Date post: | 27-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | samuel-carney |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
COntent Mediator architecture for content-aware nETworks
Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 1 © COMET
Francisco Javier Ramón Salguero ([email protected])
Telefónica Investigación y Desarrollo
Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 2 © COMET
• COMET (COntent Mediator architecture for content-aware nETworks)• FP7 project, Collaborative project (STREP)
• Theme: ICT-2009.1.5 Networked Media and 3D Internet
• Duration: 3 years
• Budget: 4,948,612 € (EC contribution: 3,259,365 €)
• Partners:Industrial partners
• Web: http://www.comet-project.org/
The COMET projectIntroduction
Academic partners
Slide 3 © COMETConcertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010
RationaleThe environment
• QoE in Internet:
RationaleQoE expectations
Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 4 © COMET
“I have watched a TV episode and it was great.Definition was fine.”
“I have watched a TV episode and it was great.Definition was fine.”
It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and
the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.
means
• QoE in Internet:
• QoE in IPTV:
RationaleQoE expectations
Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 5 © COMET
“I have watched a TV episode and it was great.Definition was fine.”
“I have watched a TV episode and it was great.Definition was fine.”
It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and
the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.
means
It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and
the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.
becomes
“My ISP is cheating on me!”“My ISP is cheating on me!”
… but this d
uality in
expectations is vanish
ing
Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 6 © COMET
• COMET aims to provide a unified interface for content access whatever the content characteristics are:– temporal nature (pre-recorded or live), – physical location (centralised or distributed), – interactivity requirements (elastic or real-time), or – any other relevant features
• It also aims to apply the most appropriate end-to-end transport strategy:– By mapping the content according to its requirements and user
preferences to the appropriate network resources• best quality of experience for end users
– All different types of content distribution will be supported:• Unicast, anycast, multicast…
The COMET projectTop-level objectives
… while preserving network availability and structural resilience, as key factors in perceived QoE
… while preserving network availability and structural resilience, as key factors in perceived QoE
Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 7 © COMET
USER VIEW: FLEXIBILITY
End user
Router
Router Router Content server
Content server
Router
Router Router
End user
PHYSICAL NETWORK: SCALABILITY & STABILITY
IMPLICATIONS:o Maximum BW & Users with minimum costo Minimum number of IDs and rules (aggregation)
IMPLICATIONS:o Interface as simple as possibleo Flexible identificationo Help to search capabilitieso A huge amount of IDs and information (disaggregation)
BUILDING BLOCKS:
• Local QoS & Multicast• Evolution of basic network services (DNS, RADIUS, LDAP)
Contradiction between both
worlds???
Content mediation for efficient traffic distributionRequirements
THE COMET CONCEPT: Mediation to connect both worlds efficiently Locating content according to delivery requirements (content mediation) Delivering it using the most suitable resources (network mediation)
Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 8 © COMET
End user
Router
Router Router Content server
Content server
Router
Router Router
End user
Mediation server
Mediation server
Mediation server
USER VIEW: FLEXIBILITY
PHYSICAL NETWORK: SCALABILITY & STABILITY
Content Mediation Plane
Content Forwarding Plane
IMPLICATIONS:o Interface as simple as possibleo Flexible identificationo Help to search capabilitieso A huge amount of IDs and information (disaggregation)
BUILDING BLOCKS:
• Local QoS & Multicast• Evolution of basic network services (DNS, RADIUS, LDAP)
VIRTUALIZATION
NEW NETWORK SERVICES
Contradiction between both
worlds???
IMPLICATIONS:o Maximum BW & Users with minimum costo Minimum number of IDs and rules (aggregation)
EFFICIENTINFRASTRUCTUR
E
Content mediation for efficient traffic distributionRequirements
• Project oriented to practice
– Focused on practical objectives: satisfaction of actual demands
• We should solve something demanded by someone
– Feasible:
• Technically possible
• Scalable (for actual deployments)
– Demonstrable in practice
• Proof-of-concept prototypes in realistic network testbeds
• Scalability and performance evaluated through theoretical studies and
simulations.
• Project oriented to standardization and dissemination
• Internet-wide scope
• Required to influence IndustryConcertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 © COMET 2009Slide 9
Our objectives, brieflyProject orientation
Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 10 © COMET
The COMET projectOrganization - Workplan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
WP1: Project Management
WP2: Requirements and System Architecture
WP3: Content Mediation System
WP4: Content-aware Network Enhancement
WP5: Integration, Validation and Evaluation
WP6: Experimentation and Demonstration
WP7: Exploitation, Dissemination and Standardization
1.1: Project Administration
1.2: Website and Mailing Lists Maintenance
2.1: System Requirements
2.2: Business Models
2.3: Architecture and High-level Design
3.1: User/Application Interaction with the Content Mediation System Edge
3.2: Intra Content Mediation System Protocols and Algorithms
3.3: Network and Content Server Awareness in the Content Mediation System
3.4: Content Mediation System Implementation
4.1: Non-disruptive Deployment on the Current Internet
4.2: Non-disruptive Deployment on IP networks with Multi-Service Capabilities
4.3: Disruptive Deployment Based on Edge Computed Routing (ECR)
7.1 Coordination of Dissemination and Standardization
7.2 Development of Exploitation Plans and Roadmaps for Deployment
4.4: Router Prototypes Adapted to Content-aware Networking
5.1: Integration with Selected Applications
5.2 Integration and Validation of the COMET System
5.3: Evaluation of COMET System Scalability
6.1 Demonstration Scenarios
6.2 Prototype Experimentation and Demonstration
Deliverable Milestone Internal Report
D3.2
D2.1
D2.2
D3.3
D4.2
D4.3
D7.4
D5.1
D2.3
D7.2
D6.1
I3.1
I4.1
D5.2
I2.1
I5.1
I5.2
MS31
MS41
MS51
MS52
MS11 MS12 MS13
MS21
D6.2
D3.1
D4.1
D7.1 D7.3MS71
Y1: Design of thearchitecture
Y2: Implementation
Y3: Demonstration
Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 11 © COMET
The COMET projectWP organization
Project Management
WP1
TID
Requirements andSystem Architecture
WP2
TID
Integration, Validationand Evaluation
WP5
WUT
I2.1
D3.2,D3.3
I3.1, D3.1
I4.1, D4.1
D4.2,D4.3
Experimentationand Demonstration
WP6
PrimeTel
D2.2
D2.3
D2.1
I2.1
D3.1 D3.3
D4.1D4.2
D7.1 D7.2
I5.1, I5.2
D5.1
D5.2D5.1
D6.2
D6.1
I5.1I5.2
D7.3 D7.4
Exploitation, Disseminationand Standardization
WP7
INTRACOM TELECOM
D3.2
Content MediationSystem
WP3
UCL
I3.1
I4.1
Content-awareNetwork Enhancement
WP4
UniS
D4.3
Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 12 © COMET
The COMET project