NSF/Mideast Workshop

Future Internet Architectures Panel

Convener: Zhi-Li Zhang University of Minnesota

Panelists

•  Jeff Chase, Duke University •  Sonia Fahmy, Purdue University •  George Kesidis, Penn State University •  Taieb Znati, Pittsburgh University •  Zhi-Li Zhang, University of Minnesota

Internet: Past & Now •  From the original 4-node ARPANet (in 1969)

–  underwent a few transformations

•  to today’s “hourglass” Internet architecture –  based on TCP/IP (+ DNS & BGP) as the core networking protocols

•  Original Internet Design Goals: David Clark [Sigcomm88] In the order of importance:

0  Connect existing networks 1.  Survivability 2.  Support multiple types of services 3.  Must accommodate a variety of networks 4.  Allow distributed management 5.  Allow host attachment with a low level of effort 6.  Be cost effective 7.  Allow resource accountability

What Has Become of Internet •  Information Service Platform

–  deliver all kinds of information (web, iTune, YouTube, Netflix, …)

•  Global Information Repository –  store and search for all kinds of information (e.g., Dropbox)

•  Cyberspace and Virtual Communities –  keep in touch with friends and strangers (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)

•  Enormous Super-Computer –  cloud & mobile computing and services

•  What’s coming: Internet of Things Ø  … we increasingly depend on it!

Diverging Trends … •  Internet Core: concentration

–  high bandwidth, dense connectivity –  data centers: computing, storage, networking, …

•  Internet Edges: diversification –  “smart” to “dumb” devices

•  PCs with significant processing and storage capacities •  small or mobile devices with limited computing, memory, power, …

–  broadband to narrowband –  “always on” to intermittent connectivity

Challenges and Opportunities! •  overcome heterogeneity, seamlessly integrate •  new services & “disruptive” technologies

Within the Internet Core •  Large ISPs with large

geographical span and •  Large content providers

with huge data centers

•  High capacity, dense and rich topology

•  Cloud Computing/Services and Mobile Computing

On the Internet Edge … •  Large number of mobile

users •  Large number of “dumb”

or “smart” devices and appliances, some resource constrained

•  Intermittent connectivity with varying bandwidth

•  Diverse applications and services

•  Heterogeneous technologies

Internet   Home users

Banking & e-commerce

dumb & smart phones

POTS

VoIP

Multimedia Streaming

Games

Surveillance & Security

Online TV Web/emails

Challenges Facing Today’s Internet •  Scalability: capability to connect tens of thousands, millions or

more users and devices –  routing table size, constrained by router memory, lookup speed

•  Availability & Reliability: must be resilient to failures –  need to be “proactive” instead of reactive; need to localize effect of failures

•  Mobility: users and hosts/servers are more mobile –  need to separate location (“addressing”) and identity (“naming”)

•  Manageability: ease of deployment, “plug-&-play” –  need to minimize manual configuration –  self-configure, self-organize, while ensuring security and trust

•  Security & Privacy: –  in addition to encryption, etc, how to distinguish “good” guys from “bad”

guys à need a “social, behavioral & economic” perspectives!

•  Economic Viability –  various stakeholders, often with shared but also competing interests

Challenges Facing Today’s Internet •  Scalability: capability to connect tens of thousands, millions or

more users and devices –  routing table size, constrained by router memory, lookup speed

•  Availability & Reliability: must be resilient to failures –  need to be “proactive” instead of reactive; need to localize effect of failures

•  Mobility: users and hosts/servers are more mobile –  need to separate location (“addressing”) and identity (“naming”)

•  Manageability: ease of deployment, “plug-&-play” –  need to minimize manual configuration –  self-configure, self-organize, while ensuring security and trust

•  Security & Privacy: –  in addition to encryption, etc, how to distinguish “good” guys from “bad”

guys à need a “social, behavioral & economic” perspectives!

•  Economic Viability –  various stakeholders, often with shared but also competing interests

Internet: critical global information infrastructure,

big, complex, massively distributed, and changing!

US NSF “Future Internet Architectures” Initiatives

Started circa 2006, two phases •  Phase I: FIND (Future Internet Network Design) Initiative

–  A number of small and medium-size projects funded –  See http://www.nets-find.net

•  Phase 2: FIA (Future Integrative Architectures) Initiative –  Four large multi-institution projects funded

•  eXpressive Internet Architecture (PI: Peter Steenkiste, CMU)

•  MobilityFirst (PI: Dipankar Raychaudhuri, Rutgers U.)

•  Named Data Networking (PI: Lixia Zhang, UCLA)

•  NEBULA (PI: Jonathan Smith, U. of Pennsylvania)

–  See http://www.nets-fia.net •  Separately, GENI Initiative (serving as testbed?)

Why Research on “Future/New Internet Architectures”

My personal perspective:

•  Many short-term “fixes/patches” have been developed/applied –  fix some problems but introduce others; e.g., NAT, firewalls –  also make things more complex and error-prone (esp. net config.)

•  Certain limitations of the Internet architecture require radical changes and long-term solutions –  need “out-of-the-box” re-thinking of network architectures –  where the (academic) research community can play a significant role!

•  “Clean-slate” (re-)designs of Internet architectures –  unconstrained by the current Internet’s “idiosyncrasies” –  unencumbered by “conventional wisdoms”

Panelists

•  Jeff Chase, Duke University •  Sonia Fahmy, Purdue University •  George Kesidis, Penn State University •  Taieb Znati, Pittsburgh University •  Zhi-Li Zhang, University of Minnesota

NSF/Mideast Workshop New Internet Architectures Panel

VIRO:

Scalable, Robust & Name-Independent Virtual Id Routing

for (future) Large-scale, Dynamic Networks

Zhi-Li Zhang Qwest Chair Professor

Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Minnesota

Email: zhzhang@cs.umn.edu

Designed to Meet Challenges posed by Large, Dynamic Networks (e.g., Data Center Networks)

•  Scalability: capability to connect tens of thousands, millions or more users and devices –  routing table size, constrained by router memory, lookup speed

•  Mobility: hosts are more mobile –  need to separate location (“addressing”) and identity (“naming”)

•  Availability & Reliability: must be resilient to failures –  need to be “proactive” instead of reactive –  need to localize effect of failures

•  Manageability: ease of deployment, “plug-&-play” –  need to minimize manual configuration –  self-configure, self-organize, while ensuring security and trust –  Agility: dynamically adapt to demand

•  ......

Pros & Cons of Existing Technologies

•  (Layer-2) Ethernet/Wireless LANs u  Pluses:

•  plug-&-play, minimal configuration, better mobility

u  Minuses: •  (occasional) data plane

flooding, sub-optimal routing (using spanning tree), not robust to failures

•  Not scalable to large (& wide-area) networks

–  IETF TRILL

q  (Layer-3) IPv4/IPv6 ¤  Pluses:

•  better data plane scalability, more “optimal” routing, …

¤  Minuses: •  control plane flooding, global effect of

network failures •  poor support for mobility •  difficulty/complexity in “network

renaming” •  Esp., changing addressing schemes

(IPv4 -> IPv6 transition) requires modifications in routing and other network protocols

Meeting the Challenges: VIRO: A Scalable, Robust, Namespace-

Independent, “Plug-&-Play” Routing Architecture •  Decoupling routing from naming/”addressing”

–  “native” naming/address-independent •  “future-proof” & capable of supporting multiple namespaces

•  Introduce a “self-organizing” virtual id (vid) layer –  a layer 2 (LLC)/layer-3 convergence layer –  subsume layer-2/layer-3 routing/forwarding functionality

•  except for first/last hop: host to switch or switch to host •  layer-3 addresses (or higher layer names): global addressing or naming for

inter-networking and “persistent” identifiers

l  DHT-style routing using a topology-aware, structured vid space •  highly scalable and robust: going beyond shortest-path routing, with built-

in multi-path & fast rerouting capabilities, –  O(log N) routing table size, localize failures, enable fast rerouting

•  support multiple topologies or virtualized network services

Virtual ID layer and VID space •  Topology-aware, structured virtual id (vid) space

–  embed physical topology in a Kademlia-like “virtual” binary tree –  virtual id’s (vid’s): encode location of nodes/switches, i.e., “locators” –  self-configurable and self-organizing –  support (interoperability of) multiple namespaces & multiple virtual nets

Layer 2 Physical Network Topology

IPv4/IPv6

Virtual ID Layer

Other Namespaces DNS Names

M N H

G J L K

C

F E B

D A 1

1

1

1 1

0

0

0 0 0 1 1

0

0

1

1 0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0 0

-­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐  -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐  -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐   -­‐  F  E   H  G  B  A   D  C   N  M   J   L  K  

1

0

0 1

0 0 1

1

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

VIRO: Three Core Components •  Virtual id space construction and vid assignment

–  performed most at the bootstrap process (i.e., network set up): •  a vid space “skeleton” is created

–  once network is set up/vid space is constructed: •  a new node (a “VIRO switch”) joins: assigned based on neighbors’ vid’s •  end-host/device: inherits a vid (prefix) from “host switch” (to which it is attached), plus

a randomly assigned host id; host may be agnostic of its vid

•  VIRO routing algorithm/protocol: –  DHT-style, but needs to build end-to-end connectivity/routes

•  a bottom-up, round-by-round process, no network-wide control flooding •  O(log N) routing entries per node, N: # of VIRO switches

l  (Persistent) layer-2/3 address/name resolution and vid look-up –  DHT directory services built on top of the same vid space

•  “persistent” identifier (e.g., MAC/IP address) hashed to a “vid” key, which is then used for (pid, vid) mapping registration, look-up, etc.

l  Data forwarding among VIRO switches using vid only

Summary •  VIRO provides a scalable & robust substrate for future networks •  Enables (nearly) configuration-free networks •  Support for multiple namespaces •  Support mobility, multiple topologies, virtualized network

services, security •  Backward compatibility: compatible with current host protocols

(such as ARP etc) •  Ongoing & Future work:

–  prototyping using Click and Openflow –  virtualized services, inter-domain routing issues

Please visit http://networking.cs.umn.edu/newsite/veil-wiro

for: demo videos, List of related publications, source code, or simply search online for “VIRO VEIL”