1 / 19

Next Generation Internet

Next Generation Internet. CMPT 771 – Internet Architecture & Protocols Presented by: Bassam Almohammadi. Slide 1 of 16. Motivation. What is wrong with the current generation ?. Slide 2 of 16. Old Design. The original design of the Internet was developed more than 30 years ago.

dominy
Download Presentation

Next Generation Internet

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Next Generation Internet CMPT 771 – Internet Architecture & Protocols Presented by: Bassam Almohammadi

  2. Slide 1 of 16 Motivation What is wrong with the current generation ?

  3. Slide 2 of 16 Old Design The original design of the Internet was developed more than 30 years ago. Before Personal Computers, Local Area Networks. Limited number of users, mostly scientists. Links speed <= 50 kbps Different requirements were considered.

  4. Slide 3 of 16 Old Requirements(and priorities) Multiplexing- the primary goal.- network of sub-networks Survivability- robustness Service Generality- at transport level Diverse subnet technologies- heterogeneity

  5. Slide 4 of 16 Old Requirements(and priorities) Distributed Management. Cost Effective Ease of Attachment Accountability. Multiplexing- the primary goal.- network of sub-networks. Survivability- robustness. Service Generality- at transport level. Diverse subnet technologies- heterogeneity .

  6. Slide 5 of 16 Why the design history matters? “ An understanding of the history of the design provides a necessary context for current design extensions.” [David D. Clark, ‘88]

  7. Slide 6 of 16 What has changed? Requirements – what did we miss?

  8. Slide 7 of 16 What has changed ? 1- The Internet as an economic reality • The full economic implications of the Internet architecture were not appreciated in the first design. “I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and walked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year.”Editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

  9. Slide 8 of 16 What has changed ? 1- The Internet as an economic reality • ISPs  1990s. • How the architecture design can influence the industry? • The design of the network architecture induces the structure of the industry • Open protocols among routers → competitive market in routers. • BGP → competitive market in wide-area ISPs. • The next generation cannot succeed without being economically worthy.

  10. Slide 9 of 16 What has changed ? 2- The erosion of trust and the need for security • The size of the network. • Universal transparency is scary! • The core of the Internet is oblivious to the content of packets. • It might be an important factor in the success of the Internet. • However, it becomes prone to security risks. • The size of the network and, the level of transparency and risk. • Powerful transparent → seriously risky → firewalled ! • Firewalls affected the ease of deploying new applications on the Internet.

  11. Slide 10 of 16 What has changed ? 3- The emergence of conflicting interests Privacy V.S. Lawful interception Protection from spam and adware V.S. Spammers and advertising agencies Sharing of multimedia V.S. Intellectual rights holders • This existence of this tussle might prevent the achievements of essential goals. (security). • An overarching objective of all architectural decisions : “Design for tussle”.

  12. Slide 11 of 16 What has changed ? 4- New application requirements • Is the “best effort” specification for packet transfer service sufficient enough ? • The network make no specific commitments about transfer characteristics. • End-system software must take this unpredictability into account. • “best effort” made Internet protocols could run “anything”. • Is this acceptable in a “grown up” Internet ? • As a commercial product with paying users. • As a tool for more demanding applications (real-time). • Wide range of operating conditions OR predictability? Tradeoff must be managed.

  13. Slide 12 of 16 What has changed ? 5- New technology features • Since the Internet protocols were first proposed: • High-speed local area networks – new wide-area technologies (ATM) – new mechanisms for virtualization and encapsulation (MPLS) and wavelength division multiplexing – the emergence of embedded devices. • It’s remarkable how the Internet has accommodated most of new technologies. • One certain technology that does challenge the original architecture ?

  14. Slide 13 of 16 What has changed ? 5- New technology features • WIRELESS (Mobility) • Some technical features (Higher loss rates) raise specific issues (Congestion Ctrl) • Main issue: Mobility • Raises: addressing, routing, security, service quality variation, etc.

  15. Slide 14 of 16 Architecture then and now In the light of the changing requirements

  16. Slide 15 of 16 Key architectural features • Packets • The basic idea is robust, and has stood the test of time. • Abstraction should be rethought to meet today’s need. • Addressing and identity • The IP address must be rethought (separating location and identity). • E.g. FARA [FARA03] • Security • Must not be viewed as a single dimensional space (i.e. more is better)but a multi-dimensional space, shaped by conflicting interests. • Back to the conflict of interests to precisely define security requirements.

  17. Slide 16 of 16 New architectural directions • New Congestion Control scheme • To accommodate new higher speeds. • E.g. XCP (eXplicit Congestion Protocol). [NewArch, 2003] • An alternative to protocol layering • Layered protocol: Increased complexity and rigidity. • Serious architectural limitations (layer violations, feature interaction, proliferation) • What about a non-layered architecture? • E.g. RBA (role-based architecture). [NewArch, 2003]

  18. NGI Projects and Resources • NewArch • European Future Internet • GENI : Global Environment for Network Innovation. • Clean Slate Research Program (Stanford University). • FIRE : Future Internet Research & Experimentation. • Internet 2 • Future Internet Forum (Korea). • AKARI (Japan). • G-Lab (Germany).

  19. References • Clark, D., Sollins, K., Wroclawski, J., Katabi, D., Kulik, J., Yang, X., and others, “New Arch: Future Generation Internet Architecture”. Final Technical Report. 2003. • Clark, D., “The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet Protocols”. SIGCOMM 1988. • Clark, D., Sollins, K., Wroclawski, J., Barden, R., “Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet”. ACM SIGCOMM 2002, August 2002. • National Coordination Office for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development, “NGI: A Glimpse Into the Future”, Indiana University, April 9, 1998.

More Related