First Contact: Can Switching to RINA save the Internet?

1. First Contact:
Can Switching to RINA save the Internet?
Kristjon Ciko, Michael Welzl
University of Oslo
6th International RINA Workshop
Paris, February 2019

2. 2/11
Outline
• Intro & Motivation
• One-ISP scenario
• Comparison: Internet vs. RINA
• Evaluation
• Conclusions
• Future Work

3. 3/11
RINA in a nutshell
• Networking is only IPC
• IPCP – a container that provides
many functionalities like:
- routing
- transport
- security
- management
• DIF – a single type of layer that
recursively repeats itself
• Two protocols:
- Error and Flow Control Protocol (based on Delta-t)
- Common Distributed Application Protocol
• Three types of nodes: Hosts, Interior routers, Border routers
Host 1 Host 2
SHIM-IPCP
Pysical link
SHIM-DIF
EFCP
Flow
Allocator
Resource
Allocator
Delimiting
RIBMUX
IPC
Process
SHIM-IPCP
EFCP
Flow
Allocator
Resource
Allocator
Delimiting
RIBMUX
Distributed
IPC Facility
Port ID Port ID
Application
Process
Application
Process
Application
Protocol
Application
Protocol
Image credit: reproduced from “Networking is IPC”: A Guiding Principle to a Better Internet

4. 4/11
Motivation
• Advancing the RINA deployment
• Proving that RINA can show great performance
• Investigating the possibility of directly switching from the Internet to RINA

5. 5/11
One-ISP scenario
• First contact: The very beginning, when no preparations were made by the end
hosts to enable communication (except the DNS Server)
• Second contact: A host has already found the peer and managed to talk to it,
and local host caches were filled with information.
Client
CDN Server
DNS server
1. DHCP
2. DNS
3. HTTP/TCP
Host client PtP-DIF
PtP-DIF
Routing-DIF
Flow
Web client
application
CDN server
application
Router
Router
Host server

6. 6/11
Internet vs. RINA
• Preparation: In the Internet, it includes the DHCP and DNS procedures.
In RINA, this phase is composed of the Enrollment and App. discovery.
• Establishment: 3-way handshake in the Internet – End-to-end flow allocation in RINA.
• Data Transfer: The time between the first GET and the response from the server.

7. 7/11
Evaluation
• The Preparation phase takes longer than the other two phases.
• DHCP + DNS procedures take more time than the RINA Enrollment and App. Discovery.
• Optimizing the RINA prototype will reduce the timing overhead in the communication phases.
1
4
16
64
256
1024
Preparation Establishment Transfer
Time(ms)
Standard TCP
1066.32
12.60 12.53
TCP Fast Open
1065.19
12.65 12.65
RINA
22.85
14.20 13.32
32
64
128
256
512
1024
Preparation Establishment Transfer
Time(ms)
Standard TCP1255.99
120.65 120.56
TCP Fast Open
1240.64
120.66 120.65
RINA
167.14
122.25 121.30

8. 8/11
Evaluation (2)
• RINA and TFO do not need an extra round-trip in the second contact.
• The end hosts will use the same flow (as long as it is not deallocated) with a new
connection state.
• RINA ‘’always’’ works.
0
50
100
150
200
250
RTT=12ms RTT=120ms
Time(ms) Standard TCP
25.10
241.18
TCP Fast Open
12.65
120.66
RINA
12.57
120.57

9. 9/11
Conclusions
• RINA is designed to provide several advantages over the
current Internet.
• It shows to be efficient during all phases of the
communication and specially in the ‘’second contact’’.
• Has all the potential to combine the benefits of several TCP
extenstions.

10. 10/11
Future Works
• investigating the use and optimization of RINA_Proxy
• how to perform a full “switch-over” to RINA (Happy Eyeballs)

11. 11/11
Thank you!
Questions?