The Project Gutenberg EBook of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Internet, by Ed Krol

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

** This is a COPYRIGHTED Project Gutenberg eBook, Details Below **

** Please follow the copyright guidelines in this file. **

Title: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Internet

Author: Ed Krol

Posting Date: December 17, 2011 [EBook #39]

Release Date: September, 1992

Language: English

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE INTERNET ***

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Internet

25 August 1987

Ed Krol
krol@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu

This document was produced through funding of the National

Science Foundation.

Copyright (C) 1987, by the Board of Trustees of The University

of Illinois. Permission to duplicate this document, in whole
or part, is granted provided reference is made to the source
and this copyright is included in whole copies.

This document assumes that one is familiar with the workings

of a non-connected simple IP network (e.g. a few 4.2 BSD
systems on an Ethernet not connected to anywhere else).
Appendix A contains remedial information to get one to this
point. Its purpose is to get that person, familiar with a
simple net, versed in the "oral tradition" of the Internet
to the point that that net can be connected to the Internet
with little danger to either. It is not a tutorial, it
consists of pointers to other places, literature, and hints
which are not normally documented. Since the Internet is a
dynamic environment, changes to this document will be made
regularly. The author welcomes comments and suggestions.
This is especially true of terms for the glossary (definitions
are not necessary).

In the beginning there was the ARPAnet, a wide area

experimental network connecting hosts and terminal servers
together. Procedures were set up to regulate the allocation
of addresses and to create voluntary standards for the network.
As local area networks became more pervasive, many hosts became
gateways to local networks. A network layer to allow the
interoperation of these networks was developed and called IP
(Internet Protocol). Over time other groups created long haul
IP based networks (NASA, NSF, states...). These nets, too,
interoperate because of IP. The collection of all of these
interoperating networks is the Internet.

Two groups do much of the research and information work of

the Internet (ISI and SRI). ISI (the Informational Sciences
Institute) does much of the research, standardization, and
allocation work of the Internet. SRI International provides
information services for the Internet. In fact, after you
are connected to the Internet most of the information in
this document can be retrieved from the Network Information
Center (NIC) run by SRI.

Operating the Internet

Each network, be it the ARPAnet, NSFnet or a regional network,

has its own operations center. The ARPAnet is run by
BBN, Inc. under contract from DARPA. Their facility is
called the Network Operations Center or NOC. Cornell
University temporarily operates NSFnet (called the Network
Information Service Center, NISC). It goes on to the

-2-

regionals having similar facilities to monitor and keep

watch over the goings on of their portion of the Internet.
In addition, they all should have some knowledge of what is
happening to the Internet in total. If a problem comes up,
it is suggested that a campus network liaison should contact
the network operator to which he is directly connected. That
is, if you are connected to a regional network (which is
gatewayed to the NSFnet, which is connected to the
ARPAnet...) and have a problem, you should contact your
regional network operations center.
RFCs

The internal workings of the Internet are defined by a set

of documents called RFCs (Request for Comments). The general
process for creating an RFC is for someone wanting something
formalized to write a document describing the issue and mailing
it to Jon Postel (postel@isi.edu). He acts as a referee for
the proposal. It is then commented upon by all those wishing
to take part in the discussion (electronically of course).
It may go through multiple revisions. Should it be generally
accepted as a good idea, it will be assigned a number and
filed with the RFCs.

The RFCs can be divided into five groups: required, suggested,

directional, informational and obsolete. Required RFC's (e.g.
RFC-791, The Internet Protocol) must be implemented on any host
connected to the Internet. Suggested RFCs are generally
implemented by network hosts. Lack of them does not preclude
access to the Internet, but may impact its usability. RFC-793
(Transmission Control Protocol) is a suggested RFC. Directional
RFCs were discussed and agreed to, but their application has never
come into wide use. This may be due to the lack of wide need for
the specific application (RFC-937 The Post Office Protocol) or
that, although technically superior, ran against other pervasive
approaches (RFC-891 Hello). It is suggested that should the
facility be required by a particular site, animplementation
be done in accordance with the RFC. This insures that, should
the idea be one whose time has come, the implementation will be
in accordance with some standard and will be generally usable.
Informational RFCs contain factual information about the
Internet and its operation (RFC-990, Assigned Numbers).
Finally, as the Internet and technology have grown, some
RFCs have become unnecessary. These obsolete RFCs cannot
be ignored, however. Frequently when a change is made to
some RFC that causes a new one to be issued obsoleting others,
the new RFC only contains explanations and motivations for the
change. Understanding the model on which the whole facility
is based may involve reading the original and subsequent RFCs
on the topic.

-3-

(Appendix B contains a list of what are considered to be the

major RFCs necessary for understanding the Internet).

The Network Information Center

The NIC is a facility available to all Internet users which

provides information to the community. There are three
means of NIC contact: network, telephone, and mail. The
network accesses are the most prevalent. Interactive access
is frequently used to do queries of NIC service overviews,
look up user and host names, and scan lists of NIC documents.
It is available by using

%telnet sri-nic.arpa
 on a BSD system and following the directions provided by a
user friendly prompter. From poking around in the databases
provided one might decide that a document named NETINFO:NUG.DOC
(The Users Guide to the ARPAnet) would be worth having. It could
be retrieved via an anonymous FTP. An anonymous FTP would proceed
something like the following. (The dialogue may vary slightly
depending on the implementation of FTP you are using).

%ftp sri-nic.arpa
Connected to sri-nic.arpa.
220 SRI_NIC.ARPA FTP Server Process 5Z(47)-6 at Wed
17-Jun-87 12:00 PDT
Name (sri-nic.arpa:myname): anonymous
331 ANONYMOUS user ok, send real ident as password.
Password: myname
230 User ANONYMOUS logged in at Wed 17-Jun-87 12:01 PDT,
job 15.
ftp> get netinfo:nug.doc
200 Port 18.144 at host 128.174.5.50 accepted.
150 ASCII retrieve of <NETINFO>NUG.DOC.11 started.
226 Transfer Completed 157675 (8) bytes transferred
local: netinfo:nug.doc remote:netinfo:nug.doc
157675 bytes in 4.5e+02 seconds (0.34 Kbytes/s)
ftp> quit
221 QUIT command received. Goodbye.

(Another good initial document to fetch is

NETINFO:WHAT-THE-NIC-DOES.TXT)!

Questions of the NIC or problems with services can be asked

of or reported to using electronic mail. The following
addresses can be used:

NIC@SRI-NIC.ARPA General user assistance, document requests

REGISTRAR@SRI-NIC.ARPA User registration and WHOIS updates
HOSTMASTER@SRI-NIC.ARPA Hostname and domain changes and updates
ACTION@SRI-NIC.ARPA SRI-NIC computer operations
SUGGESTIONS@SRI-NIC.ARPA Comments on NIC publications and services

-4-

For people without network access, or if the number of documents

is large, many of the NIC documents are available in printed
form for a small charge. One frequently ordered document for
starting sites is a compendium of major RFCs. Telephone access is
used primarily for questions or problems with network access.
(See appendix B for mail/telephone contact numbers).

The NSFnet Network Service Center

The NSFnet Network Service Center (NNSC) is funded by NSF to

provide a first level of aid to users of NSFnet should they
have questions or encounter problems traversing the network.
It is run by BBN Inc. Karen Roubicek
(roubicek@nnsc.nsf.net) is the NNSC user liaison.
The NNSC, which currently has information and documents
online and in printed form, plans to distribute news through
network mailing lists, bulletins, newsletters, and online
reports. The NNSC also maintains a database of contact
points and sources of additional information about NSFnet
component networks and supercomputer centers.

Prospective or current users who do not know whom to call

concerning questions about NSFnet use, should contact the
NNSC. The NNSC will answer general questions, and, for
detailed information relating to specific components of the
Internet, will help users find the appropriate contact for
further assistance. (Appendix B)

Mail Reflectors

The way most people keep up to date on network news is

through subscription to a number of mail reflectors. Mail
reflectors are special electronic mailboxes which, when they
receive a message, resend it to a list of other mailboxes.
This in effect creates a discussion group on a particular
topic. Each subscriber sees all the mail forwarded by the
reflector, and if one wants to put his "two cents" in sends
a message with the comments to the reflector....

The general format to subscribe to a mail list is to find

the address reflector and append the string -REQUEST to the
mailbox name (not the host name). For example, if you
wanted to take part in the mailing list for NSFnet reflected
by NSFNET@NNSC.NSF.NET, one sends a request to

-5-

NSFNET-REQUEST@NNSC.NSF.NET. This may be a wonderful scheme,

but the problem is that you must know the list exists in the
first place. It is suggested that, if you are interested,
you read the mail from one list (like NSFNET) and you will
probably become familiar with the existence of others.
A registration service for mail reflectors is provided by
the NIC in the files NETINFO:INTEREST-GROUPS-1.TXT,
NETINFO:INTEREST-GROUPS-2.TXT, and NETINFO:INTEREST-GROUPS-
3.TXT.

The NSFNET mail reflector is targeted at those people who

have a day to day interest in the news of the NSFnet (the
backbone, regional network, and Internet inter-connection
site workers). The messages are reflected by a central
location and are sent as separate messages to each subscriber.
This creates hundreds of messages on the wide area networks
where bandwidth is the scarcest.

There are two ways in which a campus could spread the news
and not cause these messages to inundate the wide area
networks. One is to re-reflect the message on the campus.
That is, set up a reflector on a local machine which forwards
the message to a campus distribution list. The other is
to create an alias on a campus machine which places the
messages into a notesfile on the topic. Campus users who
want the information could access the notesfile and see the
messages that have been sent since their last access. One
might also elect to have the campus wide area network
liaison screen the messages in either case and only forward
those which are considered of merit. Either of these
schemes allows one message to be sent to the campus, while
allowing wide distribution within.

Address Allocation

Before a local network can be connected to the Internet it

must be allocated a unique IP address. These addresses are
allocated by ISI. The allocation process consists of getting
an application form received from ISI. (Send a message
to hostmaster@sri-nic.arpa and ask for the template for a
connected address). This template is filled out and mailed
back to hostmaster. An address is allocated and e-mailed back
to you. This can also be done by postal mail (Appendix B).

IP addresses are 32 bits long. It is usually written as

four decimal numbers separated by periods (e.g., 192.17.5.100).
Each number is the value of an octet of the 32 bits. It was
seen from the beginning that some networks might choose to
organize themselves as very flat (one net with a lot of nodes)
and some might organize hierarchically

-6-

(many interconnected nets with fewer nodes each and a backbone).

To provide for these cases, addresses were differentiated into
class A, B, and C networks. This classification had to with the
interpretation of the octets. Class A networks have the first
octet as a network address and the remaining three as a host
address on that network. Class C addresses have three octets of
network address and one of host. Class B is split two and two.
Therefore, there is an address space for a few large nets, a
reasonable number of medium nets and a large number of small nets.
The top two bits in the first octet are coded to tell the address
format. All of the class A nets have been allocated. So one
has to choose between Class B and Class C when placing an order.
(There are also class D (Multicast) and E (Experimental) formats.
Multicast addresses will likely come into greater use in the near
future, but are not frequently used now).

In the past sites requiring multiple network addresses

requested multiple discrete addresses (usually Class C).
This was done because much of the software available
(not ably 4.2BSD) could not deal with subnetted addresses.
Information on how to reach a particular network (routing
information) must be stored in Internet gateways and packet
switches. Some of these nodes have a limited capability to
store and exchange routing information (limited to about 300
networks). Therefore, it is suggested that any campus
announce (make known to the Internet) no more than two
discrete network numbers.

If a campus expects to be constrained by this, it should

consider subnetting. Subnetting (RFC-932) allows one to
announce one address to the Internet and use a set of
addresses on the campus. Basically, one defines a mask
which allows the network to differentiate between the
network portion and host portion of the address. By using a
different mask on the Internet and the campus, the address
can be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, if a
campus requires two networks internally and has the 32,000
addresses beginning 128.174.X.X (a Class B address) allocated
to it, the campus could allocate 128.174.5.X to one part
of campus and 128.174.10.X to another. By advertising
128.174 to the Internet with a subnet mask of FF.FF.00.00,
the Internet would treat these two addresses as one. Within
the campus a mask of FF.FF.FF.00 would be used, allowing the
campus to treat the addresses as separate entities. (In reality
you don't pass the subnet mask of FF.FF.00.00 to the Internet,
the octet meaning is implicit in its being a class B address).
A word of warning is necessary. Not all systems know how to
do subnetting. Some 4.2BSD systems require additional
software. 4.3BSD systems subnet as released. Other devices

-7-

and operating systems vary in the problems they have dealing

with subnets. Frequently these machines can be used as a
leaf on a network but not as a gateway within the subnetted
portion of the network. As time passes and more systems
become 4.3BSD based, these problems should disappear.

There has been some confusion in the past over the format of
an IP broadcast address. Some machines used an address of
all zeros to mean broadcast and some all ones. This was
confusing when machines of both type were connected to the
same network. The broadcast address of all ones has been
adopted to end the grief. Some systems (e.g. 4.2 BSD) allow
one to choose the format of the broadcast address. If a
system does allow this choice, care should be taken that the
all ones format is chosen. (This is explained in RFC-1009
and RFC-1010).

Internet Problems

There are a number of problems with the Internet. Solutions

to the problems range from software changes to long term
research projects. Some of the major ones are detailed
below:

Number of Networks

When the Internet was designed it was to have about 50

connected networks. With the explosion of networking,
the number is now approaching 300. The software in a
group of critical gateways (called the core gateways of
the ARPAnet) are not able to pass or store much more
than that number. In the short term, core reallocation
and recoding has raised the number slightly. By the
summer of '88 the current PDP-11 core gateways will be
replaced with BBN Butterfly gateways which will solve
 the problem.

Routing Issues

Along with sheer mass of the data necessary to route

packets to a large number of networks, there are many
problems with the updating, stability, and optimality
of the routing algorithms. Much research is being done
in the area, but the optimal solution to these routing
problems is still years away. In most cases the the
routing we have today works, but sub-optimally and
sometimes unpredictably.

-8-

Trust Issues

Gateways exchange network routing information.

Currently, most gateways accept on faith that the
information provided about the state of the network is
correct. In the past this was not a big problem since
most of the gateways belonged to a single administrative
entity (DARPA). Now with multiple wide area networks
under different administrations, a rogue gateway
somewhere in the net could cripple the Internet.
There is design work going on to solve both the problem of
a gateway doing unreasonable things and providing enough
information to reasonably route data between multiply
connected networks (multi-homed networks).

Capacity & Congestion

Many portions of the ARPAnet are very congested during

the busy part of the day. Additional links are planned
to alleviate this congestion, but the implementation
will take a few months.

These problems and the future direction of the Internet are

determined by the Internet Architect (Dave Clark of MIT)
being advised by the Internet Activities Board (IAB). This
board is composed of chairmen of a number of committees with
responsibility for various specialized areas of the Internet.
The committees composing the IAB and their chairmen are:

Committee Chair
Autonomous Networks Deborah Estrin
End-to-End Services Bob Braden
Internet Architecture Dave Mills
Internet Engineering Phil Gross
EGP2 Mike Petry
Name Domain Planning Doug Kingston
Gateway Monitoring Craig Partridge
Internic Jake Feinler
Performance & Congestion ControlRobert Stine
NSF Routing Chuck Hedrick
Misc. MilSup Issues Mike St. Johns
Privacy Steve Kent
 IRINET Requirements Vint Cerf
Robustness & Survivability Jim Mathis
Scientific Requirements Barry Leiner

Note that under Internet Engineering, there are a set of

task forces and chairs to look at short term concerns. The
chairs of these task forces are not part of the IAB.

-9-
Routing

Routing is the algorithm by which a network directs a packet

from its source to its destination. To appreciate the problem,
watch a small child trying to find a table in a restaurant.
From the adult point of view the structure of the dining room
is seen and an optimal route easily chosen. The child, however,
is presented with a set of paths between tables where a good path,
let alone the optimal one to the goal is not discernible.***

A little more background might be appropriate. IP gateways

(more correctly routers) are boxes which have connections to
multiple networks and pass traffic between these nets. They
decide how the packet is to be sent based on the information
in the IP header of the packet and the state of the network.
Each interface on a router has an unique address appropriate
to the network to which it is connected. The information in
the IP header which is used is primarily the destination address.
Other information (e.g. type of service) is largely ignored at this
time. The state of the network is determined by the routers passing
information among themselves. The distribution of the database
(what each node knows), the form of the updates, and metrics used
to measure the value of a connection, are the parameters
which determine the characteristics of a routing protocol.

Under some algorithms each node in the network has complete

knowledge of the state of the network (the adult algorithm).
This implies the nodes must have larger amounts of local
storage and enough CPU to search the large tables in a short
enough time (remember this must be done for each packet).
Also, routing updates usually contain only changes to the
existing information (or you spend a large amount of the
network capacity passing around megabyte routing updates).
This type of algorithm has several problems. Since the only
way the routing information can be passed around is across
the network and the propagation time is non-trivial, the
view of the network at each node is a correct historical
view of the network at varying times in the past. (The
adult algorithm, but rather than looking directly at the
dining area, looking at a photograph of the dining room.
One is likely to pick the optimal route and find a bus-cart
has moved in to block the path after the photo was taken).
These inconsistencies can cause circular routes (called
routing loops) where once a packet enters it is routed in a
closed path until its time to live (TTL) field expires and
it is discarded.

Other algorithms may know about only a subset of the network.

To prevent loops in these protocols, they are usually used in
a hierarchical network. They know completely about their
own area, but to leave that area they go to one particular
place (the default gateway). Typically these are used in
smaller networks (campus, regional...).

-10-

Routing protocols in current use:

Static (no protocol-table/default routing)

Don't laugh. It is probably the most reliable, easiest

to implement, and least likely to get one into trouble
for a small network or a leaf on the Internet. This is,
also, the only method available on some CPU-operating
system combinations. If a host is connected to an Ethernet
which has only one gateway off of it, one should make that
the default gateway for the host and do no other routing.
(Of course that gateway may pass the reachablity
information somehow on the other side of itself).

One word of warning, it is only with extreme caution that

one should use static routes in the middle of a network
which is also using dynamic routing. The routers passing
dynamic information are sometimes confused by conflicting
dynamic and static routes. If your host is on an ethernet
with multiple routers to other networks on it and the
routers are doing dynamic routing among themselves,
it is usually better to take part in the dynamic routing
than to use static routes.

RIP

RIP is a routing protocol based on XNS (Xerox Network

System) adapted for IP networks. It is used by many
routers (Proteon, cisco, UB...) and many BSD Unix systems
BSD systems typically run a program called "routed" to
exchange information with other systems running
RIP. RIP works best for nets of small diameter
where the links are of equal speed. The reason for
this is that the metric used to determine which path is
best is the hop-count. A hop is a traversal across a
gateway. So, all machines on the same Ethernet are
zero hops away. If a router connects connects two net-
works directly, a machine on the other side of the
router is one hop away.... As the routing information
is passed through a gateway, the gateway adds one to
the hop counts to keep them consistent across the net-
work. The diameter of a network is defined as the
largest hop-count possible within a network. Unfor-
tunately, a hop count of 16 is defined as infinity in
RIP meaning the link is down. Therefore, RIP will not
allow hosts separated by more than 15 gateways in the
RIP space to communicate.

The other problem with hop-count metrics is that if

links have different speeds, that difference is not
 -11-

reflected in the hop-count. So a one hop satellite link

(with a .5 sec delay) at 56kb would be used instead of
a two hop T1 connection. Congestion can be viewed as a
decrease in the efficacy of a link. So, as a link gets
more congested, RIP will still know it is the best
hop-count route and congest it even more by throwing
more packets on the queue for that link.

The protocol is not well documented. A group of people

are working on producing an RFC to both define the
current RIP and to do some extensions to it to allow it
to better cope with larger networks. Currently, the
best documentation for RIP appears to be the code to
BSD "routed".

Routed

The ROUTED program, which does RIP for 4.2BSD systems,

has many options. One of the most frequently used is:
"routed -q" (quiet mode) which means listen to RIP infor-
mation but never broadcast it. This would be used by a
machine on a network with multiple RIP speaking gate-
ways. It allows the host to determine which gateway is
best (hopwise) to use to reach a distant network. (Of
course you might want to have a default gateway to
prevent having to pass all the addresses known to the
Internet around with RIP).

There are two ways to insert static routes into "routed",

the "/etc/gateways" file and the "route add" command.
Static routes are useful if you know how to reach a
distant network, but you are not receiving that route
using RIP. For the most part the "route add" command is
preferable to use. The reason for this is that the
command adds the route to that machine's routing table
but does not export it through RIP. The "/etc/gateways"
file takes precedence over any routing information
received through a RIP update. It is also broadcast as
fact in RIP updates produced by the host without question,
so if a mistake is made in the "/etc/gateways" file,
that mistake will soon permeate the RIP space and
may bring the network to its knees.

One of the problems with "routed" is that you have very

little control over what gets broadcast and what
doesn't. Many times in larger networks where various
parts of the network are under different administrative
controls, you would like to pass on through RIP only nets
which you receive from RIP and you know are reasonable.
This prevents people from adding IP addresses to
the network which may be illegal and you being
responsible for passing them on to the Internet. This

-12-

type of reasonability checks are not available with "routed"

 and leave it usable, but inadequate for large networks.

Hello (RFC-891)

Hello is a routing protocol which was designed and

implemented in a experimental software router called a
"Fuzzball" which runs on a PDP-11. It does not have
wide usage, but is the routing protocol currently used
on the NSFnet backbone. The data transferred between
nodes is similar to RIP (a list of networks and their
metrics). The metric, however, is milliseconds of delay.
This allows Hello to be used over nets of various link
speeds and performs better in congestive situations.

One of the most interesting side effects of Hello based

networks is their great timekeeping ability. If you
consider the problem of measuring delay on a link for
the metric, you find that it is not an easy thing to
do. You cannot measure round trip time since the
return link may be more congested, of a different
speed, or even not there. It is not really feasible
for each node on the network to have a builtin WWV
(nationwide radio time standard) receiver. So, you
must design an algorithm to pass around time between
nodes over the network links where the delay in
transmission can only be approximated. Hello routers
do this and in a nationwide network maintain synchronized
time within milliseconds.

Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP RFC-904)

EGP is not strictly a routing protocol, it is a reacha-

bility protocol. It tells only if nets can be reached
through a particular gateway, not how good the connec-
tion is. It is the standard by which gateways to local
nets inform the ARPAnet of the nets they can reach.
There is a metric passed around by EGP but its usage is
not standardized formally. Its typical value is value
is 1 to 8 which are arbitrary goodness of link values
understood by the internal DDN gateways. The smaller
the value the better and a value of 8 being unreach-
able. A quirk of the protocol prevents distinguishing
between 1 and 2, 3 and 4..., so the usablity of this as
a metric is as three values and unreachable. Within
NSFnet the values used are 1, 3, and unreachable. Many
routers talk EGP so they can be used for ARPAnet gateways.

-13-

Gated

So we have regional and campus networks talking RIP

among themselves, the NSFnet backbone talking
Hello, and the DDN speaking EGP.
How do they interoperate? In the beginning there was
static routing, assembled into the Fuzzball software
configured for each site. The problem with doing
 static routing in the middle of the network is that it
is broadcast to the Internet whether it is usable or
not. Therefore, if a net becomes unreachable and you
try to get there, dynamic routing will immediately
issue a net unreachable to you. Under static routing
the routers would think the net could be reached and
would continue trying until the application gave up (in
2 or more minutes). Mark Fedor of Cornell
(fedor@devvax.tn.cornell.edu) attempted to solve these
problems with a replacement for "routed" called "gated".

"Gated" talks RIP to RIP speaking hosts, EGP to EGP

speakers, and Hello to Hello'ers. These speakers
frequently all live on one Ethernet, but luckily (or
unluckily) cannot understand each others ruminations.
In addition, under configuration file control it can
filter the conversion. For example, one can produce a
configuration saying announce RIP nets via Hello only
if they are specified in a list and are reachable by
way of a RIP broadcast as well. This means that if a
rogue network appears in your local site's RIP space,
it won't be passed through to the Hello side of the
world. There are also configuration options to do
static routing and name trusted gateways.

This may sound like the greatest thing since sliced

bread, but there is a catch called metric conversion.
You have RIP measuring in hops, Hello measuring in
milliseconds, and EGP using arbitrary small numbers.
The big questions is how many hops to a millisecond,
how many milliseconds in the EGP number 3.... Also,
remember that infinity (unreachability) is 16 to RIP,
30000 or so to Hello, and 8 to the DDN with EGP.
Getting all these metrics to work well together is no
small feat. If done incorrectly and you translate an
RIP of 16 into an EGP of 6, everyone in the ARPAnet
will still think your gateway can reach the unreachable
and will send every packet in the world your way. For
these reasons, Mark requests that you consult closely
with him when configuring and using "gated".

-14-

"Names"

All routing across the network is done by means of the IP

address associated with a packet. Since humans find it
difficult to remember addresses like 128.174.5.50, a symbolic
name register was set up at the NIC where people would say
"I would like my host to be named 'uiucuxc'". Machines
connected to the Internet across the nation would connect to
the NIC in the middle of the night, check modification dates
on the hosts file, and if modified move it to their local
machine. With the advent of workstations and micros,
changes to the host file would have to be made nightly. It
would also be very labor intensive and consume a lot of
network bandwidth. RFC-882 and a number of others describe
domain name service, a distributed data base system for
mapping names into addresses.
We must look a little more closely into what's in a name.
First, note that an address specifies a particular connec-
tion on a specific network. If the machine moves, the
address changes. Second, a machine can have one or more
names and one or more network addresses (connections) to
different networks. Names point to a something which does
useful work (i.e. the machine) and IP addresses point to an
interface on that provider. A name is a purely symbolic
representation of a list of addresses on the network. If a
machine moves to a different network, the addresses will
change but the name could remain the same.

Domain names are tree structured names with the root of the
tree at the right. For example:

uxc.cso.uiuc.edu

is a machine called 'uxc' (purely arbitrary), within the

subdomains method of allocation of the U of I) and 'uiuc'
(the University of Illinois at Urbana), registered with
'edu' (the set of educational institutions).

A simplified model of how a name is resolved is that on the

user's machine there is a resolver. The resolver knows how
to contact across the network a root name server. Root
servers are the base of the tree structured data retrieval
system. They know who is responsible for handling first
level domains (e.g. 'edu'). What root servers to use is an
installation parameter. From the root server the resolver
finds out who provides 'edu' service. It contacts the 'edu'
name server which supplies it with a list of addresses of
servers for the subdomains (like 'uiuc'). This action is
repeated with the subdomain servers until the final sub-
domain returns a list of addresses of interfaces on the host
in question. The user's machine then has its choice of
which of these addresses to use for communication.

-15-

A group may apply for its own domain name (like 'uiuc'
above). This is done in a manner similar to the IP address
allocation. The only requirements are that the requestor
have two machines reachable from the Internet, which will
act as name servers for that domain. Those servers could
also act as servers for subdomains or other servers could be
designated as such. Note that the servers need not be
located in any particular place, as long as they are reach-
able for name resolution. (U of I could ask Michigan State
to act on its behalf and that would be fine). The biggest
problem is that someone must do maintenance on the database.
If the machine is not convenient, that might not be done in
a timely fashion. The other thing to note is that once the
domain is allocated to an administrative entity, that entity
can freely allocate subdomains using what ever manner it
sees fit.

The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) Server implements

the Internet name server for UNIX systems. The name server
is a distributed data base system that allows clients to
name resources and to share that information with other net-
work hosts. BIND is integrated with 4.3BSD and is used to
lookup and store host names, addresses, mail agents, host
information, and more. It replaces the "/etc/hosts" file for
host name lookup. BIND is still an evolving program. To
keep up with reports on operational problems, future design
decisions, etc, join the BIND mailing list by sending a
request to "bind-request@ucbarp.Berkeley.EDU". BIND can also
be obtained via anonymous FTP from ucbarpa.berkley.edu.

There are several advantages in using BIND. One of the most

important is that it frees a host from relying on "/etc/hosts"
being up to date and complete. Within the .uiuc.edu domain,
only a few hosts are included in the host table distributed
by SRI. The remainder are listed locally within the BIND
tables on uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (the server machine for most of
the .uiuc.edu domain). All are equally reachable from any
other Internet host running BIND.

BIND can also provide mail forwarding information for inte-

rior hosts not directly reachable from the Internet. These
hosts can either be on non-advertised networks, or not con-
nected to a network at all, as in the case of UUCP-reachable
hosts. More information on BIND is available in the "Name
Server Operations Guide for BIND" in "UNIX System Manager's
Manual", 4.3BSD release.

There are a few special domains on the network, like SRI-

NIC.ARPA. The 'arpa' domain is historical, referring to
hosts registered in the old hosts database at the NIC.
There are others of the form NNSC.NSF.NET. These special
domains are used sparingly and require ample justification.
They refer to servers under the administrative control of

-16-

the network rather than any single organization. This

allows for the actual server to be moved around the net
while the user interface to that machine remains constant.
That is, should BBN relinquish control of the NNSC, the new
provider would be pointed to by that name.

In actuality, the domain system is a much more general and

complex system than has been described. Resolvers and some
servers cache information to allow steps in the resolution
to be skipped. Information provided by the servers can be
arbitrary, not merely IP addresses. This allows the system
to be used both by non-IP networks and for mail, where it
may be necessary to give information on intermediate mail
bridges.

What's wrong with Berkeley Unix

University of California at Berkeley has been funded by

DARPA to modify the Unix system in a number of ways.
Included in these modifications is support for the Internet
protocols. In earlier versions (e.g. BSD 4.2) there was
good support for the basic Internet protocols (TCP, IP,
SMTP, ARP) which allowed it to perform nicely on IP ether-
nets and smaller Internets. There were deficiencies, how-
ever, when it was connected to complicated networks. Most
of these problems have been resolved under the newest
release (BSD 4.3). Since it is the springboard from which
many vendors have launched Unix implementations (either by
porting the existing code or by using it as a model), many
implementations (e.g. Ultrix) are still based on BSD 4.2.
Therefore, many implementations still exist with the BSD 4.2
problems. As time goes on, when BSD 4.3 trickles through
vendors as new release, many of the problems will be
resolved. Following is a list of some problem scenarios and
their handling under each of these releases.

ICMP redirects

Under the Internet model, all a system needs to know to

get anywhere in the Internet is its own address, the
address of where it wants to go, and how to reach a
gateway which knows about the Internet. It doesn't
have to be the best gateway. If the system is on a
network with multiple gateways, and a host sends a
packet for delivery to a gateway which feels another
directly connected gateway is more appropriate, the
gateway sends the sender a message. This message is an
ICMP redirect, which politely says "I'll deliver this
message for you, but you really ought to use that gate-
way over there to reach this host". BSD 4.2 ignores
these messages. This creates more stress on the gate-
ways and the local network, since for every packet

-17-

sent, the gateway sends a packet to the originator.

BSD 4.3 uses the redirect to update its routing tables,
will use the route until it times out, then revert to
the use of the route it thinks is should use. The
whole process then repeats, but it is far better than
one per packet.

Trailers

An application (like FTP) sends a string of octets to

TCP which breaks it into chunks, and adds a TCP header.
TCP then sends blocks of data to IP which adds its own
headers and ships the packets over the network. All
this prepending of the data with headers causes memory
moves in both the sending and the receiving machines.
Someone got the bright idea that if packets were long
and they stuck the headers on the end (they became
trailers), the receiving machine could put the packet
on the beginning of a page boundary and if the trailer
was OK merely delete it and transfer control of the
page with no memory moves involved. The problem is
that trailers were never standardized and most gateways
don't know to look for the routing information at the
end of the block. When trailers are used, the machine
typically works fine on the local network (no gateways
 involved) and for short blocks through gateways (on
which trailers aren't used). So TELNET and FTP's of
very short files work just fine and FTP's of long files
seem to hang. On BSD 4.2 trailers are a boot option
and one should make sure they are off when using the
Internet. BSD 4.3 negotiates trailers, so it uses them
on its local net and doesn't use them when going across
the network.

Retransmissions

TCP fires off blocks to its partner at the far end of

the connection. If it doesn't receive an acknowledge-
ment in a reasonable amount of time it retransmits the
blocks. The determination of what is reasonable is
done by TCP's retransmission algorithm. There is no
correct algorithm but some are better than others,
where better is measured by the number of retransmis-
sions done unnecessarily. BSD 4.2 had a retransmission
algorithm which retransmitted quickly and often. This
is exactly what you would want if you had a bunch of
machines on an ethernet (a low delay network of large
bandwidth). If you have a network of relatively longer
delay and scarce bandwidth (e.g. 56kb lines), it tends
to retransmit too aggressively. Therefore, it makes
the networks and gateways pass more traffic than is
really necessary for a given conversation. Retransmis-
sion algorithms do adapt to the delay of the network

-18-

after a few packets, but 4.2's adapts slowly in delay

situations. BSD 4.3 does a lot better and tries to do
the best for both worlds. It fires off a few
retransmissions really quickly assuming it is on a low
delay network, and then backs off very quickly. It
also allows the delay to be about 4 minutes before it
gives up and declares the connection broken.

-19-
Appendix A
References to Remedial Information

Quaterman and Hoskins, "Notable Computer Networks",

Communications of the ACM, Vol 29, #10, pp. 932-971
(October, 1986).

Tannenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks, Prentice

Hall, 1981.

Hedrick, Chuck, Introduction to the Internet Protocols,

Anonymous FTP from topaz.rutgers.edu, directory
pub/tcp-ip-docs, file tcp-ip-intro.doc.

-20-

Appendix B
List of Major RFCs
RFC-768 User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
RFC-791 Internet Protocol (IP)
RFC-792 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)
RFC-793 Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
RFC-821 Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
RFC-822 Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages
RFC-854 Telnet Protocol
RFC-917 * Internet Subnets
RFC-919 * Broadcasting Internet Datagrams
RFC-922 * Broadcasting Internet Datagrams in the Presence of Subnets
RFC-940 * Toward an Internet Standard Scheme for Subnetting
RFC-947 * Multi-network Broadcasting within the Internet
RFC-950 * Internet Standard Subnetting Procedure
RFC-959 File Transfer Protocol (FTP)
RFC-966 * Host Groups: A Multicast Extension to the Internet Protocol
RFC-988 * Host Extensions for IP Multicasting
RFC-997 * Internet Numbers
RFC-1010 * Assigned Numbers
RFC-1011 * Official ARPA-Internet Protocols

RFC's marked with the asterisk (*) are not included in

the 1985 DDN Protocol Handbook.

Note: This list is a portion of a list of RFC's by

topic retrieved from the NIC under NETINFO:RFC-SETS.TXT
(anonymous FTP of course).

The following list is not necessary for connection to

the Internet, but is useful in understanding the domain
system, mail system, and gateways:

RFC-882 Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities

RFC-883 Domain Names - Implementation
RFC-973 Domain System Changes and Observations
RFC-974 Mail Routing and the Domain System
RFC-1009 Requirements for Internet Gateways

-21-

Appendix C
Contact Points for Network Information

Network Information Center (NIC)

DDN Network Information Center

SRI International, Room EJ291
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(800) 235-3155 or (415) 859-3695
NIC@SRI-NIC.ARPA

NSF Network Service Center (NNSC)

NNSC
BBN Laboratories Inc.
 10 Moulton St.
Cambridge, MA 02238
(617) 497-3400
NNSC@NNSC.NSF.NET

-22-

Glossary

core gateway

The innermost gateways of the ARPAnet. These

gateways have a total picture of the reacha-
bility to all networks known to the ARPAnet
with EGP. They then redistribute reachabil-
ity information to all those gateways speak-
ing EGP. It is from them your EGP agent
(there is one acting for you somewhere if you
can reach the ARPAnet) finds out it can reach
all the nets on the ARPAnet. Which is then
passed to you via Hello, gated, RIP....

count to infinity

The symptom of a routing problem where

routing information is passed in a circular
manner through multiple gateways. Each gate-
way increments the metric appropriately and
passes it on. As the metric is passed around
the loop, it increments to ever increasing
values til it reaches the maximum for the
routing protocol being used, which typically
denotes a link outage.

hold down

When a router discovers a path in the network

has gone down announcing that that path is
down for a minimum amount of time (usually at
least two minutes). This allows for the pro-
pagation of the routing information across
the network and prevents the formation of
routing loops.

split horizon

When a router (or group of routers working in

consort) accept routing information from mul-
tiple external networks, but do not pass on
information learned from one external network
to any others. This is an attempt to prevent
bogus routes to a network from being propagated
because of gossip or counting to infinity.

-23-
End of Project Gutenberg's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Internet, by Ed Krol

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE INTERNET ***

***** This file should be named 39.txt or 39.zip *****

This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/3/39/

Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be
renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one
owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and
you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission
and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the
General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks,
unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything
for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may
use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative
works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and
printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING with public
domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://www.gutenberg.org/license).

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm

electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm

electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"

or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
This particular work is one of the few copyrighted individual works
included with the permission of the copyright holder. Information on
the copyright owner for this particular work and the terms of use
imposed by the copyright holder on this work are set forth at the
beginning of this work.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived

from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm

License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any

money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable

effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right

of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a

defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS,' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of

electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive

Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit

501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.

Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org

For additional contact information:

Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg

Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide

spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we

have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic

works.

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm

concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's

eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII,
compressed (zipped), HTML and others.

Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks replace the old file and take over
the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed.
VERSIONS based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving
new filenames and etext numbers.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

http://www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

EBooks posted prior to November 2003, with eBook numbers BELOW #10000,
are filed in directories based on their release date. If you want to
download any of these eBooks directly, rather than using the regular
search system you may utilize the following addresses and just
download by the etext year.

http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext06

(Or /etext 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99,

98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90)

EBooks posted since November 2003, with etext numbers OVER #10000, are
filed in a different way. The year of a release date is no longer part
of the directory path. The path is based on the etext number (which is
identical to the filename). The path to the file is made up of single
digits corresponding to all but the last digit in the filename. For
example an eBook of filename 10234 would be found at:

http://www.gutenberg.org/1/0/2/3/10234

or filename 24689 would be found at:

http://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/6/8/24689

An alternative method of locating eBooks:

http://www.gutenberg.org/GUTINDEX.ALL

*** END: FULL LICENSE ***