There are two basic choices for connecting different networks: we can build devices that translate or convert packets from each kind of network into packets for each other network, or, like good computer scientists, we can try to solve the problem by adding a layer of indirection and building a common layer on top of the different networks. In either case, the devices are placed at the boundaries between networks. Early on, Cerf and Kahn (1974) argued for a common layer to hide the differences of existing networks. This approach has been tremendously successful, and the layer they proposed was eventually separated into the TCP and IP protocols. Almost four decades later, IP is the foundation of the modern Internet. For this accomplishment, Cerf and Kahn were awarded the 2004 Turing Award, informally known as the Nobel Prize of computer science. IP provides a universal packet format that all routers recognize and that can be passed through almost every network. IP has extended its reach from computer networks to take over the telephone network. It also runs on sensor networks and other tiny devices that were once presumed too resource-constrained to support it. We have discussed several different devices that connect networks, including repeaters, hubs, switches, bridges, routers, and gateways. Repeaters and hubs just move bits from one wire to another. They are mostly analog devices and do not understand anything about higher layer protocols. Bridges and switches operate at the link layer. They can be used to build networks, but only with minor protocol translation in the process, for example, between 10, 100 and 1000 Mbps Ethernet switches. Our focus in this section is interconnection devices that operate at the network layer, namely the routers. We will leave gateways, which are higherlayer interconnection devices, until later. Let us first explore at a high level how interconnection with a common network layer can be used to interconnect dissimilar networks. An internet comprised of 802.11, MPLS, and Ethernet networks. Suppose that the source machine on the 802.11 network wants to send a packet to the destination machine on the Ethernet network. Since these technologies are different, and they are further separated by another kind of network (MPLS), some added processing is needed at the boundaries between the networks. Because different networks may, in general, have different forms of addressing, the packet carries a network layer address that can identify any host across the three networks. The first boundary the packet reaches is when it transitions from an 802.11 network to an MPLS network. 802.11 provides a connectionless service, but MPLS provides a connection-oriented service. This means that a virtual circuit must be set up to cross that network. Once the packet has traveled along the virtual circuit, it will reach the Ethernet network. At this boundary, the packet may be too large to be carried, since 802.11 can work with larger frames than Ethernet. To handle this problem, the packet is divided into fragments, and each fragment is sent separately. When the fragments reach the destination, they are reassembled. Then the packet has completed its journey. The source accepts data from the transport layer and generates a packet with the common network-layer header, which is IP in this example. The network header contains the ultimate destination address, which is used to determine that the packet should be sent via the first router. So the packet is encapsulated in an 802.11 frame whose destination is the first router and transmitted. At the router, the packet is removed from the frame’s data field and the 802.11 frame header is discarded. The router now examines the IP address in the packet and looks up this address in its routing table. Based on this address, it decides to send the packet to the second router next. For this part of the path, an MPLS virtual circuit must be established to the second router and the packet must be encapsulated with MPLS headers that travel this circuit. At the far end, the MPLS header is discarded and the network address is again consulted to find the next network layer hop. It is the destination itself. Since the packet is too long to be sent over Ethernet, itis split into two portions. Each of these portions is put into the data field of an Ethernet frame and sent to the Ethernet address of the destination. At the destination, the Ethernet header is stripped from each of the frames, and the contents are reassembled. The packet has finally reached its destination. Observe that there is an essential difference between the routed case and the switched (or bridged) case. With a router, the packet is extracted from the frame and the network address in the packet is used for deciding where to send it. With a switch (or bridge), the entire frame is transported based on its MAC address. Switches do not have to understand the network layer protocol being used to switch packets. Routers do. Unfortunately, internetworking is not as easy as we have made it sound. When bridges were introduced, it was intended that they would join different types of networks or at least different types of LANs. They were to do this by translating frames from one LAN into frames from another LAN. However, this did not work well, for the same reason that internetworking is difficult: the differences in the features of LANs, such as different maximum packet sizes ad LANs with and without priority classes, are hard to mask. Today, bridges are predominantly used to connect the same kind of network at the link layer, and routers connect different networks at the network layer. Internetworking has been very successful at building large networks, but it only works when there is a common network layer. There have been many network protocols over time. Getting everybody to agree on a single format is difficult when companies perceive it to their commercial advantage to have a proprietary format that they control. Examples besides IP, which is now the near-universal network protocol, were IPX, SNA, and AppleTalk. None of these protocols are still in widespread use, but there will always be other protocols. The most relevant example now is probably IPv4 and IPv6. While these are both versions of IP, they are not compatible (or it would not have been necessary to create IPv6). A router that can handle multiple network protocols is called a multiprotocol router. It must either translate the protocols or leave a connection for a higher protocol layer. Neither approach is entirely satisfactory. Connection at a higher layer, say, by using TCP, requires that all the networks implement TCP (which may not be the case). Then, it limits usage across the networks to applications that use TCP (which does not include many real-time applications). The alternative is to translate packets between the networks. However, unless

the packet formats are close relatives with the same information fields, such conversions will always be incomplete and often doomed to failure. For example, IPv6 addresses are 128 bits long. They will not fit in a 32-bit IPv4 address field, no matter how hard the router tries. Getting IPv4 and IPv6 to run in the same network has proven to be a major obstacle to the deployment of IPv6. (To be fair, so has getting customers to understand why they should want IPv6 in the first place.) Greater problems can be expected when translating between fundamentally different protocols, such as connectionless and connection-oriented network protocols. Given these difficulties, the conversion is only rarely attempted. Arguably, even IP has only worked so well by serving as a kind of lowest common denominator. It requires little of the networks on which it runs but offers only best-effort service as a result.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here