A Metabolic Approach to Protocol Resilience

  • Christian Tschudin
  • Lidia Yamamoto
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3457)


The goal of this research is to create robust execution circuits for communication software which can distribute over a network and which continues to provide its service despite parts of the implementation being knocked out. Like packets that can be lost (which can be recovered by the appropriate protocols) we envisage an environment where parts of a protocol’s execution can be lost. The remaining implementation elements should continue to operate and be able to recover by themselves for restoring full services again. Based on a chemical execution model, we show a few initial examples of packet processing functions that are robust against the knock-out of any single instruction. These examples illustrate how the model can be applied to implement resilient communication protocols, to which we add regulatory signals that can be used to steer the protocols’ code basis.


resilient communication software autonomic communication bio-inspired networking active networking Fraglets 


  1. 1.
    Smirnov, M.: Autonomic Communication: Research Agenda for a New Communication Paradigm. White paper, Fraunhofer FOKUS (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zambonelli, F., Gleizes, M.P., Mamei, M., Tolksdorf, R.: Spray Computers: Frontiers of Self-Organization. In: Proceeding of 1st International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC 2004), New York, USA, pp. 268–269 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tschudin, C.: Fraglets - a Metabolistic Execution Model for Communication Protocols. In: Proceeding of 2nd Annual Symposium on Autonomous Intelligent Networks and Systems (AINS), Menlo Park, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andersen, D.G., Balakrishnan, H., Kaashoek, M.F., Morris, R.: Resilient Overlay Networks. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP 2001), Banff, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jalote, P.: Fault Tolerance in Distributed Systems. Pearson Education (1994) ISBN 0133013677Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dialani, V., Miles, S., Moreau, L., Roure, D.D., Luck, M.: Transparent Fault Tolerance for Web Services based Architectures. In: Monien, B., Feldmann, R.L. (eds.) Euro-Par 2002. LNCS, vol. 2400, pp. 889–898. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mullender, S. (ed.): Distributed Systems, 2nd edn. ACM Press, New York (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torres-Pomales, W.: Software Fault Tolerance: A Tutorial. Technical Report TM-2000-210616, NASA (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Whisnant, K., Kalbarczyk, Z.T., Iyer, R.K.: A system model for dynamically reconfigurable software. IBM Systems Journal 42, 45–59 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blum, M., Luby, M., Rubinfeld, R.: Self-Testing/Correcting with Applications to Numerical Problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 47, 549–595 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wasserman, H., Blum, M.: Software Reliability via Run-Time Result-Checking. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 44, 826–849 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franklin, M., Garay, J., Yung, M.: Self-Testing/Correcting Protocols. In: Jayanti, P. (ed.) DISC 1999. LNCS, vol. 1693, pp. 269–283. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sander, T., Tschudin, C.: Towards mobile cryptography. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, USA. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sander, T., Tschudin, C.F.: On software protection via function hiding. In: Aucsmith, D. (ed.) IH 1998. LNCS, vol. 1525, pp. 111–123. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Preskill, J.: Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation (1997) arXiv:quant-ph/9712048.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anthony, R.J.: Emergence: A Paradigm for Robust and Scalable Distributed Applications. In: International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC 2004), New York, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fontana, W., Wagner, A.: Mutational Robustness, Modularity and Evolvability. Research focus area robustness, Santa Fe Institute (2002)
  18. 18.
    Jeong, H., Tombor, B., Albert, R., Oltvai, Z., Barabási, A.L.: The large-scale organization of metabolic networks. Nature 407, 651–654 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dewdney, A.K.: Recreational Mathematics – Core Wars. Scientific American (1984), See also,
  20. 20.
    Banâtre, J.P., Métayer, D.L.: A new computational model and its discipline of programming, Technical Report RR0566, INRIA (1986)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Banâtre, J.P., Métayer, D.L.: Gamma and the chemical reaction model. Internal publication pi-984, INRIA (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Banâtre, J.P., Fradet, P., Radenac, Y.: Principles of chemical programming. In: Fifth International Workshop on Rule-Based Programming, RULE 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berry, G., Boudol, G.: The chemical abstract machine. Research report rr-1133, INRIA Sophia Antipolis (1989)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paun, G.: Computing with Membranes. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 61, 108–143 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wermelinger, M.A.: Specification of Software Architecture Reconfiguration. PhD dissertation, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stamatopoulou, I., Gheorghe, M., Kefalas, P.: Modelling of dynamic configuration of biology-inspired multi-agent systems with communicating X-machines and population P systems. In: Mauri, G., Păun, G., Jesús Pérez-Jímenez, M., Rozenberg, G., Salomaa, A. (eds.) WMC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3365, pp. 389–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Syropoulos, A.: On P systems and distributed computing. In: Fifth Workshop on Membrane Computing (WMC5), Milan, Italy (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Banâtre, J.P., Radenac, Y., Fradet, P.: Chemical specification of autonomic systems. In: Proc 13th International Conference on Intelligent and Adaptive Systems and Software Engineering (IASSE 2004), pp. 72–79 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mackert, L.F., Neumeier-Mackert, I.B.: Communicating Rule Systems. Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification VII, Proc IFIP WG6.1. In: 7th International Conference on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, Zurich, Switzerland (1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Tschudin
    • 1
  • Lidia Yamamoto
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Sophia Antipolis LaboratoryHitachi EuropeValbonneFrance

Personalised recommendations