Transcript IP - University of Cambridge

Endless Arguments in Systems Design
Jon Crowcroft, University of
Cambridge
Currently IMDEA Networks.
[email protected]
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jac22
GENI – Global Environment for
Network Innovation



US NSF/Extra Money
Calls for Intl participation
Planetlab++ (Intel/300 site)
FIND – Future Internet Design




NSF long term research in NeTS
programme
40+ Projects
Quite mixed bag
[EU Trilogy project (which UC3M and
UCL and others are in) did analysis of
them]
The Internet
Protocol
Hourglass
(Deering)
email WWW phone...
SMTP HTTP RTP...
TCP UDP…
IP
ethernet PPP…
CSMA async sonet...
copper fiber radio...
Putting
on
Weight
email WWW phone...
SMTP HTTP RTP...
TCP UDP…
IP + mcast
+ QoS +...
ethernet PPP…
CSMA async sonet...
copper fiber radio...
• requires more
functionality
from underlying
networks
Mid-Life
Crisis
email WWW phone...
SMTP HTTP RTP...
TCP UDP…
IP4
IP6
ethernet PPP…
CSMA async sonet...
copper fiber radio...
• doubles number
of service
interfaces
• requires changes
above & below
• major interoperability issues
Or is GENI losing its bottle?

Network Innovation is a Hot Topic








Internet problems abound
2/3G problems abound
Convergence driving incremental
Critical Infrastrure driving radical
Many US GENI/FIND +EU +Asia projects
There appear to be some ok ideas
But also some wrong headedness
This is a case study on wrong headedness
Incremental from Convergence






SCTP (PSTN signaling transport on IP)
SIP&NAT traversal&VOIP in general
IPTV (Multicast & P2P)
BGP fast Convergence
Traffic Engineering (whether OSPF TE
or RSVP or MPLS based)
Neutrality fights
Long Term



IP Service Best Effort
So DDoS not meaningul
Not helpful – need architectural change







Fundamentally, Mobile, Multicast, Multihome
Possibly Multiprotocol (esp. Control Plane)
DoS Resistence, built in
Possibly different economic/charging models
Need shift in model
Maybe not a stack anymore
Certainly not IP ++ ++ ++

i.e. not just IPv6 with current IPv4 knobs and warts
Two wrongs that don’t make a right(#)



Virtualisation of Networks
Next Generation Wireless
Data Driven Networks
(#) Two parts of FIND/GENI work in US
that I feel they are doing wrong and we
are doing right + one thing I think the
US and EU are both doing right.
Veni, Vidi, Vici, but not Vini?

Virtualisation is not about VPNs(*)






Hierarchical Hard Multiplexing won’t scale
VPNs are an ok idea in the Enterprise
Its too slow to reconfigure on outages
Its bad for resource allocation in wireless
C.f. hard spectrum allocation
C.f. hard channel allocation
* Not just VPI/VCI (for those who recall B-ISDN!)
Virtualisation of Control not Data

In Xen/Xorp work:



key is about dynamics and isolation of
functionality, not fwding performance
Need to deploy disjoint service ctl
True, vpn style IP fwding is useful too




But no unified way of doing this on wireless
Or on multipath
Or for netcoded data
Or swarms…
Next Gen Wireless

Cooperative Diversity in all things




Infrastructure still there for services, e.g.




Antennae, coding, routing, power, spectrum,
“channels”
Behavioural constraints enforced
(aside: F# smart phone:-)
To provide radio map (with memory)
Security/Identity/Location Assistence
Maybe even payment
Control plane for virtual wireless communities
Data Driven, Declarative,




We’ve seen 1-1, 1-n, n-1 comms patterns
Now we’re seeing 0-n and n-0
US loves to re-invent(+) - but in fact
Pub/sub;event/notify isn’t all there is:


Think swarm
Think anysource multicast
Exaflood is no big deal when
decentralised…properly
 Think exploding google (aside: haggle:)
(+) architecture is not just creative children’s
stories.

Virtual, Wireless, Declarative Data?

We’d all like to get rid of wires




(on the other hand, we’d probably all like to
get rid of batteries too:)
So high capacity applications should be
user contributed content too
What is the control plane for these to
co-exist with each other?
C.f. nano-datacenters and haggle,
unified
0wning half a PC (or hub or STB)




Significant fraction of internet access
via Home Hubs
Significant fraction of wireless acces
via smart phones
Home hub as PVR, smart phone as PC
Lots of storage + faces 3 ways



Faces “wide area”; faces home
Faces neighbours… … …
Changes economic relationships completely
Provider coexist w/ virtual
providers

If provider wants to scale net,






Run P2P for CDN on home hub
And do end run on data centers
Let home user also run P2P CDN
Let wireless user also run community and ad hoc
mesh
Virtualise STB + Handsets
With suitable declarative(pub) Ctl Plane


Paradigm shift now enabled
Revenue model from services not bitpipes
Way forward?

Devil is in detail




Remove separation of end + intermediate
system
All systems may have storage
Must restore flow, congestion and
reliability control functions to “network”
But do not need them “point-to-point”


So they are going to look very different
Everyone is a DTN custodian

& there is no “network”
Summary/Conclusions




GENI is ok for next generation core IP
Need more fundamental changes if we
address high speed wireless everywhere
Especially since application paradigm already
shifting
Europe well placed to contribute:



both wireless and application architecture,
which in turn contribute to immediate and long
term network architecture better than
incremental core work….
not that that is a bad thing either!