1 / 26

Modest networking

Modest networking. Joint work with Maria Papadopouli Hannes Tschofenig Xiaoming Fu Jochen Eisl Robert Hancock*. Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University MIND Workshop – London, Oct. 7, 2002 Keynote Address. (Opinions are the speaker’s and may not be shared by the co-authors…). Overview.

imala
Download Presentation

Modest networking

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. Modest networking Joint work with Maria Papadopouli Hannes Tschofenig Xiaoming Fu Jochen Eisl Robert Hancock* Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University MIND Workshop – London, Oct. 7, 2002 Keynote Address (Opinions are the speaker’s and may not be shared by the co-authors…)

  2. Overview • New Realism in networking • Multimodal networking • Some thoughts on QoS • CASP – another attempt at QoS signaling

  3. New realism • Old notion: build it and they will pay • “Don’t want to be just dumb bit carriers’’ • Value add  charge exorbitant fees for shipping special bits • Convergence  all bits are similar • Cheapest bits win (unless monopolies or regulation interfere) • Almost all of networking is/will be a commodity – we should be proud of it!

  4. Cost of networking

  5. Spectrum cost for 3G Generally, license limited to 10-15 years

  6. Multimodal networking • = use multiple types of networks, with transparent movement of information • technical integration (IP)  access/business integration (roaming) • variables: ubiquity, access speed, cost/bit, … • 2G/3G: rely on value of ubiquity immediacy • but: demise of Iridium and other satellite efforts • similar to early wired Internet or some international locations • e.g., Australia

  7. Multimodal networking • expand reach by leveraging mobility • locality of data references • mobile Internet not for general research • Zipf distribution for multimedia content • short movies, MP3s, news, … • newspapers • local information (maps, schedules, traffic radio, weather, tourist information)

  8. Multimedia data access modalities delay bandwidth (peak)

  9. 2G/3G WLAN hotspot + cache Infostation access sharing 7DS A family of access points

  10. 7DS options • Many degrees of cooperation • server to client • only server shares data • no cooperation among clients • fixed and mobile information servers • peer-to-peer • data sharing and query forwarding among peers

  11. Power conservation communication enabled on off time 7DS options Query Forwarding FW query query Host C Host A Host B time Querying active (periodic) passive

  12. Dataholders (%) after 25 min high transmission power P2P Mobile Info Server Fixed Info Server 2

  13. Host A Message relaying with 7DS WLAN Message relaying WAN Host B Host A messages WLAN Gateway

  14. Quality of Service

  15. Why QoS hasn’t happened • need to admit failure – “bandwidth too cheap to meter” • undemocratic: some traffic is more equal than other • dishonest: we only talk about the beneficiaries • reminds you of your mom: no, you can’t have that 10 Mb/s now • socialist: administer scarcity - we like SUVs (or to drive 100 mph)! • “risky scheme”: security exposure – reserve your whole network • niche only: displacement applications (such as telephony) need QoS • touchy-feely: requires cooperation  edge-ISP, transit ISPs, end systems • snake oil: add QoS, lose half your router interface bandwidth

  16. What makes QoS hard • No, it’s not RSVP scaling • network has become harder to evolve: • network address translation • firewalls • high packetization overhead (VPNs, IPv6) • nobody can be trusted • to be useful, has to be nearly universally supported (“no, you can’t make calls to AS 123”) • network QoS vs. business class model: “coach is empty, please refund fare” • almost all the time, reserved traffic gets same delay as best effort • applications will switch QoS classes

  17. What makes QoS hard • currently, the ISP interface is IP and BGP – adding a third one is a big deal • trust model  ISP or cash model • payment model completely unclear for peering • new Internet service model: TCP client (inside) – server (outside) • exception: peer-to-peer on college campuses • network to host: you first, no, you first

  18. What is QoS, really? • Network transparency • no loss (< 1%) • very few delay spikes (< 1%) • close to propagation delay • anything else is too hard to explain to users! • QoS is just a facet of network reliability • consistent 5% packet loss is much better than 5% probability that network is unavailable for seconds • users are willing to pay for availability • traditional QoS may help availability during outage periods • e.g., MCI/UUnet breakdown 10/3/02 • DOS attacks • failure of load distribution links

  19. CASP = Cross-Application Signaling Protocol • RSVP is being used for lots of things beyond flow setup: RSVP TE, midcom, … • Complex and monolithic • multicast support  • multiple reservation styles • killer reservations and error handling • receiver-orientation only • non-RSVP region handling • interface complexity (LIH) • fairly closely ties QoS to RSVP • hard to extract generic signaling protocols •  CASP as modular signaling protocol • currently a proposal for IETF NSIS group

  20. What is CASP? • Genericsignalingservice • establishes state along path of data • one sender, typically one receiver • can be multiple receivers  multicast • can be used for QoS per-flow or per-class reservation • also: firewall setup, TE, programmable networks, configuration, topology exploration, … • avoid restricting users of protocol (and religious arguments): • sender vs. receiver orientation • more or less closely tied to data path • router-by-router • network (AS)

  21. CASP network model – on-path selective CASP chain • CASP nodes form CASP chain • not every node processes all client protocols: • non-CASP node: regular router • omnivorous: processes all CASP messages • selective: bypassed by CASP messages with unknown client protocols QoS QoS QoS midcom omnivorous

  22. CASP network model – out-of-path Bandwidth broker NAC • Also route network-by-network • can combine router-by-router with out-of-path messaging CASP AS15465 AS17 AS 1249 data

  23. client layer does the real work: reserve resources open firewall ports … messaging layer: establishes and tears down state negotiates features and capabilities transport layer: reliable transport CASP protocol structure client layer (C) scout protocol CASP messaging layer (M) messaging layer (M) transport layer (T) UDP IP router alert

  24. Next-hop discovery • Next-in-path service • enhanced routing protocols  distribute information about node capabilities in OSPF • routing protocol with probing • service discovery, e.g., SLP • first hop, e.g., router advertisements • DHCP • scout protocol • Next AS service • touch down once per autonomous system (AS) • new DNS name space: ASN.as.arpa, e.g., 17.as.arpa • use new DNS NAPTR and SRV for lookup • similar to SIP approach

  25. Mobility and route changes • avoids session identification by end point addresses • avoid use of traffic selector as session identifier • remove dead branch DEL (B=2) discovers new route on refresh B=1 ADD B=2

  26. Conclusion • Until wireless bits are too cheap to meter, try hiding lack of universal high bit density from user • QoS is a reliability mechanism • CASP as a new signaling platform

More Related