100 likes | 118 Views
Why we don’t need ANTS (and active networks)…. Johnny Ngan. By employing ANTS…. Increase overhead and latency Reduce at least 74% throughput Consume many more CPU cycles. Won’t use it anyway. Overview. Why active network is a dumb idea Why ANTS sucks. Santa’s view.
E N D
Why we don’t need ANTS (and active networks)… Johnny Ngan
By employing ANTS… • Increase overhead and latency • Reduce at least 74% throughput • Consume many more CPU cycles Won’t use it anyway
Overview • Why active network is a dumb idea • Why ANTS sucks
Santa’s view • If active network is so great, why not to have the whole network stack written in Java and running in user mode?
Security issues • Running mobile code is dangerous • Java: the way to go? • New security attacks • Timing issues (e.g. SSH vulnerability)
Won’t be useful • Routers won’t be “active” • Complicated, large overhead • Only implemented by end systems • And you used multicast as an example? • Why not just use IP/UDP?
Overview • Why active network is a dumb idea • Why ANTS sucks
Poor choices of language • Java is slow • Reduce at least 76% throughput • “the system is usable for experimenting with distributed application” • CPU overhead not discussed
Freedom: Always the more the better? • Encourage nonstandard protocol • Emerging of TCP-unfriendly protocols • More congestion problems • DDoS is easier than ever! • Also easy to steal CPU cycles…
Resource limiting is nontrivial • Adds to overhead • Can be done but hard to avoid overuse