Transcript Y-Comm: A new architecture for heterogeneous networking

Exploring a Framework for
Developing the Future
Internet:
Lessons from the Y-Comm
Architecture
Glenford Mapp
Principal Lecturer, Middlesex University
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Outline of the Talk
•
•
•
•
•
•
Motivation for the work
Our approach
Introduction to Y-Comm
Peripheral Framework
Areas of Work
Conclusions
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Motivation (looking backward)
• Originally we started with ubiquitous
handover.
– Fore-runner was work on the Cambridge
Wireless network which looked how you do
handover between different wireless systems
• James Scott, Leo Patanapongpibul, Pablo Vidales
– YComm ended up looking at ubiquitous
handover, Quality-of-Service, Security and
Application environments/Service Platforms
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Lesson -1.0
• Each of these are big areas in themselves
– Can study each area on its own and that is
what a lot of people are doing.
• End up with good papers but not something that
you could take and build a real system
• We took the opposite viewpoint.
– Try to describe the big picture first
• Develop the mechanisms but keep always keep
the big picture in view
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Lesson -0.5
• Don’t be foolish
– Invent things only when you need to
• Y-Comm is not trying to invent new technologies
for the sake of it
– Use standards or new technologies
• Be futuristic
– Take a guess but realize you could be wrong
– Allow evolution
– Be conservative
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Futuristic Assumption 1:
Network Evolution
• The Internet will evolve in a physical sense
• Core of the network
– Super-fast backbone (optical switching, etc)
– Fast access networks (MPLS, ATM)
• Peripheral Wireless Networks
– Errors due to fading, etc; not just congestion
– Handover
• Consequences
• Degradation of end-to-end arguments
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Internet Evolution
BACKBONE
ACCESS NETWORKS
WIRELESS NETWORKS
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Futuristic Assumption 2:
Heterogeneous Devices
• Devices will have more than one wireless
interface.
• Vertical handover – switching between
different network interfaces to provide
seamless connectivity
• Vertical handover is good but it introduces
a lot of QoS issues because the different
wireless networks have different qualities
of service
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Vertical Handover (Sideffects)
• Affects your connections
– Some protocols react badly with respect to
handover.
• Affects your applications
– Need to think through how Quality-of-Service
affects applications
• Encapsulate these ideas in a Framework
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Layer 5: Slow Adaptation of TCP After
LAN->GPRS Handover
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Lesson 0.0
• New framework
– We need to control network interfaces
generically
– Make mobility support explicit
• Vertical handover can have tsunami effects
– Merge network and transport services
– Make QoS support explicit
• Provide a way for applications to negotiate with the
network
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
The Complete Y-Comm Framework
CORE NETWORK
PERIPHERAL NETWORK
APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTS
SAS
SERVICE PLATFORM
QBS
QOS LAYER
END SYSTEM TRANSPORT
POLICY MANAGEMENT
NETWORK QOS LAYER
CORE TRANSPORT
NTS
NAS
NETWORK MANAGEMENT
VERTICAL HANDOVER
(RE)CONFIGURATION LAYER
NETWORK ABSTRACTION
(MOBILE NODE)
NETWORK ABSTRACTION
(BASE STATION)
HARDWARE PLATFORM
(MOBILE NODE)
HARDWARE PLATFORM
(BASE STATION)
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Y-Comm Group
• Middlesex University
• Mathematical modelling of vertical handover (TBVH) and the
Stream Bundle Layer for Downward QoS (Fatema Shaikh)
• Transport protocol and network architecture issues in
Peripheral networks (Glenford Mapp)
• Security (Mahdi Aiash)
• Mobile Services (Fragkiskos Sardis)
• University of Cambridge
• Proactive knowledge- based policy mechanisms for handover
(David Cottingham)
• Networking issues (Jon Crowcroft)
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Y-Comm Group
• University of Sao Paulo (ICMC San Carlos)
• Ontological services for vertical handover
• SoHand Middleware (Edson Moreira and Renata Vanni)
• Core Network Management (Mario Augusto)
• Federal University of San Carlos
• Testbed based on IEEE 802.21
• Loughborough University
• Security Framework in Y-Comm (Raphael Phan)
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
This talk
• Can’t explain everything about Y-Comm
• It’s too big
• Concentrate on the Peripheral Network
• See Y-Comm Research Webpage:
• http://www.mdx.ac.uk/research/areas/soft
ware/ycomm_research.aspx
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
The Peripheral Framework
APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTS LAYER
QOS LAYER
END TRANSPORT SYSTEM
POLICY MANAGEMENT LAYER
VERTICAL HANDOVER LAYER
NETWORK ABSTRACTION LAYER
HARDWARE PLATFORM LAYER
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Layer 1: Hardware Platform Layer
• Hardware Platform Layer
– Defines the physical requirements for a
particular wired or wireless technology
– Expanded physical layer
• Includes electromagnetic spectrum
• Modulation and channel reservation algorithms
– Incompatibility issues
• Two technologies may be incompatible and cannot
be used simultaneously
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Hardware Platform Layer Represented as Vertical
Components
3G
WLAN
802.11
PURSUIT 2011
WiMax
802.16
UltraWideBand
Computer Lab
But all this is about to change!
• Need to make more efficient use of the
electromagnetic spectrum
• Cognitive Radio
– A radio that is aware of and can sense its
environment, learn from its environment, and
adjust its operation according to some
objective function
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Cognitive Radio (CR)
• Technology
– Software Defined Radio (SDR)
• Wide spectrum receiver
• Do the processing in real-time
– Intelligent Signal Processing (ISP)
• Allows it to detect interference and move to another part of
the spectrum
– Ideal cognitive Radio – Mitola Radio > 2030
• Mitola radio uses CR as the physical layer of a
communications model
• That’s why CR is part of Y-Comm
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Cognitive Radio
SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT
3G
WLAN
WiMax
UltrawideBand
INTELLIGENT SIGNAL PROCESSING
SOFTWARE DEFINED RADIO
WIDE SPECTRUM REECIVER
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Layer 2: Network Abstraction layer
• Network abstraction Layer
– An abstraction that allows us to define, control
and manage any wireless network on a
mobile host
– Key issues: data path functions; data formats
(Link-layer), turning features on and off
– Need to generate L2 triggers when a new
network is detected or when an old network is
no longer detectable
• Build on 802.21
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
802.21 Overview
802.21: Key Services
Applications (VoIP/RTP)
Link Layer
Triggers
Handover
Connection
Management
State Change
Handover Management Predictive
Network
Mobility Management
ProtocolsInitiated
IETF
Policy
Smart
Triggers
Handover
Messages
Information
Service
IEEE 802.21
802.21 MIH Function
Handover Commands
L2 Triggers
and Events
WLAN
Network Information
Available Networks
Neighbor Maps
Network Services
Client Initiated
Network Initiated
Vertical Handovers
Handover
Messages
Information
Service
Cellular
WMAN
Protocol and Device Hardware
802.21 uses multiple services to Optimize
Vertical
PURSUIT
2011Handovers
Computer Lab
Layer 3: Vertical Handover Layer
• Layers that define the mechanism for
vertical handover.
• Support for different types
– Network-based
– Client-based
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Client-Based Handover
• More scalable for heterogeneous networks
– Mobile node can monitor the status of all its
network interfaces via the network abstraction
layer
– Can take into account other factors such as
the state of TCP connections
• Don’t want to do a handover during the start and
termination of TCP connections
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Lesson 1.0 handover is
complicated
HANDOVER
ALTERNATIVE
IMPERATIVE
NETPREF
REACTIVE
UNANTICIPATED
PROACTIVE
SERVICES
USERPREF CONTEXT
ANTICIPATED
KNOWLEDGE-BASED
MODEL-BASED
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Layer 4: Policy Management layer
• Decides if, when and where vertical
handover should occur.
• Must be able to deal with all cases of
handover
– Reactive done
– Proactive – most favourable but hard
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Reactive Policy: PROTON
HIGHER LAYERS
Interface Information
L2 Triggers
INPUT/OUTPUT LAYER
POLICY LAYER (PONDER)
HANDOVER EXECUTION LAYER
WLAN
GPRS
PURSUIT 2011
LAN
Computer Lab
Layer 4: Proactive Policies
• Proactive Policy Management
– The mobile node can know or estimate the network
state at a given point before it arrives at that point
– Proactive Policies allow us to maximize the use of
available channels provided you know the amount of
time a channel will be available.
– That time is known as:
• Time before vertical handover (TBVH)
• Can significantly reduce packet loss during all vertical
handovers
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Layer 4: Proactive policies
• Proactive policies can themselves be
divided into 2 types
• Proactive knowledge-based systems
– Knowledge of which local wireless networks
are operating at a given location and their
strengths at that point
– We also need a system to maintain the
integrity, accessibility and security of that data
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Proactive Policies
• Knowledge-based approach
• Gather a database of the field strengths
for each network around Cambridge
• Need to maintain the database and also
know how the results might be affected by
seasonal effects
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Knowledge-Based Policy
Management (Cambridge)
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Proactive Policies – Modelling
Approach (Middlesex)
• Using a simple mathematical model
• Define a radius at which handover should
occur
• Find out how much time I have before I hit
that circle, given my velocity and direction
• Calculate TBVH
• Used simulation (OPNET)
• Can be used in the real world as well as in
simulation
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
The Model-Based Handover
Handover
threshold circle
Exit threshold
circle
Threshold Circle
coverage
Real coverage
Exit coverage
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
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
RSS dB  10 log( l )
•
BBS
r
d x
z
MS
Estimated TBVH
r 2  d 2 sin 2 x  d cos x
TBVH 
v
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Simulation and Results
TBVH simulation in OPNET Modeler:
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Combining Transport and Communications
to determine the optimum handover
NET A
A
NET B
S
B
NET C
C
T
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Analysis shows that it is possible to
calculate these key points with some degree
of accuracy
C1
E1
Y2
Z1
A
S
Y1
H1
Y3
C2
B
E2
C
E3
H3
H2
T
PURSUIT 2011
Z2
Z3
Computer
Lab
This is getting interesting
• Because we can not only work out TBVH
• You can also calculate the amount of time
a mobile node will be in a given network
• Try to optimize handovers when networks
overlap
– Depends on the velocity (affects the exit
radius) and adaptation time
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Vertical Handover
GPS
Location,
Speed, direction
Connections
(QoS) TBVH
New QoS
New IP
Polling
CORE NETWORK
Done
POLICY MANAGEMENT LAYER
DECISION HANDOVER
(BASE-STATION, 3G, QOS, TBVH)
NETWORK MANAGEMENT LAYER
Send to Mobile
TOPOLOGY, RESOURCES, QoS
DO IT
VERTICAL HANDOVER LAYER
RECONFIGURABLE LAYER
ACQUIRE CHANNEL
ACQUIRE RESOURCES
(3G, BASE-STATION, QOS)
( 3GCHAN, BASE-STATION, QOS)
DO IT
NETWORK ABSTRACTION LAYER
NETWORK ABSTRACTION LAYER
BASE-STATION
CHANNEL ACQUIRED
DATA CHANNNEL = 3G
3G=ACTIVE WLAN=PASSIVE WiMAX= PASSIVE
L2 events
Media Info
3G
WLAN
WiMax
PURSUIT 2011
3G
WLAN
WiMax
Computer Lab
Lessons 2.0: We need to move to Locationbased Information infrastructure
• Leads to better handover
– Leads to a much better use of network
infrastructure
– It needs to tell the mobile node about
individual networks
• Power of the transmitter, where the access points
are located.
– It also needs to know about the relationships
between the individual networks.
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Layer 5: End User Transport System
• Specifies how data is routed to individual hosts
and transport protocols for error correction,
reliability and Quality-of-Service requirements
– Encompasses Layer 3 and Layer 4 in the OSI model
• Different approaches
– Keep the same protocols as in the core network
– Keep TCP/IP, but modify TCP
– Don’t modify TCP but try to get it to respond more
quickly to network outages
– Try a completely new protocol suite
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Layer 5: The case for a new
transport Infrastructure
• A new transport system could be more
suited for wireless networking
• Do all machines have to have an IP
address to use the Internet?
• No.. Look at Network Address Translation (NAT)
• Translation is done between a private address and
port to a global address and port at the NAT server
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Layer 5: Continued
• A global IP address in the case of NAT is
really being used as an endpoint in the
core network
• So we can use another network scheme in
the peripheral network once we can
specify how we map it to TCP/IP or
UDP/IP in the core network
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Y-Comm’s view of the Future
PERIPHERAL
WIRELESS
NETWORK
CORE NETWORK
QoS, Secure Connection
PERIPHERAL
WIRELESS
NETWORK
PURSUIT 2011
Core Endpoints
In Access Network
Computer Lab
View corresponds with other
ideas
• Faster LAN systems
– Optimize DNS, streaming video from local
caches
• Integrate protocol with applications
– Tuneable transport
– Remove the user/kernel limitations
• Use as a local signalling protocol
– Encapsulates TCP packets
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Simple Protocol
DEST_ID
SRC_ID
CHKSUM
PK_TYPE PRI CB Flags
TOTAL_LEN
PBLOCK
MESS_ACK_NO
MESS_SEQ_NO
SYNC_NO
TBLOCK
WINDOW_SIZE
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
The Simple Protocol
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DEST_ID (16) – identifying remote end
SRC_ID (16) – from source end
PK_TYPE (4) - packet type
PRI (2) - supports 4 priority levels
CB (2) – supports ECN
CHKSUM (16) – sixteen bit checksum
TOTAL_LEN (16) – total packet length
PBLOCK (8) – the present block
TBLOCK (8) – the total number of blocks
MESS_SEQ_NO (16) – last message sent
MESS_ACK_NO (16) – last message received
SYNC_NO (8) – the last ACK received
WINDOW_SIZE (24) – the window size
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Lesson 3.0: Local support is
now essential to the Future
Internet
•
•
•
•
Presence of heterogeneous networks
Support for mobility
Need for local signalling
Need for local transports
– Don’t need to change TCP
• Need for local knowledge
• Can’t ignore that any more
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Heterogeneous Networking and
Multi-homing
• Because devices will have several
interfaces, there will be multi-homing
issues
• Solutions such as Mobile IP which depend
on Home and Care-of-Addresses are not
scalable
• SCTP helps but works on the transport
level only
• Need to look at the network addressing scheme
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Does IPv6 help?
Look at the IPv6 Address Format
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Advantages of IPv6
• Uses a global Interface_ID so it is very
easy to construct a new address using
auto-configuration
– So I don’t need a foreign agent
– Since the Interface_ID does not change if I do
a horizontal handover, it is easier for the
network infrastructure to work out what is
going on
• Does not help with vertical handover
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Pressure for Change
• Mobile Systems
– Efficient Vertical Handover (Y-Comm)
• Multi-path TCP
– Allowing TCP to use all the device interfaces to
transfer data
• IETF, Jon Crowcroft, Cambridge
• Pressure to optimize network resources
– Switches and routers have limited memory, etc.
• Internet of Things
– Networking should be based around devices
themselves not the interfaces they use
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Different Approach
• Split the IP address into 2 distinct parts
– Node_ID : identifies the device
• Independent of the number of Interfaces the
device has
• Given when the device was created; burnt into
device;
• Recycled when the device is no longer used
– Location_ID: identifies which network the
device is using. A multi-homed device will
have several Location_IDs
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Proposed IP Address Format
0
63
127
LOCATION_ID
PURSUIT 2011
NODE_ID
Computer Lab
History behind this
• First proposed by LIN Group in Japan (20002001)
• Some work done at AT&T Labs on supporting
this paradigm
– Mapp and Fraser (2001)
• Led to the development of EUI-64
– Evolve the Ethernet Mac Address into a Node_ID
• Current work on ILNP lead by Saleem Bhatti
from St Andrews
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Why is this good?
• Node_ID allows the networking
infrastructure to know that network
interfaces are co-located
• Optimize network resources
– In the core network we could use the
Node_ID as a general guide to where the
device is located. Use the Location_ID to
choose which particular local network to use
to forward the packet to that device
– Refinement of HMIPv6
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Additional Help is needed
• Some observations
– It would be good to know that the device is
stationary in a given network
• Cache the Location_ID directly in the routing table
– Good for servers as they are stationary
– Reduce the visibility of servers
• Need to reduce DDoS attacks
– Support of using different interfaces
• Multicast, broadcast, local any-cast, etc.
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
So we are proposing to modify to
address format
63
0
LOCATION_ID
0
55
LOCATION_ID
127
NODE_ID
63
NET
ADMIN
PURSUIT 2011
127
NODE_ID
Computer Lab
NEW STRUCTURES
0
39
GLOBAL ROUTING
PREFIX
LOCATION_ID =
0
NETADMIN
SUBNET
8
SF S
=
55
M
INF
0
NODE_ID =
63
Global Node Identifier (EUI-64)
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
SF- Scope Field
• Introduced by the Y-Comm Group
– Ring-based Security model
• Aimed at protecting servers by reducing access to
them
• Servers act within a defined network
scope
– Only entities within that scope can access the
server
– If you are outside the scope, your packet is
blocked by the network infrastructure
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Scope Field – 2 bits
• 00 - Only processes on the same machine
can use this server
• Location_ID must be the loop-back address
• 01 - Only processes on the same LAN can
access the server
• Location_ID must be the same LAN as server
• 10 – Only processes on the same Admin
Domain can access the server
• Location_ID must be site-address
• 11 – Server is globally accessible
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Other bits in the NetAdmin Field
• S – indicates that the device is stationary
with regard to a given network
– Physically stationary – Servers
– Relatively stationary as determined by a
location system
• M – indicates that Node_ID is being used
as a multicast address, this allows
multicast packets to be sent on network
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Interface_IDs can make a
comeback
• Interface_IDs banished from the New
address format
– Means we will have to map the Location_ID to
the Interface_ID before we could send a
packet on a given network. Slow performance
• Other observation
– Bluetooth and other short range systems do
not need a Location_ID (network) and
Interface_ID might be better
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Re-Introduce it by indirectly
INF field (4 bits)
• An interface can be uniquely represented within
the address format by using an interface number
– Controlled by the device.
• Map interface # to MAC address
• Give special meaning to certain values
– 0 – any-cast – packet is sent on any available
network interface of the mobile device
– 0xF – broadcast packet is sent on all available
network interfaces of the mobile device
– 0x1 – called the primary interface
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
INF
• Support for pseudo/virtual interfaces
– Add features such as security
• OpenSSL, FreeSwan, provides IPSec services
• Applications can query interfaces on a device
– Master locator
– Map interfaces #s to Quality-of-Service (QoS)
parameters
• Bluetooth and other point-to-point system could
use the INF only and not bother with the
Location_ID
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Lesson 4.0: Can’t ignore multihoming any longer
• Crucial for heterogeneous networking
• Need to concentrate on devices and not
their interfaces
• Need to think about keeping it flexible and
efficient
• Urgent
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Layer 6: QoS Layer
• QoS is the most dynamically changing
component in heterogeneous networking
• Applications running on heterogeneous
devices need support to handle this
• Two Concepts of QoS
– Downward QoS
– Upward QoS
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Layer 6: Downward QoS
• Mainly to support legacy applications
• The application specifies a minimum QoS
and the QoS layer does the mapping
between the QoS that the application
requires and the QoS that is currently
available - but is dynamically changing
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Layer 6: Upward QoS
• For applications that should adapt to
changes in QoS, e.g. Multimedia services,
etc
– The QoS layer therefore signals the
application using an event mechanism to
indicate changes in the available QoS
– Applications can specify routines that will be
called when the events occur
• Similar to the X Window System
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
QoS Layer
DOWNWARD QOS
UPWARD QOS
APPLICATION LAYER
APPLICATION LAYER
QOS LAYER
QOS LAYER
END TRANSPORT LAYER
END TRANSPORT LAYER
POLICY MANAGEMENT LAYER
PURSUIT 2011
POLICY MANAGEMENT LAYER
Computer Lab
Lesson 5.0 Make QoS the real
interface to the network
• Applications should not really have to
know about TCP or any other protocol
• Replace transport protocols on the fly
• Allow applications to adapt if they can
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Last area: Security
• Security is part of Quality-of-Service
• QoSS – specify security as part of QoS
– Changes in security are regarded as changes
in the QoS
• Security needs to be on different levels
and involves both Core and Peripheral
Frameworks
• Allow several layers
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
The Y-Comm Framework showing its Security
Levels- New Security Level
CORE NETWORK
PERIPHERAL NETWORK
APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTS
SAS
SERVICE PLATFORM
QBS
QOS LAYER
END SYSTEM TRANSPORT
POLICY MANAGEMENT
NETWORK QOS LAYER
CORE TRANSPORT
NTS
NAS
NETWORK MANAGEMENT
VERTICAL HANDOVER
(RE)CONFIGURATION LAYER
NETWORK ABSTRACTION
(MOBILE NODE)
NETWORK ABSTRACTION
(BASE STATION)
HARDWARE PLATFORM
(MOBILE NODE)
HARDWARE PLATFORM
(BASE STATION)
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Security in Y-Comm
• Network Architecture Security (NAS)
• Security dealing with the deployment and management of
different wireless technology
• Managed from the Policy and Management layers
• Network Transport Security (NTS)
– Security dealing with end-to-end transport through Y-Comm
• Done at Layer 5, NAT, IPSec, etc
• QoS Based Security (QBS)
– Look at QoS Issues
• Looks at SLAs, prevents overloading
• Looks at Denial of Service Attacks
• Service and Application Security (SAS)
– Security dealing with running applications and
deploying services
• AAAC, ACLs, User-based security
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Lesson 6: Security needs to consider
the effect of an open Architecture
• Security needs to be part of the
communications system
• Also needs to be part of QoS
• Security is about protecting entities and
not just data
– Concept of Security models
• Connection
• Ring-based
• Vertical Handover
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Lesson 7: New business models
• Y-Comm is doomed to failure
• No academic funding
– Not about TCP/IP
– Not interested in tinkering around the edges
• No industry funding
– Y-Comm will destroy the revenue streams of
current mobile providers
– They will not put money in unless we show
them how they are going to make money
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab
Any Questions?
PURSUIT 2011
Computer Lab