Internet DRAFT - draft-bvenkat-chips-on-avians
draft-bvenkat-chips-on-avians
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]
