diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'content/en/blog')
| -rw-r--r-- | content/en/blog/20210320-ouroboros-rina.md | 912 |
1 files changed, 912 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/content/en/blog/20210320-ouroboros-rina.md b/content/en/blog/20210320-ouroboros-rina.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..04fac33 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/en/blog/20210320-ouroboros-rina.md @@ -0,0 +1,912 @@ +--- +date: 2021-03-20 +title: "How does Ouroboros relate to RINA, the Recursive InterNetwork Architecture?" +linkTitle: "Is Ouroboros RINA?" +description: "TL;DR: Ouroboros isn't RINA." +author: Dimitri Staessens +--- + +``` +There are two kinds of researchers: those that have implemented +something and those that have not. The latter will tell you that there +are 142 ways of doing things and that there isn't consensus on which +is best.The former will simply tell you that 141 of them don't work. + -- David Cheriton +``` + +When I talk to someone that's interested in Ouroboros, a question that +frequently pops up is how the project relates to the +[Recursive InterNet(work) Architecture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_Internetwork_Architecture), +or **RINA**. I usually steer away from going into the technical +aspects of how the architectures differ, mostly because not many +people know the details of how RINA works. But the origin of Ouroboros +definitely lies with our research and our experiences implementing +RINA, so it's a good question. I'll address it as best as I can, +without going overboard on a technical level. I will assume the reader +is at least somewhat familiar with RINA. Also keep in mind that both +projects are ongoing and should not be considered as "done"; things +may change in the future. These are my -- inevitably subjective and +undoubtedly somewhat inaccurate -- recollections of how it went down, +why Ouroboros exists, and how it's different from RINA. + +And a quick note here: Ouroboros _the network prototype_ has no +relation to the Ouroboros Proof-of-Stake protocol in the Cardano +blockchain. That some of the Cardano guys are also interested in RINA +doesn't help to ease any confusion. + +### IBBT meets RINA + +I first came into contact with RINA somewhere in 2012, while working +as a senior researcher in the field of telecommunication networks at +what was then known as IBBT (I'll save you the abbreviation), would +soon be known as iMinds, and is now integrated into +[IMEC](https://www.imec-int.com). A new research project was going to +start and our research group was looking for someone to be responsible +for the IBBT contributions. That project, called +[IRATI](https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/317814) was a relatively +short (2 years duration) project in the "Future Internet Research and +Experimentation" (FIRE) area of the _7th framework programme_ of the +European Commission. I won't go into the details and strategies of +research funding; the important thing to know is that the objectives +of FIRE are "hands-on", aimed at building and deploying Internet +technologies. Given that I had some experience deploying experiments +(at that time OpenFlow prototypes) on our lab testbeds, I listened to +the project pitch, an online presentation with Q&A given by the +project lead, Eduard Grasa from [i2cat]((https://i2cat.net/)), who +explained the concepts behind RINA, and got quite excited about how +elegant this all looked. So I took on the project and read John Day's +[Patterns in Network Architecture](https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/patterns-in-network/9780132252423/), +which we later usually referred to as _PNA_. It was also the time +when I was finishing my PhD thesis, so my PostDoc track was going to +be for a substantial part on computer network architecture and RINA. +Unifying +[Inter-Process Communication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-process_communication) (IPC) +and networking. How exciting was that! + +IRATI -- Investigating RINA as an Alternative to TCP/IP -- was +something different from the usual research projects, involving not +only some substantially new and unfamiliar ideas, but it also relied +very heavily on software development. Project work was performed as +part of PhD tracks, so who would do the work? There was a PhD student +under my guidance working mostly on OpenFlow, Sachin -- one of the +kindest people I have ever met, and now a professor at TU Dublin -- +and there was also a master thesis student, Sander Vrijders, that was +interested in pursuing a PhD in our research group. After a couple of +internal sessions where we explained possible research tracks aligned +to ongoing and upcoming projects in our group, Sander decided to take +on the challenge of IRATI and start a PhD track on RINA. + +### IRATI + +**IRATI** kicked off in January 2013 at i2cat in Barcelona. It was +followed by a RINA workshop, bringing the project in touch with the +RINA community, which had its epicenter at Boston University +(BU). It's where I first met John Day, who gave a 2-day in-depth +tutorial of RINA. Eduard also presented an outline of the IRATI +objectives. The project promised an implementation of RINA in Linux +_and_ FreeBSD/JunOS, with detailed comparisons of RINA against TCP/IP +in various scenarios, and also demonstrate interoperability with other +RINA prototypes: the +[TINOS prototype](https://github.com/PouzinSociety/tinos) and the +[TRIA](http://trianetworksystems.com/) prototype. IRATI would also +prepare the European FIRE testbeds for RINA experiments using the +prototype. In 2 years, on 870k Euros in research funding. A common +inside joke at project kick-off meetings in our field was to put a +wager on the number slides that the presentation deck at the final +project review meeting would differ from the slide decks presented at +the initial kick-off meeting. IRATI was _not_ going to be one of those +projects! + +With the RINA community gathered at the workshop, there were initial +ideas for a follow-up research proposal to IRATI. Of course, almost +every potential participant present was on board. + +Three partners were responsible for the implementation: i2cat, who had +experience on RINA; [Nextworks](https://www.nextworks.it) a +private-sector company with substantial experience on implementing +networking solutions, and iMinds/imec, bringing in our testbed +experience. Interoute (now part of [GTT](https://gtt.net)) validated +the test scenarios that we would use for evalutions. Boston University +had an advisory role in the project. + +The first work was determining the software design of the +implementation. IRATI was going to build an in-kernel implementation +of RINA. A lot of the heavy lifting on the design was already done +during the project proposal preparation phase, and the components to +be implemented were +[well-defined](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/190646748.pdf). +Broadly speaking, there were 3 things to implement: the IPCPs that +make up the RINA layers (Distributed IPC Facilities, DIFs), the +component that is responsible for creating and starting these IPCPs +(the IPC manager, which had a user space and a kernel space part), and +the core library to communicate between these components, called +_librina_. The prototype would be built in 3 phases over the course of +2 years. + +i2cat was going to get started on most of the management parts (IPC +Manager, based on their existing Java implementation; librina, +including the Common Distributed Application Protocol (CDAP) and the +DIF management functions in the normal IPCP) and the Data Transfer +Protocol (DTP). iMinds was going to be responsible for the kernel +modules that will allow the prototype to run on top of +Ethernet. Nextworks was taking a crucial software-architectural role +on kernel development and software integration. For most of these +parts we had access to a rough draft of what they were supposed to do, +John Day's RINA reference model, which we usually referred to as _the +specs_. + +i2cat had a vested interest in RINA and was putting in a lot of +development effort with 3 people working on the project: Eduard, +Leonardo Bergesio and Miquel Tarzan. Nextworks assigned Francesco +Salvestrini, an experienced kernel developer to the project. From +iMinds, the development effort would come from Sander. My personal +involvement in the project software development was limited, as I +still had other ongoing projects (at least until the end of 2014) and +my main role would be in the experimentation work, which was only +planned start after the initial development phase. + +The project established efficient lines of communications, mostly +using Skype and the mailing lists and the implementation work got +underway swiftly. I have been fortunate to be a part of a couple of +projects where collaboration between partners was truly excellent, but +the level of teamwork in IRATI was unprecedented. There was a genuine +sense of excitement in everybody involved in the project. + +So, Sander's first task was to implement the +[_shim DIF over Ethernet_](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6798429). +This is a Linux loadable kernel module (LKM) that wraps the Ethernet +802.1Q VLAN with a thin software layer to present itself using the +RINA API. The VLAN ID would be used as the layer name. No +functionality would be added to the existing Ethernet protocol so with +only the src and dst address fields left, this _shim DIF_ was +restricted to having only a single application registerd at a time, +and to a single RINA "flow" between the endpoints. We could deploy +about 4000 of these _shim DIFs_ in parallel to support larger RINA +networks. The name resolution for endpoint applications was planned to +be using the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP), which was readily +available in the Linux kernel. Or so we thought. + +The ARP implementation in the kernel assumed IPv4 as the only L3 +protocol (IPv6 doesn't use ARP), so it could not handle the resolution +of RINA _application names_ to MAC addresses, which we needed for the +shim DIF. So after some deliberation, we decided to implement an RFC +826 compliant version of ARP to support the shim DIF. + +In the meantime, we also submitted a small 3-partner project proposal +the GEANT framework, tailored to researching RINA in an NREN (National +Research and Education Networks) environment. The project was lead by +us, partnering with i2cat, and teaming up with +[TSSG](https://tssg.org/). [IRINA](https://i2cat.net/projects/irina/) +would kick off in October 2013, meaning we'd have 2 parallel projects +on RINA. + +The project had made quite some progress in its first 6 months, there +were initial implementations for most of the components, and in terms +of core prototype functionality, IRATI was quickly overtaking the +existing RINA prototypes. However, the pace of development in the +kernel was slower than anticipated and some of the implementation +objectives were readjusted (and FreeBSD/JunOS was dropped in favor of +a _shim DIF for Hypervisors_). With the eye on testbed deployments, +Sander started work on the design of a second _shim DIF_, one that +would allow us to run the IRATI prototype over TCP/UDP. + +In the meantime, the follow-up project that was coined during the +first RINA workshop took shape and was submitted. Lead by our IRINA +partner TSSG, it was envisioned to be a a relatively large project, +about 3.3 million Euros in EC contributions, running for 30 months and +bringing together 13 partners with the objective to build the IRATI +prototype into what was essentially a carrier network demonstrator for +RINA, adding _policies_ for mobility, security and reliability. +[**PRISTINE**](https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/619305) got +funded. This was an enormous boon to the RINA community, but also a +bit of a shock for us as IRATI developers, as the software was already +a bit behind schedule with a third project on the horizon. The +furthest we could push forward the start of PRISTINE was January 2014. + +As the IRATI project was framed within +[FIRE](https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1273445.1273460), there was a +strong implied commitment to get experimental results with the project +prototype. By the last quarter of 2013, the experimentation work got +started, and the prototype was getting its first deployment trials on +the FIRE testbeds. This move to real hardware brought more problems to +light. The network switches in the OFELIA testbed wasn't agreeing very +well with our RFC-compliant ARP implementation, dropping everything +that wasn't IPv4. One of the testbeds also relied on VLANs to seperate +experiments, which didn't fare well with our idea to (ab)use them +within an experiment for the _shim DIF_. While Sander did the +development of the _shim DIFs_ using the actual testbed hardware, +other components had been developed predominantly in a virtual machine +environment and had not been subjected to the massive parallellism +that was available on dual-Xeon hardware. The stability of the +implementation had to be substantially improved to get stable and +reliable measurements. These initial trials in deploying IRATI also +showed that configuring the prototype was very time consuming. The +components used json configuration files which were to be created for +each experiment deployment, causing substantial overhead. + +The clock was ticking and while the IRATI development team was working +tirelessly to stabilize the stack, I worked on some (kernel) patches +and fixes for the testbeds so we could use VLANs (on a different +Ethertype) in our experiment. We would get deployment and stability +testing done and (internally) release _prototype 1_ before the end of +the year. + +### PRISTINE + +January 2014. The PRISTINE kick-off was organized together with a +workshop, where John Day presented RINA, similar to the IRATI kick-off +one year earlier, except this time it was in Dublin and the project +was substantially bigger, especially in headcount. It brought together +experts in various fields of networking with the intent of them +applying that experience into developing polcies for RINA. But many of +the participants to the PRISTINE project were very new to RINA, still +getting to grips with some of the concepts (and John didn't shy away +from making that abundantly clear). + +The first couple of months of PRISTINE was mostly about getting the +participants up-to-speed with the RINA architecture and defining the +use-case, which centered on a 5G scenario with highly mobile end-users +and intelligent edge nodes. It was very elaborate, and the associated +deliverables were absolute dreadnoughts. + +During this PRISTINE ramp-up phase, development of the IRATI prototype +was going on at a fierce pace. The second project brought in some +extra developers to work on the IRATI core Bernat Gaston (i2cat), +Vincenzo Maffione (Nextworks), and Douwe de Bock (a master student at +iMinds). i2cat focusing on management and flow control and was also +porting the Java user-space parts to C++, Vincenzo was focusing on the +_shim Hypervisor_, which would allow communications between processes +running over a VM host and guest, and we were building the shim layer +to run RINA over TCP and UDP. + +By this time, frustrations were starting to creep in. Despite all the +effort in development, the prototype was not in a good shape. The +development effort was also highly skewed, with i2cat putting in the +bulk of the work. The research dynamic was also changing. At the start +of IRATI, there was a lot of ongoing architectural discussions about +what each component should do, to improve the _specs_, but due to the +ever increasing time pressure, the teams were working more and more in +isolation. Getting it _done_ became a lot more important than getting +it _right_. + +All this development had led to very little dissemination output, +which didn't go unnoticed at project reviews. The upshot of the large +time-overlap between the two projects was that, in combination with +the IRATI design paper that got published early-on in the project, we +could afford to lose out a bit on dissemination in IRATI and try to +catch up in PRISTINE. But apart from the relatively low output in +research papers, this project had no real contributions to +standardization bodies. + +In any case, the project had no choice but to push on with +development, and, despite all difficulties, somewhere mid 2014 IRATI +had most basic functionalities in place to bring the software in a +limited way into PRISTINE so it could start development of the +_PRISTINE software developement kit (SDK)__ (which was developed by +people also in IRATI). + +Mostly to please the reviewers, we tried to get some standardization +going, presenting RINA at an ISO SC6 JTC1 meeting in London and also +at IETF91. Miquel and myself would continue to follow up on +standardization in SC6 WG7 on "Future Network" as part of PRISTINE, +gathering feedback on the _specs_ and getting them on the track +towards ISO RINA standards. I still have many fond memories of my +experiences discussing RINA within WG7. + +The IRATI pro was officially ending soon, and the development was now +focusing on the last functions of the Data Transfer Control Protocol +(DTCP) component of EFCP, such as retransmission logic +(delta-t). Other development was now shifted completely out of IRATI +towards the PRISTINE SDK. + +In the meantime, we also needed some experimental +results. Experimentation with the prototype was a painful and very +time-consuming undertaking. We finally squeezed a publication at +Globecom 2014 out of some test results and could combine that with a +RINA tutorial session. + +January 2015, another new year, another RINA workshop. This time in +Ghent, as part of a Flemish research project called RINAiSense -- +which should be pronounced like the French _renaissance_ -- that would +investigate RINA in sensor networks (which now falls under the nomer +"Internet of Things" (IoT). After the yearly _John Day presents RINA_ +sessions, this was also the time to properly introduce the IRATI +prototype to everyone with a hands-on VM tutorial session, and to +introduce [RINAsim](https://rinasim.omnetpp.org/), an OMNET++ RINA +simulator developed within PRISTINE. + +After the workshop, it was time to wrap up IRATI. For an external +observer it may lack impact and show little output in publications, +and it definitely didn't deliver a convincing case for _RINA as an +alternative for TCP/IP_. But despite that, I think the project really +achieved a lot, in terms of bringing for the first time some tools +that can be used to explore RINA, and for the people that worked on +it, an incredible experience and deeps insights into computer networks +in general. This would not have been possible without the enthousiasm +and hard work put in by all those involved, but especially Eduard and +the i2cat team. + +As IRINA was wrapping up, a paper on the how the _shim DIF over +Hypervisors_ could be used to [reduce complexity of VM +networking](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7452280) was +submitted for IEEE COMMAG. + +We're approaching the spring of 2015, and IRATI was now officially +over, but there was no time to rest as the clock was ticking on +PRISTINE. The project was now already halfway its anticipated 30-month +runtime, and its first review, somewhere end of 2014, wasn't met with +all cheers, so we had to step up. This was also the period where some +of my other (non-RINA) projects were running out. Up to then, my +personal involvement on RINA had been on (software) design our +components, reviewing the _specs_, and the practical hands-on was in +using the software: deploying it on the testbeds and validating its +functionality. But now I could finally free up time to help Sander on +the development of the IRATI prototype. + +Our main objective for PRISTINE was on _resilient routing_: making +sure the _DIF_ survives underlying link failures. This has been a +long-time research topic in our group, so we pretty much quickly know +_how_ to do it at a conceptual level. But there were three +requirements: first and foremost, it needed _scale_: we needed to be +able to run something that could be called a network, not just 3 or 4 +nodes and not just a _couple_ of flows in the network. Second, it +needed _stability_: to measure the recovery time, we needed to send +packets at small but -- more importantly -- steady intervals and +thirdly, we needed measurement _tools_. + +As part of IRINA, we developed a basic traffic-generator, which would +be extended for PRISTINE and tailored to suit our needs. Stability was +improving gradually over time. Our real problem was _scale_, to which +the biggest hurdle was the configuration of the IRATI stack. It was a +complete nightmare. Almost anything and everything had to be +preconfigured in _json_. I remember that by that time, Vincenzo had +developed a tool called the _demonstator_ based on tiny buildroot VMs +to create setups for local testing, but this wasn't going to help us +deploy it on the Fed4FIRE testbeds. So Sander developed one of the +first orchestrators for RINA, called the _configurator_ for deploying +IRATI on [emulab](https://www.emulab.net/portal/frontpage.php). + +Somewhere around that time, the _one-flow-only-limitation_ of the +_shim DIF over VLAN_ was showing and a _shim DIF over Ethernet Link +Layer Control (LLC)_ was drafted and developed. By mapping endpoints +to LLC Service Access Points (SAPs), this _shim DIF_ could support +parallel flows (data flows and management flows) between the client +IPCPs in the layer above. + +With the PRISTINE SDK released as part of "openIRATI" somewhere after +the January workshop a good month prior, there was another influx of +code into the prototype for all the new features +(a.k.a. _policies_). Francesco, who had been managing a lot of the +software integration, was also leaving the RINA projects. This is the +point where I really noticed that Sander and Vincenzo were quickly +losing faith in the future of the IRATI codebase, and the first ideas +of branching off -- or even starting over -- began to emerge. + +The next Horizon-2020-proposal deadline was also approaching, so our +struggles at that point also inspired us to propose developing a more +elaborate RINA orchestrator and make deployment and experimentation +with (open)IRATI a much more enjoyable experience. That project, +[ARCFIRE](https://ict-arcfire.eu/) would start in 2016. + +Now, we were still focusing on the basics: getting link state routing +running, adding some simple _loop-free alternates_ policy to it, based +on the operation of [IP FRR](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5286) and +running a bunch of flows over that network to measure packet loss when +we break a link. Sander was focusing on the policy design and +implementation, I was going to have a look at the IRATI code for +scaling up the flow counts, which needed non-blocking I/O. I won't go +into the details, but after that short hands-on stint in the IRATI +codebase, I was onboard with Sander to starting looking to options for +a RINA implementation beyond IRATI. + +It was now summer 2015, PRISTINE would end in 12 months and the +project was committed to openIRATI, so at least for PRISTINE, we again +had no choice but to plow on. A couple of frustrating months lied +ahead of us, trying to get experimental results out of a prototype +that was nowhere near ready for it, and with a code base that was also +becoming so big and complex that it was impossible to fix for anyone +but the original developers. This is unfortunately the seemingly +inescapable fate of any software project whose development cycle is +heavily stressed by external deadlines, especially deadlines set +within the rigid timeline of a publicly funded research project. + +By the end of summer, we were still a long way off the mark in terms +of what we hoped to achieve. The traffic generator tool and +configurator were ready, and the implementation of LFA was as good as +done, so we could deploy the machines for the use case scenarios, +which were about 20 nodes in size, on the testbeds. But the deployment +that actually worked was still limited to a 3-node PoC in a triangle +that showed the traffic getting routed over the two remaining link if +a link got severed. + +In the meantime, Vincenzo had started work on his own RINA +implementation, [rlite](https://github.com/vmaffione/rlite), and +Sander and myself started discussing options on a more and more +regular basis on what to do. Should we branch off IRATI and try to +clean it up? Keep only IRATI kernel space and rewrite user space? Hop +on the _rlite_ train? Or just start over entirely? Should we go +user-space entirely or keep parts in-kernel? + +In the last semester of 2015, Sander was heading for a 3-month +research stint in Boston to work on routing in RINA with John and the +BU team. By that time, we had ruled out branching off of openIRATI. +Our estimate was that cleaning up the code base would be more work +than starting over. We'd have IRATI as an upstream dependency, and +trying to merge contributions upstream would lead to endless +discussions and further hamper progress for both projects. IRATI was +out. Continuing on rlite was still a feasible option. Vincenzo was +making progress fast, and we knew he was extremely talented. But we +were also afraid of running into disagreements of how to proceed. In +the meantime, Sander's original research plans in Boston got subverted +by a 'major review' decision on the _shim Hypervisor_ article, putting +priority on getting that accepted and published. When I visited Sander +in Boston at the end of October, we were again assessing the +situation, and agreed that the best decision was to start our own +prototype, to avoid having _too many cooks in the kitchen_. +Development was not part of some funded project, so we were free to +evaluate and scrutinize all design decisions, and we could get +feedback on the RINA mailing lists on our findings. When all +considerations settled, our own RINA implementation was going to be +targeting POSIX and be user space only. + +We were confident we could get it done, so we took the gamble. ARCFIRE +was going to start soon, but the first part of the project would be +tool development. Our experimentation contributions to PRISTINE were +planned to wrap up by April -- the project was planned to end in June, +but a 4-month extension pushed it to the end of October. But starting +May, we'd have some time to work on Ouroboros relatively +undisturbed. In the very worst case, if our project went down the +drain, we could still use IRATI or rlite to meet any objectives for +ARCFIRE. We named our new RINA-implementation-to-be _Ouroboros_, the +mythical snake that eats its own tail represented recursion, and also +-- with a touch of imagination -- resembles the operation of a _ring +buffer_. + +### ARCFIRE + +Another year, another RINA project kick-off, this time it was again in +Barcelona, but this time without a co-located workshop. ARCFIRE (like +IRATI before it) was within the FIRE framework, and the objective was +to get some experiments running with a reasonable number of nodes (on +the order of 100) to demonstrate stability and scale of the prototypes +and also to bring tooling to the RINA community. The project was +coordinated by Sven van der Meer (Ericsson), who had done significant +work on the PRISTINE use cases, and would focus on the impact of RINA +on network management. The industry-inspired use cases were brought by +Diego Lopez (Telefónica), _acteur incontournable_ in the +Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) world. The project was of +course topped off with i2cat, Nextworks, and ourselves, as we were +somewhere in the process of integration into IMEC. The order at hand +for us was to develop an fleshed-out testbed deployment framework for +RINA, which we named [Rumba](https://gitlab.com/arcfire/rumba). (A +rhumba is a bunch of rattlesnakes, and Ouroboros is a snake, and it +was written in Python -- rhumba already existed, and rumba was an +accepted alternate spelling). + +In early 2016, the RINA landscape was very different from when we +embarked on IRATI in 2013. There were 2 open source prototypes, IRATI +was the de-facto standard used in EC projects, but Vincenzo's rlite +was also becoming available at the time and would be used in +ARCFIRE. And soon, the development of a third prototype -- _ouroboros_ +-- would start. External perception of RINA in the scientific +community had also been shifting, and not in a positive direction. At +the start of the project, we had the position paper with project plans +and outlines, and the papers on the _shims_ showed some ways on how +RINA could be deployed. But other articles trying to demonstrate the +benefits of RINA were -- despite all the efforts and good will of all +people involved -- lacking in quality, mostly due to the limitations +of the software. All these subpar publications did more harm than +good, as the quality of the publications rubbed off on the perceived +merits of the RINA architecture as a whole. We were always feeling +this pressure to publish _something_, _anything_ -- and reviewers were +always looking for a value proposition -- _Why is this better than my +preferred solution?_, _Compare this in depth to my preferred solution_ +-- that we simply couldn't support with data at this point in +time. And not for lack of want or a lack of trying. But at least, +ARCFIRE had at 2 years to look forward to, a focused scope and by now, +the team had a lot of experience in the bag. But for the future of +RINA, we knew the pressure was on -- this was a _now or never_ type of +situation. + +### Ouroboros + +We laid the first stone on Ouroboros on Friday February 12th, 2016. At +that point in time Ouroboros was still planned as a RINA +implementation, so we started from the beginning: an empty git +repository, renewed enthousiasm, fresh _specs_ -- still warm from the +printer and smelling of toner -- in our hands, and Sanders initial +software design and APIs in colored marker on the whiteboard. Days +were long -- we still had work to do on PRISTINE, mind you -- and +evenings were short. I could now imagine the frustration of the i2cat +people, who a couple of years prior were probably also spending their +evenings and nights enthousiastically coding on IRATI while, for us, +IRATI was still a (very interesting) job rather than a passion. We +would feel no such frustrations as we knew from the onset that the +development of Ouroboros was going to be a two-man job. + +While we were spending half our days gathering and compiling results +from our _LFA_ experiments for PRISTINE, which -- fortunately or +unfortunately depending on the way I look at it -- did not result in a +publication, and half our days on the rumba framework, our early +mornings and early evenings were filled with discussions on the RINA +API used in Ouroboros. It was initially based on IRATI. Flow +allocation used source and destination _naming information_ -- 4 +objects that the RINA _specs_ (correctly, might I add) say should be +named: Application Process Name, Application Process Instance Id, +Application Entity Name and Application Entity Instance Id. This +_naming information_ as in IRATI, was built into a single structure -- +a 4-tuple -- and we were quickly running into a mess, because, while +these names need to be identified, they are not resolved at the same +time, nor in the same place. Putting them in a single struct and +passing that around with NULL values all the time was really ugly. The +naming API in Ouroboros changed quickly over time, initially saving +some state in an _init_ call (the naming information of the current +application, for instance) and later on removing the source naming +information from the flow allocation protocol alltogether, because it +could so easily be filled with fake garbage that one shouldn't rely on +it for anything. The four-tuple was then broken up to pass two 2-tuple +name and instance-id, using one for the Process, the other for the +Entity. But we considered these changes to be just a footnote in the +RINA service definition, -- taste, one could take it or leave it, no +big deal. Little did we know that these small changes were just the +start -- the first notes of a gentle, breezy prelude that was slowly +building towards a fierce, stormy cadenza that would signify the +severance of Ouroboros from RINA almost exactly one year later. + +Another such change was with the _register_ function. To be able to +reach a RINA application, you need to register it in the _DIF_. When +we were implementing this, it just struck us that this code was being +repeated over and over again in applications. And just think about it, +_how does an application know which DIFs there are in the system?_. +And if new DIFs are created while the application is running, how do I +feed that information? That's all functionality that would have to be +included in _every_ RINA application. IRATI has this as whole set of +library calls. But we did something rather different. We moved the +registering of applications _outside_ of the applications +themselves. It's _application management_, not _IPC_. Think about how +much simpler this small change makes life for an application +developer, and a network administrator. Think about how it would be if +-- in the IP world -- you could create a socket on port 80 or port 443 +_from the shell_, and set options on that socket _from the shell_, and +then tell your kernel that incoming connections on that socket should +be sent to this Apache or that Nginx program _from the shell_, and all +that the Apache or Nginx developers would need to do is call accept() +and read/write/select/epoll etc calls, instead of having to handle +sockets and all their options. That's what the bind() and register() +calls in Ouroboros do for Ouroboros applications: you bind some +program to that name _from the command line_, you register the name in +the layer (equivalent of creating the socket) _from the command line_ +, and all the (server) program has to do is call _flow_accept()_ and +it will receive incoming flows. It is this change in the RINA API +that inspired us to name our first very first public presentation +about Ourobors, at FOSDEM 2018, +[IPC in 1-2-3](https://archive.fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/ipc/). + +When we tried to propose them to the RINA community, these changes +were not exactly met with cheers. The interactions with that community +was alse beginning to change. RINA was the _specs_. Why are we now +again asking questions about basic things that we implemented in IRATI +years ago? IRATI shows its works. Want to change the _specs_: talk to +John. + +We had also implemented our first _shim DIF_, which would allow to run +the Ouroboros prototype over UDP/IPv4. We started with a UDP shim +because there is a POSIX sockets API for UDP. Recall that we were +targeting POSIX, including FreeBSD and MacOS X to make the Ouroboros +prototype more accessible. But programming interfaces into Ethernet, +such as _raw sockets_, were not standard between operating systems, so +we would implement an Ethernet _shim DIF_ later. Now, the Ouroboros +_shim DIF_ stopped being a _shim_ pretty fast. When we were developing +the _shim DIFs_ for IRATI, there was one very important rule: we were +not allowed to add functionality to the protocol we were wrapping with +the RINA API, we could only _map_ functions that were existing in the +(Etherent/UDP) protocol. This -- was the underlying reasoning -- would +show that the protocol/layers in the current internet were +_incomplete_ layers. But that also meant that the functions that were +not present -- the flow allocator in particular -- would need to be +circumvented through manual configuration at the endpoints. We weren't +going to have any of that -- the Ouroboros IPCP daemons all implement +a flow allocator. You may also be wondering why none of the prototypes +have a _shim DIF_ directly over IP. It's perfectly possible! But the +reason is simple: it would use a non-standardized value for the +_protocol_ field in the IP header, and most IP routers simply drop +such packets. + +Somewhere around April, we were starting the implementation of a +_normal_ IPCP in Ouroboros, and another RINA component was quickly +becoming a nuisance to me: the _Common Distributed Application +Protocol_ or _CDAP_. While I had no problem with the objectives of +CDAP, I was -- to put it mildly -- not a big fan of the +object-oriented paradigm that was underneath it. Its methods, +_read/write, create/destroy, start/stop_ make sense to many, but just +like the HTTP methods PUT/GET/DELETE/POST/... there is nothing +_fundamental_ about it. It might as well have just one method, +_[execute](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html)_. +It's taste, and it definitely wasn't _my_ taste. I found that it only +proved my long-holding observation that for every engineer there were +at least three overengineers. I made a bold prediction to Sander: one +day, we would kick CDAP out of the Ouroboros prototype. + +Summer was approaching again. Most of the contributions to PRISTINE +were in, so the ARCFIRE partners could start to focus on that +project. And there was a risk: ARCFIRE depended on the Fed4FIRE +testbeds, which was ending and its future was not certain. The +projected target API for _rumba_ was +[jFed](https://jfed.ilabt.imec.be/). To mitigate the risk, we made an +inventory of other potential testbeds, and to accomodate for the wait +for the results of the funding calls, we proposed (and got) an +extention to ARCFIRE with 6 months to a 30-month project duration. In +the end, Fed4FIRE was funded, ARCFIRE had some breathing space -- +after all, we had to fire on all cylinders to get the best possible +results and make a case for RINA -- and Sander and myself had some +extra time to get Ouroboros up and running. + +Sander quickly developed an Ethernet LLC _shim DIF_ based on the UDP +one, and after that, we both moved our focus on the key components in +the _normal IPCP_, implementing the full flow allocator and building +the data transfer protocol (DTP), and the routing and forwarding +functionality. CDAP was getting more and more annoying, but apart from +that, this part of the RINA _specs_ were fairly mature following the +implementation work in IRATI, and the implementation progress was +steady and rather uneventful. For now. + +Work on the PRISTINE project was wrapped up, and the final +deliverables were submitted at the end of October. PRISTINE was a +tough project for us, with very little outcomes. Together with Miquel, +I did make some progress with RINA standardization in ISO +JTC1/SC6. But Sander and myself could show few research results, no +published papers where we were the main authors. PRISTINE as a whole +also fell short a bit in its main objectives, the RINA community +hadn't substantially grown, and its research results were still -- +from an external vantage point -- mediocre. For us, it was a story of +trying to do too much, too soon. Everyone tried their best, and I +think we achieved what was achieveable given the time and resources we +had. The project definitely had some nice outcomes. Standardization at +least got somewhere, with a project in ISO and also some traction +within the Next Generation Protocols (NGP group at +[ETSI](www.etsi.org). RINAsim was a nice educational tool, especially +for visualizing the operation of RINA. + +Our lack of publication output was also noticed by our direct +superiors at the University, who got more and more anxious. The +relationship deteriorated steadily, we were constantly nagged about +publications, _minimum viable papers_, and the _value proposition_ of +RINA: _killer features_, _killer apps_. For us, the simplicity and +elegance of the design was all we needed as a motivation to +continue. There were some suggestions to build a simulator instead of +a full prototype. My feeling was that a simulator would be +unconvincing to show any _benefits of RINA_ -- I can't express in +words how much I hated that phrase. To prove anything, simulators need +to be validated against the real thing. And there are certain pitfalls +that can only be found in an implementation. This is the reason why I +chose that particular quote at the top of this blog post. Both parties +started to sound like broken records to eachother, every meeting was +devolving into a pointless competition in +who-knows-the-most-workarounds. As the saying goes, arguing with an +engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. There wasn't anything +constructive or useful to those interactions, so we stopped giving a +shit -- pardon my French. The Ouroboros prototype was coming along, we +were confident that we knew what we were doing. All we needed was time +to get it done. We'll write a paper on Ouroboros when we had one worth +writing. + +By January 2017, we had a minimal working _normal_ IPCP. Sander was +looking into routing, working on a component we called the _graph +adjacency manager_ (GAM). As its name suggest, the GAM would be +responsible for managing links in the network, what would be referred +to as the _network topology_, and would get policies that instruct it +how to maintain the graph based on certain parameters. This component, +however, was short-lived and replaced by an API to connect IPCPs so +the actual layer management logic could be a standalone program +outside of the IPCPs instead of a module inside the IPCPs, which is +far more flexible. + +### Ouroboros diverges from RINA + +In the meantime, I was implementing and revising _CACEP_, the Common +Application Connnection Establishment Protocol that was accompanying +CDAP in RINA. Discussions on CACEP between Sander and myself were +interesting and sometimes heated -- whiteboard markers have +experienced flight and sudden deceleration. CDAP was supposed to +support different encoding schemes -- the OSI _presentation layer_. We +were only going to implement Google Protocol Buffers, which was also +used in IRATI, but the support for others should be there. The flow +allocator and the RIB were built on top of our CDAP +implementation. And something was becoming more and more obvious. What +we were implementing -- agreeing on protocol versions, encoding etc -- +was something rather universal to all protocols. Now, you may +remember that the flow allocator is passing something -- the +information needed to connect to a specific Application Entity or +Application Entity Instace -- that was actually only needed after the +flow allocation procedure was basically established. But after a +while, it was clear to me that this information should be _there_ in +that CACEP part, and was rather universal for all application +connections, not just CDAP. After I presented this to Sander +_<despair>_ over IRC, he actually recognized how this -- to me +seemingly small -- change impacted the prototype. Now, I will never +forget the exchange, and I actually saved that conversation as a text +file. The date was February 24th, 2017. + +``` +... +<despair> nice, so then dev.h is even simpler +<despair> ae name is indeed not on the layer boundary +<dstaesse> wait why is dev.h simpler? +<despair> since ae name will be removed there +<dstaesse> no +<dstaesse> would you? +<despair> yes +<despair> nobody likes balls on the line +<despair> it's balls out +... +``` + +Now, RINA experts will (or should) gasp for air when reading this. It +refers to something that traces back to John's ISO JTC1/SC6 days +working on Open Systems Interconnect (OSI), when there was a heavy +discussion ongoing about the "Application Entity": _where was it +located_? If it was in the _application_, it would be outside of SC6, +which was dealing with networks, if it was in the network, it would be +dealt with _only_ in SC6. It was a turf battle battle between two ISO +groups, and because Application Entities were usually drawn as a set +of circles, and the boundary between the network application as a +line, that battle was internally nicknamed -- boys will be boys -- the +_balls-in, balls-out_ question. If you ever attended one of John's +presentation, he will take a short pause and then continue that this +was the only time that a major insight came from a turf war: _the +balls were on the line_. The Application Entity needed to be known in +both the application and the network. Alas! Our implementation was +clearly showing that this was not the case. The balls were _above_ the +line, the _network_ (or more precise: the flow allocator) doesn't need +to know _anything_ about application entities! Then and there, Sander +had hammered a first nail in RINA's coffin. + +Ouroboros now had a crisp and clear boundary between the flow in a +_DIF_, and any connections using that flow in the layer above. Flow +allocation creates a flow between _Application Instances_ and after +that, a connection phase would create a _connection_ between +_Application Entity Instances_. So roughtly speaking -- without the +OSI terminology -- first the network connects the running programs, +and after that, the programs decide which protocol to use (which can +be implicit). What was in the _specs_ , what the RINA API was actually +doing, was piggybacking these exchanges! Now, we have no issues with +that from an operational perspective, in effect the Ouroboros flow +allocator has a _piggyback API_. But the contents of the piggybacked +information in Ouroboros is _opaque_. And all this has another, even +bigger, implication. One that I would come to via another line of +reasoning some time later. + +With ARCFIRE rolling along and the implementation of the _rumba_ +framework in full swing, Sander was working on the link-state routing +policy for Ouroboros, and I started implementing a _Distributed Hash +Table (DHT)_ that would serve as the directory -- think of the +equivalent of [DNS-SRV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRV_record) for +a RINA DIF -- a key-value store mapping _application names_ to +_addresses_ in the layer. The link-state routing component was +something that was really closely related to the Resource Information +Base -- the RIB. That RIB was closely coupled with CDAP. Remember that +prediction that I made about a year prior, somewhere in April 2016? On +September 9th 2017, two weeks before the ARCFIRE RINA hackathon, CDAP +was removed from Ouroboros. I still consider it the most satisfying +[git commit](https://ouroboros.rocks/cgit/ouroboros/commit/?id=45c6615484ffe347654c34decb72ff1ef9bde0f3&h=master) +of my life, removing 3700 lines of utter uselessness -- CDAP got 3 out +of 4 characters right. From that day, Ouroboros could definitely not +be considered a RINA implementation anymore. + +It was time to get started on the last big component: DTCP -- the +_Data Transfer Control Protocol_. When implementing this, a couple of +things were again quickly becoming clear. First, the implementation +was proving to be completely independent of DTP. The RINA _specs_, you +may recall, propose a state vector between DTP and DTCP. This solves +the _fragmentation problem_ in TCP: If an IP fragment gets lost, TCP +would resend all fragments. Hence TCP needs to know about the +fragmentation in IP and only retransmit the bytes in that fragment. +But the code was again speaking otherwise. It was basically telling +us: TCP was independent of IP. But fragmentation should be in TCP, and +IP should specify its maximum packet size. Anything else would result +in an untolerable mess. So that's how we split the _Flow and +Retransmission Control Protocol_ (FRCP) and the _Data Transfer +Protocol_ (DTP) in Ouroboros. The second nail in RINA's coffin. + +With FRCP split from DTP in roughly the same way as TCP was split from +IP, we had a new question: where to put FRCP? RINA has DTCP/DTP in the +layer as EFCP. And this resulted in something that I found rather +ugly: a normal layer would "bootstrap" its traffic (e.g. flow +allocator) over its own EFCP implementation to deal with underlying +layers that do not have EFCP (such as the _shim DIFs_). Well, fair +enough I guess. But there is another thing. One that bugged me even +more. RINA has an assumption on the _system_, one that has to be +true. The EFCP implementation -- which is the guarantee that packets +are delivered, and that they are delivered in-order -- is in the +IPCP. But the application process that makes use of the IPCP is a +_different process_. So, in effect, the transfer of data, the IPC, +between the Application Process and the IPCP has to be reliable and +preserver data order _by itself_. RINA has no control over this +part. RINA is not controlling _ALL_ IPC; there is IPC _outside of +RINA_. Another way of seeing it, is like this: If a set of processes +(IPCPs) are needed to provide reliable state synchronization between +two applictions A and B, who is providing reliable state +synchronization between A and the first IPCP? If it's again an IPCP, +that's _infinite_ recursion! Now -- granted -- this is a rather +_academic_ issue, because most (all?) computer hardware does provide +this kind of preserving IPC. However, to me, even theoretical issues +were issues. I wanted Ouroboros to do _ALL_ IPC, even between its own +components, and not make _any_ assumptions! Then, and only then, it +would be universal. Only then, the _unification of networking and IPC_ +would be complete. + +The third nail in RINA's coffin was _the big one_. And in hindsight, +we should already have seen that coming with our realization that the +application entity was _above the line_. We moved FRCP into the +application. It would be implemented in the library, not in the IPCP, +as a set of function calls, just like HTTP libraries. Sander was +initially skeptic, because to his taste, if a single-threaded +application uses the library, it should remain single-threaded. How +could it send acknowledgements, restransmit packets etc? I agreed, but +said I was confident that it would work by running the functionality +as part of the IPC calls, read/write/fevent. And that's how it's +implemented now. All this meant that Ouroboros layers were not DIFs, +and we stopped using that terminology. + +By now, the prototype was running stable enough for us to go _open +source_. We got approval from IMEC to release it to the public under +the GPLv2 / LGPL license, and in early 2018, almost exactly 2 years +after we started the project, we presented the first public version of +Ouroboros at FOSDEM 2018 in Brussels. + +But we were still running against the clock. ARCFIRE was soon to end, +and Ouroboros had undergone quite some unanticipated changes that +meant the implementation was facing the reality of [Hofstadter's +Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstadter%27s_law). + +We were again under pressure to get some publications out; in order to +meet ARCFIRE objectives, and Sander had to meet some publication quota +to finish his PhD. The design of Rumba was interesting enough for a +[paper](https://www.geni.net/), the implementation allowed us to +deploy 3 Recursive Network prototypes (IRATI, rlite and Ouroboros) on +testeds using different APIs: jFed for Fed4Fire and +[GENI](https://www.geni.net/), Emulab for iMinds virtual wall testbed, +QEMU using virtual machines, docker using -- well -- docker +containers, and a local option only for Ouroboros. But we needed more +publications, so for ARCFIRE Sander had implemented Loop-Free +Alternates routing in Ouroboros and was getting some larger-scale +results with them. And I reluctantly started working on a paper on +Ouroboros -- I still felt the time wasn't right, and we first needed +to have a full FRCP implementation and full congestion avoidance to +make a worthwile analysis. By then I long had a feeling that my days +at the university were numbered, it was time to move on, and I was +either leaving after submitting a publication on Ouroboros, or without +a publication on Ouroboros. + +We finished the experiments for ARCFIRE, but as with PRISTINE, the +results were not accepted for publication. During the writing of the +paper, a final realization came. We had implemented our link-state +routing a while ago, and it was doing something interesting, akin to +all link-state routing protocols: a link-state packet that came in on +some flow, was sent out on all other flows. It was -- in effect +--doing broadcast. But... OSPF is doing the same. Wait a minute. OSPF +uses a multicast IP address. But of course! Multicast wasn't what it +seemed to be. Multicast was broadcast on a layer, creating a multicast +group was enrollment in that layer. A multicast IP address is a +broadcast layer name! Let that one sink in. Based on the link-state +routing code in the _normal IPCP_, I implemented the broadcast IPCP in +a single night. The _normal IPCP_ was renamed _unicast IPCP_. It had +all fallen into place, the Ouroboros architecture was shaped. + +But we had no value proposition to give, no value-added feature, no +killer app, no unique selling point. Elegance? I received my notice on +Christmas Eve 2018. Life as a researcher would be over. But what a +ride those last 3 years had been. I'd do the same all over again. + +The [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09707) was submitted in January +2019. We haven't received any word from it since. + +With the GPL license on Ouroboros, Sander and myself decided to +continue to update the prototype and build a bit of a website for +it. So, if you made it all the end to this blog post: thank you for +your interest in the project, that's why we did what we did, and +continue to do what we do. + +Stay curious, + +Dimitri
\ No newline at end of file |