Lessons learned from the robustness principle

By on 30 Jul 2019

Category: Tech matters

Tags: , ,

Blog home

The Internet, and networking protocols more broadly, were grounded in a few simple principles. For instance, there is the end-to-end principle, which argues the network should be a simple fat pipe that does not modify data in transit. Many of these principles have trade-offs — if you haven’t found the trade-offs, you haven’t looked hard enough — and not looking for them can result in massive failures at the network and protocol level.

Another principle networking is grounded in is the Robustness Principle, which states:

“Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send.”


In protocol design and implementation, this means you should accept the widest range of inputs possible without negative consequences. A recent draft, however, challenges the robustness principle — draft-iab-protocol-maintenance.

According to the authors, the basic premise of the robustness principle lies in the problem of updating older software for new features or fixes at the scale of an Internet-sized network. The general idea is a protocol designer can set aside some ‘reserved bits’, using them in a later version of the protocol, and not worry about older implementations misinterpreting them — new meanings of old reserved bits will be silently ignored. In a world where even a very old operating system, such as Windows XP, is still widely used, and people complain endlessly about forced updates, it seems like the robustness principle is on solid ground in this regard.

The argument against this in the draft is implementing the robustness principle allows a protocol to degenerate over time. Older implementations are not removed from service because it still works, implementations are not updated in a timely manner, and the protocol tends to have an ever-increasing amount of ‘dead code’ in the form of older expressions of data formats. Given an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of versions of any given protocol will be deployed. As a result, the protocol can and will break in an infinite number of ways.

The logic of the draft is something along the lines of: old ways of doing things should be removed from protocols that are actively maintained in order to unify and simplify the protocol. At least for actively maintained protocols, reliance on the robustness principle should be toned down a little.

Given the long list of examples in the draft, the authors make a good case.

There is another side to the argument, however. The robustness principle is not ‘just’ about keeping older versions of software working ‘at scale’. All implementations, no matter how good their quality, have defects (or rather, unintended features). Many of these defects involve failing to release or initialize memory, failing to bound check inputs, and other similar oversights. A common way to find these errors is to fuzz test code — throw lots of different inputs at it to see if it spits up an error or crash.

The robustness principle runs deeper than infinite versions — it also helps implementations deal with defects in ‘the other end’ that generate bad data. The robustness principle, then, can help keep a network running even in the face of an implementation defect.

Where does this leave us? Abandoning the robustness principle is clearly not a good thing — while the network might end up being more correct, it might also end up simply not running. Ever. The Internet is an interlocking system of protocols, hardware, and software; the robustness principle is the lubricant that makes it all work.

Clearly, then, there must be some sort of compromise position that will work. Perhaps a two-pronged attack might work.

First, don’t discard errors silently. Instead, build logging into software that catches all errors, regardless of how trivial they might seem. This will generate a lot of data, but we need to be clear on the difference between instrumenting something and actually paying attention to what is instrumented. Instrumenting code so that ‘unknown input’ can be caught and logged periodically is not a bad thing.

Second, perhaps protocols need some way to end of life older versions. Part of the problem with the robustness principle is it allows an infinite number of versions of a single protocol to exist in the same network. Perhaps the IETF and other standards organizations should rethink this, explicitly taking older ways of doing things out of specs on a periodic basis. A draft that says “you shouldn’t do this any longer,” or “this is no longer in accordance with the specification”, would not be a bad thing.

For the more ‘average’ network engineer, this discussion around the robustness principle should lead to some important lessons, particularly as we move ever more deeply into an automated world. Be clear about versioning of APIs and components. Deprecate older processes when they should no longer be used.

Control your technical debt, or it will control you.

Adapted from original post, which appeared on Rule 11.

Russ White is a Network Architect at LinkedIn.

Rate this article

The views expressed by the authors of this blog are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of APNIC. Please note a Code of Conduct applies to this blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.