Quantum Internet Research Group                             W. Kozlowski
Internet-Draft                                                    QuTech
Intended status: Informational                             March 9, 2019
Expires: September 10, 2019

            Architectural Principles for a Quantum Internet


   The vision of a quantum internet is to fundamentally enhance Internet
   technology by enabling quantum communication between any two points
   on Earth.  To achieve this goal, a quantum network stack must be
   built from the ground up as the physical nature of the communication
   is fundamentally different.  The first realisations of quantum
   networks are imminent, but there is no practical proposal for how to
   organise, utilise, and manage such networks.  In this memo, we
   attempt lay down the framework and introduce some basic architectural
   principles for a quantum internet.  This is intended for general
   guidance and general interest, but also to provide a foundation for
   discussion between physicists and network specialists.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Model of computation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Qubit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Multiple qubits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Entanglement as the fundamental service . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Achieving quantum connectivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  No-cloning theorem  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Direct transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Bell pairs and entanglement swapping  . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.3.1.  Bell Pairs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.3.2.  Teleportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.3.3.  Bell Pair links and entanglement swapping . . . . . .   9
       4.3.4.  Distillation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.4.  Direct transmission vs. swapping  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Architecture of a quantum internet  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Model of a quantum network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  Physical constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.2.1.  Fidelity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.2.2.  Memory lifetimes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.2.3.  Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.2.4.  Communication qubit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.2.5.  Homogeneity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.3.  Architectural principles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.3.1.  Goals of a quantum internet . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.3.2.  The principles of a quantum internet  . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   Quantum networks are distributed systems of quantum computers that
   utilise fundamental quantum mechanical phenomena such as
   superposition, entanglement, and quantum measurement to achieve
   capabilities beyond what is possible with classical networks.  This
   new networking paradigm offers promise for a range of new
   applications such as tamper-proof communications [1], distributed

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

   quantum computation [2], and quantum sensor networks [3].  The field
   of quantum communication has been a subject of active research for
   many years and the most well-known application of quantum computers
   that has already been deployed, quantum key distribution (QKD), is a
   protocol used for secure communications.

   Fully quantum networks capable of transmitting and managing entangled
   states in order to send, receive, and manipulate distributed quantum
   states are now imminent [4] [5].  Whilst a lot of effort has gone
   into physically connecting the devices and bringing down the error
   rates there are no concrete proposals for how to run these networks.
   To draw an analogy with a classical network, we are at a stage where
   we can physically connect our devices and send data, but all sending,
   receiving, buffer management, connection synchronisation, and so on,
   must be managed by the application itself at what is essentially
   assembly level.  Furthermore, whilst physical mechanisms for
   forwarding quantum states exist, there are no protocols for managing

2.  Model of computation

   In order to understand the framework for quantum networking a basic
   understanding of quantum information is necessary.  The following
   sections aim to introduce the bare minimum necessary to be understand
   the principles of operation of a quantum network.  This exposition
   was written with a classical networking audience in mind.  It is
   assumed that the reader has never before been exposed to any quantum

2.1.  Qubit

   The differences between quantum computation and classical computation
   begin at the bit-level.  A classical computer operates on the binary
   alphabet { 0, 1 }.  A quantum bit, a qubit, exists over the same
   binary space, but unlike the classical bit, it can exist in a so-
   called superposition of the two possibilities:

   a |0> + b |1>,

   where |X> denotes a quantum state, here the binary 0 and 1, and the
   coefficients a and b are complex numbers called probability
   amplitudes.  Physically, such a state can be realised using a variety
   of different technologies such as electron spin, photon polarisation,
   atomic energy levels, and so on.

   Upon measurement, the qubit loses its superposition and irreversibly
   collapses into one of the two basis states, either |0> or |1>.  Which
   of the two states it ends up in is not deterministic.  The

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

   probability of measuring the state in the |0> state is |a|^2 and
   similarly the probability of measuring the state in the |1> state
   is |b|^2.  This randomness is not due to our ignorance of the
   underlying mechanisms, but rather it is a fundamental feature of a
   quantum mechanical system [6].

   The superposition property plays an important role in fundamental
   gate operations on qubits.  Since a qubit can exist in a
   superposition of its basis states, the elementary quantum gates are
   able to act on all states of the superposition at the same time.  For
   example, consider the NOT gate:

   NOT (a |0> + b |1>) -> a |1> + b |0>.

2.2.  Multiple qubits

   When multiple qubits are combined in a single quantum state the space
   of possible states grows exponentially and all these states can
   coexist in a superposition.  For example, the general form of a two
   qubit register is

   a |00> + b |01> + c |10> + d |11>

   where the coefficients have the same probability amplitude
   interpretation as for the single qubit state.  Each state represents
   a possible outcome of a measurement of the two qubit register.  For
   example, |01>, denotes a state in which the first qubit is in the
   state |0> and the second is in the state |1>.

   Performing single qubit gates affects the relevant qubit in each of
   the superposition states.  Similarly, two qubit gates also act on all
   the relevant superposition states, but their outcome is far more

   Consider a two qubit register where the first qubit is in the
   superposed state (|0> + |1>)/sqrt(2) and the other is in the
   state |0>.  This combined state can be written as:

   (|0> + |1>)/sqrt(2) x |0> = (|00> + |10>)/sqrt(2),

   where x denotes a tensor product (the mathematical mechanism for
   combining quantum states together).  Let us now consider the two-
   qubit CNOT gate.  The CNOT gate takes as input two qubits, a control
   and target, and applies the NOT gate to the target if the control
   qubit is set.  The truth table looks like

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

                               | IN | OUT |
                               | 00 |  00 |
                               | 01 |  01 |
                               | 10 |  11 |
                               | 11 |  10 |

   Now, consider performing a CNOT gate on the ensemble with the first
   qubit being the control.  We apply a two qubit gate on all the
   superposition states:

   CNOT (|00> + |10>)/sqrt(2) -> (|00> + |11>)/sqrt(2).

   What is so interesting about this two-qubit gate operation?  The
   final state is *entangled*.  There is no possible way of representing
   that quantum state as a product of two individual qubits, they are no
   longer independent and their behaviour cannot be fully described
   without accounting for the other qubit.  The states of the two
   individual qubits are now correlated beyond what is possible to
   achieve classically.  Neither qubit is in a definite |0> or |1>
   state, but if we perform a measurement on either one, the outcome of
   the partner qubit will *always* yield the exact same outcome.  The
   final state, whether it's |00> or |11>, is fundamentally random as
   before, but the states of the two qubits following a measurement will
   always be identical.

   Once a measurement is performed, the two qubits are once again
   independent.  The final state is either |00> or |11> and both of
   these states can be trivially decomposed into a product of two
   individual qubits.  The entanglement has been consumed and if the
   same measurement is to be repeated, the entangled state must be
   prepared again.

3.  Entanglement as the fundamental service

   Entanglement is the fundamental building block of quantum networks.
   To see this, consider the final state from the previous section:

   (|00> + |11>)/sqrt(2).

   Neither of the two qubits is in a definite |0> or |1> state and we
   need to know the state of the entire register to be able to fully
   describe the behaviour of the two qubits.

   Now consider sending one of the qubits to another device.  This
   device can be anywhere: on the other side of the room, in a different

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

   country, or even on a different planet.  Provided negligible noise
   has been introduced, the two qubits will forever remain in the
   entangled state until a measurement is performed.  The physical
   distance does not matter at all for entanglement.

   This lies at the heart of quantum networking, because it is possible
   to leverage these non-classical correlations in order to design
   completely new types of algorithms that are not possible to achieve
   with just classical communication.  Examples of such applications are
   quantum cryptography, blind quantum computation, or distributed
   quantum computation.

   As a trivial example consider the problem of reaching consensus
   between two nodes.  The two nodes want to agree on the value of a
   single bit.  In a quantum network they can simply request the network
   to generate the state (|00> + |11>)/sqrt(2) for them and that is
   essentially all that needs to be done.  Once any of the two nodes
   performs a measurement the state of the two qubits collapses to
   either |00> or |11> so whilst the outcome is random, the two nodes
   will always measure the same value.  We can also build the more
   general multi-qubit state (|00...> + |11...>)/sqrt(2) and perform the
   same algorithm between an arbitrary number of nodes.

   However, it is impossible to entangle two qubits without ever having
   them directly interact with each other (e.g. by performing a local
   two-qubit gate, such as the CNOT).  A local interaction is necessary
   to create entanglement and thus such states cannot be created between
   two quantum computers that cannot transmit quantum states to each
   other.  Therefore, it is the entanglement property of multi-qubit
   states that draws the line between a genuine quantum network and a
   collection of quantum computers connected over a classical network.

   A quantum network is defined as a collection of nodes that is able to
   distribute entangled states amongst themselves.  A quantum computer
   that is able to communicate classically with another quantum computer
   is not a member of a quantum network.

   This is a crucial difference between classical and quantum networks.
   Classical applications transmit data over the network to synchronise
   distributed state.  Quantum network applications obtain distributed
   states, synchronised at the physical level via entanglement, from the
   network to perform quantum algorithms.

   More complex services and applications can be built on top of
   entangled states distributed by the network.

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

4.  Achieving quantum connectivity

4.1.  No-cloning theorem

   To build a network we must first physically connect all the nodes
   with quantum channels that enable them to distribute the
   entanglement.  Unfortunately, our ability to transfer quantum states
   is complicated by the no-cloning theorem.

   The no-cloning theorem states that it is impossible to create an
   identical copy of an arbitrary unknown quantum state.  Since
   performing a measurement on a quantum state destroys its
   superposition, there is no practical way of learning the exact state
   of a qubit in an unknown state.  Therefore, it is impossible to use
   the same mechanisms that worked for classical networks for error-
   correction, amplification, retransmission, and so on as they all rely
   on the ability to copy the underlying data.  Since any physical
   channel will always be lossy, connecting a quantum network is a
   challenging endeavour and its architecture must at its core address
   this very issue.

4.2.  Direct transmission

   The most straightforward way to distribute an entangled state is to
   simply transmit one of the qubits directly to the other end across a
   series of nodes while performing sufficient error correction to bring
   losses down to an acceptable level.  Despite the no-cloning theorem
   and the inability to directly measure a quantum state error-
   correcting mechanisms for quantum communication exist [7].  However,
   even in the most optimistic scenarios the hardware requirements to
   fault-tolerantly transmit a single qubit are beyond near-term
   capabilities.  Nevertheless, due to the promise of fault-tolerance
   and its favourable poly-logarithmic scaling with distance, this may
   eventually become a desirable method for entanglement distribution.

4.3.  Bell pairs and entanglement swapping

4.3.1.  Bell Pairs

   An alternative relies on the observation that we do not need to be
   able to distribute any arbitrary entangled quantum state.  We only
   need to be able to distribute any one of what are known as the Bell
   Pair states.  Bell Pair states are the entangled two-qubit states:

   |00> + |11>,
   |00> - |11>,
   |01> + |10>,
   |01> - |10>,

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

   where the constant 1/sqrt(2) normalisation factor has been ignored
   for clarity.  Any of the four Bell Pair state above will do as it is
   possible to transform any Bell Pair into another Bell Pair with local
   operations performed on only one of the qubits.  That is, either of
   the nodes that hold the two qubits of the Bell Pair can apply a
   series of single qubit gates to just their qubit in order to
   transform the ensemble between the different variants.

   Distributing a Bell Pair between two nodes is much easier than
   transmitting an arbitrary quantum state over a network.  Since the
   state is known error-correction is easier and error-detection
   combined with reattempts becomes a valid strategy.

   The reason for using Bell Pairs specifically as opposed to any other
   two-qubit state, is that they are the maximally entangled two-qubit
   set of basis states.  Maximal entanglement means that these states
   have the strongest non-classical correlations of all possible two-
   qubit states.  Furthermore, since single-qubit local operations can
   never increase entanglement, less entangled states would impose some
   constraints on distributed quantum algorithms.  This makes Bell Pairs
   particularly useful as a generic building block for distributed
   quantum applications.

4.3.2.  Teleportation

   The observation that we only need to be able to distribute Bell Pairs
   relies on the fact that this enables the distribution of any other
   arbitrary entangled state.  This can be achieved via quantum state
   teleportation.  Quantum state teleportation consumes an unknown
   quantum state that we want to transmit and recreates it at the
   desired destination.

   To achieve this, a Bell Pair needs to be distributed between the
   source and destination.  The source then entangles the transmission
   qubit with its end of the Bell Pair and performs a measurement.  This
   consumes the Bell Pair's entanglement turning the source and
   destination qubits into independent states.  However, this process
   transforms the Bell Pair's qubit at the destination into the
   transmission qubit's original state.  Note he process requires the
   source to also communicate its two-bit measurement result so that the
   destination can correct for the randomness of the outcome.

   The unknown quantum state that was transmitted never entered the
   network itself.  Therefore, the network needs to only be able to
   reliably produce Bell Pairs between any two nodes in the network.

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

4.3.3.  Bell Pair links and entanglement swapping

   Reducing the problem to one of generating a Bell Pair state has
   facilitated the problem, but it has not solved it.

   The technology to generate a Bell Pair between two directly connected
   quantum nodes already exists and has been demonstrated in laboratory
   conditions [8].  Interestingly, neither of the two qubits of the pair
   need to be transmitted any further.

   A Bell Pair between any two nodes in the network can be constructed
   from Bell Pairs generated along each individual link on the path
   between the two end-points.  Each node along the path can consume the
   two Bell Pairs on the two links that it is connected to in order to
   produce a new Bell Pair between the two far ends.  This process is
   known as entanglement swapping.  Pictorially it can be represented as

    x~~~~~~~~~~~~~x x~~~~~~~~~~~~~x
   [ ]-----------[   ]-----------[ ]

   where x~~x denotes a Bell Pair with individual qubits represented by
   x, -- denotes a quantum link, and [ ] denotes a node.  The diagram
   above represents the situation after the middle node has generated a
   Bell Pair with two of its directly connected neighbours.  Now, the
   middle node performs an entanglement swap operation (the exact
   details of the mechanism are beyond the scope of this memo).  This
   operation consumes the two Bell Pairs and produces a new Bell Pair
   between the two far ends of this three-node network as follows:

   [ ]-----------[   ]-----------[ ]

   The outcome is guaranteed to be a Bell Pair between the two end
   nodes, but which of the four possible Bell Pairs is produced is not
   deterministic.  However, the middle node will know which one was
   produced as the entanglement swap is a measurement operation that
   yields two classical bits.  The final state can be inferred from this
   two-bit readout.  Therefore, the middle node needs only to
   communicate the outcome over a classical channel to one or both ends
   who can apply a correction to transform the pair into any of its
   other forms (if so desired).

4.3.4.  Distillation

   Neither the Bell Pair or the swapping operations are lossless
   operations.  Therefore, with each link and each swap the quality of
   the state degrades.  However, it is possible to create higher quality

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

   Bell Pair states from two or more lower quality Bell Pair states.
   Therefore, once the quality loss over a given distance become
   prohibitive, additional redundancy may be used to restore the state

4.4.  Direct transmission vs. swapping

   Direct state transmission whilst simpler conceptually is much more
   demanding to implement reliably in practice which means that any
   near-term practical realisation is more likely to succeed if it is
   based on the Bell Pair and entanglement swapping architecture.  This
   is the architecture that we will focus on in the rest of this memo
   for practical reasons.

   Nevertheless, we are not entirely discarding the direct transmission
   proposal.  Whilst it does enable the fault-tolerant transmission of
   unknown quantum states, it might still be more beneficial to use it
   to distribute Bell Pairs instead.  Distributing Bell Pairs via direct
   transmission means that one can leverage the advantages of
   entanglement swapping which allows for paralellisation as the Bell
   Pairs can be built up from both ends simultaneously.  Furthermore,
   the generic nature of the Bell Pair means that a network may
   provision resources better before it receives any request.

5.  Architecture of a quantum internet

5.1.  Model of a quantum network

   A generic quantum network of three nodes could be represented as

   | App |--------------------CC--------------------| App |
      ||                                              ||
    ------                  ------                  ------
   | QNet |-------CC-------| QNet |-------CC-------| QNet |
    ------                  ------                  ------
          \ Bell Pair Gen. / SWAP \ Bell Pair Gen. /
           ----------------        ----------------

   Where "App" is some application running over a quantum network,
   --CC-- denote classical communication links (e.g.  over the public
   Internet or a private LAN), and "QNet" is a generic network stack.
   Architectures for the network stack have been proposed already [9],
   but their discussion is beyond the scope of this memo.  However, they
   all map onto this generic diagram.  Nodes within a quantum network
   that are capable of performing the entanglement swap operation are
   often referred to as quantum repeaters and we shall adopt this
   terminology from this point on.  End-hosts connecting at the edge of
   the network are not necessarily repeaters themselves.

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

   The key message here is that a network stack relies on the hardware
   being able to provide two services: Bell Pair generation across a
   link, and swap operation.  In any network model it is assumed that
   the physical device is capable of providing both of these services
   and offers a suitable interface for their usage.

   Strictly speaking quantum memories are not needed for a functional
   quantum network as long as the network is able to generate the Bell
   Pairs, swap the entanglement, and deliver the final Bell Pair to the
   application in a usable form.  However, in general, to be able to
   provide the two services above, the hardware will also need to be
   able to store the qubits in memory which is highly non-trivial.

   Furthermore, it is also assumed that the applications are able to
   communicate classically, and that the nodes themselves are also
   connected over some classical channel.  The classical links between
   the nodes need not always have an associated quantum link, but it is
   assumed that any quantum link has a classical link running in

5.2.  Physical constraints

   The model above has effectively abstracted away the particulars of
   the hardware implementation.  However, certain physical constraints
   need to be considered in order to build a practical network.  Some of
   these are fundamental constraints and no matter how much the
   technology improves, they will always need to be addressed.  Others
   are artefacts of the early stages of a new technology.

5.2.1.  Fidelity

   The quality of a quantum state is described by a physical quantity
   called fidelity.  Fidelity is the measure of how close a quantum
   state is to the quantum state we desire it to be in.  It expresses
   the probability that one state will pass a test to identify as the

   Fidelity is an important property of a quantum system that stems from
   the fact that no physical operation is perfect.  Furthermore,
   applications will in general require the fidelity of a quantum state
   to be above some minimum threshold in order to guarantee the
   correctness of their algorithm and it is the responsibility of the
   network to provide such a state.

   Additionally, entanglement swap operations, even if perfect, lead to
   a further reduction in the fidelity of the final state.  Two
   imperfect Bell Pairs when combined will produce a slightly worse Bell
   Pair.  Whilst distillation is one of the available mechanisms to

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

   correct for these errors it requires additional Bell Pairs to be
   produced.  There will be a trade-off between how much distillation is
   to be done versus what fidelity is acceptable.

   This is a fundamental constraint as perfect noiseless operations and
   lossless communication channels are unachievable.  Therefore, no Bell
   Pair will be generated with perfect fidelity and the network must
   account for this.

5.2.2.  Memory lifetimes

   In addition to discrete operations being imperfect, storing a qubit
   in memory is also highly non-trivial.  The main difficulty in
   achieving persistent storage is that it's extremely challenging to
   isolate a quantum system from the environment.  The environment
   introduces an uncontrollable source of noise into the system which
   affects the fidelity of the state.  This process is known as
   decoherence.  Eventually, the state has to be discarded once its
   fidelity degrades too much.

   The memory lifetime depends on the particular physical setup, but the
   highest achievable values currently are on the order of hundreds of
   milliseconds.  These values have increased tremendously over the
   lifetime of the different technologies and are bound to keep
   increasing.  However, if quantum networks are to be realised in the
   near future, they need to be able to handle short memory lifetimes.
   An architecture that handles short lifetimes may also be more cost-
   efficient in the future.

5.2.3.  Rates

   Entanglement generation on a link between two connected nodes is not
   a very efficient process and it requires many attempts to succeed.  A
   fast repetition rate for Bell Pair generation is achievable, but only
   one in a few thousands will succeed.  Currently, the highest
   achievable rates of success are of the order of 10 Hz.  Combined with
   short memory lifetimes this leads to very tight timing windows to
   build up network-wide connectivity.  Achievable rates are likely to
   increase with time, but just like with quantum memories, it may be
   more cost-efficient in the future to provide low-rate links in some
   parts of the network.

5.2.4.  Communication qubit

   Some physical architectures are not able to generate entanglement
   using any memory qubit that they have access to.  In these systems,
   entanglement is generated using a communication qubit and once a Bell
   Pair has been generated, the qubit state is transferred into memory.

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

   This may impose additional limitations on the network.  In particular
   if a given node has only one communication qubit it cannot
   simultaneously generate Bell Pairs over two links.  It must generate
   entanglement over the links one at a time.

5.2.5.  Homogeneity

   Currently all hardware implementations are homogeneous and they do
   not interface with each other.  In general, it is very challenging to
   combine different quantum information processing technologies due to
   their sensitivity to losses.  Coupling different technologies with
   each other is of great interest as it may help overcome the
   weaknesses of the different implementations, but this is not a near-
   term goal.

5.3.  Architectural principles

   Given that the most practical way of realising quantum network
   connectivity is using Bell Pair and entanglement swapping repeater
   technology what sort of principles should guide us in assembling such
   networks such that they are functional, robust, efficient, and most
   importantly: they work.  Furthermore, how do we design networks so
   that they work under the constraints imposed by the hardware
   available today, but do not impose unnecessary burden on future
   technology.  Redeploying network technology is a non-trivial process.

   As this is a completely new technology that is likely to see many
   iterations over its lifetime, this memo must not serve as a
   definitive set of rules, but merely as a general guide based on
   principles and observations made by the community.  The benefit of
   having a community built document at this early stage is that
   expertise in both quantum information and network architecture is
   needed in order to successfully build a quantum internet.

5.3.1.  Goals of a quantum internet

   When outlining any set of principles we must ask ourselves what goals
   do we want to achieve as inevitably trade-offs must be made.  So what
   sort of goals should drive a quantum network architecture?  The
   following list has been inspired by the history of the classical
   Internet, but it will inevitably evolve with time and the needs of
   its users.  The goals are listed in order of priority which in itself
   may also evolve as the community learns more about the technology.

   1.  Support distributed quantum applications

       The primary purpose of a quantum internet is to run distributed
       quantum algorithms and it is of utmost importance that they can

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

       run well and efficiently.  Therefore, the needs of quantum
       applications should always be considered first.

       If a network is able to distribute entanglement it is officially
       quantum.  However, if it is unable to distribute these states
       with a sufficiently high fidelity at a reasonable rate for a
       majority of potential applications it is not practical.

   2.  Support tomorrow's distributed quantum applications

       There are many applications already proposed to run over a
       quantum internet.  However, more algorithms will be invented as
       the community grows as well as the robustness and the reliability
       of the technology.  Any proposed architecture should not
       constrain the capabilities of the network for short-term benefit.

   3.  Hardware heterogeneity

       There are multiple proposals for realising practical quantum
       repeaters and they all have their advantages and disadvantages.
       It is also very likely that the most optimal technologies in the
       future will be hybrid combinations of the many different
       solutions currently under development.  It should be an explicit
       goal of the architecture to allow for a large variety of hardware

   4.  Be flexible with regards to hardware capabilities and limitations

       This goal encompasses two important points.  First, the
       architecture should be able to function under the physical
       constraints imposed by the current generation hardware.  Second,
       it should not make it difficult to run the network over any
       hardware that may come along in the future.  The physical
       capabilities of repeaters will improve and redeploying a
       technology is extremely challenging.

   5.  Security, availability, and resilience

       Whilst the priority for the first quantum networks should be to
       simply work, we cannot forget that ultimately they have to also
       be secure.  There are three key security considerations at the
       network level, confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity.

       Confidentiality and integrity - it is vital that the network can
       provide a reasonable guarantee of the minimum fidelity of a
       delivered Bell Pair as the application's own security mechanisms
       rely on this.  Uncertainty about the fidelity of a Bell Pair may
       potentially expose its data to an eavesdropper.

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

       Authenticity - it is important that any application can have
       confidence that the other end of the Bell Pair has been delivered
       to the desired partner.

       Additionally a practical and usable network is able to continue
       to operate despite losses and failures, and will be robust to
       malicious actors trying to disable connectivity.  These may be
       simply considered different aspects of security, but it is
       worthwhile to address them explicitly at the architectural level

   6.  Easy to manage and monitor

       Quantum networks rely on complex physical phenomena and require
       hardware that is challenging to build.  Furthermore, the quantum
       resources will at first be very scarce and potentially very
       expensive.  This entails a need for a robust management solution.
       It is important that a good management solution needs to come
       with adequate monitoring capabilities.

       Good management solutions may also be key to optimising the
       networks which in turn may be crucial in making them economically
       feasible.  Unlike user data that is transmitted over classical
       networks, quantum networks only need to generate generic Bell
       Pairs.  This leaves a lot of room for pre-allocating resources in
       an efficient manner.

5.3.2.  The principles of a quantum internet

   The principles support the goals, but are not goals themselves.  The
   goals define what we want to build and the principles provide a
   guideline in how we might achieve this.  The goals will also be the
   foundation for defining any metric of success for a network
   architecture, whereas the principles in themselves do not distinguish
   between success and failure.

   1.  Bell Pairs are the fundamental building block

       The key service that a quantum network provides is the
       distribution of entanglement between the nodes in a network.
       This point additionally specifies that the entanglement is
       primarily distributed in the form of the entangled Bell Pair
       states which should be used as a building block in providing
       other services, including more complex entangled states.

   2.  Fidelity is part of the service

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

       In addition to being able to deliver Bell Pairs to the
       communication end-points, the Bell Pairs must be of sufficient
       fidelity.  However, different applications will have different
       requirements for what fidelity they can work with.  It is the
       network's responsibility to balance the resource usage with
       respect to the application's requirements.  It may be that it is
       cheaper for the network to provide lower fidelity pairs that are
       just above the threshold required by the application than it is
       to guarantee high fidelity pairs to all applications regardless
       of their requirements.

   3.  Bell Pairs are indistinguishable

       Any two Bell Pairs between the same two nodes are
       indistinguishable for the purposes of an application provided
       they both satisfy its required fidelity threshold.  This point is
       crucial in enabling the reuse of resources of a network and for
       the purposes of provisioning resources to meet application

   4.  Time as an expensive resource

       With the current technology, time is the most expensive resource.
       It is not the only resource that is in short supply (memory, and
       communication qubits are as well), but ultimately it is the
       lifetime of quantum memories that imposes the most difficult
       conditions for operating an extended network of quantum nodes.
       Current hardware has low rates of Bell Pair generation, short
       memory lifetimes, and access to a limited number of communication
       qubits.  All these factors combined mean that even a short
       waiting queue at some node could be enough for the Bell Pairs to

       However, time is only expensive once quantum operations are
       underway.  If no quantum operations are currently being processed
       then the network can use this time to prepare and provision

       As hardware improves, the need for carefully timing quantum
       operations may become smaller.  It is currently unknown what the
       cost of these improvements will be, but it is conceivable that
       there is value in having relatively cheap and undemanding links
       connected at the edges of a network which will have very short
       memory lifetimes and low rates of Bell Pair generation.

   5.  Limit classical communication

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

       This point offers a practical guideline to the issue of timing.
       A bottleneck in many quantum networked algorithms is the
       classical communication needed between quantum operations to
       synchronise state.

       For example, some quantum protocols may need to perform a correct
       for the random outcome of a quantum measurement.  For this, they
       will block the state from further operations until a classical
       message is received with the information necessary to perform the
       correction.  The time during which the quantum state is blocked
       is effectively wasted.  It reduces the time available for
       subsequent operations possibly rendering the state useless for an

       Trade-offs that allow a protocol to limit the number of blocking
       classical communication rounds once quantum operations have
       commenced will in general be worth considering.

   6.  Parallelise quantum operations

       A further point to address the issue of timing constraints in the
       network.  The Bell Pairs on the individual links need not be
       generated one after another along the path between the
       communication end-points.  The order does not matter at all.
       Furthermore, the order of the swap operations is flexible as long
       as they don't reduce the fidelity too much.  Parallelising these
       operations is key to optimising quantum protocols.

   7.  Avoid time-based coordination when possible

       A solution to timing constraints is to synchronise clocks and
       agree on the timing of events.  However, such solutions have
       several downsides.  Whilst network clock synchronisation may be
       accurate enough for certain purposes it introduces an additional
       element of complexity, especially when multiple nodes in
       different networks must be synchronised.  Furthermore, clock
       synchronisation will never be perfect and it is conceivable that
       hardware capabilities advance so much that time-based mechanisms
       under-utilise resources in the more efficient parts of the

       Nevertheless, it may not be possible to avoid clocks, but such
       solutions should be adequately justified.

   8.  Pre-allocate resources

       Regardless of what application is running over the network it
       will have the same needs as any other application: a number of

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

       Bell Pairs of sufficient fidelity.  Whilst the fidelity is a
       variable number, the indistinguishability of Bell Pairs means
       that there is lots of flexibility in how a network may provision
       resources to meet demand.  The additional timing constraints mean
       that pre-allocation of resources will be central to a usable
       quantum network.

6.  Security Considerations

   Even though no user data enters a quantum network security is
   explicitly listed as a goal in this memo.  However, as this is an
   informational memo it does not propose any concrete mechanisms to
   achieve these goals.

   In summary:

   o  Confidentiality and integrity in the quantum context is the
      network's guarantee on the minimum fidelity of the delivered Bell
      Pair states.  Uncertainty about the fidelity of a Bell Pair may
      potentially expose an application to an eavesdropper.

   o  Authenticity in a quantum network is the guarantee that the other
      end of the Bell Pair is with the requested partner and not any
      other third party.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

8.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to acknowledge funding received the Quantum
   Internet Alliance.

   The author would further like to acknowledge Stephanie Wehner, Carlo
   Delle Donne, Matthew Skrzypczyk, and Axel Dahlberg for useful
   discussions on this topic prior to the submission of this memo.

9.  Informative References

   [1]        Bennett, C. and G. Brassard, "Quantum cryptography: Public
              key distribution and coin tossing", Theoretical Computer
              Science 560, 7-11, 2014,

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

   [2]        Crepeau, C., Gottesman, D., and A. Smith, "Secure multi-
              party quantum computation. Proceedings of Symposium on
              Theory of Computing", Proceedings of Symposium on Theory
              of Computing , 2002,

   [3]        Giovanetti, V., Lloyd, S., and L. Maccone, "Quantum-
              enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum
              limit", Science 306(5700), 1330-1336, 2004,

   [4]        Castelvecchi, D., "The Quantum Internet has arrived (and
              it hasn't)", Nature 554, 289-292, 2018,

   [5]        Wehner, S., Elkouss, D., and R. Hanson, "Quantum internet:
              A vision for the road ahead", Science 362, 6412, 2018,

   [6]        Aspect, A., Grangier, P., and G. Roger, "Experimental
              Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell's Theorem",
              Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (7): 460-463, 1981,

   [7]        Muralidharan, S., Kim, J., Lutkenhaus, N., Lukin, M., and
              L. Jiang, "Ultrafast and Fault-Tolerant Quantum
              Communication across Long Distances", Phys. Rev. Lett. 112
              (25-27), 250501, 2014, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.5291>.

   [8]        Humphreys, P., Kalb, N., Morits, J., Schouten, R.,
              Vermeulen, R., Twitchen, D., Markham, M., and R. Hanson,
              "Deterministic delivery of remote entanglement on a
              quantum network", Nature 558, 268-273, 2018,

   [9]        Meter, R. and J. Touch, "Designing quantum repeater
              networks", IEEE Communications Magazine 51, 64-71, 2013,

Author's Address

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      Principles for a Quantum Internet         March 2019

   Wojciech Kozlowski
   Building 22
   Lorentzweg 1
   Delft  2628 CJ

   Phone: +31 (0)15 2787077
   Email: w.kozlowski@tudelft.nl

Kozlowski              Expires September 10, 2019              [Page 20]