craig@LOKI.BBN.COM.UUCP (01/16/87)
The people working on network and gateway monitoring for NSFNET
have decided that we'd like to develop a gateway monitoring protocol
using UDP as the transport protocol.
To this end I've been tapped to write an RFC specifying how monitoring
will be done with UDP.
The purpose of this note is to announce the creation of a short-lived
(I hope) mailing list, gwmon@sh.cs.net, for people who are interested
in *actively* assisting me in writing the RFC. People who "just want
to listen in" are discouraged -- I'm really trying to create a small
discussion group of people who are seriously interested.
Mail request to join the list to gwmon-request@sh.cs.net
Cheers,
Craig Partridge
NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)schoff@CSV.RPI.EDU.UUCP (01/18/87)
One of the "up-front" issues of HMP vs what Craig mentioned (using UDP) that I can see is that HMP does its own multiplexing which will be done in "user" space. UDP does it in kernel space right now and we can leverage off of that. There are a number of other issues which I'm sure Craig will enumerate. Cheers for the "hometeam" from the cheap seats, Marty
Mills@LOUIE.UDEL.EDU (01/19/87)
Mike, If DARPA and/or DCA is funding development of a a "standard" monitoring and control protocol, this is not evident to the task-force agenday. XNET is at least seven years old and HMP is not much younger. Yes, there is need for a new protocol in this area and BBn might not be doing the actual work. Dave
brescia@CCV.BBN.COM (Mike Brescia) (01/19/87)
Re: de-multiplexing -
TOPS-20 allows distribution to a user process of any protocol which does not
conflict with any other already used (kernel) protocol, and also allows
demultiplexing within a single protocol based on a port number (declared by
the user to be a mask and value combination somewhere in the first 4 bytes).
Thus, I can use XNET (protocol 15), since the kernel does nothing with it, and
also another user can use XNET as well, since there is a port number which is
used to distinguish her info from mine.
I would like to see UNIX able to give me the packets not explicitly granted to
the kernel. I could then run an EGP tester (or a GGP spoofer) in user mode.
cf. Bill of Rights, Article 10.
MikeMills@LOUIE.UDEL.EDU (01/19/87)
Dennis, The NSFnet crew is stumbling into this sandbox right now. I suspect they would be glad to move their discussion to this list if everybody can stand it. With the exception of the CMCC work done several years ago at BBN, which was broadly discussed and documented (see IENs at the NIC), HMPs in recent years have evolved to serve specialized processors, linke IMPs (aka PSNs), LSI-11 gateways, Buttergates and related insects. At least with respect to the DoD community, host monitoring has been considered private business and available only to a closed community with few subscribers. While this may be wholly appropriate for this community, it may not be always appropriate for the academic community. It would be wonderful if consensus could be achieved on a public protocol which could be implemented widely and with access controls specialized only as necessary. From the experience of the CMCC days, as well as the evolution of HMP, I would not rate this as a sure thing. Dave
Mills@LOUIE.UDEL.EDU (01/20/87)
Mike, Thanks for the info. It might be very useful to all of us, including the contractor, if those drafts could be distributed to the task forces before being cast in DTIC. Sparta did that with their DCEC reports and we had much joy. Dave
hwb@MCR.UMICH.EDU (Hans-Werner Braun) (01/20/87)
It is not exactly appropriate or fair to bang on Craig's head about the efforts he is undertaking. He was kind of pushed by the NSFnet folks to start organizing the efforts concerning the immediate need for gateway monitoring. What is the alternative to get a concerted effort underway which would bear results within the next four or five months (or sooner)? We have a real immediate need right now which will require monitoring to work in a multi vendor environment REAL SOON. -- Hans-Werner
leiner@ICARUS.RIACS.EDU (01/20/87)
Craig, As you probably are aware, there has been quite a bit of work done already in "monitoring". In fact, Jil Westcott at BBN has been doing some work in automated network monitoring related to ADDCOMPE and packet radio networks. There have also been several proposals for "monitoring protocols". I'm happy to see you working in this area. It is clearly critical for large internets like NSFnet and the evolving national research internet. Hopefully, with this new push, a "standard approach" can be developed. Barry > From: Craig Partridge <craig@loki.bbn.com> > Subject: Gateway Monitoring > To: tcp-ip%sri-nic.arpa@SH.CS.NET > Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 14:58:59 -0500 > > > The people working on network and gateway monitoring for NSFNET > have decided that we'd like to develop a gateway monitoring protocol > using UDP as the transport protocol. > > To this end I've been tapped to write an RFC specifying how monitoring > will be done with UDP. > > The purpose of this note is to announce the creation of a short-lived > (I hope) mailing list, gwmon@sh.cs.net, for people who are interested > in *actively* assisting me in writing the RFC. People who "just want > to listen in" are discouraged -- I'm really trying to create a small > discussion group of people who are seriously interested. > > Mail request to join the list to gwmon-request@sh.cs.net > > Cheers, > > Craig Partridge > NSF Network Service Center (NNSC) ----------
hedrick@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) (01/20/87)
Mike Brescia asks for a facility under Unix that will allow you to receive any packet type that the kernel doesn't need. The Ethernet packet filter (/dev/enet) will do this. There is supposedly a copy of this software included with 4.3. We use it on a Pyramid to implement PUP. (We can't give it to you, as our copy is covered by a license with Xerox.)
gross@MITRE-GATEWAY.ARPA.UUCP (01/21/87)
If the measure of a hot topic is the number of messages generated per unit time, then gateway monitoring is the latest sizzle. Mitre is instrumenting a gateway work in order to 1) make baseline traffic profile studies, 2) perform congestion control experiments and then 3) compare results. We are not designing a new monitoring protocol, but I agree that one is desperately needed. Working together is a clear win and I agree that the IETF can provide a timely forum. I will put this on the agenda for a half day or day long workshop at the upcoming IETF. (There was already a performance workshop planned and this will replace it.) Phill
swb@DEVVAX.TN.CORNELL.EDU.UUCP (01/21/87)
About security in monitoring: yes, it was mentioned as a requirement in one of the first messages among the "Partridge" contingent. Scott
cassel@dewey.udel.edu.UUCP (01/24/87)
Sorry to be dense. What is IETF? Is it an open meeting? Where, when, ....?