[Sis-dtn] Proposed registry (and registry changes) to address BP operations in CCSDS.

Tue Aug 28 15:13:21 UTC 2018

I think there’s a little bit of a conceptual disconnect here.

As I understand it, the reason you would want to know what services – that is, what sources of data – are supported at a given BP node is that you want to obtain some of that data.  To do so, you would send a bundle, requesting the desired data, to the endpoint formed by the ID of the node and the ID of the service that is the data source, and the node would send the data back to you.

But this sort of client/server data flow requires round-trip communication that can take a long time; it is innately non-delay-tolerant.  That is the central point we started with in 1998.  The sort of registry we are talking about here might be valuable, but I don’t think it has anything to do with DTN.

The delay-tolerant way to obtain data is simply to receive it when it is generated by the source; to accomplish this, you join the corresponding multicast group to which the source node publishes the new data.  (And, in the long run, I think you pick up previously published data after the fact by joining persistent multicast groups that act like information-centric networking stores.)

Multicast bundles have sources that are identified by node/service, but of course the sources know their own identities; no need for a registry.  The destinations of these bundles are “imc” endpoints identified by multicast group number and, as relevant, service number within multicast group.  So a registry of multicast groups would be a very helpful element of DTN infrastructure, but I wouldn’t expect a registry of node/service pairs – or even, really, a registry of nodes – to be of much utility.

What about knowing which destinations of data are operating at which BP nodes, do we need a registry for that?

Certainly it is the case that non-multicast messages have sources and destinations that are identified by node/service.  But again the source endpoints are known by the sources themselves, and I am doubtful that any application is going to need a registry of the node/service pairs that identify potential destinations of non-multicast bundles.  The scalable and responsive way to provide that information, I think, is for the applications to manage it themselves.  E.g.:

1.       Node A sends a bundle saying “You can get data X from me” to multicast group Q.

2.       Node B, a member of multicast group Q, receives that bundle and sends a non-multicast bundle to node A (the source of the original multicast) saying “Great, please send me X, encrypted.”

3.       Node A receives that bundle, uses the public key of A to encrypt X, and sends encrypted X in a non-multicast bundle to B (the source of the request bundle).

4.       Node B receives that bundle and uses its private key to decrypt X.

We could have skipped step 1 by providing this information in a SANA registry; node B could have learned that X was at A by querying the registry.  But that would require another round-trip data exchange between node B and the registry; I am skeptical that there is an advantage.

That said, I don’t object to creating the proposed SANA registries in the near term.  For the relatively small-scale and stable application structures we are likely to see over the next few years they may serve us well.

Scott

From: Scott, Keith L. <kscott at mitre.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 5:39 AM
To: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
Cc: Burleigh, Scott C (312B) <Scott.C.Burleigh at jpl.nasa.gov>; Shames, Peter M (312B) <Peter.M.Shames at jpl.nasa.gov>; SANA Group <ssg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Proposed registry (and registry changes) to address BP operations in CCSDS.

Greetings,

Peter Shames noted that while there are registries for SANA CBHE Node and Service numbers that will allow us to deconflict node EIDs and have a uniform interpretation of the service numbers, there is nothing that says WHICH services are running at WHICH node, OR anything that associates BP Nodes (in our case identified by CBHE Node IDs) and the services they’re running with ‘Sites’ (using the Service and Site Aperture Registry definition) such as ground stations, spacecraft, etc.  This kind of information, while not technically required to make BP work, is part of the administration/operation of the network, and would be expected to change infrequently (and so at least feasible to maintain in a registry).

The desire is for the DTN WG to identify changes / augmentations to the SANA registries to provide the information above.  The attached Registry Management Policy deck includes an overview of the Service Site & Aperture structure on slides 21—23.

I propose the following strawman for discussion:

Change the Network Services under Site Service Info on slide 22 to be a ‘mayInclude (0..*) – i.e. allow for possibly multiple network services.  This would allow sites that have multiple BP routers, which I’ll admit might be unusual but certainly possible.

Define a BP_Network_Service element (registry) that is a logical subclass of the Network_Services listed on slide 22 as:

·         CBHE Node #, the CBHE Node Number of the BP Node, hyperlinked to the node number allocation range in the CBHE Node Number Registry

·         POC: a link to the appropriate SANA registry entry for who to talk to about connecting with this node (e.g. routing through it) [Could be a person or an organization?]

·         List of CBHE Service #s: A list of CBHE service numbers that can be expected to be running on the node (e.g. CFDP) – hyperlinked to their corresponding entries in the CBHE Service # registry.

·         List of convergence layers and their information: so for example, if the node is running a TCPCL on IP address 10.1.2.3:1234, a UDP CL on port address 10.1.2.6:5678, and an LTP/Encap CL on virtual channel 3, those would be listed.

o   Maybe listing the VC isn’t appropriate here?  That’s more a function of the mission configuration (e.g. each mission could use a different VC even if all share the same aperture and site, I think)

o   I’d vote for the CL info being a free text field with a convention for entries like TCP:1234:4556 rather than trying to generate a whole sub-structure for CL entries – thoughts?

Somebody should probably also define an IP_Network_Service element.  That may fall to us as well but could pretty much mirror the BP one (but without CL info).

Thoughts on this?

                                                v/r,

                                                --keith

Dr. Keith Scott                                                                                                        Office: +1.703.983.6547
Chief Engineer, Communications Network Engineering & Analysis           Fax:      +1.703.983.7142
Advanced Data Transport Capability Area Lead                                             Email:  kscott at mitre.org<mailto:kscott at mitre.org>

The MITRE Corporation<http://www.mitre.org/>
M/S J500
7515 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22102

MITRE self-signs its own certificates.  Information about the MITRE PKI Certificate Chain is available from https://www.mitre.org/tech/mii/pki/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20180828/de4ac3ac/attachment.html>