Supporting the Brave New World of the 4As: Anytime, Anywhere, Anyhow and Anything

Glenford Mapp Associate Professor Middlesex University United Kingdom NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Outline of My Talk

 What is this new world really about  What are the challenges  Y-Comm – a bridge to this new world  Collaborations  What's new in my world  Joining the revolution NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Anytime, Anywhere

 Anytime  It's a generational thing  Anywhere  Actually I want to be able to communicate from anywhere in the universe. • So I will need to spawn networks and connect them to existing networks • Building, managing and controlling networks should be under user control NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Anyhow

 We are seeing the rise of new networks based on different technologies • Wi-Fi, WiMax, 4G, Ultrawideband, Optical Networks, etc  We are also seeing new types of networks • • • • • • Delay Tolerant Networks (DTNs) Home Networks, Personal Area Networks, VANETs – Vehicular networks Infrastructural networks: Sensor Networks E-Health Networks: Patient monitoring Social Networks:- Interaction between people NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP



Anything

Most important of all  because a network is only useful if it is being used to carry information that people want  Content is King  Monitizing content – directly or indirectly - is the new El Dorado.  A massive paradigm shift in terms of what the Internet is being used for:  Multimedia, interactive games, real-time communication in all forms  Low latency financial applications NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

The Key Challenges of Building this Brave New World

 Very different to the current Internet  Support for mobility and location management is of primary importance  Seamless, uninterrupted communication  Handover must be controlled and managed  Where you are may be used as a hint to where you may be in the future  Proactive approach  Know where network infrastructure is located  Privacy of Location Information NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Challenges in Networks

 How do we get networks to work together seamlessly  Heterogeneous Networking  Need a standard for ubiquitous handover between networks at a low level  Need to allow higher levels (transport protocol/application) to adapt  Multi-homing: managing all the network interfaces on a device NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Challenges in QoS

 As traffic is increasing we need to look at some sort of Quality-of-Service support  Lots of research into Internet QoS models • IntServ:- failed because it could not scale • DiffServ:- Works in the core network but not fine grained enough to work on the periphery.

• Need a new approach NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Challenges in Security

 Security must be also a key issue of the Future Internet  Current Internet is woefully inadequate • Edward Snowden  Multi-level security    Authentication, authorization Denial of Service attacks Privacy (use of the net not monitored)  Security needs to be built in from the start NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Challenges of Big Data

 New networks are producing data faster than we can analyse, categorize or process  Storage will also become a big issue  Data Security: who owns my data in the Cloud, who can access my data, do I have any say where the data is stored  Results of Big Data – Information is now gold NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Challenges of Service Delivery

 Delivering services will also need to change  Services need to be managed in a more autonomous manner  Spawn new server instances at different locations or migrate services when required in response to: – – – Geographical load patterns User mobility Network failure or recovery NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Challenges of Different Types of Networking

 Opportunistic Networking – Taking advantage of social interaction; sensor networks  Move towards more data-centric paradigms – – Current Internet still communication-centric • Stresses host-to-host communication  Information Centric Networking Getting information – irrespective of location • Publish and subscribe models NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Meeting these challenges

 Need an integrated approach – Cannot study one challenge in isolation  Failure is not an option – Internet is the most successful thing that humans have made; the wheel is a distant second • Problems are building up and need to be addressed  Affects all of us – No country, institution or company should be in total control of the Internet NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

How are we going to make this happen – what is the approach

 Revolutionary Approach  Start from scratch • Clean Slate Project; Plan 9 test  Evolutionary Approach  Only incremental increases • IPv6, INTERNET 2  Challenges mean that an evolutionary jump is needed NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

How are we going to make this happen – what is the approach

 Try what has worked before  Agree on functionality; but not on implementation  Need a framework that gives us functionality but not say how the functionality is implemented – – Worked for telephony; 3KHz standard Worked for the Internet: OSI; TCP/IP NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Why do you need a framework?

 To be able to think about the issues coherently  Imposes mental discipline – Forces you to always keep the Big Picture in mind  Separates functionality/policy from mechanism  Frees us to: • • Use or enhance existing mechanisms/standards Only design new mechanisms when needed NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

PERIPHERAL NETWORK SECURITY LAYERS CORE NETWORK APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTS QOS LAYER SAS QBS END SYSTEM TRANSPORT MOBILITY MANAGEMENT HANDOVER MANAGEMENT NTS NAS SERVICE PLATFORM NETWORK QOS LAYER CORE TRANSPORT NETWORK MANAGEMENT CONFIGURATION LAYER NETWORK ABSTRACTION (MOBILE NODE) NETWORK ABSTRACTION (BASE STATION) HARDWARE PLATFORM (MOBILE NODE) HARDWARE PLATFORM (BASE STATION)

A very brief Introduction to Y-Comm

 This is not a talk about Y-Comm Talks, papers at: http://www.mdx.ac.uk/research/science_technology /informatics/projects/ycomm.aspx  In essence Y-Comm is an architecture that is trying to integrate: • • • • Communication Mobility QoS Security NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Y-Comm: Still a work in progress

 It is not the only architecture that is being studied – – Ambient networks Mobile Ethernet  Y-Comm is by far: • • The most detailed The most integrated  Architecture is stable • Recently tweaked some names of the layers to make their functionality better understood by the mobile telcoms community NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Why is Y-Comm different

 Y-Comm was predicated on two key assumptions:  Network Evolution – The Internet is decomposing into 2 components • • A super-fast core using Optical Switching/MPLS Wireless Peripheral Networks at the Edge  Devices will have multiple Interfaces • • 3/4G, Wi-Fi, WiMax, etc Called HETNET devices  Both the assumptions turned out to be true NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Current Internet Future Internet BACKBONE ACCESS NETWORKS WIRELESS NETWORKS

The Core Framework

SERVICE PLATFORM LAYER NETWORK QOS LAYER CORE TRANSPORT SYSTEM NETWORK MANAGEMENT LAYER CONFIGURATION LAYER NETWORK ABSTRACTION LAYER HARDWARE PLATFORM LAYER

The Peripheral Framework

APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTS LAYER QOS LAYER END TRANSPORT SYSTEM MOBILITY MANAGEMENT LAYER HANDOVER MANAGEMENT LAYER NETWORK ABSTRACTION LAYER HARDWARE PLATFORM LAYER

History of Y-Comm

 Pre-Y-Comm (1998-2003)  – Cambridge Wireless Testbed 2006 – Peripheral Framework announced  2007 – Y-Comm architecture announced  2008 – USP & UFSCar join effort  2010 – Loughborough University joins effort  2012 – Lancaster University joins effort NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Key People in Y-Comm

 Glenford Mapp (Middlesex University)  Jon Crowcroft (University of Cambridge)  Edson Moreira (USP)  Helio Guardia (UFSCar)  Raphael Phan (Loughborough University)  Qiang Ni (Lancaster University) NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Key PhD students

 Fatema Shaikh (Middlesex University 2010)  David Cottingham (University of Cambridge 2010)  Renata Porto Vanni (USP 2010)  Mahdi Aiash (Middlesex University 2012)  Rigolin Lopes (USP 2012)  Mario Augusto (USP 2012)  Fragkiskos Sardis (Middlesex University)  Ann Samuels (Middlesex University) NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Key Middlesex MSc Students

 Diti Dave (2010)  Naveen Chinnam (2011)  Ali Mofidizati (2012)  Rajesh Lakkineni (2012)  Brian Ondiege (2012)  Eghe Akenuwa (2013)  Eric Ghokeng (2013) NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

What are the major contributions of Y-Comm so far

 Handover – Handover Classification; Proactive vertical handover, Calculations for NDT and TBVH  Security – Integrated Security; Targeted Security Models;  Ontologies for Communication Architectures – Y-Comm Ontology, MyHand  Quality-of-Service – New QoS Framework NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP



Things being worked on – NOT part of this talk

An implementation of IEEE 802.21

•  Game Theory in Communication Systems • To provide seamless handover (UFSCar) To see if game-theory can lead to optimum resource allocation (Lancaster University)  A new transport protocol for LANs • To optimize server speeds in LANs and Clouds (Middlesex University)  A Hybrid Internet QoS model • Combining IntServ and DiffServ (Middlesex University NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

End of Y-Comm Part

 Y-Comm has been a success because it has provided a framework to allow us to begin to exploring how to support the 4As – Just a start; still a very long way to go before we get to this new world  Y-Comm has moved from the design/architectural phase to the implementation phase – Exploring using Software Defined Networking (SDN) as a way of building a full Y-Comm prototype NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Questions on Y-Comm

NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Going Deep

 In this section we want to look at how a section of the work in Y-Comm is impacting 3 key areas: – – – Resource Management in Core Networks Mobile Services VANETs  Need to understand proactive handover in Y Comm NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Basic Handover Terms

 Hard vs Soft Handover – – Hard:- break before make Soft:- make before break  Network vs Client Handovers – – Network-based Client-based (Apple's Patent)  Upward vs Downward – – Upward – smaller to bigger coverage Downward – bigger to smaller coverage NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Handover Classification

HANDOVER IMPERATIVE ALTERNATIVE NETPREF REACTIVE UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED PROACTIVE KNOWLEDGE-BASED MODEL-BASED USERPREF CONTEXT SERVICES

Knowledge-Based Proactive Handover (Cambridge)

Model Based Proactive Handover

 The work of Fatema Shaikh  Define a circular area of coverage called the Handover radius  Define a smaller radius called the Exit Radius at which handover must start in order for the handover to be completed at the Handover Radius  The time the mobile node has before it hits the Exit Radius is called Time Before Vertical Handover or TBVH NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

NOVEMBER 2013

Model-Based Handover

Handover threshold circle Exit threshold circle Threshold Circle coverage Real coverage Exit coverage WTD-ICMC-USP

Predictive Mathematical Model for TBVH (Simple Case)

Movement of MS under BBS coverage (upward vertical handoff) • Introduction of additional functionality to Base Station at network boundary (BBS). • Distance between MS and BBS derived from location co-ordinates or • Estimated TBVH

Simulation and Results TBVH simulation in OPNET Modeler:

Why is TBVH important

 If the Mobility Management Layer can calculate TBVH, it can signal to the higher layers that a handover will occur after a certain time so these layers can take action.

– Minimize the effects of handover delay and packet loss by buffering and using fast retransmission techniques – It makes proactive handovers more seamless compared to reactive handovers • Can Fatema Shaikh's work be extended to any arbitrary situation?

NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Combining Transport and Communications to determine the optimum handover S NET A A NET B B NET C C T

C1 Analysis shows that it is possible to calculate these key points with some degree of accuracy E1 Z1 S A Y1 H1 C2 E2 Y2 Y3 B Z2 E3 C H2 Z3 T H3

Results

What does it all mean?

 If the mobile node knows: its location, direction and velocity – Via GPS or accelerometers  The location of the networking infrastructure – Type of access network, the position of the access points  Good estimation of the Handover Radius  Then we can calculate the optimal times to handover over a large region (a few miles) NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

REQ (Time , TBVH, NDT) A A B REQ (Time , TBVH, NDT) B WIRELESS NETWORK

Rethink Allocation Strategy

 MN A needs channel at (Time + TBVH) A  MN A releases channel at (Time + TBVH + NDT) A  MN B needs channel at (Time + TBVH) B  MN B releases channel at (Time + TBVH + NDT) B NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

There are 3 possible outcomes

 No contention:  • • (Time + TBVH) A < (Time + TBVH) B (Time + TBVH + NDT) A < (Time + TBVH) B Contention: Two Types: Partial and Total • (Time + TBVH) A < (Time + TBVH) B • (Time + TBVH + NDT) A > (Time + TBVH) B • Partial Contention: (Time + TBVH + NDT) A < (Time + TBVH + NDT) B • Total Contention: (Time + TBVH + NDT) A >= (Time + TBVH + NDT) B NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Request Summary

 Requests granted as requested: – – – Channel granted at (Time + TVBH) A Channel released at (Time + TBVH + NDT) A Same with B  Requests granted but modified for B  – – Channel granted at (Time + TBVH + NDT) A Channel released at (Time + TBVH + NDT) B Request for B not granted: – Force B to handover to another network NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Further Results

 Simulation results show that there is a clear benefit to using this approach  Nodes that can use the channel are not forced to wait behind nodes that cannot use the channel  Nodes that cannot use the channel quickly handover to other networks so we avoid unnecessary handover attempts  Good result for operators NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Mobile Services

 PhD research by Fragkiskos Sardis  General idea: as the users of a service move around the latency between the user and the service could increase such that the user's QoE could be affected  A way around this is to be able to migrate or replicate the service at a location closer to the mobile user to reduce latency – Cloud Services now make this possible NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Key Issues

 What is the condition that indicates that movement of the server should be considered – Latency/Bandwidth Threshold  What is the algorithm which decides to which Cloud should the service be migrated or replicated  There is a cost for moving the service which cannot be ignored  We need a service delivery framework NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

The Service Delivery Framework

SERVICE MANAGEMENT LAYER SERVICE SUBSCRIPTION LAYER SERVICE DELIVERY LAYER SERVICE MIGRATION LAYER SERVICE CONNECTION LAYER NETWORK ABSTRACTION LAYER

Key Observation

 Whether I move the service to a Cloud on the network to which the user is currently connected depends on how long the user is expected to be in that network – Network Dwell Time or NDT  So the win is: – The bytes saved running the service locally – the bytes needed to migrate the service – First parameter is dependent on NDT NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

How could we test this

 We set up a gaming scenario between a mobile device and two Clouds.  We begin playing the game on one Cloud and then signal to the system to migrate the game to the second Cloud.

 When we migrate to the new network, we measure the bytes saved vs the amount of time I am in the network of the second Cloud NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Results

2 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 - 5 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 - 1 5 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 - 2 5 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 3 2 0

T ra ffic s a vin g s NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Further Work

 NDT is crucial for good migration of services  We are developing a Markov Chain model for service migration  Looking at caching content as well  We now move on to the final part of this talk – Seamless communication in VANETs NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

VANETs

 VANETs are important because they are the key components for building an Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure (ITS) – ITS involves the integration of the Communication and Transport Infrastructure  Improve safety on the road – Crash Avoidance, Accident Notification  Infotainment in vehicles  ITS is part of Smart Cities research NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

VANET Infrastructure

 VANET Hardware – – Roadside Units (RSUs) Onboard Units (OBUs)  V2I communication – RSU ↔ OBU (Middlesex University)  V2V communication – OBU ↔ OBU (USP)  Beaconing V2I or V2V NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Seamless V2I

 The work of PhD student Arindam Ghosh  How do you guarantee seamless communication between the car and the infrastructure  Seamless handover situation but slightly different – – Velocities may be high Beaconing effect • Frequency and size of beacon  Interested in proactive handover NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Our Approach is to look at 3 phases of Communication

 Data Exchange Phase – – Not concerned about handover Can only see 1 RSU  Doing calculation for handover – Determining Exit Time to start handover  Doing the Handover  All must be done before I leave the first network, i.e., before NDT expires NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Scenario

NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Use Y-Comm Approach to Calculate NDT

 A good approximate for NDT is – NDT ~ 2R/v • • R = Radius of coverage of RSU V = velocity of the vehicle.

 This is an ideal NDT because it is only based on coverage, it assumes no interference between RSU and RSU or OBU and OBU  Measure NDT using simulation and find out how close we get to the ideal NDT and how this result is affected by other factors NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Simulation Scenario

NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Results show that:

 The higher the beaconing frequency the greater the NDT from 1Hz ->10 Hz  The size of the beacon also affects the measured NDT  Velocity also affects NDT severely. The greater the velocity the less NDT is available.

 Also measured the effect of velocity on data transfer rates (non-linear) NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Data Exchange Rates at Different Speeds

NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

Summary

 VANET is a new area for us  Using NDT is a new appoach  Interesting results  Hoping to develop an analytical model  Need to consider other factors – Traffic density, interference, etc.

NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP



Joining the Revolution

Join a work that has just started • Hybrid QoS Internet Model • IEEE 802.21 implementation • Proactive Channel Allocation • VANET  Or explore a total new area in Y-Comm • Programmable Networking • SDN and Open Flow • ICN NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

THANKS FOR LISTENING ANY QUESTIONS?

NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP