IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service
RFC 2549

Document Type RFC - Informational (April 1999; Errata)
Updates RFC 1149
Last updated 2013-11-12
Stream Legacy
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Legacy state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state RFC 2549 (Informational)
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                    D. Waitzman
Request for Comments: 2549                       IronBridge Networks
Updates: 1149                                           1 April 1999
Category: Experimental

             IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service

Status of this Memo

   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This memo amends RFC 1149, "A Standard for the Transmission of IP
   Datagrams on Avian Carriers", with Quality of Service information.
   This is an experimental, not recommended standard.

Overview and Rational

   The following quality of service levels are available: Concorde,
   First, Business, and Coach.  Concorde class offers expedited data
   delivery.  One major benefit to using Avian Carriers is that this is
   the only networking technology that earns frequent flyer miles, plus
   the Concorde and First classes of service earn 50% bonus miles per
   packet.  Ostriches are an alternate carrier that have much greater
   bulk transfer capability but provide slower delivery, and require the
   use of bridges between domains.

   The service level is indicated on a per-carrier basis by bar-code
   markings on the wing.  One implementation strategy is for a bar-code
   reader to scan each carrier as it enters the router and then enqueue
   it in the proper queue, gated to prevent exit until the proper time.
   The carriers may sleep while enqueued.

   For secure networks, carriers may have classes Prime or Choice.
   Prime carriers are self-keying when using public key encryption.
   Some distributors have been known to falsely classify Choice carriers
   as Prime.

   Packets MAY be marked for deletion using RED paint while enqueued.

Waitzman                      Experimental                      [Page 1]
RFC 2549            IP over Avian Carriers with QoS         1 April 1999

   Weighted fair queueing (WFQ) MAY be implemented using scales, as
   shown:

                                                  __
                                  _____/-----\   / o\
                                 <____   _____\_/    >--
                 +-----+              \ /    /______/
                 | 10g |               /|:||/
                 +-----+              /____/|
                 | 10g |                    |
                 +-----+          ..        X
               ===============================
                              ^
                              |
                          =========

   Carriers in the queue too long may leave log entries, as shown on the
   scale.

   The following is a plot of traffic shaping, from coop-erative host
   sites.

        Alt |       Plot of Traffic Shaping showing carriers in flight
            |
         2k |           ....................
            |          .                    .
            |         .                      .
         1k |        .                        .
            |   +---+                          +---+
            |   | A |                          | B |
            |   +---+                          +---+
            |_____________________________________________

   Avian carriers normally bypass bridges and tunnels but will seek out
   worm hole tunnels.  When carrying web traffic, the carriers may
   digest the spiders, leaving behind a more compact representation.
   The carriers may be confused by mirrors.

   Round-robin queueing is not recommended.  Robins make for well-tuned
   networks but do not support the necessary auto-homing feature.

   A BOF was held at the last IETF but only Avian Carriers were allowed
   entry, so we don't know the results other than we're sure they think
   MPLS is great.  Our attempts at attaching labels to the carriers have
   been met with resistance.

Waitzman                      Experimental                      [Page 2]
RFC 2549            IP over Avian Carriers with QoS         1 April 1999

   NATs are not recommended either -- as with many protocols, modifying
   the brain-embedded IP addresses is difficult, plus Avian Carriers MAY
   eat the NATs.

   Encapsulation may be done with saran wrappers.  Unintentional
   encapsulation in hawks has been known to occur, with decapsulation
   being messy and the packets mangled.

   Loose source routes are a viable evolutionary alternative enhanced
   standards-based MSWindows-compliant technology, but strict source
   routes MUST NOT be used, as they are a choke-point.

   The ITU has offered the IETF formal alignment with its corresponding
   technology, Penguins, but that won't fly.

   Multicasting is supported, but requires the implementation of a clone
   device.  Carriers may be lost if they are based on a tree as it is
Show full document text