15-849: Hot Topics in Networking Four Next Generation Architectures

1. 15-849: Hot Topics in NetworkingFour Next Generation Architectures Srinivasan Seshan

2. Key Questions • How do these proposals differ in addressing similar problems? • Routing • Addressing • Service interface • Security • Economics/Policy • Mobility • Naming

3. Key Questions • What are the key hurdles for each project? • Scalability • Difficult scenarios/usage models • Inherent complexity • Handling real-world incentives/economics • Evolution from current network

4. Key Questions • Do you believe in basic motivations of each project? • Do we really need a new Internet arch? • If so, how do we deploy this? • What about IPv6?

5. NSF Programs • Stagnation • 100x100  Clean Slate Design • PlanetLab • Overcoming the Internet Impasse through Virtualization  GENI • FIND  FIA (aka FIND phase 2) • Phase 1 – 50 “small” projects • Phase 2 – 4 large “integrative” projects • Named Data Networking • MobilityFirst • NEBULA • eXpressive Internet Architecture

6. Named Data Networking • In the beginning... • First applications strictly focused on host-to-host interprocess communication: • Remote login, file transfer, ... • Internet was built around this host-to-host model. • Architecture is well-suited for communication between pairs of stationary hosts. • ... while today • Vast majority of Internet usage is data retrieval and service access. • Users care about the content and are oblivious to location. They are often oblivious as to delivery time: • Fetching headlines from CNN, videos from YouTube, TV from Tivo • Accessing a bank account at www.bank.com.

7. To the beginning... • What if you could re-architect the way “bulk” data transfer applications worked • HTTP • FTP • Email • etc. • ... knowing what we know now?

8. Google… Biggest content source Third largest ISP Global Crossing Level(3) Google source: ‘ATLAS’ Internet Observatory 2009 Annual Report’, C. Labovitz et.al.

9. 1995 - 2007:Textbook Internet 2009:Rise of the Hyper Giants source: ‘ATLAS’ Internet Observatory 2009 Annual Report’, C. Labovitz et.al.

10. What does the network look like… ISP ISP

11. What should the network look like… ISP ISP

12. Communication vs. Distribution

13. CCN Model • Packets say ‘what’ not ‘who’ (no src or dst) • communication is to local peer(s) • upstream performance is measurable • memory makes loops impossible Data

14. Context Awareness? • Like IP, CCN imposes no semantics on names. • ‘Meaning’ comes from application, institution and global conventions: /parc.com/people/van/presentations/CCN /parc.com/people/van/calendar/freeTimeForMeeting /thisRoom/projector /thisMeeting/documents /nearBy/available/parking /thisHouse/demandReduction/2KW

15. Signed by nytimes.com/web/george Signed by nytimes.com/web Signed by nytimes.com CCN Names/Security ⎧⎪⎨⎪⎩ /nytimes.com/web/frontPage/v20100415/s0/0x3fdc96a4... • Per-packet signatures using public key • Packet also contain link to public key signature 0x1b048347 key nytimes.com/web/george/desktop public key ⎧⎪⎨⎪⎩ ⎧⎪⎨⎪⎩

16. Names Route Interests • FIB lookups are longest match (like IP prefix lookups) which helps guarantee log(n) state scaling for globally accessible data. • Although CCN names are longer than IP identifiers, their explicit structure allows lookups as efficient as IP’s. • Since nothing can loop, state can be approximate (e.g., bloom filters).

17. CCN node model

18. get /parc.com/videos/WidgetA.mpg/v3/s2 CCN node model P /parc.com/videos/WidgetA.mpg/v3/s2 0

19. Flow/Congestion Control • One Interest pkt  one data packet • All xfers are done hop-by-hop – so no need for congestion control • Sequence numbers are part of the name space

20. What about connections/VoIP? • Key challenge - rendezvous • Need to support requesting ability to request content that has not yet been published • E.g., route request to potential publishers, and have them create the desired content in response

22. Trust in NDN

23. MobilityFirst • Fundamental change in design goals and assumptions • ~10B+ mobile/wireless end-points as “first-class” Internet devices • Mobility as the norm for end-points and access networks • Wireless access – varying link BW/quality, multiple radios, disconnections • Stronger security/trust requirements due to: • open radio medium • need for dynamic trust association for mobile devices/users • increased privacy concerns (e.g. location tracking) • greater potential for network failure • Mobile applications involve location/content/context and energy constraints • Technology has also changed a lot in the ~40 yrs since IP was designed • Moore’s law improvements in computing and storage (~5-6 orders-of- magnitude gain in cost performance since 1970) • Edge/core disparity, fast fiber but continuing shortage of radio spectrum

24. MobilityFirst • Clean-slate protocol design that directly addresses the problems of mobility at scale, while also strengthening the trust model • End-point and network mobility at scale • Intrinsic properties of wireless medium • More stringent security/trust requirements • Special needs of emerging mobile applications • Fixed internet access is treated as a special case of the more general design • Although the “sweet spot” of our protocol is wireless/mobile, we believe that our design provides important benefits to fixed network applications • Security/trust • Robustness • Fault tolerance • Context/content

25. Goals • Host + network mobility • No global root of trust • Intentional data receipt • Byzantine robustness • Content addressability • Evolvable network

26. Additional Design Principles • Visibility and choice • Usability • Manageability • Simplicity • Regulability • Commercializability • Technology-awareness

27. MobilityFirst Architecture

28. Protocol Stack

29. Name-Address Separation

30. Name Resolution

31. Storage Aware Routing

32. Security 1. Public keys global identifiers for hosts & networks; forms basis for: • Ensuring accountability of traffic • Ubiquitous access-control infrastructure • Robust routing protocols • Preventing address hijacking 2. Support deployment of policies that constrain the traffic that a network or node receives • In the limit, a “default-disconnected” posture 3. No single globally trusted root for naming or addressing • Opens naming to innovation to combat naming-related abuses • Removes obstacles to adoption of secure routing protocols 4. Systematically consider Trusted Computing Base of designs • Promote TCB reduction technologies (e.g., Byzantine fault tolerance)

33. NEBULA • NEBULA is an architecture for the cloud-based future Internet • More secure and reliable • Deployable and evolvable • Truly clean slate • Availability: At riskofnetworkoutages • Security: • Poorendpointauthentication • HIPAApolicyrestrictions notexpressiblewithexisting routing protocols • Consistency: • Communications end--‐point focused, notdatafocused • Cloudsystemshaveembracedweakconsistency (CAP Theorem)

34. Architecture

35. Network Security • The “big I” InternetIs federated: • Policiesmustbeenforcedacrossrealms (e.g., DDoS) • NEBULAaddressesproblemsatrightplaces: • Extensibility+Policy: newcontrolplane • PolicyEnforcement: newdataplane • Availability: high-performance, redundant-pathcorewithhigh‐availability corerouters

36. NDP

37. NEBULA Virtual and Extensible Network Techniques (NVENT)

38. NEBULA Core (NCore)

39. XIA Vision We envision a future Internet that: • Is trustworthy • Security broadly defined is the biggest challenge • Supports long-term evolution of usage models • Including host-host, content retrieval, services, … • Supports long term technology evolution • Not just for link technologies, but also for storage and computing capabilities in the network and end-points • Allows all actors to operate effectively • Despite differences in roles, goals and incentives

40. Src: Client IP Dest: Server IP Today’s Internet • Client retrieves document from a specific web server • But client mostly cares about correctness of content, timeliness • Specific server, file name, etc. are not of interest • Transfer is between wrong principals • What if the server fails? • Optimizing transfer using local caches is hard • Need to use application-specific overlay or transparent proxy – bad! TCP Client IP Server IP

41. Src: Client ID Dest: Content ID eXpressive Internet Architecture • Client expresses communication intent for content explicitly • Network uses content identifier to retrieve content from appropriate location • How does client know the content is correct? • Intrinsic security! Verify content using self-certifying id: hash(content) = content id • How does source know it is talking to the right client? • Intrinsic security! Self-certifying host identifiers PDA Content

42. Flexible Trust Management Anywhere A Bit More Detail … Dest: Service ID Content Name? Dest: Client ID Diverse Communicating Entities Content ID Dest: Content ID Intrinsic Security Hash( ) = CID? XIA Transformational Ideas

43. P1: Evolvable Set of Principals • Identifying the intended communicating entities reduces complexity and overhead • No need to force all communication at a lower level (hosts), as in today’s Internet • Allows the network to evolve Content a581fe9 ... Services d9389fa … Future Entities Host 024e881 … 39c0348 …

44. P2: Security as Intrinsic as Possible • Security properties are a direct result of the design of the system • Do not rely on correctness of external configurations, actions, data bases • Malicious actions can be easily identified Content a581fe9 ... Services d9389fa … Future Entities Host 024e881 … 39c0348 …

45. 043e49af3890dd327134389a90cd2199 P3: Narrow Waist for Trust Management • Ensure that the inputs to the intrinsically secure system match the trust assumptions and intensions of the user • Certificate authorities, reputation, personal, … • Narrow waist allows leveraging diverse mechanisms for trust management Trust Management Declaration of Independence

46. XIA adds evolvability at the waist: Applications Evolving set of principals Link technologies IP: Evolvability of: Applications Link technologies P4: Narrow Waist for All Principals • Extends today’s host-based narrow waist to all principals: hosts, services, content, … • Defines the API between the principals and the network protocol mechanisms

47. P5: All other Network Functions are Explicit Services • DNS, firewalls, … • Causes problems in IP • Covers all functions not part of the narrow waist • XIA provides a principal type for services • Keeps the architecture simple and easy to reason about

48. XIA: eXpressive Internet Architecture • Each communication operation expresses the intent of the operation • Also: explicit trust management, APIs among actors • XIA is a single inter-network in which all principals are connected • Not a collection of architectures implemented through, e.g., virtualization, overlays • Not based on a “preferred” principal (host, content), that has to support all communication

49. XIA Components and Interactions Users Applications Services Network-Network User-Network Trustworthy Network Operation Intrinsic Security Host Support Content Support Services Support … eXpressive Internet Protocol

50. What ApplicationsDoes XIA Support • Since XIA supports host-based communication, today’s applications continue to work • Will benefit from the intrinsic security properties • New applications can express the right principal • Can also specify other principals (host based) as fallbacks • Content-centric applications • Explicit reliance on network services • Mobile users • As yet unknown usage models