IP over Avian Carriers: A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers
IP datagrams on a paper scroll wrapped around a bird's leg.
Waitzman, D., "Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers", RFC 1149, DOI 10.17487/RFC1149, April 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1149>.
@misc{rfc1149,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 1149,
howpublished = {RFC 1149},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC1149},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1149},
author = {D. Waitzman},
title = {{Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers}},
pagetotal = 2,
year = 1990,
month = apr,
} RFC text
Contents
Network Working Group D. Waitzman
Request for Comments: 1149 BBN STC
1 April 1990
A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers
Status of this Memo
This memo describes an experimental method for the encapsulation of
IP datagrams in avian carriers. This specification is primarily
useful in Metropolitan Area Networks. This is an experimental, not
recommended standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Overview and Rational
Avian carriers can provide high delay, low throughput, and low
altitude service. The connection topology is limited to a single
point-to-point path for each carrier, used with standard carriers,
but many carriers can be used without significant interference with
each other, outside of early spring. This is because of the 3D ether
space available to the carriers, in contrast to the 1D ether used by
IEEE802.3. The carriers have an intrinsic collision avoidance
system, which increases availability. Unlike some network
technologies, such as packet radio, communication is not limited to
line-of-sight distance. Connection oriented service is available in
some cities, usually based upon a central hub topology.
Frame Format
The IP datagram is printed, on a small scroll of paper, in
hexadecimal, with each octet separated by whitestuff and blackstuff.
The scroll of paper is wrapped around one leg of the avian carrier.
A band of duct tape is used to secure the datagram's edges. The
bandwidth is limited to the leg length. The MTU is variable, and
paradoxically, generally increases with increased carrier age. A
typical MTU is 256 milligrams. Some datagram padding may be needed.
Upon receipt, the duct tape is removed and the paper copy of the
datagram is optically scanned into a electronically transmittable
form.
Discussion
Multiple types of service can be provided with a prioritized pecking
order. An additional property is built-in worm detection and
eradication. Because IP only guarantees best effort delivery, loss
of a carrier can be tolerated. With time, the carriers are self-
regenerating. While broadcasting is not specified, storms can cause
data loss. There is persistent delivery retry, until the carrier
drops. Audit trails are automatically generated, and can often be
found on logs and cable trays.
Security Considerations
Security is not generally a problem in normal operation, but special
measures must be taken (such as data encryption) when avian carriers
are used in a tactical environment.
Author's Address
David Waitzman
BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
BBN Labs Division
10 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
Phone: (617) 873-4323
EMail: dwaitzman@BBN.COM
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Introduction
Published on April 1st, 1990, RFC 1149 is one of the most beloved documents in Internet history. It specifies a method for transmitting IP datagrams using homing pigeons as the physical carrier medium.
While written as humor, RFC 1149 is a legitimate document in the RFC series. It was even implemented and tested on April 28, 2001, by the Bergen Linux User Group in Norway, achieving a 55% packet loss rate and round-trip times of thousands of seconds.
This RFC, published on April 1, 1990, describes carrying IP datagrams by homing pigeon. It is a joke, but it is a real RFC. In 2001 the Bergen Linux User Group in Norway tested it and measured 55% packet loss and round-trip times of thousands of seconds.
§2Overview
Avian carriers can provide high delay, low throughput, and low altitude service. The connection topology is limited to a single point-to-point path for each carrier, used with standard carriers, but many carriers can be used without significant interference with each other, outside of early spring.
Birds give high delay, low throughput and low altitude service. Each carrier makes one point-to-point trip, but many carriers can fly at once without interfering. Speed averages about 50 mph, so delay is measured in hours. Loss is caused by hawks, cats and weather.
§3Frame Format
The IP datagram is printed on a small scroll of paper, in hexadecimal, with each octet separated by "whitestuff and blackstuff". The scroll of paper is wrapped around one leg of the avian carrier.
The IP datagram is printed, on a small scroll of paper, in hexadecimal, with each octet separated by whitestuff and blackstuff. The scroll of paper is wrapped around one leg of the avian carrier. A band of duct tape is used to secure the datagram's edges.
The datagram is printed in hexadecimal on a small scroll of paper, with each octet separated by whitestuff and blackstuff. The scroll is wrapped around one leg of the bird and secured with a band of duct tape.
- Scroll with the hex datagram wrapped on one legThe datagram is printed in hexadecimal, octets separated by whitestuff and blackstuff. A band of duct tape secures the edges.
- Flight to the destinationHigh delay, low throughput and low altitude service. Loss of a carrier can be tolerated because IP is best effort.
- Tape removed, paper optically scannedThe paper copy is scanned into an electronically transmittable form.
§4Implementation
The specification addresses several practical implementation concerns for deploying IP over avian carrier networks.
Audit trails are automatically generated, and can often be found on logs and cable trays.
The practical limits of bird networks are listed. The maximum packet size varies, typically 256 milligrams, and bandwidth is limited by the length of the leg. Datagrams may need padding. Broadcasting is not specified, and storms can cause data loss.
§5Quality of Service
RFC 1149 itself says little about quality of service (RFC 2549 adds it), but a rough, informal comparison with Ethernet shows how different avian carriers are.
The RFC says little about quality of service. Compared informally with Ethernet, birds have latency of hours to days instead of microseconds, packet loss of about 55% in the test instead of under 0.01%, and very high jitter, meaning uneven delivery times.