The Internet, or Something Better An Update on the NetSE Council

1. The Internet, or Something BetterAn Update on the NetSE Council Ellen W. Zegura Chair, NetSE Council School of Computer Science, Georgia Tech 28 October 2008

2. Pictures with captions The Internet topology (wikipedia) Acholi children in an International Displaced Persons camp in Kitgum (wikipedia)

3. Current Internet

4. Intellectual Space(not to scale) Goal: Understand how to design, engineer and operate “better” networks Societal Values [Are we missing anything?] Network Design and Engineering Network Science Economics (Behavior) and Networks Theoretical CS

5. Ellen Zegura, GT, chair Joe Berthold, Ciena Charlie Catlett, Argonne Mike Dahlin, UT Austin Chip Elliot – GPO (ex-officio) Joan Feigenbaum, Yale Stephanie Forrest, UNM Roscoe Giles, Boston Univ Michael Kearns, UPenn Ed Lazowska, Washington Peter Lee, CMU Helen Nissenbaum, NYU Larry Peterson, Princeton Jennifer Rexford, Princeton NetSE: Community effort Mission: The primary mission of the Network Science and Engineering (NetSE) Council is to articulate a compelling research agenda for Network Science and Engineering, including inter-related theoretical, experimental and societal aspects. Additions pending – workshop leaders, other enthusiasts

6. Workshops • Science of Network Design • John Doyle, CalTech/NSF • John Wroclawski, ISI • July 29 and 30, southern CA • Behavior, Computation and Networks • Mike Kearns, U Penn • Colin Camerer, CalTech • July 31 and August 1, La Jolla • Network Design and Societal Values • David Clark, MIT • Helen Nissenbaum, NYU • September 24-26, Washington DC

7. Meetings • Smaller than workshops • Extract/expand on more well trod areas • Theory and Network Design • John Byers (BU), Joan Feigenbaum (Yale), Ellen Zegura (GT) • June 11, Boston • Network Design and Engineering • Nick Feamster (GT), Amin Vahdat (UCSD), David Andersen (CMU), Mike Dahlin (UT Austin), Jen Rexford (Princeton), Craig Partridge (BBN), David Clark (MIT), Dmitri Krioukov (CAIDA), NSF folks, GPO folks • August 17, 18, Seattle at SIGCOMM

8. Timeline • June-Sept 2008 – elaborate the space • workshops (3) • meetings (2) • Oct 2008 • draft research agenda completed • incl. recommendations on how to advance agenda • Nov 2008 • collect feedback (from few then many) • December 2008 • finalize research agenda

9. Brief overview of workshops • Science of network design • Behavior, computation and networks • Network design and engineering • Network design and societal values

10. Science of Design Workshop

11. SoD Themes • Models and model validation • from self-referential to observational to generative (predictive) • semantics • Architecture derivation • from optimization frameworks • combined with past examples • Local-global interactions and design

12. 2 10 1 10 power-law degrees 0 10 3 0 1 2 10 10 10 10 Example: Global Results from Local Actions“Design by Constraints” (JTW) High degree hub-like core • Poor performance and robustness • Wasteful, expensive • From “random” generator, high probability, but • Unlike real Internet Two “Internet Topologies”; same power law parameters.. Low degree mesh-like core • High performance and robustness • Efficient, economic • From “random” generator, low probability, but • Like real Internet

13. Why is this? (JTW) • This is surprising to many in network science • This is not surprising to most Internet engineers • What’s going on? Add gateway routers and end systems consistently with technological constraints on these routers and systems… Abilene Backbone Physical Connectivity Intermountain GigaPoP Northern Lights U. Memphis Indiana GigaPoP Front Range GigaPoP U. Louisville Great Plains Merit OARNET WiscREN OneNet Qwest Labs Arizona St. NCSA U. Arizona StarLight Iowa St. MREN Oregon GigaPoP NYSERNet Kansas City Pacific Wave Indian- apolis WPI UNM Denver Northern Crossroads Pacific Northwest GigaPoP Seattle Chicago SINet New York U. Hawaii ESnet SURFNet Rutgers AMES NGIX GEANT Wash D.C. Sunnyvale WIDE Los Angeles Get topology [synthesized or real] with high throughput, efficiency, economy CENIC MANLAN Atlanta Houston UniNet North Texas GigaPoP MAGPI SOX PSC TransPAC/APAN Texas Tech DARPA BossNet SFGP/ AMPATH Mid-Atlantic Crossroads Texas GigaPoP Miss State GigaPoP UMD NGIX Drexel U. UT Austin U. Florida Florida A&M LaNet U. Delaware UT-SW Med Ctr. NCNI/MCNC Tulane U. U. So. Florida Start with an engineeredbackbone…

14. Design by constraint (JTW) • The desirable topology is due to both • Classical engineering • Local constraints shaping global results • To be fair, perhaps somewhat by accident.. • The key question: can we do it onpurpose? • Design, not of the complete system, but of components from which systems with desired properties will come forth? • Formalization of methods for this class of design

15. Behavior, Computation and Networks Workshop (MK) • Bring together researchers with behavioral and computational interests • Introduce a behavioral component to Algorithmic Game Theory (AGT) • Examine how AGT can inform/shape behavioral experiments • Discuss opportunities and challenges for larger-scale human subject experiments • CS/AGT strength: system design, theories of scaling, network models • Behavioral Game Theory strength: experimental design and methodology, network models

16. Workshop Topics (MK) • How do computational considerations modify BGT? • How do behavioral considerations modify AGT? • How can we “scale up” behavioral experiments? • examination of (social) network effects • use of web/Internet technology • development of shared experimental infrastructure/platforms • If there were no technology/methodology limits, what experiments would we do? • How can we mix human subjects and artificial agents in interesting ways? • What are the appropriate (statistical) models for collective behavioral data?

17. Better: Human-network understanding (MK)

19. Network Design and Engineering Meeting Themes • Complexity of Requirements • Exemplar question: Should a future Internet achieve five 9’s reliability? • Abundance of Technology • Exemplar question: How do we enable on-the-fly composition of network protocols across heterogeneous devices? • Need for Experimentation • Exemplar question: What experimentation platforms are most useful?

20. Space/Time Paths No (Space/Time) Paths Space Paths Example: Heterogeneous Mobility High “Mobility” Hybrid Environments Low Low High Node Density

21. Implications for Routing MANET ROUTING DTN ROUTING SPARSE NET ROUTING

22. Network Design and Societal Values Workshop • Personal – a fascinating experience of following what someone is saying right up until they say a word that cannot possibly fit into the meaning you had previously been assuming

23. Network Design and Societal Values Issues and Themes • Example issues: • Security, privacy, identity, trust • Openness • Conditions and motivations for participation • Example, cross-cutting themes: • Visibility and transparency • Incentives • Networks as experimental environments

24. Better: Internet penetration

25. Better: Human-network interface • Ask people to sketch their networks, these are two renditions of the same network. One is technically right, but is the other “wrong”. The other shows the network embedded in local familial practices... [credit Beki Grinter, Keith Edwards]

26. Some research challenges • Human-network interface • Materially more secure network w/out lockdown • Networking/computing at the margins • Mobility • Circuit->Packet->Network switching • Science of network design (not your physicist mother’s network science) • New technologies – quantum, mcore, programmable down to the waveform

27. Thank you!Questions and feedback welcome