NewArch Project: Future-Generation Internet Architecture

• Cerf, V. and R. Kahn, A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication. IEEE Trans on Comm, COM-22, No. 5, May 1974.

• Cerf, V. and P. Kirstein, Issues in Packet Network Interconnection, Proc. IEEE, v.66, 11, November 1978.

• Saltzer, J., Reed, D., and D. Clark, End-To-End Arguments in System Design. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2, 4 (November 1984) pp. 277-288. An earlier version appeared in the Second International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (Paris, April 1981) pp. 509-512.

• Reed, D., Saltzer, J., and D. Clark, Active Networking and End-To-End Arguments, May 1998.

• Clark, D., The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet Protocols. Proc SIGCOMM 1988, Sept 1988.

• Tennenhouse, D., Layered Multiplexing Considered Harmful. In Protocols for High-Speed Networks, Rudin and Williamson (Editors), North Holland, Amsterdam, 1989. Based on a presentation at IFIP WG 6.1/WG6.4 International Workshop on Protocols for High-Speed Networks, Zurich, May 1989.

• Clark, D. and D. Tennenhouse, Architectural Considerations for a New Generation of Protocols. Proc ACM SIGCOMM, Sept 1990.

  This fundamental paper defined Application-Layer Framing (ALF) and Integrated Layer Processing.

• Clark, D., Chapin, L., Cerf, V., Braden, R., and R. Hobby, Towards the Future Internet Architecture. Network Working Group RFC-1287, December 1991.

  This document is interesting historically. It is a light read, and it shows that the authors got quite a lot wrong! This study emphasized OSI, which they then believed to be inevitable; they did not realize that the IAB would accidentally kill OSI by embracing it in 1993.

• O'Malley, S. and L. Peterson, A Dynamic Network Architecture, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 110-143, May 1992.

• Saltzer, J., On the Naming and Binding of Network Destinations., RFC 1498, August 1993.

  A fundamental discussion of naming and addressing.

• Braden, R., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture. RFC 1633, June 1994.

• Chiappa, N., Nimrod Documentation.

• Carpenter, B., Editor, Architectural Principles of the Internet. Internet Architecture Board, RFC 1958, June 1996.

• Wroclawski, J., The Metanet: White Paper. Workshop on Research Directions for the Next Generation Internet, Vienna, VA., May 1997.

• Clark, D., A New Layer in the Reference Model. Presesentation to DARPA PI Meeting 1998. {Powerpoint}.

• Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol. RFC 2401, November 1998.

• Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and M. Weiss, An Architecture for Differentiated Services, RFC 2475, December 1998.

• Carpenter, B., Internet Transparency. RFC 2775, Feb 2000.

  Abstract: This document describes the current state of the Internet from the architectural viewpoint, concentrating on issues of end-to-end connectivity and transparency. It concludes with a summary of some major architectural alternatives facing the Internet network layer.

  From Introduction: ... For the purposes of this document, "transparency" refers to the original Internet concept of a single universal logical addressing scheme, and the mechanisms by which packets may flow from source to destination essentially unaltered.

• J. Morrison, Fling -- Speech Without Limits. https://fling.sourceforge.net.

  Fling is an application-layer security overlay whose focus is entirely on anonymity:

  "Fling is a new suite of internet protocols that perform the function of DNS, TCP, and UDP in a manner that's both untraceable and untappable. Fling protects clients from servers, servers from clients, and both from an eavesdropper in-between. The result is that anyone can serve or retrieve any data, without fear of censure."
  ...
  "Fling works by preparing a "route ball" - onion skin layers of crypto, describing a route, in which each step only knows where the immediate preceding and following steps. This is used to route an encrypted message payload. Route balls are found by a distributed host name lookup mechanism that shares the search burden and leaves no central server that can be coerced to drop names. Instead, each subtree can allocate - and revoke - "dependent names", but anyone can start a new root subtree. Thus, subtrees can build a reputation for trust, and police it, while no-one can ultimately be censored completely."

Last updated: 17 Apr 02 Bob Braden