M.I.T. Laboratory for Computer Science IEN 144
March 11, 1980
Source Routing for Campus-Wide Internet Transport
by Jerome H. Saltzer
This note proposes that for the internet addressing layer of a
campus-wide local area network, the source routing mechanism suggested
by Farber and Vittal [1] and discussed by Sunshine[2] may have several
advantages over hop-by-hop routing schemes based on universal or
hierarchical addresses. The campus environment, as defined and
discussed in local network note 21, requires many subnetworks connected
by gateways, and it has a variety of other special properties of
administration. The primary advantage of source routing in this
environment is simplicity of implementation of the gateways that
interconnect subnetworks with consequent improvement in cost,
maintenance effort, recovery time, ease of trouble location, and overall
management effort. Secondary advantages of source routing when applied
to the campus environment include: 1) a clearer separation of physical
addressing from logical naming mechanisms in protocol design, 2)
elimination of stability, oscillation, and packet looping
considerations, 3) ability for a source to control precisely a route so
as to optimize a particular service goal (e.g., response time,
reliability, bandwidth, usage policy, or privacy), 4) deferment to a
higher protocol level of the detailed design of the
fragmentation/reassembly strategy required to pass through intermediate
networks with small maximum packet sizes, and finally, 5) the ability to
accommodate both official and unofficial gateways between subnetworks.
Two disadvantages of source routing are: 1) that the route used will
tend to be relatively static and therefore cannot optimize use of
2
communication facilities as well as the potentially more dynamic
hop-by-hop route selection system, and 2) route selection must be
accomplished somehow, and sine the mechanism to do this selection is not
specified by this protocol level, some additional mechanism must be
designed to provide this function. The argument made here is that the
first disadvantage is not serious in an environment such as a campus, in
which the los cost of high bandwidth communication can make optimization
less important. The second disadvantage may be less serious than it
appears when one considers that a higher-level name resolution service
is required in any case, and that service cal also provide route
selection service. In fact, it may be possible to turn this need into
an advantage, since there can be more than one such route selection
service, one of which is based on simple global or hierarchical network
names, while another, perhaps experimental or research service, provides
an elaborate interactive directory search facility or a private route
pattern.
How Source Routing Works
Source routing among a collection of subnetworks is a mechanism that
comes into play at the next-to-bottom layer of protocol, sometimes
called the "internet" layer. Figure one illustrates this two-layer
arrangement. The bottom layer, which we may call the "local transport"
layer, is a protocol for delivery of a packet within a local subnetwork
such as a single ETHERNET, CHAOSNET, of L.C.S. Ringnet. Routing within
the local transport protocol is usually accomplished by physically
broadcasting the packet to all nodes on one subnetwork; any node that
3
recognizes its own local transport address at the front of the packet
will receive it.
local transport internet transport
protocol protocol
+---------+ ---
| | \
+---------+ |
| local | | local
|transport| > transport
| address | | packet
+---------+ | header
| | /
+---------+ --- -------> +---------+ ---
| | \ | | \
| | | +---------+ |
| | | | internet| | internet
| | | |transport| > transport
| | | | address | | packet
| | | local +---------+ | header
| | > transport | | /
| | | packet +---------+ ---
| | | contents | | \
| | | | | | internet
| | | | | > transport
| | | | | | packet
| | / | | / contents
+---------+ --- -------> +---------+ ---
The higher level protocols carried in the internet transport pactet
contents take care of reliability control, FIFO byte streams,
source/sink flow control, file transfer, remote login, etc.
Relationship between local transport protocol,
internet transport protocol,
and other communication protocols.
Figure 1.
The next-to-bottom, internet layer is a protocol for delivery of a
packet between any pair of nodes on the campus. One starts a packet on
its way by placing the address of a gateway in the local transport
address field, and what may be called the "internet name" of the target
4
node in the internet name field. The local transport medium carries the
packet to the gateway, which examines the internet name field to
determine what local transport address to use to get to the next
gateway. In turn, the internet name field is again interpreted by
successive network gateways to determine which local transport address
should be used for the next step of this packet's journey.
There have been suggested several alternatives for the interpretation of
internet names. Three of these are:
1) Unstructured unique identifier. Every node on the campus-wide net
has as its internet name a permanent unique identifier. Each
gateway has a set of tables or other rules that allow it to
determine the appropriate next step in the route to every possible
named node. (Thus this approach is sometimes called "step-by-step"
or "hop-by-hop" routing.) In its most general form, the unique
identifier may be interpreted either as the name of the node or as
the name of the point on the network to which the node is attached,
depending on the network's convention on what happens to the name
if a node is disconnected and reattached to a different place.
2) Hierarchical identifier. In this alternate form of hop-by-hop
routing, the internet name of each node is a multi-part field. For
example, a two-part hierarchical identifier might consist of an
identifier of the subnetwork to which the node is attached and a
node number (usually the local transport address) of the node on
that subnet. For this kind of internet name, each gateway has a
set of tables or rules that allow it to determine the appropriate
next step in the route to every possible named subnetwork. Since
5
there are many fewer subnetworks than nodes, these tables should be
much smaller than in the case of the unstructured unique
identifier. Reduction in table size is the chief attraction of the
hierarchical identifier, and the argument can be extended to
identifiers of more than two parts, network groups, and still
smaller tables. Because the hierarchical identifier contains
components that are names of parts of the network, this kind of
network name is almost always thought of as naming the network
attachment point, rather the node that is attached to it.
3) Source route. The internet transport layer contains, instead of a
network name, a variable-length string of local transport
addresses, with the property that each gateway merely takes the
next local transport address from the string, moves the address to
the local transport protocol address field, and sends the packet on
its way. With this approach, a gateway needs no knowledge of
network topology, so the tables required for hop-by-hop routing
vanish. A source route unquestionably identifies a network
attachment point, quite independently of what node is attached to
that point. Any attempt to make an interpretation that a source
route identifies a node rather than an attachment point would be
strained at best.
Note that if the network is arranged as a two-level hierarchy, with a
single "supernet" acting as the only communication path among all the
remaining subnetworks, then the two-part hierarchical identifier taken
together with the local address of the nearest gateway to the supernet
is an example of a source route and the gateways can become very simple.
6
However, the hierarchical identifier can be used even if the network
topology is not hierarchical, by providing an appropriate routing
algorithm in the gateways. In that case, only the final part of the
route; even it might actually be interpreted or mapped by the final
gateway.
Note also, that it is common for a single node to have several
activities underway at once. For example, a time-sharing system may
have many logged-in users, several of which are using the network for
communication between their terminal and the time-sharing system. The
receiving network software in the time-sharing system then finds that it
is acting as a kind of gateway, between the campus network on the one
hand and the array of activities inside the node on the other. As a
result it is commonly proposed that the internet name not identify a
node but rather a particular activity within that node. This proposal
usually takes the form of an additional field in a hierarchical internet
name, known as a "socket number" or "link". There is a controversy over
what level of protocol should recognize this socket number, and how big
it should be. For our purpose, it is sufficient to observe that the
socket number is a kind of route for use by the receiving node.
The mechanics of operation of a source-routing gateway as a packet
passes through are quite simple; this simplicity is the chief attraction
of source routing. There are several alternative detailed approaches;
to permit explicit discussion one implementation will be described here.
[This implementation is only a slight variation of the one proposed by
Farber and Vittal.] This implementation dynamically constructs a
reverse route. It works as follows:
7
1) The internet source route field is structured as shown in figure
two, with two one-byte numerical fields and a variable (but
constant for the lifetime of the packet) number of bytes of route.
Each local transport address uses an integral number of bytes,
typically one or two. The first count remains constant for the
lifetime of the packet; the second is updated at each gateway.
2) A gateway receives a packet using the local transport protocol of
one network (call it network A) and wants to sent it out on a
second network (call it network B). For the moment, assume that a
gateway interconnects exactly two nets; generalization for a
multinet gateway involves a simple conceptual extension described
later.
3) The gateway parses the internet source route field using the "start
of next local address" count to obtain the next step of the route.
(We presume that the gateway is endowed with the knowledge of how
many bytes of route are required by network B.) It extracts the
appropriate bytes and places them in the local transport address
field for network B. Then it replaces those bytes of the internet
source route with its own local transport address on network B,
thus contributing its part of the reverse route. Finally, it
increments the "start of next address" field by the number of bytes
it extracted from the route, and it invokes the local transport
level to send the packet out on network B. (Note that this reverse
route construction strategy assumes that all paths are
bi-directional and that all local transport addresses on any single
network are of the same size.)
8
+------------------+
| |
| route byte count |
| |
+------------------+
| start of |
| next local |
| address |
+------------------+
| |
| local address 1 |
| |
| - - - - - - - - |
| |
| local address 2 |
| |
| - - - - - - - - |
| |
| local address 3 |
| |
| - - - - - - - - |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|-----------/ |
/ |
|-------/ /--------|
| /
| /------------|
| |
| |
| - - - - - - - - |
| |
| local address n |
| |
+------------------+
Possible implementation of an internet source route
Figure 2.
4) If a gateway interconnects three or more subnetworks, it simply
behaves as though it is itself a subnetwork with three or more
gateways to other subnetworks. The next byte of route is
9
interpreted as a local address on this hypothetical subnetwork.
The reverse route is constructed as usual.
The operation described above is repeated at every gateway, and may also
be repeated one or more times inside the target node to dispatch the
packet to the correct activity within that node. Similarly, when a
packet originates, it may go through one or more route selection steps
before it actually is placed on the first subnetwork. [From a viewpoint
of telephone terminology, a source route system is a kind of
electronically implemented step-by-step switch, with each subnetwork,
multi- mailed gateway, as multi-activity host acting as a multi-position
switch. However, because it is electronically implemented and thus not
restricted to ten-position mechanical switches, this step-by-step switch
does not have the limitations of the corresponding telephone
technology.]
Where Routes Come From
For source routing to work, the source of a message must somehow know
what route to place in the internet header of a packet before it
launches the packet into the internet environment. Thus requirement
superficially implies that every source of packets be very
knowledgeable, which sounds like a terrible burden to small nodes--every
node on the network would have to be able to create or deduce suitable
routes. In fact, that implication is unwarranted--all that is really
required is that every source of messages know of a place in the network
to ask to obtain routes. Once a source has learned of a suitable route
to a particular target, it can encache that fact and reuse it as often
10
and as long as it wants--until the route fails to work or there is a
reason for it to believe that a better route exists.
The most general form of route selection would come by providing one (or
more, for reliability, quick response, or administrative convenience)
routing server in the network. A routing server is a specialized node
whose function is to maintain an internal representation of the topology
of network interconnection (along with any useful class-of-service
information about various subnetworks and gateways) and also to act as a
name resolver. The desired target must, of course, have some name,
perhaps the unstructured unique identifier or hierarchical identifier
earlier suggested as an alternative internet name. The routing server
then implements a map from internet names to routes.
There are two independent dimensions along which this routing server may
be more or less sophisticated: in its name-resolution abilities, and in
its route-choosing abilities. To begin with, let us assume a particular
fixed, fairly simple name resolution scheme--say a hierarchical
identifier--with the understanding that this choice has little or no
bearing on routing sophistication. The routing choice mechanism, then,
can range from a simple fixed table of routes from all possible sources
to all possible targets (perhaps cleverly compressed with knowledge of
the actual net topology) to a dynamic mechanism based on frequent
exchanges of traffic statistics with gateways and other routing servers
throughout the network.
Thus, to get started, a node that wants to originate messages needs to
know one route: a route that can be used to send a request to a routing
server to obtain other routes. It would be possible, though poor
11
practice, to embed this "route to the nearest routing server" in the
software of every node; a more general and flexible approach would be
for a newly-arrived node to use either a broadcast or a breath-of-life
strategy to discover this one route. In the broadcast strategy, a node
broadcasts on its local transport network a request for the "route to
the nearest routing server". For this particular broadcast route
request, at least one gateway on every subnetwork is prepared to act as
a rudimentary routing server. In the breath-of-life strategy each
gateway periodically (say once every ten seconds) broadcasts over its
local subnetwork a packet containing the route to the nearest routing
server. A newly-operating node waits for the next breath-of-life packet
before it can request its first route.
Having found a route to a target node, if that node carries on more than
one activity it may be necessary to hold a further negotiation with the
target to learn how the target wants the source to identify the
particular activity in which it is interested at the target. This
negotiation probably takes place by sending a rendezvous packet to the
host and receiving in return a packet that contains some extra routing
steps to be appended to the route originally obtained from the routing
server. (Note that this protocol step is just the source-routing
variation on a negotiation that takes place in every such protocol; it
is not an extra step introduced by source routing.)
Separation of Routing and Naming
The main difference between source routing and its alternatives is that
the responsibilities both of route choice and of name resolution are
moved from the internet gateways to some other agent. In turn, this
12
responsibility change allows the internet transport protocol to be
defined and the gateways to be implemented without freezing a particular
form of network-wide naming. A commitment to a particular form of
network-wide name is made in the design of the name resolution part of a
routing server, and since it doesn't matter to a gateway where a route
comes from (the gateway cares only that the next step works,) there can
be more than one kind of name resolution going on at the same time,
perhaps implemented by different routing servers. Practically, one
would expect that there might be one centrally administered and
widely-used naming method implemented by standard routing servers, and
in addition some experimental or special-purpose routing servers
developed for special applications or to experiment, for example, with
interactive resolution of catalogued servicer names, or multi-casting
protocols. These latter ideas, while likely interest for the future,
seem inappropriate to embed now in the internet transport protocol layer
on grounds of inexperience. But they can be tried in the environment of
a source-routing internet transport strategy without disruption and
without change to the gateways. It is even possible for one routing
server to have a different view of the extent of the network from
others. Overlapping virtual networks are thus implementable with this
strategy. This feature might be used, for example, to segregate "local"
communication paths from "long-distance" paths that involve routes
through external trifled networks.
At the same time, the source route field format places little constraint
on the format of the local transport addresses for any particular
subnetwork--only that there be an integral number of bytes whose number
is known by the gateway that moves the packet to the subnetwork. This
13
flexibility means that paths can go almost anywhere: in particular they
can transverse "outside" networks no matter what their addressing or
internal routing strategy, so long as at the far end of the outside
network is a gateway that understands how to continue the packet on its
journey.
Separation of the mechanics of routing from the functions implemented by
a naming or addressing system has the advantage or clarifying some
frequent protocol design arguments that boil down to how much naming
function should be embedded in the lowest protocol layers. For example,
it is usually proposed that an extra field, for use within the target
node, be carried along as a part of the internet address. This field is
known as a "link" field in the ARPANET, the "channel" in X.25, and the
"socket" in ARPA's Internet for TCP and in the internet layer of the
Xerox PUP. The argument develops over how big this field should
be--just large enough to distinguish among the activities or connections
a host carries on at one time, or generously large enough to distinguish
among all activities or connections the host will ever carry on. The
former choice takes the view that the field in question is merely the
last step in a route, the latter choice makes the socket number a unique
identifier, which is handling a naming function for the host, perhaps
allowing it to distinguish old connections from current ones.
The source routing strategy finesses this argument in that it allows the
design of the packet format at the level of the internet transport layer
address to be frozen without forcing a decision about socket number
size. As many bytes of route as the target host needs to distinguish
among its current connections can be included as part of the source
14
route and learned as part of the initial negotiation with the target
host using a well-known route to its negotiator. A unique identifier
for a connection can be returned as part of that negotiation, and it can
be included in a connection identifier field of the next higher level of
protocol, to insure that packets arriving over a route are part of a
current connection.
Gateway Simplicity and Network Maintenance
With the source routing scheme just described, a gateway makes no
decisions (possibly it should check to insure that the route byte count
hasn't been exceeded) and it remembers nothing after the packet goes by.
This simplicity of operation and lack of memory means that one can in
principle implement such a gateway with a small amount of random logic
and a pair of packet buffers interconnecting two local network hardware
interfaces. Such an implementation, since it does not involve a stored
program, has an exceptionally simple recovery strategy: a hardware
reset to a standard starting state will always suffice. In practice, at
least a microprocessor would probably be used to collect statistics and
respond to trouble diagnosis requests, but the basic principle that
recovery is trivial remains intact.
There is one way in which a source-routing gateway is more complex than
its hop-by-hop counterpart. Every packet that arrives may have a
different source route size and different next step offset, so a small
amount of lookup is needed to perform the forwarding operation. A
related consequence is that higher-level protocols find that their
headers don't always start in the same position within the packet.
15
To create a gateway that can sustain a through transmission rate
comparable to that of the subnetworks involved requires careful
budgeting of the machine cycles involved. For example, a bandwidth of 8
Mbits/sec. requires being able to pass 1000 1000-byte packets/second,
leaving a time budget of 1 ms. per packet. If a 0.5 MIPS processor is
used for the gateway, there must be fewer than 500 instructions executed
for each packet, with the implication that whatever routing scheme is
used, it must be extremely simple. The source routing approach makes
meeting this budget a realistic possibility.
Maintenance is directly aided by having such a simple gateway mechanism.
With little to go wrong, failures should be relatively rare and
diagnosis and repair should be straightforward. Even in the case where
a gateway is actually implemented by software in a node attached to two
local transport networks, the simplicity of action required of a gateway
are few, and that therefore the program is not only likely to be
trouble-free but also it is acceptable to embed it in the innermost part
of the supervisor, where it is less likely to fail because of
interference by other programs in the same node. Perhaps even more
important in the case of a software gateway, the simplicity of the
source-routing approach means that the software required can be quick to
implement.
Route Control
One of the more interesting opportunities that arises when source
routing is used is that the node that is the source of a message can, if
appropriate, control precisely the route through the internet that
16
outgoing packets follow. This control can be applied to solve several
problems, as follows:
a) Trouble location. If trouble develops in a network gateway, it
will be noticed first as failure of packets routed through that
gateway to arrive at their destination. Starting at any node that
notices such a problem, one can route a test packet "out and back",
through some set of gateways and back to the originating node. A
series of such tests, tracing successive steps in the route that
failed, should quickly locate the troublesome gateway. One can
also imagine extending this idea to route a message into a target
node and back out again, as a check on the operation of the lower
levels of that node's operating system. An interesting aspect of
this approach to trouble location is that any user, if sufficiently
desperate, can undertake network diagnosis; trouble location is not
restricted to a network maintenance center that has some particular
address or special hardware.
b) Policy implementation: Some local networks may be paid for by a
supporting organization that wants to have a say in their usage
policy. (For example, use of the ARPA network is supposed to be
restricted to government-sponsored business.) If such a network
has gateways to two other networks, it could be used as an
intermediate transport link on some packets flowing between those
networks. If source routing is used, the node that originates a
packet can control whether the packet is routed through the network
in question or, alternatively, avoids that network. (Obviously,
17
sophisticated help from routing servers is needed to actually
implement such a policy, but the opportunity is there.)
c) Class-of-Service Implementation. There are a variety of properties
that an internet connection can have, and that may be different on
different routes: error rate, transport delay, probability of
wiretapping, bandwidth. Again, assuming considerable knowledge on
the part of a routing server, with source routing one can choose a
route that has class-of-service properties that are tailored to the
application.
d) FIFO Streams. Assuming that all gateways along a given route relay
packets in the same order that they are received, if the same
source route is used on several packets, those packets will arrive
at their target in the same order that they left the source,
eliminating any need for the target to restore order in what is
intended to be a FIFO stream. In a hop-by-hop dynamic routing
system, FIFO delivery cannot be easily insured, so the source and
target must work harder if that is the function they require.
Finally, in an inter-network environment that includes both public and
private gateways, the precise route control provided by source routing
seems to be a key to effective use; private gateways can be used by
their owners while being ignored by everyone else; flaky gateways can be
bypassed by wary users no matter what administration is responsible for
them.
18
Other Observations
There are a variety of other observations that one can make about source
routes. These are, in no particular order:
1) Source routing avoids several problems that can accompany more
dynamic, highly optimal routing schemes. There is no danger of
packets circulating in a loop forever, so techniques such as hop
counts are not needed. There is little concern for startup
transients, stability, or oscillation in the dynamics of route
selection. Extra traffic to exchange traffic statistics among
gateways is not involved, and one does not have to worry about the
interaction between the reliability of that traffic and the
stability of the network. There is no requirement that each
gateway maintain a table that has a number of entries proportional
to the size of the network.
2) Development of network software for a new node can take an
important shortcut by assembling hand-constructed routes at first.
As long as the network topology does not change faster than the
software gets debugged, this technique can be used to get a
primitive connection operational without the need to program a
routing server protocol. For quick debugging of a new
microprocessor this ease of programming the first network
connection would be quite useful.
3) For certain very simple applications (e.g., trouble logging, of
data collection) one could imagine leaving them permanently in
place with a fixed, hand-selected route to their target. (Such an
19
approach would have to be weighed carefully against the disruption
that a change in network topology might cause. The point is that
this opportunity to exploit source routing for simple applications
does exist.)
4) Source is consistent with at least two proposed
fragmentation/reassembly strategies. Fragmentation can be done by
a gateway on entry to a subnetwork that has a small maximum packet
reassembly can be accomplished either at the gateway leaving that
subnetwork or by the target node. Fragmentation can also be done
by a fragmentation server, which might be a node whose address
appears "in the middle" of a route unbeknownst to the source,
target, or intervening gateways. If it receives a packet that it
believes is too large to get through some intermediate subnetwork,
it can fragment that packet and also reroute the fragments through
a reassembly server on the other side of the bottleneck. Finally,
one might successfully finesse fragmentation completely by sending
big packets over a longer or less desirable route that allows big
packets, while sending small ones the short, desirable way.
5) In a manner similar to the fragmentation/reassembly servers just
described, one can place other specialized servers along a route to
act as filters, translators, etc. The idea has not been explored,
but it seems to represent an interesting kind of opportunity.
6) Attachment of multi-tailed hosts (the "multi-homing problem") is
simplified. In a complex internet installation, one might expect
to find some hosts that have attachments to two or more different
subnetworks of the internet, perhaps for added reliability or for
20
assured bandwidth to services found on different subnetworks. If
the several attachment points are functionally equivalent, then
when another node tries to send a message to such a host, there is
a question of to which one of the several attachment points the
message should go. A hop-by-hop routing scheme in which gateways
interpret internet names would require that either the different
attachment points be assigned different internet names (so the
originator has the burden of choosing which internet name to use)
or else a single internet name is used for all the attachment
points of the multi-tailed host and the gateways add this
topological fact to their storehouse of routing knowledge and make
the choice on the fly. With source routing, the burden of choice
can move to the routing server, where the topological information
is available to choose a route from the originator to the nearest
attachment point of the multi-tailed host. Neither the originator
nor the internet gateways need realize that the target has several
attachment points.
In this last case, as in some others, one can argue that some of the
apparent simplifications or advantages obtained by using source routing
are actually one shifts of the underlying problem over to the routing
server. This argument has some validity, but it overlooks two points:
1) Separation of two tangled problem areas, naming and routing, into
two distinct and largely independent mechanisms simplifies and
clarifies design, algorithms, and code.
2) When one implements routing ad a service supplied by a server, it
becomes possible to introduce variations on the service by changing
21
just the server, or providing an alternate server. When the
function of routing is distributed among the gateways, changes in
the service require changing all of the gateways, an undertaking
that is more difficult and hazardous.
Conclusions
The premise of this note is that source routing is particularly
well-suited to the campus environment. The argument goes as follows: in
the campus environment, one can install high bandwidth lines at low
cost, since reliance on common-carrier offerings is not required and
physical facilities are under common control. This high bandwidth
permits using strategies, such as source routing, that may waste some
part of the communications capacity by not being optimal. The campus
administrative environment calls for diversity in protocol, for which
source routing caters by providing a lowest campus-wide transport
protocol with a minimum amount of predetermined function that might
constrain higher level protocol choices. The campus administrative
environment also calls for diversity in administration, for which source
routing caters by permitting precise control of complete routes for
particular messages, and multiple strategies for resolving service names
or network addresses, as required. It also permits messages to flow
through an internetwork arrangement despite some of its topology not
being centrally planned. Source routing allows particularly easy
trouble location and source routing gateways are exceptionally simple,
two properties that are important when one assumes a central
administration that must be cost-conscious or even under-funded. Thus,
from these arguments one can conclude that, at least for the campus-wide
22
internetwork case, source routing is an attractive scheme well worth
considering.
Acknowledgements
This note records a series of intensive discussions with David Reed,
David Clark, Kenneth Pogran, and Noel Chiappa. It also borrows ideas
and terminology from working papers of the ARPA internet project by Dan
Cohen, Jon Postel, David Clark, and John Shoch and from working papers
of the M.I.T. AI Laboratory Chaosnet project by David Moon. Welcome
comments on early drafts were made by Dan Cohen and John Shoch.
References
[1] Farber, D.J., and Vittal, J.J., "Extendability Considerations in
the Design of the Distributed Computer System (DCS)," Proc. Nat.
Telecomm. Conf., (November, 1973), Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 15E-1 to
15E-6.
[2] Sunshine, Carl A., "Source Routing in Computer Networks," Computer
Communication Review 1;, 7, (January, 1977) pp. 29-33.