Widyatama.lecture.applied networking.iv-week-13.future internet networking
Applied Networking-IV (2231114) Lecture Week-13The Future of Internet Networking Lecture by: Djadja.Sardjana, S.T., M.M. www.slideshare.net/djadja The state of internet-4m
THE GOALSreexamine all networking assumptions;reinvent where needed;design for intended capabilities;deploy and validate architectures;build new services and applications;encourage users to participate in experimentation;andtake a system-wide approach to the synthesis of newarchitectures.
The Internet is becoming wireless Laptop sales exceeded desktop PC sales in July 2003 2B mobile phones in use by the end of 2005 > ~1B Internet users >~0.5B networked PC’s …most new phones also have packet data capability Overall, this means that by 2015, # wireless Internet terminals >> # wired! Laptops, cell-phones, PDA’s, iPoD’s ~ 10x PC’s/servers Embedded devices (sensors, actuators, RFID,…) ~ 10-100x PC’s & growing This has important implications for network architecture, both wired and wireless: Wireless access networks must scale and handle new types of devices (sensors, etc.) The Internet, which was designed in the 70’s for wired PC-PC/server connections, needs to scale and evolve towards changing service needs
Wireless Internet Access Evolution MSC Internet Public Switched Network (PSTN) Mobile/wireless service enhancementsCustom BSCMobileInfrastructure(e.g. GSM, 3G) BTS WLAN BTS Access Infostation cache Point WLAN VOIP Hot-Spot CDMA, GSM Ad-hoc or 3G radio network access network extension VOIP Broadband Media cluster (dual-mode) (e.g. UWB or MIMO) Today Low-tier clusters Future? (e.g. low power 802.11 sensor)
Internet Architecture: Prior Work Clark, et al completed a DARPA project on “Future Generation Internet Architecture” in Dec 2003: emerging requirements from a wired-network perspective, Addressing: separation of identity from routable location Security: trust-mediated transparency… remains largely open problem. User empowerment: competitive service provides, NIRA vs. BGP Precise semantics: verification, protocol normalizer… Congestion control: beyond TCP XCP Alternatives to layering: “role-based architecture” Region-based or geographically aware architecture Knowledge Plane: overlay for distribution of status information End-to-End Principle: reevaluation of current model Mobility: optimize for mobility, or mobility as a special case? QoS: need for economic enablers
Internet Architecture: Caveats Previous attempts at upgrading of IP spec have not had the expected result: IPv6 standardized but not widely deployed... Little progress with end-to-end QoS in the Internet Mobile IP for first wave of wireless needs not implemented IP’s lowest common denominator (best effort datagram) also its greatest strength! Earlier attempts at utopian new network architectures mostly ended in failure, in spite of technical merits B-ISDN/ATM did not take off (...complexity, lack of organic growth model) Significant standards activity and community endorsement not sufficient to launch new network architectures... Problems with 3G wireless This doesn’t mean that new networks aren’t needed, but architectures needed to encourage bottom-up transformation without loss of investment in legacy system: Evolutionary strategies preferable New approaches to protocol standards: hierarchies, modularity, open-source,.. Economic incentives for deployment
Internet Architecture: Next Steps Wireless and sensor network scenarios lead to a set of next- generation Internet requirements, including: REVISE!!!!! Network optimized for mobile end-points, support for mobile routers Connection oriented flows + packet datagram, multicast Overlay services such as location- or content-aware routing In-network processing and storage, delayed delivery Self-organization, auto-configuration capabilities Elimination of ad-hoc to IP gateway Unified routing metrics across ad-hoc and IP nets Geographic, location-aware or content-aware routing Cross-layer protocol support New security and privacy models for wireless/ad-hoc Lightweight protocol options Attribute-based address resolution Power-efficient protocol modes In-network computation for sensors Reevaluation of end-to-end transport arguments New socket abstractions and transport services
Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change Evolutionary approach Design a new wireless, ad-hoc and sensor “low-tier IP network profile to be “compatible” with IP global network (e.g. IPv6, BGP routing, MPLS, etc.) Identify critical hierarchy and core IP extensions needed and pass requirement to IETF, etc. Evolve IP functionality via new RFC’s As wireless service needs proliferate, new low-tier IP may replace current IP intra-network Border New Interface Spec GLOBAL INTERNET Router IP Access for IPv4 Network Border IPv6 extensions (e.g. IPv4) Router for IPw Border Router for IPw IP Wireless/Sensor Access Network (IPw) IP Wireless/Sensor Access Network (IPw) New Protocol Spec
Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change Overlay approach Design new wireless, ad-hoc or sensor access net to work across global overlay network Specify and build new overlay networks optimized for wireless needs May include concept of an “IP knowledge plane” accessible by overlay If successful, IP is pushed down to a “layer 3-” service, while overlay is “3+” Permits significant flexibility in advanced service features, but tight optimization of packet overhead more difficult due to IP encapsulation new knowledge plane? GLOBAL INTERNET Border IP Tunnel Router IP Access Network Overlay Net Gateway GLOBAL OVERLAY NETWORK new wireless-specific services Overlay Net Gateway Overlay Net Gateway New Wireless/Sensor Access Network New Wireless/Sensor Access Network New Design (non-IP)
Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change Revolutionary approach Specify a new “beyond IP” network optimized for mobile/wireless/sensor Build a prototype nationwide network and offer it for experimental use Use this network for emerging mobile data and real-time sensor actuator applications with demanding performance and efficiency requirements Most radical, risks being marginalized by Internet evolution and legacy staying power Next-Gen GLOBAL INTERNET Border optimized for New Designs (beyond IP) emerging needs including Gateway IP Access wireless-specific services Network New Access Network New Access Network optimized for wireless, etc.
The NSF WMPG (WirelessMobile Planning Group)Workshop Aug 2-3, 2005
NSF Wireless Mobile Planning Group (WMPG)Workshop - Rutgers Aug 2-3, 2005 A group of about 30 researchers in the wireless area met at Rutgers (under the leadership of Ray Dipankar) to discuss: Unique requirements posed by wireless mobile users Potential impact on the Internet architecture Experimental facilities required to explore the new Internet architecture solutions A report was issued in October: “New Architectures and Disruptive Technologies for the Future Internet:Wireless, Mobile and Sensor Network Perspective” www.winlab.rutgers.edu/WMPG
The “wireless” requirements Identify new requirements placed by wireless users on the Internet “network layer” These new requirements may trigger a “redesign” of the IP stack (or more generally the way we do networking) We were not concerned with SOLUTIONS at this point Questions to be addressed: What is the wireless scenario/application you are addressing? What is the problem to be solved? What are the new qualitative requirements on the network layer? What is the impact of these innovations on user performance?
The wireless scenariosWe identified three representative scenarios: The individual mobile user, interacting only with Internet resources The mobile “constellation”: the users equipped with several devices/interfaces, interacting with the Internet, with environment (instrumented user) and with each other (opportunistic ad hoc networking). This model applies to individuals while they walk, drive cars, fly planes, ride trains etc. The “dynamic” pervasive sensor fabric”: this concept includes the traditional environment sensor fields as well as the mobile sensor fields (people, car sensor fabrics). This latter scenario is clearly connected with the instrumented constellation scenario
Summary of Network Requirements and ArchitectureChallenges 1. Naming and addressing flexibility 2. Mobility support for dynamic migration of end-users and network devices 3. Location services that provide information on geographic position 4. Self-organization and discovery for distributed control of network topology 5. Security and privacy considerations for mobile nodes and open wireless channels 6. Decentralized management for remote monitoring and control 7. Cross-layer support for optimization of protocol performance 8. Sensor network features such as aggregation, content routing and in- network processing 9. Cognitive radio support 10. Economic incentives to encourage efficient sharing of resources
Wireless Requirements: Mobile DataFast growth of (conventional) mobile data terminals with wireless accesslink implies a need for new services on the Internet: Terminal mobility (authentication, roaming and dynamic handoff)…mobile IPv6 Multicasting …IP multicast Security …e.g. protection against AP spoofing Efficient transport layer protocols (..non TCP)Major topic in research & standards during 90’s, but limited use.. Roaming, INTERNET handoff Access High packet Point (AP) Error rate Mobile data mobility terminal Radio multicasting
Wireless Requirements: Mobile P2P P2P, 7DS, Infostations, etc. represent another emerging category of mobile applications on the Internet Router mobility Network may be disconnected at times …delayed delivery? Caching and opportunistic data delivery …. In-network storage Content- and location- aware data delivery Internet Mobile Infostation Infostation Low-speed wide-area Data access Opportunistic Cache OpportunisticHigh-Speed Link Ad-Hoc High-Speed Link (MB/s) Infostation Network (MB/s) cell Mobile User Roadway Sensors
Wireless Requirements: Ad-Hoc NetsAd-hoc nets with multiple radio hops to wired Internet useful for variousscenarios including mesh 802.11, sensor, etc. Discovery and self-organization capabilities Seamless addressing and routing across wireless-wired gateway Geographic routing options Support for end-to-end cross-layer protocol approaches where needed Privacy and security considerations Best sensor-to-mobile path via wired network Wired Internet (needs unified routing) IP-Ad-hoc Net Wireless link with Protocol Conversion Access varying speed and QoS Gateway Point Local Interference and MAC Congestion Ad-Hoc Network Sensor Relay Node Dynamically changing Network topology
Ad-Hoc Network: Discovery Protocol Creates efficient ad-hoc network topology just above MAC layer in order to reduce burden on routing protocol… Internet AP coverage AP AP Access Point (AP) areaSelf-organized Low-tier access linksad-hoc network (AP/FN Beacons, MN Forwarding Associations, Data) Node (FN) FN FN MN MN MN Ad-hoc infrastructure links between FNs and MN MN APs AP MN FN (AP/FN Beacons, FN Associations, Routing FN Low-tier coverage Exchanges, Data) (e.g. sensor) area Mobile Node (MN) MN MN FN FN Beacon •Scan all channels Channel 4 •Find minimum delay links to AP Beacon Transmit Power •Set up routes to AP Required: 4mW •Send beacons Assoc •Forward SN data Channel 2 Transmit Power SN Hops Source Broadcast Node Packet Cluster Sequence Node Transmit Required: 1mW •Scan all channels MAC MAC ID Type ID Number Type To Power •Associate with FN/AP AP •Send data Beacon Frame Format
Cross-Layer Protocols: Transport Source Destination Syn messa Src 1 Dest 1 ge Internet Syn Ack AP Rate 1 } 1 2 Data Requires exchange of routing, Src 2 n1 Dest 2 congestion Network Stack in Src Rate 2 } n1 + 1 ACK (n1, 0) and link quality/rate odic information L1 peri n2 across Application layer } X wired- wireless Network Status Aggregation Cross-Layer Aware Flow Rate Network Status Rate 3 boundary Control Plane Transport Protocol Pkt Size X (CLAP) Algorithm Packet loss rate Rate 4 } } (L1,00 00 0010) Network Layer Route Status n3 NACK Retx MAC / Link Layer Congestion Indicator Rate 5 } n3 + 1 Retx L1 L1+7 Physical Layer Channel Quality, Fin Messa ge Channel Rate Fin AckCLAP HIGHLIGHTS 5 Throughput - No Network Congestion 5 Throughput w ith Netw ork Congestion 4.5 4.5• Cross Layer Aware 4 TCP 4 TCP 3.5 3.5 CLAP CLAP Mbps• Separate Error and 3 3 Mbps 2.5 2.5 Flow Control 2 2 1.5 1.5• Rate-based Flow 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 0• Selective-Repeat 1 Flow 2 Flow s 3 Flow s 4 Flow s 1 Flow 2 Flow s 3 Flow s 4 Flow s
Wireless Requirements: Cognitive Radio Cognitive radio drives consideration of adaptive wireless networks involving multi-hop collaboration between radio nodes Needs Internet support similar to ad-hoc network discussed earlier Rapid changes in network topology, PHY bit-rate, etc. implications for routing Fundamentally cross-layer approach – need to consider wired net boundary High-power cognitive radios may themselves serve as Internet routers… PHY A INTERNET PHY C Bootstrapped PHY & C control link PHY B B B Multi-mode radio PHY Ad-Hoc Discovery DD Control & Routing Capability (e.g. CSCC) E Adaptive Wireless A A Network Node (…functionality can be quite challenging!) End-to-end routed path From A to F F
Wireless Requirements: SensorsSensors and actuators with size/power constraints Limited CPU processing & memory (?) Communication speed may be low Intermittent connectivity (power saving modes) Relatively unreliable components Very different application requirementsImportant new paradigm, since # sensors potentially MIT DVSin the billions Protocols & system designs still at an early stage First sensor nets for simple measurement applications More complex “closed-loop” sensor/actuator in future UC Berkeley MOTE
Sensor Applications: Highway Safety Sensors in roadway interact with sensor/actuator in cars Opportunistic, attribute-based binding of sensors and cars Ad-hoc network with dynamically changing topology Closed-loop operation with tight real-time and reliability constraints
Sensor Applications: Assisted Living Emergency event triggers interaction between object sensors and body sensors and initiate external communication Heterogeneous ad-hoc network Sensors used to detect events and specify location Real-time communication with care provider
Sensor Systems: Overlay Services Overlay networks can be used for content distribution or dynamic binding between sensor devices and servers, agents, end-users Use of XML or similar content descriptor to specify sensor data and application profile “Layer 7” overlay network (implemented over IP tunnels) provides content mcast or binding service between producers (sensors) and consumers (servers, users) Application Agent Interest Profile XML Descriptor Overlay Router B Mobile User Overlay Router A Sensor Content Content Consumers Producer
Sensor Systems: Socket Abstractions Need for more powerful socket abstractions for general-purpose sensor net programming. Requirements include: Choice of networking modes (ad-hoc, content-based, proxy IP, etc.) Choice of datagram and static/dynamic binding modes Transport layer reliability and flow control options
Wireless Requirements: Sensor Nets Self-organizing and robust ad-hoc network Lightweight protocols with low packet overheads Optimization of protocols for power efficiency Attribute- or location- based connectivity Potential use of in-network processing & storage New privacy and security considerations New socket abstractions & TP options
Experimental Infrastructure for FutureWireless Network Research Techniques for Flexible Experimental Wireless Networks Virtualization of Wireless MAC Cognitive Radio Wireless Network Monitoring and Measurement Measuring and characterizing mobility. Measuring heterogeneous networks overlapping in space. Measuring cellular and DTN networks. Cooperative sharing of measurements Wireless Network Repository Emulation and Simulation Testbeds for Wireless Wireless Networking Platforms Platform Software and End-to-End Architecture
Experimental Infrastructure for FutureWireless Network Research (cont) Wireless Network Repository Emulation and Simulation Testbeds for Wireless Wireless Networking Platforms Platform Software and End-to-End Architecture
Summary of Recommendations Recommendation 1: the Internet will undergo a fundamental transformation over the next 10-15 years; invest in research programs aimed at creating necessary technical foundations. Recommendation 2: Increase research focus on central network architecture questions related to future mobile, wireless and sensor scenarios. Recommendation 3: Invest in development of flexible wireless technologies and platforms necessary to implement programmable and evolvable experimental networks. Recommendation 4: Fund development of large-scale experimental wireless networks for effective validation and competitive selection of new architecture and protocol concepts. Recommendation 5: Encourage collaborative research that would result in end-to- end deployment and evaluation of future wireless/mobile and sensor networks and applications over the global Internet.
Examples of Research enabled by the newtestbed platforms Vehicle Grid Applications Car Torrent Ad Torrent Car to Car Games Vehicle Sensor Network
Co-operative Downloads: Car-torrent, Adtorrent Internet Vehicle-Vehicle Communication Exchanging Pieces of File Later
Car2Car Games: Game Server Architecture +Car-networking Scenario
Vehicular Sensor Network (VSN) Applications Monitoring road conditions for Navigation Safety or Traffic control Imaging for accident or crime site investigation 1. Fixed Infrastructure Infostation 2. Processing and storage Car to Infostation 1. On-board “black box” 2. Processing and storage Car-Car multi-hop
Project Plan: High-Level Goals 12 month pilot project aimed at developing a strategic agenda for next-generation Internet architecture from a wireless and sensor network perspective: Defining the problem scope Identification of emerging wireless & sensor net requirements Study of future wireless scenarios leading to network service specs Input from wireless technical community, including academic and industrial Proof-of-concept research projects on 2-3 novel networking requirements Evaluation of prospects for evolutionary change to Internet standards Study of IPv6+∆ as well as more radical next-gen IP efforts (Clark, etc.) Discussions with Internet technical community Recommendations for realizing next-generation Internet responsive to wireless and sensor net requirements Wireless/sensor network rationale and related open research problems Strategies for meeting requirements through Internet evolution Strategies for more fundamental change to the Internet architecture Outline of a 5-yr technology, policy and standards research agenda to drive this forward
Project Plan: Methodology Wireless & sensor network contributions from core team, leading to a next-generation requirements white paper Representative group including both academic and industrial members Tap into existing pool of NSF PI’s in NeTS and other related programs Leverage next-gen wireless community surrounding ORBIT project at WINLAB Email, teleconferences and ~1-2 meetings Small research projects on key wireless/sensor net protocols ~2-3 selected wireless/sensor net research projects to evaluate critical architectural needs Papers and proof-of-concept demos leveraging other project resources Using this white paper as a basis, initiate discussions with Internet community at both standards and research levels IETF, Internet Architecture Group Other future Internet architecture research projects, e.g. Clark DARPA, .. Overlay network community, e.g. Planetlab,.. Contacts with standards and project leads, + a publicly announced workshop Write final report for NSF Wireless and sensor net rationale & requirements Strategies for changing Internet architecture to reflect these needs Research agenda
Project Plan: Potential Contributors Core Project Team (total ~7-8) prospects D. Raychaudhuri, Rutgers extensive experience with wireless and broadband network architecture and technology development David Johnson, Rice U leading academic researcher in ad-hoc networking and experimental wireless networks Badri Nath, Rutgers strong track record as an innovator in wireless and Internet protocols (mobile IP, I-TCP, geo-routing..) Arup Acharya, IBM Research protocol specialist with research and standards experience on mobile IP, mobile ATM, VOIP, ad-hoc nets Krishan Sabnani, Lucent Bell Labs extensive experience with wireless and wired network protocols (RMTP, transport protocols, ...) Marco Gruteser, Rutgers academic researcher in the area of location-aware networking and sensor sockets Jim Kurose, U Mass leading academic researcher in network protocols and performance, both wired and wireless Mario Gerla, UCLA prominent academic researcher in ad-hoc, sensor and tactical network architecture and prototyping Victor Bahl, Microsoft Research currently leading Microsoft’s mesh network deployment projects; also founded of ACM M2CR David Culler, UC Berkeley leading academic researcher in the area of sensor networks Wade Trappe, Rutgers active academic researcher in the area of wireless network security and privacy Dirk Grunwald, U Colorado established academic researcher working on mobility, location-aware systems, cognitive radio
Project Plan: Deliverables & Outcomes ~12 month project with two phases as shown: wireless & sensor net white paper (Months 0-4) small proof-of-concept projects, leveraging other resources (Months 2-12) Internet architecture study, workshop & report (Months 5-12) Papers, Proof-of- Small Research Projects on Key Wireless/Sensor Protocols concept demos Wireless Wireless & Sensor Net Architecture & Sensor and Requirements Study Net Architecture Internet Architecture Study/Workshop Final White Paper and Strategies for Change ReportMonth- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Applied Networking-IV (2231114) Lecture Week-13The Future of Internet Networking “Closing Word” Lecture by: Djadja.Sardjana, S.T., M.M. www.slideshare.net/djadja Top_10_Fore casts__2009
Global Environment for NetworkingInvestigations (GENI) explore new networking capabilities that will advance science and stimulate innovation and economic growth….
GENI Build in security and robustness; Enable the vision of pervasive computing and bridge the gap between the physical and virtual worlds by including mobile, wireless and sensor networks; Enable control and management of other critical infrastructures; Include ease of operation and usability; and Enable new classes of societal-level services and applications.
GENI The GENI Initiative includes: A research program; and A global experimental facility designed to explore new architectures at scale. CISE is encouraging a broad community effort that engages: other agencies other countries, and corporate entities.
Geni develop new networking and distributed systems capabilities by: Creating new core functionality: Going beyond existing paradigms of datagram, packet and circuit switching; designing new naming, addressing, and overall identity architectures, and new paradigms of network management;･ ･ Developing enhanced capabilities: Building security into the architecture; designing for high availability; balancing privacy and accountability; designing for regional difference and local values;･ ･ Deploying and validating new architectures: Designing new architectures that incorporate emerging technologies (e.g., new wireless and optical technologies) and new computing paradigms enabled by pervasive devices;･ ･ Building higher-level service abstractions: Using, for example, information objects, location-based services, and identity frameworks;･ ･ Building new services and applications: Making large-scale distributed applications secure, robust and manageable; developing principles and patterns for distributed applications; and Developing new network architecture theories: Investigating network complexity, scalability, and economic incentives.
GENI FACILITY WILL ENABLE Shared use through slicing and virtualization in time and space domains (i.e., where "slice" denotes the subset of resources bound to a particular experiment); Access to physical facilities through programmable platforms (e.g., via customized protocol stacks); Large-scale user participation by "user opt-in" and IP tunnels; Protection and collaboration among researchers by controlled isolation and connection among slices; A broad range of investigations using new classes of platforms and networks, a variety of access circuits and technologies, and global control and management software; and Interconnection of independent facilities via federated design.
Geni Facility The GENI Facility will leverage the best ideas and capabilities from existing network testbeds such as PlanetLab, ORBIT, WHYNET, Emulab, X-Bone, DETER and others. However, the GENI Facility will need to extend beyond these testbeds to create an experimental infrastructure capable of supporting the ambitious research goals of the GENI Initiative.
In planning for GENI: CISE has supported numerous community workshops and is supporting on-going planning efforts, including needs assessment and requirements for the GENI Facility. CISE will hold town meetings and continue to support future workshops to broaden community participation. CISE will work with industry, other US agencies, and international groups to broaden participation in GENI beyond NSF and the US government.