latency and in worse cases a complete loss of data and carrier, since the vast majority of avians are non-compliant with IEEE 802.3. 7.0 Interoperation with existing network devices Appropriate devices are available for interoperation with such avian carriers that possess an avian chip. Chip manufacturers provide appropriate interfaces to tap into a dead avian or a live one to transfer data back and forth from an avian chip to the said device which may be a router, that is tangibly visible as one to humans. While they do not exhibit favorable transmission characteristics for any messaging other than campus-wide (and even then usually line-of-sight only, with a strong throwing arm), dead avians are quite predictable in their behavior and are less apt Balaji, Ferrell expires May 2000 [Page 7] INTERNET-DRAFT December 1999 to be lost due to routing anomalies, although prowling predatory and/or scavenger species can significantly impact data recovery. 8.0 Loss of a carrier in an arena. The loss of a carrier in an arena can result in the stoppage of traffic in that arena onto the adjacent one. This is taken care by providing a backup avian carrier, since avians usually travel in pairs. Once a backup avian comes active in an Avian Arena another pair is released in that Avian Arena with the same chip configuration but with chirping and tweeting disabled. Thus fault tolerance is achieved on that count. Fault tolerance that relies on this principle, however, narrows the field of prospective carrier species to those which form strong pair-bonds, and further restricts reliable signal transmission to the breeding season (which in effect means that this method is most useful in subtropical and tropical habitats, where breeding seasons are extended). 9.0 Security Considerations As discussed earlier security is not a problem except in the cross Avian Arena border transition case, which might take place if an avian finds a courtship to be undertaken with another avian in a different avian domain. This is sought to be restricted by injecting suitable mitigating agents that suppress the hormones responsible for such courtship in a given avian carrier. However, this mechanism must be employed with care, since those same hormones are also responsible for vocalizations. Suppressing them excessively would render the payload inaccessible, at least until the suppressive effect subsided. This would introduce considerable latency, and repeated or improperly conducted suppressions might reduce the TTL of the carrier significantly. 10.0 References [1] Waitzman, D., "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers", RFC 1149, 1 April 1990. [2] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Balaji, Ferrell expires May 2000 [Page 8] INTERNET-DRAFT December 1999 11.0 Author Addresses V.Balaji Venkat HCL-CISCO Offshore development center, Chennai - 600 084 India. Phone: 91 44 3741939 EMail: bvenkat@cisco.com Robert G. Ferrell National Business Center-Texas 435 Isom Rd., Ste. 234 San Antonio, TX 78216 USA Phone: 1 210 321 5204 Email: Robert_G_Ferrell@nbc.gov 12.0 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this docu- ment itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Inter- net organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permis- sions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WAR- RANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." Balaji, Ferrell expires May 2000 [Page 9]