Transcript Trend: Networking Age Sept. 2007

Trend: Networking Age
Sept. 2007
Trend: Networking Age





Virtual Schools
Virtual Workplace
Electronic commerce
 virtual enterprise
 new forms of value chains
 virtual Cash
Internet entertainment
 interactive sitcom
Ubiquitous
Trend: Ubiquitous
Trend: Convergence







Telephone
 Voice Transport
Cable TV
 Video Transport
Computer
 Digital Media Storage/Handling
News/Advertising
 Digital Media Production
Merging of Content Providers and Content transporters
Phone companies, cable companies, entertainment
industry, and computer companies
Convergence stages:
 Networking / devices / consumer
Trend: Information Glut





Web =>
 Information production and dissemination
costs are almost zero
 Too much information
 Needles in the haystack
Thousands of hits on each search
Need tools for summarizing the information
Opportunities for artificial intelligence
Need to express information so that both
human and computers can understand
Networking Trends









More Internet Traffic
Data > Voice (1998)
Traffic > Capacity ?
Traffic Engineering
Faster Media / Backbone
Bandwidth
Everything over IP
 NGI - NGN
Wireless/Mobile: 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi
Ubiquitous
Trend: Faster Media / Backbone



LAN: 1 Gbps over 4-pair UTP-5 up to 100 m, 10G being
discussed.
 Was 1 Mbps (1Base-5) in 1984.
Wireless networks: 54/100 Mbps (100m, 300m, 2km),
2.5 Gbps to 5km using light
 in 1998.
 Was 1 Mbps (IEEE 802.11)
Backbone: Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing
(DWDM)
 OC-768 = 40 Gbps, a
to 65 km, 1.6 - 10 Tbps.
 Was 100 Mbps (FDDI) in 1993.
DWDM - Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing
2.488 Gbps (1)
1310/1510 nm
2.488 Gbps (16)
λ1 λ2 λ3 λ4 λ5
λ16
1530-1565 nm ramge
1310/1510 nm
16 uncorrelated wavelengths
16*2.488 Gbps = 40 Gbps
16 stabilized, correlated
wavelengts
Why Optical Networks?
DWDM optoelectricl metro network
Trend: Wireless / Mobile
Trend: Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) in Your Future (1)
Integration of 3G and WLAN
- offer possibility of achieving anywhere, anytime, high
speed and low expense Internet access
3G
WLAN
Wide area
Local area
Low bit rate
(2M when stand still)
High bit rate
(11M to 54M)
Data/Voice service
(QoS support)
High expense
Data service
Low expense
High mobility
Low mobility
Trend: Everything over IP




Data over IP => IP needs Traffic engineering
Voice over IP => Quality of Service and
Signaling
Backbone -- Optic networksI
 IP and DWDM => Winning combination
 IP for route calculation, traffic aggregation,
protection
 DWDM => Cheap bandwidth
 Avoid the cost of SONET/ATM equipmnt
Internet technology + ATM philosophy
Future Internet Research and
Experimentation
Oct. 2007
Today’s Internet
Millions of users
 Web, email, low-quality audio & video
 Interconnect personal computers and servers
 Applications adapt to underlying technology
 Today’s Internet Doesn’t
Provide reliable end-to-end performance
Encourage cooperation on new capabilities
Allow testing of new technologies
Support development of revolutionary
applications




Tomorrow’s Internet
Billions of users and devices
 Convergence of today’s applications with
multimedia (telephony, video-conference,
HDTV)
 Interconnect personal computers, servers,
and embedded computers
 New technologies enable unanticipated
applications (and create new challenges)

Vint Cerf: Open Challenges
My primary disappointment has been the slow
pace of high speed access for residential
customers …
 The second area of disappointment is the slow
uptake of version 6 of the Internet protocol
(IPv6).
 Perhaps the third area is the continuing
difficulty caused by viruses, worms and
distributed denial of service attacks.”

How to make the Internet better???!
Addressing current problems
 Security
 Privacy
 Self-diagnosis & self-healing networks
 Cheap connectivity for poor area and third
world countries
 Wireless mesh networks
 sensors
 Mobility
 New cool apps
 What is after IPTV, VoIP, BitTorrent,

Why Internet2 (1996)?
The Internet was not designed for:
Millions of users
Congestion
Multimedia
Real time interaction
 But, only the Internet can:
Accommodate explosive growth
Enable convergence of information work,
mass media, and human collaboration

Internet2 Project



Develop and deploy advanced network
applications and technologies, accelerating the
creation of tomorrow’s Internet.
Goals
 Enable new generation of applications
 Re-create leading edge R&E network
capability
 Transfer capability to the global production
Internet
206 University Members, Jan. 2005
Internet2 Focus Areas

Advanced Network Infrastructure - Abilene


Backbones operate at 10 Gbps capacity - 100 Gbps (2007)
Middleware

A layer of software between the network and the applications






Engineering


Authentication
Identification
Authorization
Directories
Security
IPv6, Measurement, Multicast, QoS, Routing, Security, Topology
Advanced Applications
Distributed computation
 Virtual laboratories
 Digital libraries
 Distributed learning
 Digital video
 Tele-immersion
 All of the above in combination

Abilene Connections :: Apr-2000
Abilene Connections: July 2006
Abilene Connections :: Apr-2000
Abilene International Peering 2006
Internet Development Spiral
Commercialization
Privatization
Today’s Internet
Research and
Development
Source: Ivan Moura Campos
Internet2
Partnerships
Internet2 and the Next Generation Internet
Initiative
Internet2
University-led
Developing education and
research driven applications
Building out campus networks, gigaPoPs
and inter-gigapop infrastructure
NGI
Federal agency-led
Agency mission-driven and
general purpose applications
Funding research testbeds and
agency research networks
Interconnecting and interoperating to provide advanced networking
capabilities needed to support advanced
research and education applications




Our Founding (Funding) Fable
Researchers invent new architectures
 Architectures are validated on a testbed
 IETF, ISPs, and router vendors collaborate to
deploy new design
 This is complete BS!

Do Traditional Testbeds Really Test?
Production-oriented testbeds:
 Real traffic provides good validation
 But can test only very incremental changes
 Research-oriented testbeds:
 Can test radical architectures
 Lack of real traffic results in poor validation
 Both are expensive (dedicated bandwidth)

What about Deployment?
Architectural change requires ISP consensus
- Hard to agree
- No competitive advantage from
architectural innovation
- All have huge sunk investment in the
status quo
 ISPs are unlikely candidates for architectural
change
 Architecture isn’t just static, its decaying
 Ad hoc workarounds muddy the
architectural waters

We are at an Impasse
We can’t test new architectures
- Despite sizable investments in testbeds
 We can’t deploy new architectures
- And things are getting worse, not better
 Yet there are pressing requirements for which
the current architecture is not well suited

The Community’s Response
Focus on areas where we can have impact:
 Empirical studies
 Incremental changes (subject to current
constraints)
 Small stream of architectural proposals
 Paper designs without hope of deployment
 More science fiction than engineering
 Have largely abandoned hope of effecting
fundamental architectural change
 Living with, rather than overcoming, the
impasse

Overcoming the Impasse?
Must be able to test new architectures:
 Wide range of architectures
 Real traffic from willing individuals
 Low overhead for individual researchers
 Meet the grand challenge of reinventing the Internet
 Empirical, incremental research is great, but not
enough
 If someone put us in charge, what would we do?
 What about deployment?
 Several options, none good, but no excuse to not
have an answer to the grand challenge

Testing: Virtual Testbed
Overlay testbed: (think RON, etc.)
 Host proxy directs packets to overlay
 Proxy must architecturally neutral, and
flexible
 Individuals (anywhere) opt-in by turning on
proxy
 Shared testing infrastructure (think Planetlab)
 Overlay nodes shared among experiments
 Slicing on per-packet timescales
 Virtualized routers
 These ideas have turned into the GENI program

Why GENI (Global Environment for Network
Innovations) / Future Internet Network (2005)?

The original designing idea of current information networks
is basically a specific network supports one major service.
The
limitation of the original designing idea can not support the
multiple requirements for networks and services (such as Telecom
network、Internet)
The original design mode of Internet leads to it’s shortage
in mobility, security, controllable and administrable.
 We urgently need redesign the framework of new
generation Internet to overcome the serious shortage of
current Internet.

Providing
pervasive and trusted services based on a specific
network has became the key research directions of national
informatization.
GENI (Global Environment for Network
Innovations) - NSF 2005 (1)

What is GENI?
GENI is a facility concept being explored by the
US computing community
back to an NSF workshop in 2005
focus on architectural research, and provide
the experimental infrastructure needed to
support that research
focus on the research agenda (and
infrastructure needs) of the optical, wireless,
sensor network, and distributed systems
communities
GENI (Global Environment for Network
Innovations) (2)
The
goal of GENI
 Goal: a Future Internet that meets the demands
of 21st century
to increase the quality and quantity of experimental
research outcomes in networking and distributed
systems
 to accelerate the transition of these outcomes into
products and services
enhance economic competitiveness and secure the
Nation's future


Ultimately, to lead to a transition of the Internet
GENI Research Opportunities (3)

Two dichotomy thought (false, or at least
unnecessary)
a "clean slate" reconceptualization of Internet
architecture
today's 30-year-old architecture that limit its ability
to cope with emerging threats and opportunities
• eroding trust, reduced innovation, slowing
update
 future innovation will take the form of new services and
applications running on top of the Internet

GENI Research Opportunities (4)

GENI discussion
First, we interpret "Future Internet" very broadly to
include innovations at any level of the architecture
 alternative protocols and architectures running
inside the network (as overlays on top of today's
network)
 Second, research should employ clean slate thinking,
but this does not imply that an entirely new Internet will
be necessary. In other words, "clean slate" is a process,
not a result.
 Third, opportunities between two perspectives
 exploring how today's architecture is best evolved
to support emerging overlay services.

GENI Facility Concept (5)

Facility Concept
experimental platforms for both research and
deployment
 filling the gap between small-scale exp and mature
tech
GENI evaluate new network systems on large-scale


Two levels
Physical level, GENI substrate will consist of a
collection of links, forwarders, storage, processors, and
wireless net
 On top of this substrate, a software management
framework will be overlay network experiments on the
substrate

GENI Facility Concept (6)

Four key ideas
substrate components will be programmable - possible to
embed any network experiment, including clean-slate
designs
 Substrate will be virtualizable - possible to embed
multiple slices in the substrate at the same time (allow
experimental services and architectures to run
continuously)
 GENI will include mechanisms that allow end-users to
seamlessly opt-in to experimental services
 GENI will be modular (architecture and interfaces) possible to extend GENI with new networking technologies
. GENI will not be a static artifact, but rather a dynamic
infrastructure that is continually renewed.

FIND (Future Internet Network Design) –
NSF 2006 (1)

FIND asks two broad questions:
What are the requirements for the global network in 15
years
 How would we re-conceive tomorrow's global network
today, if we could design it from scratch?

FIND program solicits "clean slate process"
research proposals in the broad area of network
architecture, principles, and design

FIND (Future Internet Network Design) (2)

FIND research might address wide questions:
What will the edge of the network look like in 15 years?
How might the network architecture of 15 years hence
best accommodate sensors, embedded systems, and the
like?
 How might the network of 15 years from now support
what users really do (and care about)? How might such
functions as information access, location management or
identity management best fit into a new overall network
architecture?
 What will the core of the network look like in 15 years?
How might the changing economics of optical systems
affect the overall design of the larger network?

Clean Slate Network (1)
100x100 Clean Slate Project - NSF November 2003
 CMU, Fraser Research, Stanford, Berkeley, Rice, ATT
Research, Internet 2
 Clean Slate Network – Stanford 2005
 They believe that the current Internet
has significant deficiencies that need to be solved
Internet's shortcomings will not be resolved by the
conventional incremental and 'backward-compatible'
style
 Program can be characterized by two research questions:
Today, if we were to start again with a clean slate, how
would we design a global communications
infrastructure?
How should the Internet look in 15 years?

Clean Slate Network (2)

Five key areas for research:
Network architecture
 Heterogeneous applications
 Heterogeneous physical layer technologies
 Security
 Economics & policy


Research projects
Flow Level Models for the Future Internet
 Clean Slate Approach to Wireless Spectrum Usage
 Fast Dynamic Optical Light Paths for the Internet core
 A Clean Slate Approach to Enterprise Network Security

FIRE (Future Internet Research and
Experimentation) – European 2007 (1)
Internet has grown to an unexpected reach, as for
the number of users, capacity of the links,
broadband penetration to the home, services.
 Problems: spam, viruses, denial of service
attacks, complexity of management
 Internet drawbacks and limitations – to
scalability, suitability, mobility, transparency,
security
 require new radical approaches to
fundamentally redesign its protocols and
architectures.

FIRE (2)
FIRE is an experimentally-driven long-term research initiative on
Future Internet concepts, protocols and architectures
 encompassing technological, industrial and socio-economic
aspects
 acting as proof-of-concept of the newly proposed technologies
and services
 FIRE RESEARCH
Long term multidisciplinary research on future internet paradigms
Open to fresh bottom-up ideas with no backwards-compatibility
constraints
Building on the FET SAC initiative “Situated and Autonomic
Communications”
Considering at the same time technological, economic and
social/policy aspects
Build in from the outset and on all levels the right balance between
security / accountability and privacy

FIRE (3)
FIRE
EXPERIMENTATION
 Large scale experimentation of new paradigms and
concepts for the future internet and related service
architectures
Learning through broad experimentation
Integrating and validating new concepts
 Federating and extending existing testbeds and
research infrastructures
no backwards-compatibility constraints
 European approach and develop a European identity
Looking Over the Fence
at Networking
Jennifer Rexford
Internet Success Leads to Ossification



Intellectual ossification
 Pressure for backwards compatibility with Internet
 Risks stifling innovative intellectual thinking
Infrastructure ossification
 Limits on the ability to influence deployment
 E.g., multicast, IPv6, QoS, and secure routing
System ossification
 Shoe-horn solutions that increase system fragility
 E.g., NATs (network address translation) and
firewalls
A Need to Invigorate Networking Research



Measurement
 Understanding the Internet artifact
 Better built-in measurement for the future
Modeling
 Performance models faithful to Internet
realities
 X-ities like manageability, evolvability,
security, …
Prototyping
 Importance of creating disruptive technology
 Emphasis on enabling new applications
Modeling: The X-ities (or Ilities)


Beyond higher speed to consider X-ities
 Reliability
 Scalability
 Manageability
 Configurability
 Predictability
 Non-fragility
 Security
 Evolvability
Challenging to model, or even to quantify
A Need for Interdisciplinary Work









Statistical analysis
Artificial intelligence
Maximum likelihood estimation
Streaming algorithms
Cryptography
Optimization
Information theory
Game theory and mechanism design
…
Discussion


Where should the intelligence reside?
 Traditional Internet says “the edge”
 What about middle boxes (e.g., NAT)?
 Need to assemble applications from
components located in different parts of the
network?
Better isolation and diagnosis of faults?
 Decentralized Internet makes this difficult
 Need to detection, diagnosis, and
accountability
 Challenges the end-to-end argument
Discussion


Data as a first-class object?
 Tradition Internet simple moves the bytes
 Naming, search, location, management in the ‘net
 Modifying the data as it traverse the network
Does the Internet have a control plane?
 Traditional Internet stress data transport
 What about network management and control?
 Today we place more emphasis on designing new
protocols and mechanisms than controlling them
Discussion


Abstractions on topology and performance
 Traditional Internet hides details from end hosts
 Network properties are, at best, inferred
 Guidelines for placement of middle boxes?
 Feedback info about topology and performance?
Beyond cooperative congestion control
 Traditional Internet places congestion control in the
end hosts, and trusts them to behave
 Is this trust misguided?
 New alternatives to congestion control?
Discussion


Incorporating economic factors in design
 Traditional Internet ignores competitive forces
 Many constraints are economic, not technical
 Better to construct/align economic incentives
Ways to deploy disruptive technology
 Traditional core is not open to disruptive tech
 Overlay network as a deployment strategy
 Other approaches? Virtualization? Middle boxes?
Speaking the legacy protocols with new logic?
 Experimental facilities? A “do over”?
The Innovator’s Dilemma



Leading companies often miss “next big thing”
 E.g., disk-drive industry and excavation equipment
Problem
 Listening to customers leads to incremental
improvement on the existing technology curve
 Disruptive technologies are often less effective for
the existing customers, so tend to be ignored
 New companies exploit the new technology for a new
market (e.g., desktops, laptops)
 Eventually, the new technology curve overtakes the
old technology, usurping the old technology
Will this happen with the Internet?