NetPDL: An extensible XML-based language for packet header description

  • Published on
    26-Jun-2016

  • View
    214

  • Download
    2

Transcript

  • NetPDL: An extensibleer

    *,

    Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24-10129 Torino, Italy

    Received 2 January 2004; received in revised form 7 February 2005; accepted 10 May 2005

    block for implementing networking applications. 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

    still implemented within applications by customcode.

    One problem with a general packet-processingcomponent stems from the dierent avors ofpacket processing required by applications. For

    reserved.

    Cambridge, UK, and the System On Chip Division of TelecomItalia Lab S.p.A., Torino, Italy.* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 011 564 7008; fax: +39 011

    564 7099.E-mail addresses: fulvio.risso@polito.it (F. Risso), mario.

    baldi@polito.it (M. Baldi).

    Computer Networks 50 (201389-1286/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rightsKeywords: Protocol description language; NetPDL; XML; Protocol header description

    1. Introduction

    Several network applicationssuch as packetrouting, trac classication, network address

    translation, packet sning, trac analysis, tracgeneration, rewalling, intrusion detectiondealwith packet headers, hence need to know packetformats. Even though packet processing iscommon to a large number of applications, atpresent no solution exists to delegate it to asingle optimized component: packet processing isq The work was partly funded by Microsoft Research,Available online 2 August 2005

    Responsible Editor: C.B. Westphall

    Abstract

    Although several applications need to know the format of network packets to perform their tasks, till now, eachapplication uses its own packet description database. This paper addresses this problem by proposing the NetPDL,an XML-based language for describing packet headers, which has the potential of enabling the realization of a com-mon, application-independent protocol description database that can be shared among several applications. Further,common functionalities related to the protocol database can be implemented in a library, which can be a basic buildingfor packet head

    Fulvio Rissodoi:10.1016/j.comnet.2005.05.029XML-based languagedescription q

    Mario Baldi

    06) 688706

    www.elsevier.com/locate/comnet

  • ter Neexample, while an application might need to lterpackets to further process only a subset of thosereceived, another one might need to modify thevalue of selected elds in each packet. A generalpacket processing component that fullls the needsof any application would be required to have alarge set of functionalities, hence a high complex-ity. Another problem stems from the high degreeof portability required. In particular, the generalpacket processing component should be executableon a large number of platforms, ranging fromhardware boxes (e.g. network switches), embeddeddevices (e.g. rewalls), and workstations, runninga wide variety of operating systems.

    These problems might have so far hamperedthe development of such a component. Irrespec-tive of such problems, though, a rst step towardsmoving packet processing functions out of appli-cations consists in having a universal protocolheader database, which is shared among all appli-cations and contains packet descriptions for allnetwork protocols. Current applications use aproprietary syntax to describe packet headers,and packet descriptions are often hardwired intheir code. Consequently, supporting a new pro-tocol requires the intervention of the developersof the specic application. Ethereal [4] and tcp-dump [5], two well-known and widely deployedapplications, have even two dierent protocoldescriptions hardwired in their code: one usedwhen ltering network packets in real-time, theother one when displaying packets in a user-friendly fashion. The rst description is simple(and limited) because it is designed for high-speedoperation (ltering). The second one is very com-prehensive and the corresponding packet-process-ing engine is much slower than the one using therst description.

    This paper presents the Network ProtocolDescription Language (NetPDL), an application-independent packet format description languagethat enables the creation of a universal protocoldescription databasethe NetPDL database. Oneof the main design objectives of NetPDL, unlikealternative protocol description solutions (see Sec-tion 3), is simplicity. For this reason, NetPDL isnot intended as a protocol specication tool; for

    F. Risso, M. Baldi / Compuexample, it does not support the description of aprotocol temporal behaviore.g., a protocol statemachine. Instead, NetPDL is targeted to an eec-tive description of packet header formats and pro-tocol encapsulations.

    NetPDL is based on the eXtensible MarkupLanguage (XML) that is becoming the preferredway for exchanging structured data between dier-ent organizations. For this reason several tools,both stand-alone programs and libraries, existfor dealing with XML documents and can be lev-eraged for NetPDL handling. Moreover, XMLdocuments are usually parsed by applications atrun-time; by following the same approach withNetPDL, the protocol header database can bedynamically changed to include new protocols orprotocol features, without even restartingapplications.

    Notice that NetPDL is benecial also to appli-cations for which a generic packet processing en-gine and a shared database are not cost eective.An example is provided by applications thatperform simple operations on a small variety ofpacket headers. In these cases implementing pack-et processing within the application might be sim-pler than creating or interfacing a generic packetprocessing engine and leveraging from existingheader descriptions might seem to bring negligibleadvantages. However, basing header processingcode on NetPDL descriptions enables transparent(i.e., not requiring modications to the applica-tion code) support of newer versions of theprotocols.

    Section 2 elaborates on the concept of variousapplications sharing a generic packet processingengine that operates according to protocol descrip-tions stored in a NetPDL database, where thelatter can be dynamically updated. A survey ofexisting languages for describing network protocolheaders is provided in Section 3 that highlightstheir limitations for the application contextaddressed in this work. Section 4 presents an over-view of the NetPDL language and the architec-tural choices behind it, while Section 5 providesthe details of most primitives of the NetPDL lan-guage. Section 6 gives an overview of NetPDLextensions, i.e. a set of additional primitives thatcan be used to enrich NetPDL for specic pur-

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706 689poses. In particular, Section 6 presents an exten-

  • sion aiming at the description of how packet infor-mation should be displayed. Finally, Section 7provides performance gures of a NetPDL-basedengine implementation. Conclusive remarks arepresented in Section 8.

    2. Toward NetPDL-based packet processing

    Fig. 1 depicts possible scenarios for the deploy-ment of a common protocol description databaseshared by various applications. A packet process-ing engine, i.e., a NetPDL-based engine in this con-text, can be either embedded into each application(left-hand side of Fig. 1) or shared among several

    690 F. Risso, M. Baldi / Computer NeNetPDLprotocol database

    VisualizationExtensions

    NetPDL. . .

    Fig. 1. Relationships between applications, NetPDL protocolapplications.A NetPDL-based engine uses a NetPDL proto-

    col database (NetPDL database in short), i.e. a setof XML les that contain a description of protocolheaders, to learn the structure of the packets it issupposed to process. Since the NetPDL databaseis external to both applications and NetPDL-based engines, it can be updated without requiringmodications to the code implementing them. TheNetPDL-based engine parses these XML les andcreates an internal, engine-specic, representationof protocol headers. For example, based on theprotocol description obtained from the NetPDLdatabase, a (NetPDL-based) packet ltering en-gine can pre-calculate the oset of each eld fromthe packet beginning. This will result in faster loca-

    Embedded NetPDL-

    based Engine

    Application 1

    SharedNet PDL-based

    Engine (e.g. DLL)

    Application 2 Application 3

    Public APIdatabase, and NetPDL-based engines.tion of the requested elds within each incomingpacket. Hence, a ltering engine based on the Net-PDL language can have the same performance ofone based on custom protocol descriptions, i.e.,hardwired in the code of the ltering engine itself.Hence, performances of NetPDL-based engines donot depend on the characteristics of the languageitself, which (being XML-based) may seem ratherinecient. From this point of view, a NetPDLdescription can be compared to a Java program,which can either be compiled into native code orinterpreted at run-time. The execution timestrongly depends on the tool used (compiler/inter-preter), not on the language itself.

    A NetPDL database can even be remotelystored on a centralized server accessible throughthe Internet. Geographically dispersed NetPDL-based engines can (periodically) download themost recent version of the NetPDL database, usethe contained information to build their internalstructures, and perform their processing. In thisscenario NetPDL-based engines operate accordingto up-to-date and complete protocol descriptionscontained in some external, remotely locatedXML les, while not suering performanceimpairments during packet level processing.

    This paper does not focus on any specic Net-PDL-based engine, but rather on the denitionof the NetPDL database. Nevertheless, Section 7provides measurements obtained with an existingNetPDL-based engine implemented in the NetBeelibrary [3] with the objective of substantiating theabove statements on performance.

    Implementing protocol-processing enginesbased on an external description database haslimitations when coming to second order optimiza-tions. For example, since a NetPDL-based engineworks on a per-protocol basis, optimizations thatrely on the combined presence of two or moreprotocol headers cannot be implemented within aNetPDL-based engine. Finally, more investigationis required to assess the applicability and benetsof NetPDL-based packet processing in scenarioswhere performance requirements lead to thedeployment of custom hardware optimized for aspecic set of protocols. However, such applica-tion eld is outside the scope of this work that

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706focuses on software solutions.

  • ter Ne3. Related work

    This section provides an overview of knownprotocol description languages with specicemphasis on (1) support for packet header descrip-tion, (2) support for protocol encapsulationdescription, (3) extensibility.

    Libpcap [6], one of the most widely used packetprocessing libraries, provides a set of functionsthat allow to selectively capture packets by meansof a lter. The lter, specied in high-level lan-guage (e.g. tcp means capture only TCP traf-c), is translated into special assembly code thatis executed by a ltering engine, the BPF (BerkeleyPacket Filter) [6] virtual processor. Since the lteroperates by checking the value of selected packetheader elds, the protocol format must be known.Libpcap [7] embeds protocol denitions within itssource code, which can be (hardly) modied onlyby recompiling the library. In essence, libpcap doesnot have a language to describe protocol headers;its simple language can be used to dene a packetlter (operating on the most common protocolelds) and it cannot be used for other purposes.

    One of the best-known protocol descriptionlanguages is the one deployed by Analyzer 2.0[1], a protocol analyzer developed at by one ofthe authors. An easily extensible C-like structureis used to describe packet header elds and proto-col encapsulation. A most notable feature of theresulting packet processing architecture is the abil-ity to both decode packets and customize theirsummary and detailed views based on externallesDescription File Format (DFF) and IndexFile Format (IFF) conguration les. However,the Analyzer 2.0 protocol description languagedoes not provide adequate support for variable-length elds and optional elds.

    FALCON [9]an evolution of the Analyzer 2.0protocol description language, notwithstanding adierent syntaxenables more complex computa-tions, variable-length elds, and optional elds tobe specied. However, FALCON provides onlyprimitives for packet decoding (e.g. packet display-ing is not taken into consideration) and its proto-col description les have poor readability from thestandpoint of a user working on them without any

    F. Risso, M. Baldi / Compuspecialized (e.g. GUI) tool.The GASP (Generator and Analyzer System forProtocol) Language [10] is similar to Analyzers,but has a major emphasis on packet generation,rather than decoding. Like FALCON, it supportsonly header format description.

    The protocol description language used by SPY[11] provides checking primitives to validate thecorrectness of selected elds and its protocoldescription les have excellent readability. How-ever it does not provide proper support for op-tional elds. Like Analyzer 2.0, it supports somevisualization primitives (albeit quite poor ones:only a detailed view of the packet is supported,with limited customizability); however this featureis natively provided by the language, while Ana-lyzer does the same though an extension mecha-nism, which allows arbitrary future enhancements.

    The protocol description language recently pro-posed in the JnetStream project [13] is probablythe most exible among the listed languages. Itdoes support eld format descriptions, optionalelds (through conditional primitives such as ifthenelse and more), eld value validation andvisualization directives (although the dierence be-tween summary and detailed view of the packet isnot clear). However, it does not foresee extensionsto the language, which means that new featuresnot included in the base language cannot beadded. In addition, the complete NPL (NetworkProtocol Language) description is not easy to read(despite its C-like syntax) since all directives are to-gether without a clear separation between headerformat descriptions, eld value validation andvisualization directives.

    The Solidum PAX Pattern Description Lan-guage [12] is targeted at pattern description, a pat-tern being either a set of elds or a set of protocols.For instance, the IP/Ethernet stack is consideredthe most common pattern to check when look-ing for ICMP packets. The language is designedwith the objective of speeding up pattern matchingoperations on Solidum network processors. How-ever, protocol encapsulation description with thePAX language is cumbersome since all the possiblecombinations of the formats for a given protocolhave to be explicitly listed when describing theencapsulation of a higher layer protocol. Finally,

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706 691PAX does not provide displaying and checking

  • also called tags, delimited by the char-acters. Each element contains a name and an

    ter Neprimitives and does not properly support optionalelds.

    Abstract Syntax Notation number One(ASN.1) [15] is an ISO standard notation oftenused to describe packet formats in protocol speci-cation documents. ASN.1, although a standard,is not attractive for many applications, such aspacket processing engines, due to its usagecomplexity. Moreover, several keywords aremeaningless when dealing with protocol descrip-tion, while other important featuressuch as sup-port for describing protocol encapsulationaremissing. Furthermore, ASN.1 parsing is not trivialand only a few public and open-source tools doexist.

    The ACT ONE language, part of the LOTOSstandard [16], is another existing approach toheader description. LOTOS, a Formal Descrip-tion Technique standardized by ISO for thedesign of distributed systems, consists of twoparts: (1) a process algebraic part is intendedfor modeling the dynamic behaviors of systems,and (2) a data algebraic part is proposed for mod-eling data structures and value expressions. Whilethe former has a dierent purpose than NetPDL,the latter, based on the abstract data type lan-guage ACT ONE, compares to NetPDL. How-ever, ACT ONE has been widely recognized tobe complex to use: the very nature of its buildingelements and the rigidity of its model lead tolengthy specications with a lot of repetitive,technical details that clutter the specication[17]. The enhanced version E-LOTOS [18], whileaddressing some of these issues, is still quite com-plex to use and heavily oriented to protocol spec-ication and verication. Consequently, it doesnot support application-specic extensions, suchas data visualization. With respect to the objec-tives and intended applications of NetPDL, anal-ogous considerations apply also to Estelle [19], acurrently withdrawn standard.

    Finally, the ABNF notation [14] includes someinteresting features that are useful when describingcomplex messages (like the ones of SMTP andHTTP); however it is fairly complex (due to itscompact and very ecient syntax) and it doesnot include any extension mechanism for support-

    692 F. Risso, M. Baldi / Compuing other than header format descriptions.optional set of attributes; a value might be option-ally specied for each attribute. For instance,

    is an element called fruit, with an attributenamed name whose value is apple. Instead,

    John Black

    is an element called person, that does not have anyattribute, and whose content is John Black. Ele-ments can be nested (e.g. the content of can include ) in order to createIn summary, the languages for protocol descrip-tion proposed thus far display several weaknesses,especially with respect to extensibility, simplicity;most of them also lack eective support for op-tional elds. Particularly, none of the examinedlanguages provides an explicit way to be extendedand only some of them support the denition ofvisualization and checking primitives. These rea-sons motivated the creation of NetPDL, whichaims specically at addressing the aboveshortcomings.

    4. NetPDL overview

    This section presents the general architecture ofNetPDL and the ideas behind the language. Aftera brief look at XML (on which NetPDL is based),an overview of the protocol description languagewill be presented.

    4.1. XML brief and terminology

    The eXtensible Markup Language (XML) [21]is a simple, exible text format derived from theStandard Generalized Markup Language(SGML), a.k.a. ISO 8879 [22]. Originally designedto meet the challenges of large-scale electronicpublishing, XML is playing an increasingly impor-tant role in a wide variety of data exchangesbetween computer systems using web-based proto-cols or others.

    XML documents usually consist of elements,

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706more complex structures.

  • ter NeThe XML specication does not dene elementsand attributes. This is done by using the syntacti-cal rules dened by XML to specify what elements,attributes and values are valid for a specic appli-cation. For instance, an XML-based languageaimed at describing living creatures could includea tag called , while a language aimedat describing food could include a tag called. Text les compliant to either theXML DTD (Document Type Denition) or themore powerful XML Schema standards denethe valid elements of a language. Although theseles are not strictly compulsory, they provide astandard way to specify the syntactical rules ofan XML-based language; therefore their use isstrongly encouraged.

    An application supposed to use XML-baseddocuments must include an XML parser. Theparsing process can be split into two steps. First,locating XML elements, attributes and their val-ues; second, performing semantic actions associ-ated to each element, e.g. create a new databaserecord for the given person.

    The rst step is application-independent andseveral XML parsing tools, often called XML en-gines, are available, most notably the largely usedApache Xerces [24] and Microsofts. For example,a typical output of the rst parser is that the rstvalid XML tag within a document is the element. The second step is, obviously, appli-cation-dependent. The creation of a NetPDL-based engine requires implementing only thissecond parsing step since an existing tool can bedeployed for the rst one.

    4.2. Why XML

    One of the most common objections moved toNetPDL concerns its being based on XML insteadof a procedural language like C or Java. The mainreason for having chosen XML is that tokens oftraditional programming languages cannot be ex-tended. For instance, although a struct in theC language may be suitable to describe a protocolheader, dierent applications might need dierentkinds of information to be provided together withpacket header formats. For example, an applica-

    F. Risso, M. Baldi / Compution might need a description of how a eld shouldbe printed (e.g. as a hex/dec number), while an-other might need a specication of the validityrange of its values. Hence, an application pro-grammer needs to be able to extend a packetdescription language to provide the constructs re-quired to describe specic aspects needed by spe-cic applications. Extensibility is one of the keyfeatures of NetPDL and can be easily obtainedthrough the denition of new XML attributesassociated to base language elements. The same re-sult cannot be achieved with traditional program-ming languages unless heavily modied, hencechanging their very essence. Instead XML hasbuilt-in extensibility due to the structure itself ofan XML document based on elements and attri-butes (as described in the previous section). Newelements and attributes can be added whilepreserving backward compatibility with priorapplication-dependent XML parsers that cansimply ignore tokens that they are not able toprocess.

    There are several additional reasons besidesextensibility for choosing XML. Being plain textles, XML descriptions can be easily edited anddebugged on any platform with a simple text edi-tor. Overall, thanks to the availability of XML li-braries that take care of the rst parsing step,implementing parsers for XML-based documentsis denitely simpler than for any other existing lan-guage, whose parser is usually based on the lexand yacc UNIX utilities. In addition, XML hasthe capability for strong syntactical validation,which may even be performed before the rst pars-ing step by an application-independent XML toolaccording to companion denition documents fol-lowing the DTD or XML Schema standards. Thisfurther simplies the implementation and execu-tion of application-dependent parsers since thevalidation process (which is performed automati-cally during the rst parsing step) eliminates alarge set of possible errors (e.g. invalid tags, outof range values, etc.). Last but not least, XML of-fers portability across dierent platforms, speci-cally web-based ones. For instance, it is prettysimple to visualize an XML description as a webpage following the formatting rules specied by acompanion eXtensible Stylesheet Language

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706 693(XSL) le.

  • header eld is an element, the eld size being an

    5. The language

    The main objective of the NetPDL specicationis the description of packet header formats andnetwork protocol encapsulation. This sectionbriey presents the elements and attributes usedfor these purposes.

    5.1. General structure

    A NetPDL document, whose general structureis shown in Fig. 3, contains elements that enable

    1 For simplicity, Preamble, Start Frame Delimiter, and Frame

    ter Networks 50 (2006) 6887064.3. NetPDL basics

    NetPDL aims at describing packets as denedby network protocol specications. This includestwo complementary descriptions:

    the packet format: the list and format of theelds constituting a packet, and

    the protocol encapsulation: the rules on the eldsof a packet that determine howi.e., accordingto which protocolto interpret the sequence ofbytes constituting the payload of the packet.

    NetPDL was designed with the followingobjectives.

    1. Simplicity: the syntax should be intuitive so that(1) it can be easily understood without a deepknowledge of the language and (2) protocoldescriptions can be written using a simple texteditor.

    2. Completeness: the language must include a setof base primitives suitable to describe packetheaders of the most common (present andpossibly future) protocols, thus dening theway they can be processed. External plug-inscan be invoked by the NetPDL-based enginefor dealing with packet header formats thatcannot be described by the above-mentionedprimitives.

    3. Extensibility: the language must support theaddition of new primitives to the small set ofbase elements, allowing for the language to betailored to a wide range of applications. Back-ward compatibility must be ensured when add-ing primitives: applications using the languagemust be able to skip over unknown primitives.

    4. Eciency: the performance of applications inte-grating or deploying (see the two possible archi-tectures in Fig. 1) NetPDL-based engines mustbe comparable to the ones of applications thatinclude custom code for packet processing pos-sibly based on hardwired packet descriptions.

    The above objectives have driven severalchoices in the XML-based specication of Net-PDL. Each primitive consists of an element char-

    694 F. Risso, M. Baldi / Compuacterized by several attributes. For instance, aattribute of the element.Fig. 2 shows an excerpt of the NetPDL descrip-

    tion of the Ethernet header that consists of 3 xed-length elds,1 whose length is respectively six, six,and two bytes. As shown by this example, NetPDLrepresents each eld as an element containing nbytes. The element contains theprotocol encapsulation description, i.e., it specieshow to determine the protocol (as indicated by thevalue of the element) following thecurrent Ethernet header based on the value of thetype-length eld (as specied by the value ofthe element).

    Fig. 2. Excerpt of the NetPDL description of the Ethernetheader.Check Sequence are not shown in this sample description.

  • ter Neproper packet processing. The document consistsof a set of descriptions, each one referred to a sin-gle protocol and contained into a ele-ment. Each description includes the elementsspecifying header formats (inside the element) and encapsulation (within the element), as shown in Fig. 2.

    A NetPDL-based engine will start processing a

    Fig. 3. General structure of a NetPDL document.

    F. Risso, M. Baldi / Compupacket (e.g. its binary dump) by matching the bytesequence with the elements of the description inthe order they appear.

    Some predened protocols (_startproto and_defaultproto) are used in special cases, suchas the rst protocol of the encapsulationsequence and the last resort protocol to beused when no suitable protocol description isavailable for processing the remaining data of apacket. More details will be presented in the nextsections.

    5.2. Base elements for packet header description

    The headers dened by the majority of theprotocols currently in use contain a small setof elds, which, most often, can be catego-rized according to one of the six types shown inTable 1.

    The vast majority of header elds has a xedlength and is aligned to a byte boundary. Less fre-quently, a eld is composed of a few bits or has avariable length that can be determined only atpacket-processing time. Variable-length eldscan be either length bounded (i.e., the length isspecied by the value of another eld) or sentinelbounded (i.e., a given character or string indi-cates the end of the eld). The above types ofelds can be specied through the (forxed-length elds), (identifying thepart of a header that contains bit elds), (for a bit eld), and elements.Additional characteristics, such as the length ofa eld, can be described bymeans of specic attributes. All the abovetypes are deployed in the example shown inFig. 4.

    Due to their widespread presence in packetheaders, NetPDL includes two additional pre-dened eld types: the line eld ()anASCII line, which is a string terminated by a car-riage return (CR) or CR + LF (Line Feed) charac-terand the padding eld ()oftenused to align a protocol header to a 16 or 32 bit

    Table 1Basic eld types dened in NetPDL

    NetPDL element Description

    Fixed-length elds, aligned to abyte boundary

    Field that contains bit elds Bit elds Variable-length eld CR/LF terminated variable length eld Field realigning the header to a 16

    or 32 bit boundary

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706 695boundary.A eld is completely characterized by specify-

    ing its length, the number of occurrences, and itsposition in the packet. However, the latter twoitems are usually not needed, because normallya eld is placed after a given preceding eldand occurs only once. In order to keep the nota-tion simple, only the length of the eld (throughthe attribute size) must be always specied forxed length elds. The description of elds re-peated multiple times is addressed in Section5.3.4, while the position of a eld can be speciedthrough the optional attribute offset. A packet

  • ter Ne

    696 F. Risso, M. Baldi / Computrailer is a typical case in which this attribute isdeployed.

    5.3. Advanced elements for packet header

    description

    The elements described above are often not suf-cient: the header of a protocol as common as IP is

    Fig. 4. Extract from the IPv6 header description: ,, and elements.one such example. This section introduces a num-ber of more sophisticated, yet generally usefulelements.

    5.3.1. Field blocksThe element, a container for elds,

    aims at improving readability of packet headerdescriptions. The content of a elementis included in a protocol description through the tag, whose functionality can becompared to the one of macro expansions encom-passed by most high-level languages. When an tag is found, its content is re-placed by the content of the corresponding element.

    We foresee two deployment scenarios for the element. First, it can be used to isolatea portion of NetPDL code that has a distinctiveidentity or function. An example can be seen inFig. 4: each option of the IPv6 protocol is denedwithin a distinct block in order to organize theNetPDL code in a clearer way. The second sce-nario is related to compactness: the same blockof elds can be present several times within theprotocol; the element allows deningit once and the element enablesusing it multiple times within the header stack orwithin dierent contexts. The OSPF protocolprovides an example of the latter: a LinkState Advertisement header can be found inseveral OSPF packets (e.g. database descriptionpackets, acknowledgements, and others). Thegroup of elds is described once, and it is recalledseveral times by means of the element.

    5.3.2. Conditional elementsIt is not uncommon within protocol headers

    that the presence (or a value) of a eld dependson the value of another eld. Optional elds, likeIP options, are an example. Two NetPDL elementshave been dened to address this issue: the- and elements. Theformer allows multiple alternative descriptions tobe provided; the one actually considered whenprocessing a packet is determined by the evalua-tion of a simple condition, which is usually depen-

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706dent on the value of another eld (the one named

  • ter Ne00nexthdr00 in Fig. 4). By default, each compares a given value against the value of theeld specied within the element,

    ...

    Fig. 5. Ethernet header description, dierentiating between theIEEE and DIX formats.

    F. Risso, M. Baldi / Compualthough some more complex conditions can bedened. For instance, the condition this case mustbe selected for all values between 10 and 20 isgiven by .Conditions are evaluated in order; therefore a description is applied only if no otherpreceding condition matches. The element , also exemplied in Fig. 4, indicates adefault choice in case no other choice is suitable.

    The element enables the description of agroup of elds to be made dependent on the eval-uation of an arbitrarily complex condition, (e.g.the value of several other elds). The element can be used to dene the condition inthe context of the element. An example ofthe and element deployment canbe found in Fig. 5.

    5.3.3. Expressions

    NetPDL supports mathematical, logical andstring expressions that are needed by conditionalelements. Expressions are possibly the most com-plex structures of NetPDL, mainly because usersare often used to think about expression in inxnotation (A + B * C), which is not appropriate forXML. In fact, although some solutions for usingsuch a notation exist even in XML, the choicefor NetPDL has been to dene expressions in na-tive XML structures. This enables their syntacti-cal correctness to be veried through simple XMLrules.

    Fig. 5 includes a sample expression: the element denes the entire expression,while child elements dene operands andoperators.

    5.3.4. Repeating a eld or a group of elds

    The repetition of a eld (or a group of elds) israther common and is addressed by the element. The following four variants identied bythe type attribute as shown in Fig. 4, areavailable.

    Size-bounded loop: a (group of) eld(s) is iter-ated until the cumulative size becomes equalto a given value.

    Occurrence-bounded loop: a (group of) eld(s) isiterated a given number of times.

    While-bounded loop: a (group of) eld(s) is iter-ated until a given condition is true (see Fig. 4).

    Do-bounded loop: a (group of) eld(s) is presentat least once; the number of repetitions dependson a given condition.

    The element forces a corre-sponding repetition (as specied by a ele-ment) to be restarted or interruptedsimilarly tothe C/C++ break and continue instructions. Thedescription of the IPv6 protocol header, shownin Fig. 4, contains a while variant of the element. An IPv6 header possibly consists of vari-ous optional headers; the number is not known inadvance. Each optional header has a nextheader eld () thatidenties the next optional header. Thus, a packetprocessing engine should continue looking for op-tional headers as long as the value of the nextheader eld equals one of the values specied asvalid. In Fig. 4 this is expressed through a element that lists all the valid values

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706 697for the nexthdr eld. The loop (i.e., repetition

  • of the optional header) is repeated until an inva-lid value is found in the next header eld;2 inthis case, the element breaks the

    698 F. Risso, M. Baldi / Computer Neloop.

    5.3.5. Expressions with lookahead operands

    Sometimes, expressions are required to look atsome bytes that have not been associated to anyeld yet. An example can be found in the wide-spread Ethernet and IEEE 802.3 headers: the eldspanning the 13th and 14th bytes from the begin-ning of a frame can be either the Ethernet 2.0ethertype or the IEEE 802.3 length eld,depending on whether its value is greater than1500 or not, respectively. Obviously, it is not pos-sible to determine whether to interpret the above-mentioned pair of bytes as either a length oran ethertype eld before actually checking theirvalue. NetPDL addresses this situation throughlookahead operands.

    When evaluating an expression, a NetPDL-based engine can interpret the next bytes in a pack-et dump (which have not been assigned to anyeld) as they were belonging to a new eld, andevaluate the expression according to this value.

    The use of a operand for thedescription of Ethernet headers is shown inFig. 5, which can be compared to Fig. 2 wherethe same header is described without dierentiat-ing between the IEEE and Ethernet 2.0 formats.The 13th and 14th bytes are evaluated as they werepart of a eld, which is used to deter-mine which branch of the element specieshow to process the sequence of bytes. Accordingto the selected branch, the two bytes used to eval-uate the expression are interpreted as the actualeldlength or ethertype.

    5.3.6. Custom plug-ins

    For the sake of simplicity, NetPDL does notaim at supporting the description of every possiblefeature ever dened within a protocol. Instead,NetPDL provides a element to enable

    2 More precisely, the repetition is interrupted when the valueof the next header eld does not match any of the elements. This happens, for example, when the next header is

    the TCP or UDP one.the deployment of external code to handle proto-col header features not directly supported by Net-PDL elements. The element denes alink to custom code that can be part of either theNetPDL-based engine or an external library (e.g.a Dynamic Link Library in Win32). This elementcan be used, for example, to implement the pro-cessing of protocols that have a very complexstructure (e.g. DNS, SNMP etc.).

    Since a is an interface toward spe-cial purpose native code, each NetPDL engineimplementation must include (in addition to thecode implementing NetPDL primitives) the ad-hoc code corresponding to the plug-ins possiblyin use.

    5.4. Protocol encapsulation

    This section presents the NetPDL primitives forhandling protocol encapsulation, i.e., how to spec-ify the protocol description to be used in process-ing a packets payload. Protocol encapsulation isbased on the element, as shownin the Ethernet description example in Fig. 2.

    For most protocols, encapsulation is basedon the value of one or more header elds. Therelationship between the value of such elds andthe encapsulated protocol can be specied bythe element deployed within- or elements, whichare used to evaluate the condition that brings tothe correct encapsulated protocol. The- element is usually deployedto identify an encapsulated protocol through thevalue of a single eld (see Fig. 2 for an example),while the element allows encapsulation tobe made dependent on complex conditions (see[20] for details and examples).

    In some cases, the encapsulated protocol is not(univocally) identied by any eld in the encapsu-lating packet header: further processing of theencapsulated header is needed to ensure properidentication of the corresponding protocol. Forinstance, a BOOTP (Boot Protocol) and a DHCP(Dynamic Host Conguration Protocol) packetcan be discriminated only by the value of a eldwithin their own header. The ele-

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706ment supports such cases by dening a condition

  • to be evaluated while processing a packet header inorder to verify that the correct header descriptionis being used. If the condition is valued false, theprotocol description used so far for the processingdoes not match the byte stream and another onemust be selected. An example can be seen inFig. 6: the IPv4 protocol is characterized by theversion eld ()containing a value equal ()to four (). In case the por-tion of packet that would correspond to that eldcontains a dierent value, the byte sequence beingprocessed is not an IPv4 packet.

    Notwithstanding the versatility of its primitives,

    limited degree of stateful packet processing.

    F. Risso, M. Baldi / Computer NeNetPDL does not support encapsulation rules fora few protocols. For example, there are no eldsneither within the UDP nor the RTP (Real-TimeTransport Protocol) headers that can be used touniquely identify RTP packets. In particular, reli-able identication of RTP packets requires pro-cessing of state information on an RTP session,which is not adequately supported by the currentNetPDL specication. In fact, NetPDL providesonly limited support, by means of custom vari-ables (see Section 5.5), for stateful packetprocessing.

    Finally, a NetPDL-based engine takes pre-de-ned actions when the packet header format can-not be inferred by matching the providedNetPDL packet descriptions to the byte streambeing processed. This happens at least in twocases. First, when starting processing a new data

    ...

    Fig. 6. Excerpt from the description of the IPv4 header: the

    element.Each NetPDL-based engine has a number ofpredened global variables containing commoninformation such as the link-layer type and, lengthof the frame being processed and the total numberof bytes available for processing (for example, theuser can choose to capture and/or store only therst part of a packet), the number of bytes pro-cessed (e.g. decoded) within the frame, the numberof bytes processed within the current protocolheader, a timestamp containing the time at whichthe related byte sequence was captured on the net-work. These default variables can be accessed fromNetPDL when processing the corresponding pro-tocol headers. In addition, the user can create itsunit, the rst bytes must be interpreted accordingto the link-layer type of the interface throughwhich the packet dump has been received and can-not be inferred from the data itself. The _start-proto primitive protocol identier speciesaccording to which header description the rst by-tes of a sequence should be interpreted/processed.Second, when none of the available protocoldescriptions can be mapped to the byte sequencebeing processed, the _defaultproto primitiveprotocol identier species a sort of last resortprotocol, i.e., a header description to be used whenno other protocol description applies.

    5.5. Variables

    Variables can be declared within a NetPDLdescription and manipulated at run time. Thevalidity of a variable can be limited in timespe-cically, a volatile variable is valid only while pro-cessing one packet, while the content of a staticvariable is preserved through dierent packetsand in scopespecically, a local variable is validonly when processing elds of the associated pro-tocol header, while a global one is valid while pro-cessing the entire packet. Hence, a variable belongsto one of the four categories resulting from allcombinations of validity: local-volatile, local-sta-tic, global-volatile, global-static. Permanent (sta-tic) variables allow information to be kept whileprocessing subsequent packets, thus enabling a

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706 699own variables.

  • NetPDL Visualization Extension, which provides

    ter Neinformation on how a decoded packet should bedisplayed. For instance, a 32-bit string represent-ing an IP address should be displayed in dotted-decimal form, while a 32-bit string representing aCRC should be displayed as a hexadecimalnumber.

    Only the capability to parse protocol descrip-tions based on NetPDL core is required from aNetPDL-based engine. Besides this, a NetPDL en-gine might process only extensions relevant to thespecic application for which it was designed (e.g.,packet ltering). Therefore, a NetPDL-based en-gine that does not support new extensions simplyignores extension specic attributes and elements,thus operating on a description like the one inShort Ethernet frames provide an example of asituation in which global volatile variables areneeded. The shortest Ethernet frame is 64 bytes,however the number of valid bytes in the payloadcan be smaller than 64 when carrying a short pack-et, hence padding is present. Since the Ethernet2.0 frame does not have a frame length eld, thenumber of valid bytes within the Ethernet payloadis kept in a global variable and must be inferredwhen processing the next level protocol. Accordingto the IP description in [20], a NetPDL-based en-gine processing an IP packet received within ashort Ethernet frame will properly update the var-iable containing the Ethernet payload size.

    6. NetPDL extensions

    One of the most valuable characteristics of Net-PDL is its extensibility, i.e. the possibility to addnew keywords (that can be inserted as either attri-butes of existing NetPDL elements or new ele-ments) that will be used by some applications fortheir purposes. An example of a possible extensionis attaching to header elds information related totheir validity range; for instance, some elds allowonly a limited set of values, while others (e.g. CRCelds) must have a precise value.

    Extending NetPDL in order to support new fea-tures is rather simple. As an example, this sectionpresents the rst extension to this language, called

    700 F. Risso, M. Baldi / CompuFig. 2.Thanks to the properties of XML, extensionscan be written in les separate from the corespecication, improving both readability andmaintainability (users can update les separately).

    6.1. The NetPDL Visualization Extension

    The NetPDL Visualization Extension (the com-plete specication can be found in [20]) has beendesigned to support protocol analyzers (a.k.a. snif-fers), which need to display captured data streamsin an intuitive and user-friendly way. WhileNetPDL elements provide protocol analyzers withenough information to decode packets, the Visual-ization Extension provides the additional informa-tion needed for displaying packet elds.

    The existing NetPDL Visualization Exten-sion allows the denition of two views: a summaryview, which includes the most important elds tobe shown for each packet, and a detailed view,which includes all the elds of each packet, in fulldetail.

    Even though the NetPDL Visualization Exten-sion does not represent the only possible solutionfor protocol visualization, it is noteworthy interms of simplicity and eciency. For instance,XSL Transformations [23] have been consideredfor the denition of the above views since ourpacket decoding engine (presented in Section 7)produces an XML output (the PDML format, de-scribed in [20]). Even though XSL Transforma-tions allow for richer visualization features, theuser has to learn yet another (rather complex) pro-gramming language in order to handle visualiza-tion, which is against one of the main goalsmotivating our work: simplicity. The NetPDLVisualization Extension, instead, denes only afew visualization primitives that are based on thesame principles of the core primitives, hence quickto get familiar with. Moreover, experiences withXSL processing have shown it computation inten-sive and slow; particularly, processing time growslinearly with the number of protocols involved(although this might be just a feature of the soft-ware package we used). For instance, an experi-ment on a Pentium IV2.4 GHz machine hasshown that displaying a packet requires about

    tworks 50 (2006) 6887062.5 ms with XSL (Xalan-C [25] implementation)

  • template associated to a MAC address (EthMAC)veries the type of the address (i.e., unicast,

    nce

    Tool name Results

    NetBee 39 ls/pkt

    Ethereal (native code) 66 ls/pktNetBee 75 ls/pkt

    Ethereal (native code) 1077 ls/pktNetBee 648 ls/pkt

    WinPcap (native code)

    ...

    Fig. 7. Complete NetPDL description, with visualizationextensions.

  • multicast, or broadcast) and displays a string iden-tifying such type.

    Similarly, the element comparesthe eld value against a set of choices to determinea suitable displaying format. For example, inFig. 7, this mechanism is used to determine themanufacturer of the network interface card (whichdepends on the rst three bytes of the MAC ad-dress) and to show its name. The and elements use various tags, suchas and -, alreadydened within the NetPDL.

    In case the proper way of displaying specic

    and decoding and printing a packet requires only

    702 F. Risso, M. Baldi / Computer Neinformation cannot be expressed by means of theprevious attributes and elements, the showplgattribute references a custom visualization pluginnatively implemented into the NetPDL-based en-gine. An example is a plug-in that displays thecanonical name (e.g. www.foo.bar) correspond-ing to IP addresses. The plug-in mechanism inthe Visualization Extension is similar to the onein the base language ( element in Sec-tion 5.3.6) and enables full exibility through com-plete customizability of packet visualization.

    6.3. Displaying the summary of a packet

    The Visualization Extension includes a set ofprimitives for creating a summary view of eachpacket. A protocol summary should include themost important information to be displayed andhow to display it; a NetPDL-based engine (partic-ularly its visualization extension code) will put all

    ...

    ...

    Fig. 8. NetPDL Visualization Extension: specifying the sum-

    mary related to the Ethernet header.a few lines of code as shown in Fig. 9.Table 2 provides a comparison of the perfor-

    mance of NetBees NetPDL-based engine vs. cus-tom implementations. The test, run on a PentiumIV at 2.4 GHz, is based on the analysis of 5 traces,each containing at least 8000 packets captured onour University egress link. Traces contain com-plete packets and no lters have been set in thecapture process. The analysis of each trace is re-peated 10 times and the second best processingtime is retained as representative of the task com-pletion time and shown in Table 2. The executionthe protocol summaries together transparently.The summaries related to all the protocols subse-quently encapsulated into a packet are appendedto one another to create a single string.

    As an example, Fig. 8 shows the elements of thesummary view for Ethernet protocol headers.Each Ethernet frame will be summarized with thestring Eth: followed by the source MAC ad-dress, the string => and the destination MACaddress, i.e., a format looking like

    Eth:0001C7-B75007=>000629-393D7E

    7. Implementing a NetPDL-based engine

    A rst implementation of a NetPDL-based en-gine, also supporting the Visualization Extension,can be found in the NetBee library [3], which iscurrently used by the Analyzer 3.0 protocol ana-lyzer [2]. Both tools have been released as opensource software.

    The NetPDL database shipped with Analyzerincludes an experimental description of 64 proto-cols, mostly related to the TCP/IP suite, includingEthernet, Token Ring, VLAN, IP, IPv6, TCP,UDP, DHCP, DNS, RIP, OSPF, BGP, PIM. ThisNetPDL-based engine, implemented as a 500 Kby-tes Dynamic Link Library (DLL) for Windows,decodes packets and generates detailed and sum-mary views. Additionally, it can also performpacket ltering. Analyzer accesses NetPDL-relatedfunctionalities by invoking functions (such asDecodePacket()) exported by the DLL. TheNetBee Library exports a very clean interface

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706time of the relevant code of a few well-known tools

  • guage similar to the libpcap one) to pseudo-assem-

    ter Newhile (1){struct _nbPDMLPacket *PDMLPacket;struct _nbPDMLProto *ProtocolItem;

    // Read packet from file or networkRes= PacketSource->Read(&PacketHeader, &PacketData);

    if (Res == nbFAILURE)break;

    // Decode packetDecoder->DecodePacket(DataLinkCode, PacketCounter,

    PacketHeader, PacketData);

    // Get the current decoded packetPDMLReader->GetCurrentPacket(&PDMLPacket);

    // Print some global information about the packetprintf("Packet number %d\n", PDMLPacket->Number);printf("Total lenght= %d\n", PDMLPacket->Length);

    // Retrieve the 1st protocol contained in the packetProtocolItem= PDMLPacket->FirstProto;

    // Scan the current packet and print on screen the most // relevant data related to each proto contained in itwhile(ProtocolItem){printf ("Protocol %s: size %d, offset %d\n",

    ProtocolItem->LongName, ProtocolItem->Size,ProtocolItem->Position);

    ProtocolItem= ProtocolItem->NextProto;}

    }

    Fig. 9. Sample code using the NetBee library: decoding and

    F. Risso, M. Baldi / Compu(Tethereal [4] for packet decoding, which is the no-GUI version of Ethereal and WinPcap [8] forpacket ltering) is measured and compared to Net-Bees. Both tools are able to decode packets inmemory and, if required, to create a PDML le(XML-based format for packet detailed view) con-taining the packet description.

    Table 2 shows that the performance of NetBee(which decodes protocols by means of a Net-PDL-based engine) and Tethereal (which imple-ments protocol dissectors with native code) isvery similar, 75 ls and 66 ls, respectively. Thesenumbers account only for the decoding time, sincethe decoded packet is only created in memoryaccording to each tool internal format. In caseonly the most important information about eacheld is required (basically the eld name, its posi-tion in the packet dump, and its size), NetBee fur-ther decreases the processing cost from 75 ls/packet to 39 ls/packet; this function, called par-tial packet decoding in Table 2 is not availablein Tethereal. In case decoded packets have to bedumped on le (in PDML format), performance

    printing the details of a packet.bly instructions, which are executed by a virtualmachine for processing packets. The NetPDL lan-guage is therefore used for describing packet for-mats and encapsulations which are intended togenerate lters, while packet ltering itself is out-side the scope of the language. Although the ltergeneration times shown in Table 2 are quite long,which is at the moment due to the very immaturestage of the compiler, the implementation of thesefunctionalities is important to demonstrate how asingle NetPDL database is successfully and eec-tively deployed by dierent applications.

    8. Conclusions

    This paper presents the Network ProtocolDescription Language (NetPDL), a new extensible,XML-based language for describing the format ofprotocol headers. Network applications can basetheir packet processing on the NetPDL protocoldatabase, i.e., a collection of packet descriptions.According to this architecture, new protocols canbe easily supported by updating the protocol data-base instead of changing the application. For in-stance, tools like Ethereal and libpcap/WinPcapmust be extended (i.e. new code is to be addedand the whole tool recompiled) in order to supportnew protocols, while Analyzer needs only to up-date its protocol database without any recompila-increase to 0.65 ms and 1.08 ms per packet forNetBee and Ethereal, respectively. However theseincreased gures are mostly due to the eciencyof the code that dumps results on disk, which doesnot depend on the decoding process.

    Although these results provide only a generalindication of the performance obtainable fromNetPDL-based tools, they clearly demonstratethat the NetPDL language itself does not intro-duce performance penalizations; performance fullydepends on the quality of the tool deploying thelanguage, i.e., of the NetPDL engine imple-mentation.

    The NetBee library includes also a second set ofclasses that implement packet ltering capabilities.These classes compile a high-level lter (in a lan-

    tworks 50 (2006) 688706 703tion. Simplicity in upgrading makes NetPDL

  • based engine as external library or interact with

    given their wide applicability, the above-men-

    ter Neadvantageous also for applications that deal with asmall set of protocols, for which an external proto-col database might seem to oer no advantage.

    In any case, this is not the only way that Net-PDL can be benecial for packet processing. Asmany other technologies (XDR, ASN.1, IDL, . . .),the NetPDL protocol database can be used to gen-erate C code implementing packet processing. Thetarget application includes the dynamically gener-ated code as part of its sources, thus being ableto run this code (natively) at very high speed. Inthis scenario upgrading applications requires auto-matically generating new source les out of an up-dated NetPDL database and re-linking.

    The paper presents the basic NetPDL primitivesneeded for packet format description. NetPDL canbe easily extended to satisfy the needs of specicapplications, its syntax is easy to understand, andimplementing parsers and support tools (such asgraphic editors) is particularly simple thanks tothe large number of existing XML-support toolsand libraries. NetPDL further allows extensionsaimed at more specic functions; as an example,this paper describes the Visualization Extensionthat provides primitives for describing how pack-ets should be displayed, in a detailed and summa-rized view. NetPDL has been developed as a rststep in an eort to relieve network applicationsfrom tasks related to packet processing. The basicidea is to delegate such tasks to a packet-process-ing engine that operates based on standardpacket descriptions. NetPDL is intended as theformalism for such packet descriptions that canbe gathered in an application independent Net-PDL protocol database.

    This will result in shorter development time fornetwork applications and tools like protocol ana-lyzers, rewalls, network monitors. NetPDL pro-vides a general way to describe the format ofprotocol headers, eliminating the need for imple-menting a custom protocol database in each tool.This is a major change in the network tools arena,where each application currently denes its ownprotocol database that is often hardwired intothe application code.

    NetPDL-based engines, that perform packetprocessing based on NetPDL descriptions, can be

    704 F. Risso, M. Baldi / Compuimplemented ad hoc for specic applications. Intioned NetPDL-based engines can be extensivelytested, deeply debugged, and optimized; conse-quently, their deployment will result in improvedapplication quality.

    The Analyzer 3.0 network snier is based on aNetPDL-based engine (implemented within theNetBee library) that uses both the basic NetPDLlanguage and the Visualization Extension. TheNetBee Library has been made freely availablewith a BSD-style license in order to encouragethe adoption of the presented technologies by bothacademia and industry. Complete specications ofthe NetPDL language and the related technologiesare available at [20].

    Acknowledgements

    The authors wish to thank Leonardo Scucchia,who laid the basis for this work during his Laureagraduation project and Francesco Andriani, whocontributed to the rst implementation of a Net-PDL-based engine.

    References

    [1] Computer Networks Group (NetGroup) at Politecnico diTorino, Analyzer, Available from: , March 1999.

    [2] Computer Networks Group (NetGroup) at Politecnico diTorino, Analyzer 3.0, Available from: , March 2003.

  • F. Risso, M. Baldi / Computer Networks 50 (2006) 688706 705[3] Computer Networks Group (NetGroup) at Politecnico diTorino, The NetBee Library, Available from: , August 2004.

    [4] Ethereal, a public-domain snier, Available from: .

    [5] Tcpdump, a public domain snier. Available from:.

    [6] S. McCanne, V. Jacobson, The BSD packet lter: a newarchitecture for user-level packet capture, in: Proceedingsof the 1993 Winter USENIX Technical Conference, SanDiego, CA, USENIX, January 1993.

    [7] V. Jacobson, C. Leres, S. McCanne, libpcap, LawrenceBerkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. Initial public releaseJune 1994. Available from: .

    [8] Computer Networks Group (NetGroup) at Politecnico diTorino, WinPcap Web Site, Available from: , April 2003.

    [9] Surasak Sanguanpong, Ekapol Rojratanavichai, Syntaxdirected, denition supported universal protocol ana-lyzer, in: Electrical Engineering Conference (EECON),Kasetsart University, Bangkok, December 1999, Availablefrom: (inThai).

    [10] Laurent Riesterer, Generator and Analyzer System forProtocols (GASP), March 2000, Available from: .

    [11] Christian Lorenz, SPY LAN protocol analyzer, 1999,Available from: .

    [12] Solidum (now Integrated Device TechnologyIDT), PAXPattern Description Language, October 2002, Availablefrom: .

    [13] Mark Bednarczyk, JnetStrem Project, Available from:.

    [14] D. Crocker, Augmented BNF for Syntax Specications:ABNF, RFC 2234, IETF Network Working Group,November 1997.

    [15] Olivier Dubuisson (Ed.), ASN.1CommunicationBetween Heterogeneous Systems, Morgan Kaufmann,October 2000.

    [16] International Organization for Standardization. Informa-tion processing systemsopen systems interconnections,LOTOSA Formal Description Technique Based on theTemporal Ordering of Observational Behaviour, StandardISO 8807, 1989.

    [17] C. Pecheur, VLib: Innite virtual libraries for LOTOS, in:Proceedings of the IFIP TC6/WG6.1 13th InternationalSymposium on Protocol Specication, Testing and Veri-cation, 2528 May 1993, Lie`ge, Belgium, Available from:.

    [18] International Organization for Standardization. Informa-tion technology, Enhancements to LOTOS (E-LOTOS).Standard ISO/IEC 15437:2001, 2001.

    [19] International Organization for Standardization. Informa-tion processing systemsopen systems interconnection,EstelleA Formal Description Technique Based on anExtended State Transition Model. Standard ISO/IEC

    9074, 1997.present research activity focuses onnetwork analysis and network moni-toring; past activities focused on the

    provision of guaranteed-quality services over packet-switchednetworks.

    His international experiences include a one-year period atUniversity College London (UK) during his PhD and one atCisco Systems, San Jose (CA), USA as a Visiting Faculty.

    He started and he is one of the maintainers of the WinPcap(http://winpcap.polito.it) and the Analyzer (http://analyzer.polito.it) projects. The former is the de-facto standard libraryfor network analysis tools under the Win32 platform, while thelatter is one of the most appreciated tools for packet sningand network monitoring.

    Mario Baldi is an Associate Professoron tenure track at the ComputerEngineering Department of TorinoPolytechnic, Torino, Italy and VicePresident for Protocol Architecture atSynchrodyne Networks, Inc., NewYork.

    He received his M.S. DegreeSumma Cum Laude in ElectricalEngineering in 1993, and his Ph.D. inComputer and System Engineering in

    1998 both from Torino Polytechnic. He was an AssistantProfessor on tenure track at Torino Polytechnic from 1997 to2002. He joined Synchrodyne Networks, Inc. in Novemberfrom: .[21] Tim Bray, Jean Paoli, C.M. Sperberg-McQueen, Eve

    Maler, Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (seconded.), W3C Recommendation, 6 October 2000.

    [22] International Organization for Standardization. Infor-mation processingtext and oce systems, Stan-dard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), ISO 8879,1986.

    [23] James Clark, XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 1.0,W3C Recommendation, 16 November 1999.

    [24] The Apache Project, Xerces: XML Parsers in Java andC++, Available from: .

    [25] The Apache Project, Xalan: XSL stylesheet processors inJava and C++, Available from: .

    Fulvio Risso (born in 1971) is an assis-tant researcher at the Department ofControl and Computer Engineering ofPolitecnico di Torino. He got his Ph.D.in computer and system engineeringfrom Politecnico di Torino in 2000. Hisresearch topic was Quality of Ser-vice on Packet-Switched Networks;[20] Computer Networks Group (NetGroup) at Politecnico diTorino, The NetPDL Specication, May 2003, Available1999.

  • He has been a visiting researcher at the IBM T.J. WatsonResearch Center, Yorktown Heights, NY, at Columbia Uni-versity, New York, NY, and at the International ComputerScience Institute (ICSI), Berkeley, CA.

    As part of his extensive research activity at Torino Poly-technic, he has been leading various networking research pro-jects, involving Universities and industrial partners, funded byEuropean Union, Local Government, and various companies,including Telecommunications Carriers, such as Infostrada and

    Telecom Italia, and research institutions, such as Telecom ItaliaLabs.

    He provides on a regular basis consultancy and trainingservices, both directly to companies and through varioustraining and network consultancy centers.

    He co-authored over 50 papers on various networkingrelated topics and two books, one on internetworking and oneon switched local area networks.

    706 F. Risso, M. Baldi / Computer Networks 50 (2006) 688706

    NetPDL: An extensible XML-based language for packet header descriptionIntroductionToward NetPDL-based packet processingRelated workNetPDL overviewXML brief and terminologyWhy XMLNetPDL basics

    The languageGeneral structureBase elements for packet header descriptionAdvanced elements for packet header descriptionField blocksConditional elementsExpressionsRepeating a field or a group of fieldsExpressions with lookahead operandsCustom plug-ins

    Protocol encapsulationVariables

    NetPDL extensionsThe NetPDL Visualization ExtensionDisplaying the details of a packetDisplaying the summary of a packet

    Implementing a NetPDL-based engineConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences