The Future Internet Motivation, Bachground, and Basics · • Future Internet Forum •The "Future...

transcript

The Future Internet

Motivation, Bachground, and Basics Thomas Plagemann University of Oslo, Department of Informatics

Three Internet Anniversaries in 2009?

• 20 years World-Wide Web

• 30 years Usenet

• 40 years ARPANET

21. februar 2012 2

Acknowledgement

• Tutorial is based on insights gained by working

on the EU project ANA (Autonomic Network

Architecture) and DT-Stream • ANA is funded by Information Societies Technology—

Future Emerging Technologies (IST-FET)

• DT-Stream is funded by the Norwegian Research

Council in the VERDIKT programme

• Thanks also to the SpoVNet team – which

generously provided a *.ppt set!

21. februar 2012 3

Outline

• Future Internet Part 1: • Introduction and background

• Motivation

• Ongoing initiatives

• Requirements Analysis

• IP Issues

• Concepts & Case Study

• Summary

• Future Internet Part 2: • Concepts and Implementation in ANA

• Information Dispatch Points

• Information Channels

• Compartments

• Monitoring Framework

• Outlook 21. februar 2012 4

Motivation

21. februar 2012 5

[Source: http://www.computerhistory.org/internet_history/]

Motivation (cont.)

21. februar 2012 6

Motivation (cont.)

21. februar 2012 7

[Opte.org]

Motivation (cont.)

21. februar 2012 8 [Source: www.ipligence.com/ worldmap/ ]

Motivation (cont.)

• Increasing dependency on the Internet in public,

commercial, and private sectors …… both number of users and importance of services

• Increasing heterogeneity …… network technologies never die – only new appear

…… from high-performance to sensors & nano-machines

• Increasing mobility

• Increasing threat level

21. februar 2012 9

Motivation (cont.)

• Variability in the Internet is above and below IP:

it's the "hour-glass" model.

21. februar 2012 10

Application

www, email, ftp, ssh, DNS,

peer-to-peer (eMule, BitTorrent)

VoIP (Skype), VoD, grid, …

Ethernet, wifi (802.11), ATM,

SONET/SDH, FrameRelay,

modem, ADSL, Cable, …

Changing/updating the Internet

core (e.g., IPv6, Multicast, MIP,

QoS, …) is difficult or impossible !

also called the "waist" of the Internet

Requirements Analysis

• ….. with smooth transition to concepts

• ….. based on our early ANA work

• …. paper at IEEE FTDCS 2007

• ….. followed up by insights from Postmodern

Internet Architecture Project (FIND)

21. februar 2012 11

Insight from Requirements Analysis

• Facts: • Lot of serious problems with Internet due to

architecture today

• Changing the core of the Internet is hard

• Future will be heterogeneous and somewhat

unpredictable

• Suggestions: • Design a new architecture core with minimal set of

hard-wired standards that can be used to build

different ‖network instances‖

• IP networks like Internet can live on this core

• Make ‖network instances‖ autonomic to solve many

hard problems of today

Outline

• Introduction

• Problems Experienced With the Internet Today

• Future Trends

• Fundamental Concepts for A Future Architecture

• Conclusions

Quest for Future Internet Architecture

• The Internet: • is not ready to integrate and manage the envisaged huge

numbers of dynamically attached devices (wireless revolution,

mobility, personal area networks etc)

• lacks integrated mechanisms, e.g. for monitoring and security

• Time is right for ‖clean slate‖ design of Future Internet • FIND (Future Internet Network Design) initative

• GENI (Global Environment for Network Innovations) initiative

• FIRE (Future Internet Research and Experimentation) initative

• ANA (Autonomic Network Architecture) project

• And others…

ANA Project

• Objective: clean slate design Future Internet Network

Architecture

• With autonomic flavor

• Strategy: ―grow‖ the architecture

• Two prototype cycles within the project lifetime

• Disruptive approach • Changing/updating the Internet core (e.g. IPv6) is very

difficult

• Expected impact

• ANA aims to be the seed of the evolved/future Inter-

Network

ANA Project Partners

• ETH Zurich • University of Basel • NEC • Lancaster University • Fokus • University of Liege • University Pierre et

Marie Curie • NKUA • University of Oslo • Telekom Austria • University of Waterloo

How does this work fit in?

• Our paper presents requirements analysis for

ANA project

• Industrial (Telekom Austria) and academic

(University of Oslo) views

• Two categories of knowledge • Own experience and expertise

• External sources • Major publications, insights from industry, and documentation

from initiatives and corresponding meetings on the future

Internet…

Problems Today:

Some Well-Known Issues

• Lack of infrastructure-level (and service-level)

support for e.g. • Monitoring

• Security

• Resilience • E.g. DTN Internet’s end-to-end principle

• Inertia towards change • IPv4, BGP…

Problems Today: Viewpoint of Commercial Service Providers

• Voice over IP • NAT traversal

• Voice security

• Emergency call handling

• Phone power supply

• Reliability

• QoS

• Delay

• Legacy Systems • Heterogeneity

• different technical, regulatory and legal requirements

• Lawful Interception (LI)

• ‖Tapping‖ a line with POTS vs. VoIP

• Mobility, end-to-end encryption in VoIP

Future trends: Approach

stakeholders

services &

applications

technology identify

requirements

workload

emerging

technologies

Future Internet

architecture

Future Trends

• Various stakeholders have differing/conflicting

requirements • End Users (Consumers)

• Telecommunications Service Provider (Network

Operator)

• Regulator & Other Government Agencies

• Protocol Developer / Standardization Bodies /

Hardware & SoftwareManufacturers

• Application Developers

• Military

Future Trends (cont.)

• Future Workload Through Services and Applications • Wide scale of throughput

• Low and high latencies

• Varying levels of resilience

• Heterogeneous addressing and naming (no more just IPvX)

• Different security and access control policies

• Future Technological Developments • Number of devices will increase

• Devices will be very heterogeneous

• Increasing number of networking technologies with

heterogeneous properties • Not device ―friendly‖ environments (e.g. in oil industry)

• Mobility: MANETs, VANETs, airplanes…

So what to conclude?

• Requirements analysis outcome • Different stakeholders want different things

• …and conflicting things

• Heterogeneity will reign

• Conclusion: No ”one-size-fits-all” solution

• What to do? • No patches to current Internet

• Architecture that supports evolution to meet future

(unknown) needs

• We propose a few fundamental concepts for future

architecture

Fundamental Concepts

1. Realms (= compartments in ANA)

2. Monitoring

3. Information and Knowledge Management

Fundamental Concepts:

Realms

• Implement different ‖network instances‖ • different properties to address different requirements • E.g. end-to-end transport or not • Note: current Internet is a kind of realm!

• Set of policies and rules • E.g. to determine data transmission protocols, addressing scheme, security

policies… • What should be hardwired as standards into a realm?

• This is what we will be stuck with (like IP,BGP) • Minimal set of assumptions and standards for maximum flexibility • ‖Bootstrap‖ process

• Analogy to booting up different OSs on a PC

• Inter-communicating realms • Translation/mapping by ‖realm gateways‖

• Self-* properties • Self-protecting, self-healing, self-configuring, self-optimizing • Autonomic realms

Realms: example

network

Sensor

network

IPv6 addressing

Strict access control

Data-centric addressing

No access control

Fundamental Concepts: Monitoring

• Existing monitoring solutions:

• Monitoring is add-on

• Need to control

• ANA should integrate monitoring as 1st class citizen

• Dynamic, adaptive, and programmable monitoring

• Trigger monitoring component, e.g. start, pause,

resume, terminate

• Dynamic placement of monitoring components

• Adapt to changes, e.g. new anomalies to be detected

• Specify the monitoring tasks at run-time, e.g. CQL for Data

Stream Management Systems

Fundamental Concepts:

Monitoring

Fundamental Concepts: Information and Knowledge Management

• No a priori knowledge in the architecture • Because of minimal hard-wired standards

• Maximum flexibility

• Which network nodes can I contact? How can I talk to

those nodes?

• Enable components to dynamically explore the

available services, interfaces, data types, etc.

Information & knowledge mgmt

Entity

Which services do you provide?

How can I use them?

…. I measure xxx

My interfaces are yyy

A unified generic

interface

Self-describing

Conclusions

• Identified (some of) architecture related problems with the current Internet

• We studied future trends • different stakeholders often have different and contradicting

requirements • Supporting heterogeneity will be a key aspect

• Conclusion: no ”one-size-fits-all”

• a set of concepts for a future network architecture • Realms

• Boot up different ‖network instances‖ through a bootstrap process

• Monitoring as an integral part of the architecture • To enable autonomic behavior

• Information and knowledge management • Dynamically explore and use available services, interfaces, data

types, etc.

Concepts

• So far we identified as important concepts • Realms

• Monitoring as 1st class citizen

• Information and Knowledge Management

• Additional concerns • Separation of identification and location

• Separation of routing and forwarding

don’t “address” end-points!

21. februar 2012 31

What is wrong with IP?

1. Why do we build networks?

2. What is IP and what are IP addresses?

3. How does routing in the Internet works?

4. What happens with mobility?

21. februar 2012 32

Why Networks?

21. februar 2012 33

What is IP and what are IP Addresses?

21. februar 2012 34

IP address:

-Identification = who

-Location = where

Routing = find a way to destination

Forwarding = send next hop on the way

Uninett

What is IP and what are IP Addresses?

21. februar 2012 35

Addresses:

-Identification = who

-Location = where

Routing = find a way to destination

Forwarding = send next hop on the way

Uninett

An IP address does not identify a specific computer. Instead, each IP

Address identifies a connection between a computer and a network. A

Computer with multiple network connections (e.g., a router) must be

Assigned one IP address for each connection.

[Computer Networks, D. Comer]

Amount of IP Adresses

21. februar 2012 36

Old classful addresses Classless addresses, CIDR notation

Amount of IP Adresses (cont.)

21. februar 2012 37

Amount of IP Adresses (cont.)

21. februar 2012 38

IPv6 Adresses: many more bits…

What happens with mobility?

21. februar 2012 39

Uninett

Utested

But this has been fixed ….

• Solutions adopted so far :

• Patches to cope with challenges contradict the

initial design paradigms, e.g. mobile IP

• Incoherencies patches to the patches

21. februar 2012 40

Consensus in the research community that

a next step beyond the Internet is needed.

What should we do now?

• Evolution vs. Revolution

• Revolution • Clean-slate approach

• Disruptive research

• Evolution • Migration path and coexistence through overlay,

federation, virtualization

21. februar 2012 41

Ongoing Initiatives

• New Future Internet initiatives have been started all over the world • Disclaimer: the overview will neither be complete and might contain

outdated information!

• AsiaFI: • Asia Future Internet Forum(AsiaFI) was founded in 2007 to coordinate

research and development on Future Internet among countries in Asia

as well as with other continents.

• http://www.asiafi.net/

• China: • China Next Generation Internet (CNGI)

• Started 2004, second phase 2009~ )

• IPv6-based • http://www.edu.cn/cernet_1377/index.shtml

21. februar 2012 42

Ongoing Initiatives (cont.)

• Korea • Future Internet Forum

• The "Future Internet Forum" aims to provide an opportunity to

review the forefront information and knowledge on the timely subject

of new Internet architecture and related issues. A direction for the

future R&D in Internet is expected to be shaped as a result of the

presentations and discussion among the experts.

• http://www.fif.kr/

• Japan • New Generation Network Promotion Forum (NWGN)

• We aim to achieve a new-generation network that extends beyond

the conventional IP network through new design concepts and

technology.

• http://forum.nwgn.jp/english/index.html

21. februar 2012 43

• Europe (EU) • Future Internet Research & Experimentation (FIRE)

• FIRE is promoting the concept of experimentally-driven

research, joining the two ends of academic-driven visionary

research and industry-driven testing and experimentation.

• FP6 first set of projects 2006 – 2009

• FP7

• 1st ―wave of projects‖ 2008 - 40M Euro

• 2nd wave 26. 10. 09 – 50M Euro

• 3rd wave 2011

• http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fire/

21. februar 2012 44

• US: • Future Internet Design (FIND)

• FIND invites the research community to consider what the

requirements should be for a global network of 15 years from now,

and how we could build such a network if we are not constrained by

the current Internet – if we could design it from scratch.

• www.nets-find.net

• Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI)

• GENI is a virtual laboratory at the frontiers of network science and

engineering for exploring future internets at scale. GENI creates

major opportunities to understand, innovate and transform global

networks and their interactions with society.

• http://www.geni.net/

21. februar 2012 45

• Norway: • Core Competence and Value Creation in

ICT (VERDIKT)

• 200M NOK – deadline 25. 11. 2009

• 110M NOK – june 2011

• The thematic research topics for this

call are Social networks, the Internet

of things and Mobile Internet. These

new research topics in the VERDIKT

programme are key drivers for the

development of the Future Internet,

which is the overall framework for this

• http://www.rcn.no/

21. februar 2012 46

[Source: http://www.worldcountries.info/Maps/Region/Europe-450-Norway.jpg]

But what means Future Internet?

21. februar 2012 47 [T. Bohnert, SAP, June 2010]

POMODO Alternative to IP

• Main points from K. Calverts presentation at

Dagstuhl Workshop on FI, April 2009

• Why do we build networks?

21. februar 2012 48 [Source: K. Calvert Dagstuhl April 2009]

POMODO Alternative to IP

• The network exists to share channels • So name channels instead

• Hmm what does this help us? • Don’t have to change names when changing levels of

abstraction

21. februar 2012 49

[Source: K. Calvert Dagstuhl April 2009]

Topology-based addressing

• Why: • Avoid need for address-assignment authority

• Hierarchical addresses leak information about other

addresses (i.e., attackers can easily guess/enumerate

host addresses)

• Instead: self-configuring, self-certifying Channel

IDs from a large, flat space • ID = hash of public key [cf. CGA]

Base Case

• Link-state discovery of infrastructure channel topology • Nodes advertise willingness to relay packets between channels

• Optionally: QoS-related information

• E.g., classes of service w/pricing, long-term statistics

• Topology/routing service collects information about infrastructure

channels and connectivity

• Topology/routing service computes paths between infrastructure

channels

• Destinations register with EID-to-Locator (E2L) service

Base case (cont.)

Base case – Control Plane

• Locators • Topology/Routing service only knows about (shared)

infrastructure channels

• Locator ties EID to infrastructure topology

• (EID, {path1, ..., pathk})

• EID-to-locator resolution system (part of infrastructure)

• Consequences: • Destinations control whether they are ―findable‖

• Multhihoming is handled naturally

• Additional resolution step

21. februar 2012 55

Locator: (E2, {d, e})

[Source: K. Calvert Dagstuhl April 2009]

Base case – Control Plane (cont.)

Base Case - Forwarding

POMODO summary

• Goal of the POMODO presentation: show how we could

do networks without IP

• …. there are more nice ideas in POMODO…

• …. but we put now more emphasis on the ANA approach,

which has some commonalities with POMODO

• …. let’s get a glimps of ANA today and the details later in

the course

21. februar 2012 62

ANA Concepts and Abstractions

• Information Dispatch Point (IDP): address

communication start points

• Functional Block: building blocks to configure

protocols and services

• Information Channel (IC): connect IDPs

• Compartments: or realms, i.e., network units

• Integrated monitoring

• Self-description

21. februar 2012 63

Appendix

• Literature: • https://wiki.ittc.ku.edu/pomo_wiki/images/Broadnets.pdf

• Useful links: • https://www.ana-project.org/

• http://www.spovnet.de/

• http://www.dagstuhl.de/en/program/calendar/semhp/?semnr=091

• http://www.gta.ufrj.br/horizon/index.php/related-projects

• http://www.asiafi.net/

• See bibliography & links

• https://www.ntt-

review.jp/archive/ntttechnical.php?contents=ntr200905sf2.html

• http://www.springerlink.com/content/e240776641607136/

21. februar 2012 64

The Future Internet Motivation, Bachground, and Basics · • Future Internet Forum •The "Future...

Documents