--- title: "The Ouroboros model" author: "Dimitri Staessens" date: 2020-04-07 weight: 2 description: > Computer Network fundamentals --- ``` Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes. -- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra ``` The model for computer networks underlying the Ouroboros prototype is the result of a long process of gradual increases in my understanding of the core principles that underly computer networks, starting from my work on traffic engineering packet-over-optical networks using Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (G/MPLS) and Path Computation Element (PCE), then Software Defined Networks (SDN), the work with Sander investigating the Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) and finally our implementation of what would become the Ouroboros Prototype. The way it is presented here is not a reflection of this long process, but a crystalization of my current understanding of the Ouroboros model. During most of my PhD work at the engineering department, I spent my research time on modeling telecommunications networks and computer networks as _graphs_. The nodes represented some switch or router -- either physical or virtual --, the links represented a cable or wire -- again either physical or virtual -- and then the behaviour of various technologies were simulated on those graphs to develop algorithms that analyze some behaviour or optimize some or other _key performance indicator_ (KPI). This line of reasoning, starting from _networked devices_ is how a lot of research on computer networks is conducted. But what happens if we turn this upside down, and develop a _universal_ model for computer networks starting from some very basic elements? ### Two defining elements The Ouroboros model postulates that there are only 2 possible methods of distributing packets in a network layer: _FORWARDING_ packets based on some label identifying a node[^1], or _FLOODING_ packets on all links but the incoming link. We call an element that forwards a __forwarding element__, implementing a _packet forwarding function_ (PFF). The PFF has as input a destination label (in graph theory, a _vertex_), and as output a set of output links (in graph theory, _arcs_) on which the incoming packet with that label is to be forwarded on. The destination label needs to be in a packet header. We call an element that floods a __flooding element__, and it implements a packet flooding fuction. It is completely stateless, and has a input the incoming arc, and as output all non-incoming arcs. This is all local information, so packets on a broadcast layer do not need a header at all. {{
}} Peering relationships are only allowed between forwarding elements, or between flooding elements, but never between a forwarding element and a flooding element. We call a connected graph consisting of nodes that hold forwarding elements a __unicast layer__, and similary we call a connected _tree_[^2] consisting of nodes that house a flooding element a __broadcast layer__. The objective for the Ouroboros model is to hold for _all_ packet networks; our __conjecture__ is that __all functioning packet-switched network technologies can be decomposed into finite sets of unicast and broadcast layers__. Unicast and broadcast layers can be easily found in TCP/IP, Recursive InterNetworking Architecture (RINA), Delay Tolerant Networks (DTN), Ethernet, VLANs, Loc/Id split (LISP),... [^3]. The Ouroboros _model_ by itself is not recursive. What is known as _recursive networking_ is a choice to use a single standard API to interact with all unicast layers and a single standard API to interact with all broadcast layers[^4]. ### The unicast layer A unicast is a collection of interconnected forwarding elements. A unicast layer provides a best-effort unicast packet service between two endpoints in the layer. We call the abstraction of this point-to-point unicast service a flow. A flow in itself has no guarantees in terms of reliability [^5]. {{
}} A representation of a unicast layer is drawn above, with a flow between the _green_ (bottom left) and _red_ (top right) forwarding elements. The forwarding function operates in such a way that, given the label of the destination node (in the case of the figure, a _red_ label), the packet will move to the destination node (_red_) in a _deliberate_ manner. The paper has a precise mathematical definition, but qualitatively, our definition of _FORWARDING_ ensures that the trajectory that packets follow through a network layer between source and destination * doesn't need to use the 'shortest' path * can use multiple paths * can use different paths for different packets * can involve packet duplication * will not have loops[^6] [^7] ### The broadcast layer A broadcast layer is a collection of interconnected flooding elements. The nodes can have either, both or neither of the sender and receiver role. A broadcast layer provides a best-effort broadcast packet service from sender nodes to all (receiver) nodes in the layer. {{
}} Our simple definition of _FLOODING_ -- given a set of adjacent links, send packets received on a link in the set on all other links in the set -- has a huge implication the properties of a fundamental broadcast layer: the graph always is a _tree_, or packets could travel along infinite trajectories with loops [^8]. ### Building layers We now define the fundamental operations on packet network layers. These operations can be implemented through manual configuration or automated protocol interactions. They can be skipped (no-operation, (nop)) or involve complex operations such as authentication. The construction of (unicast and broadcast) layers involves 2 fundamental operations: adding a node to a layer is called _enrollment_. Enrollment prepares a node to act as a functioning element of the layer, exchanging the key parameters for a layer. It can involve authentication, and setting roles and permissions. After enrollment, we may add peering relationships by creating adjacencies between forwarding elements in a unicast layer or between flooding elements in a broadcast layer. We termed this _adjacency management_. The inverse operations are called _unenrollment_ and _tearing down_ adjacencies between elements. Operations such as merging and splitting layers can be decomposed into these two operations. This doesn't mean that merge operations shouldn't be researched. To the contrary, optimizing this is instrumental for creating networks practical on a global scale. It is immediately clear that these operations are very broadly defined, and can be implemented in a myriad of ways. The main objective of these definitions - and the Ouroboros model as a whole -- is to separate __mechanism__ (the _what_) from __policy__ (the _how_) so that we have a _consistent_ framework for _reasoning_ about protocols and functionality in computer networks. ### Under construction ... [^1]: This identifier can be thought of as an address, the identified node is a _forwarding element_. [^2]: A tree is a connected graph with N vertices and N-1 edges. [^3]: I've already explored how some technologies map to the Ouroboros model in my blog post on [unicast vs multicast](/blog/2021/04/02/how-does-ouroboros-do-anycast-and-multicast/). [^4]: Of course, once the model is properly understood and a green-field scenario is considered, recursive networking is the obvious choice, and so the Ouroboros prototype _is_ a recursive network. [^5]: This is where Ouroboros is similar to IP, and differs from RINA. RINA layers (DIFs) aim to provide reliability as part of the service (flow). We found this approach in RINA to be severely flawed, preventing RINA to be a _universal_ model for all networking and IPC. RINA can be modeled as an Ouroboros network, but Ouroboros cannot be modeled as a RINA network. I've written about this in more detail about this in my blog post on [Ouroboros vs RINA](/blog/2021/03/20/how-does-ouroboros-relate-to-rina-the-recursive-internetwork-architecture/). [^6]: Transient loops are loops that occur due to forwarding functions momentarily having different views of the network graph, for instance due to delays in disseminating information on unavailable links. [^7]: Some may think that it's possible to build a network layer that forwards packets in a way that _deliberately_ takes a couple of loops between a set of nodes and then continues forwarding to the destination, violating the definition of _FORWARDING_. It's not possible, because based on the destination address alone, there is no way to know whether that packet came from the loop or not. _"But if I add a token/identifier/cookie to the packet header"_ -- yes, that is possible, and it may _look like that packet is traversing a loop_ in the network, but it doesn't violate the definition. The question is: what is that token/identifier/cookie naming? It can be only one of a couple of things: a node, a link or a layer. Adding a token and the associated logic to process it, will be equivalent to adding nodes to the layer (modifying the node name space to include that token) or adding another layer. In essence, the implementation of the nodes on the loop will be doing something like this: ``` if logic_based_on_token: # behave like node (token, X) else if logic_based_on_token: # behave like node (token, Y) else # and so on ``` When taking the transformation into account the resulting layer(s) will follow the fundamental model as it is presented above. Also observe that adding such tokens exponentially increases the address space in the fundemental representation, ensuring that such approaches inherently can't scale. [^8]: Some may think that it's possible to broadcast on a non-tree graph by pruning in some way, shape or form. There are two things to consider. First, if the pruning is done to eliminate links in the graph, let's say in a way that STP prunes links on an Ethernet or VLAN, then this is operation is equivalent creating a new broadcast layer. We call this enrollment and adjacency management. This will be explained in the next sections. Second is adding the name of the (source) node plus a token/identifier/cookie as a packet header in order to detect packets that have traveled in a loop, and dropping them when they do. This is pulling the wool over ones eyes in a similar way as in [^6]. This solution can be transformed into a fundamental broadcast layer by again considering the (token, node name) space as the new name space and redrawing the graph, in which the "cut off loops" will be arms in the tree. In the same way as for unicast layers with loops, this will be an exponential increase in the number of nodes in the representing broadcast tree when compared to the starting graph, indicating again that this kind of solution can not scale.