USC Information Sciences Institute Computer Networks Division
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
International Computer Science Institute (ICSI)
NewArch Project: Future-Generation Internet
Important and Interesting Papers Related to Network
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.
Reed, D., Saltzer, J., and D. Clark,
Active Networking and End-To-End Arguments, May 1998.
The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet
Protocols. Proc SIGCOMM 1988, Sept 1988.
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
On the Naming and Binding of Network Destinations., RFC 1498,
A fundamental discussion of naming and addressing.
Braden, R., Clark, D., and S. Shenker,
Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture.
RFC 1633, June 1994.
Carpenter, B., Editor,
Architectural Principles of the Internet. Internet Architecture Board,
RFC 1958, June 1996.
The Metanet: White Paper.
Workshop on Research Directions for the Next Generation Internet,
Vienna, VA., May 1997.
A New Layer in the Reference Model. Presesentation
to DARPA PI Meeting 1998.
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.
RFC 2775, Feb 2000.
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.
... 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
J. Morrison, Fling -- Speech Without Limits.
Fling is an application-layer security overlay whose focus is entirely
"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
Last updated: 17 Apr 02 Bob Braden