Source string Source string

215/10000 · 215
English Actions
Flat or hierarchical addresses
The last, but important, point to discuss about the `data plane` of the networks that rely on the datagram mode is their addressing scheme. In the examples above, we have used letters to represent the addresses of the hosts and network nodes. In practice, all addresses are encoded as a bit string. Most network technologies use a fixed size bit string to represent source and destination address. These addresses can be organized in two different ways.
The first organization, which is the one that we have implicitly assumed until now, is the `flat addressing` scheme. Under this scheme, each host and network node has a unique address. The unicity of the addresses is important for the operation of the network. If two hosts have the same address, it can become difficult for the network to forward packets towards this destination. `Flat addresses` are typically used in situations where network nodes and hosts need to be able to communicate immediately with unique addresses. These `flat addresses` are often embedded inside the network interface cards. The network card manufacturer creates one unique address for each interface and this address is stored in the read-only memory of the interface. An advantage of this addressing scheme is that it easily supports unstructured and mobile networks. When a host moves, it can attach to another network and remain confident that its address is unique and enables it to communicate inside the new network.
With `flat addressing` the lookup operation in the forwarding table can be implemented as an exact match. The `forwarding table` contains the (sorted) list of all known destination addresses. When a packet arrives, a network node only needs to check whether this address is included in the forwarding table or not. In software, this is an `O(log(n))` operation if the list is sorted. In hardware, Content Addressable Memories can efficiently perform this lookup operation, but their size is usually limited.
A drawback of the `flat addressing scheme` is that the forwarding tables linearly grow with the number of hosts and routers in the network. With this addressing scheme, each forwarding table must contain an entry that points to every address reachable inside the network. Since large networks can contain tens of millions of hosts or more, this is a major problem on routers that need to be able to quickly forward packets. As an illustration, it is interesting to consider the case of an interface running at 10 Gbps. Such interfaces are found on high-end servers and in various routers today. Assuming a packet size of 1000 bits, a pretty large and conservative number, such interface must forward ten million packets every second. This implies that a router that receives packets over such a link must forward one 1000 bits packet every 100 nanoseconds. This is the same order of magnitude as the memory access times of old DRAMs.
A widely used alternative to the `flat addressing scheme` is the `hierarchical addressing scheme`. This addressing scheme builds upon the fact that networks usually contain much more hosts than routers. In this case, a first solution to reduce the size of the forwarding tables is to create a hierarchy of addresses. This is the solution chosen by the post office since postal addresses contain a country, sometimes a state or province, a city, a street and finally a street number. When an envelope is forwarded by a post office in a remote country, it only looks at the destination country, while a post office in the same province will look at the city information. Only the post office responsible for a given city will look at the street name and only the postman will use the street number. `Hierarchical addresses` provide a similar solution for network addresses. For example, the address of an Internet host attached to a campus network could contain in the high-order bits an identification of the Internet Service Provider (ISP) that serves the campus network. Then, a subsequent block of bits identifies the campus network which is one of the customers of the ISP. Finally, the low order bits of the address identify the host in the campus network.
This hierarchical allocation of addresses can be applied in any type of network. In practice, the allocation of the addresses must follow the network topology. Usually, this is achieved by dividing the addressing space in consecutive blocks and then allocating these blocks to different parts of the network. In a small network, the simplest solution is to allocate one block of addresses to each network node and assign the host addresses from the attached node.
In the above figure, assume that the network uses 16 bits addresses and that the prefix `01001010` has been assigned to the entire network. Since the network contains four routers, the network operator could assign one block of sixty-four addresses to each router. `R1` would use address `0100101000000000` while `A` could use address `0100101000000001`. `R2` could be assigned all addresses from `0100101001000000` to `0100101001111111`. `R4` could then use `0100101011000000` and assign `0100101011000001` to `B`. Other allocation schemes are possible. For example, `R3` could be allocated a larger block of addresses than `R2` and `R4` could use a sub-block from `R3` 's address block.
The main advantage of hierarchical addresses is that it is possible to significantly reduce the size of the forwarding tables. In many networks, the number of routers can be several orders of magnitude smaller than the number of hosts. A campus network may contain a dozen routers and thousands of hosts. The largest Internet Services Providers typically contain no more than a few tens of thousands of routers but still serve tens or hundreds of millions of hosts.
Despite their popularity, `hierarchical addresses` have some drawbacks. Their first drawback is that a lookup in the forwarding table is more complex than when using `flat addresses`. For example, on the Internet, network nodes have to perform a longest-match to forward each packet. This is partially compensated by the reduction in the size of the forwarding tables, but the additional complexity of the lookup operation has been a difficulty to implement hardware support for packet forwarding. A second drawback of the utilization of hierarchical addresses is that when a host connects for the first time to a network, it must contact one router to determine its own address. This requires some packet exchanges between the host and some routers. Furthermore, if a host moves and is attached to another routers, its network address will change. This can be an issue with some mobile hosts.
Dealing with heterogeneous datalink layers
Sometimes, the network layer needs to deal with heterogeneous datalink layers. For example, two hosts connected to different datalink layers exchange packets via routers that are using other types of datalink layers. Thanks to the network layer, this exchange of packets is possible provided that each packet can be placed inside a datalink layer frame before being transmitted. If all datalink layers support the same frame size, this is simple. When a node receives a frame, it decapsulates the packet that it contains, checks the header and forwards it, encapsulated inside another frame, to the outgoing interface. Unfortunately, the encapsulation operation is not always possible. Each datalink layer is characterized by the maximum frame size that it supports. Datalink layers typically support frames containing up to a few hundreds or a few thousands of bytes. The maximum frame size that a given datalink layer supports depends on its underlying technology. Unfortunately, most datalink layers support a different maximum frame size. This implies that when a host sends a large packet inside a frame to its nexthop router, there is a risk that this packet will have to traverse a link that is not capable of forwarding the packet inside a single frame. In principle, there are three possibilities to solve this problem. To discuss them, we consider a simple scenario with two hosts connected to a router as shown in the figure below.
Consider in the network above that host `A` wants to send a 900 bytes packet (870 bytes of payload and 30 bytes of header) to host `B` via router `R1`. Host `A` encapsulates this packet inside a single frame. The frame is received by router `R1` which extracts the packet. Router `R1` has three possible options to process this packet.
The packet is too large and router `R1` cannot forward it to router `R2`. It rejects the packet and sends a control packet back to the source (host `A`) to indicate that it cannot forward packets longer than 500 bytes (minus the packet header). The source could react to this control packet by retransmitting the information in smaller packets.
The network layer is able to fragment a packet. In our example, the router could fragment the packet in two parts. The first part contains the beginning of the payload and the second the end. There are two possible ways to perform this fragmentation.
Router `R1` fragments the packet into two fragments before transmitting them to router `R2`. Router `R2` reassembles the two packet fragments in a larger packet before transmitting them on the link towards host `B`.
Each of the packet fragments is a valid packet that contains a header with the source (host `A`) and destination (host `B`) addresses. When router `R2` receives a packet fragment, it treats this packet as a regular packet and forwards it to its final destination (host `B`). Host `B` reassembles the received fragments.
These three solutions have advantages and drawbacks. With the first solution, routers remain simple and do not need to perform any fragmentation operation. This is important when routers are implemented mainly in hardware. However, hosts must be complex since they need to store the packets that they produce if they need to pass through a link that does not support large packets. This increases the buffering required on the hosts.
Furthermore, a single large packet may potentially need to be retransmitted several times. Consider for example a network similar to the one shown above but with four routers. Assume that the link `R1->R2` supports 1000 bytes packets, link `R2->R3` 800 bytes packets and link `R3->R4` 600 bytes packets. A host attached to `R1` that sends large packet will have to first try 1000 bytes, then 800 bytes and finally 600 bytes. Fortunately, this scenario does not occur very often in practice and this is the reason why this solution is used in real networks.
Fragmenting packets on a per-link basis, as presented for the second solution, can minimize the transmission overhead since a packet is only fragmented on the links where fragmentation is required. Large packets can continue to be used downstream of a link that only accepts small packets. However, this reduction of the overhead comes with two drawbacks. First, fragmenting packets, potentially on all links, increases the processing time and the buffer requirements on the routers. Second, this solution leads to a longer end-to-end delay since the downstream router has to reassemble all the packet fragments before forwarding the packet.
The last solution is a compromise between the two others. Routers need to perform fragmentation but they do not need to reassemble packet fragments. Only the hosts need to have buffers to reassemble the received fragments. This solution has a lower end-to-end delay and requires fewer processing time and memory on the routers.
The first solution to the fragmentation problem presented above suggests the utilization of control packets to inform the source about the reception of a too long packet. This is only one of the functions that are performed by the control protocol in the network layer. Other functions include :
sending a control packet back to the source if a packet is received by a router that does not have a valid entry in its forwarding table
sending a control packet back to the source if a router detects that a packet is looping inside the network
verifying that packets can reach a given destination
We will discuss these functions in more details when we will describe the protocols that are used in the network layer of the TCP/IP protocol suite.
Virtual circuit organization
The second organization of the network layer, called `virtual circuits`, has been inspired by the organization of telephone networks. Telephone networks have been designed to carry phone calls that usually last a few minutes. Each phone is identified by a telephone number and is attached to a telephone switch. To initiate a phone call, a telephone first needs to send the destination's phone number to its local switch. The switch cooperates with the other switches in the network to create a bi-directional channel between the two telephones through the network. This channel will be used by the two telephones during the lifetime of the call and will be released at the end of the call. Until the 1960s, most of these channels were created manually, by telephone operators, upon request of the caller. Today's telephone networks use automated switches and allow several channels to be carried over the same physical link, but the principles roughly remain the same.
In a network using virtual circuits, all hosts are also identified with a network layer address. However, packet forwarding is not performed by looking at the destination address of each packet. With the `virtual circuit` organization, each data packet contains one label [#flabels]_. A label is an integer which is part of the packet header. Routers implement `label switching` to forward `labelled data packet`. Upon reception of a packet, a router consults its `label forwarding table` to find the outgoing interface for this packet. In contrast with the datagram mode, this lookup is very simple. The `label forwarding table` is an array stored in memory and the label of the incoming packet is the index to access this array. This implies that the lookup operation has an `O(1)` complexity in contrast with other packet forwarding techniques. To ensure that on each node the packet label is an index in the `label forwarding table`, each router that forwards a packet replaces the label of the forwarded packet with the label found in the `label forwarding table`. Each entry of the `label forwarding table` contains two pieces of information :
the outgoing interface for the packet
the label for the outgoing packet

Loading…

User avatar None

String updated in the repository

cnp3-ebook / principles/network — English

Router `R1` fragments the packet into two fragments before transmitting them to router `R2`. Router `R2` reassembles the two packet fragments in a larger packet before transmitting them on the link towards host `B`.
Router `R1` fragments the packet into two fragments before transmitting them to router `R2`. Router `R2` reassembles the two packet fragments in a larger packet before transmitting them on the link towards host `B`.
2 years ago
Browse all component changes

Glossary

English English
No related strings found in the glossary.

String information

Flags
read-only
Source string location
../../principles/network.rst:418
String age
2 years ago
Source string age
2 years ago
Translation file
locale/pot/principles/network.pot, string 71