1 / 30

A Scalable Internet Architecture

A Scalable Internet Architecture. Nirmala Shenoy, Victor Perotti, Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) Technical and socioeconomic studies Koushik Kar, Aparna Gupta Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Technical and business studies Murat Yuksel University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)

talor
Download Presentation

A Scalable Internet Architecture

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. A Scalable Internet Architecture Nirmala Shenoy, Victor Perotti, Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) Technical and socioeconomic studies Koushik Kar, Aparna Gupta Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Technical and business studies Murat Yuksel University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Technical studies

  2. Introduction • Small Grants Exploratory Research (SGER) • High risk research idea • Revolutionary design to a clean slate future Internet • But – based on well proven concepts OUTCOMES

  3. A Scalable Internet Architecture • Technical • Architectural studies – includes addressing, protocols • Support for wireless networks and roaming users • Transition • Socioeconomic & Business impacts • Stakeholder incentives • Transition • 6 months into the new grant

  4. Technical Questions Addressing • Do we need 2 addresses? Logical and Physical Observation – global Logical addresses - look up and extensive routing • 32 not enough, 128 not wireless friendly Flexible - tailored to requirement, easy transition • Current Internet – optimize on meshing When to mesh and how much? Combination of hierarchy and mesh structures • Given above- relook at the protocol stack? Topological consideration Protocols The above should be ISP friendly. Easy transition

  5. Architectural studies Addressing Structural topology Wireless networks support

  6. Addressing in the ISP topology High level Typical - Tier 1 BB1 One POP BB2 BB3 CLOUD CLOUD CLOUD Tier 2 DR1 DR4 DR2 DR3 Tier 3 AR1 AR4 AR2 AR3 RPI RIT UofN

  7. BB cloud identifier Tier based addressing - inter and intra cloud Tier 1prefix 1. 1 1.1:1 2.1:2:x 2.1:1:1 1.1:2 1.1:3 2.1:1:2 2.1:1:3 2.1:1:4 3.1:1:1:1 3.1:1:1:2 3.1:1:1:3 3.1:1:1:4 BB1 BB3 DR cloud identifier BB Cloud identifier BB2 DR1 Tier 2 prefix 2. 1: 1 DR4 DR2 DR3 AR1 AR3 AR3 AR4 Tier 3 prefix 3. 1: 1: 1 Rochester Institute of Technology Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Tier 4 prefix 4. 1:1:1:1?? Flexible Addressing - Wireless friendly

  8. Flexibile Addressing Scheme Length field Address field Length field Address field Tier field 2.1:1:4 6 bits 2 bits 4- 12 bits “01” “10” “11” “00”  Special handling 4 bits  16 systems 8 bits  256 systems 12 bits  4096 systems 6 bits – 64 tiers 000010 01 0001 01 0001 01 0100 tier 1st address 2nd address 3rd address

  9. Flexibility in Addressing Scheme • Faster forwarding between tiers – • Switch on tier field – UP, DOWN, • Same level –Mesh as required and route - maximum 4096 • Distribute routing load to within tiers • Address length depends on tier level – (no fixed size) • Addresses will never run out • 00 - Special addressing – wireless networks, roaming user • Flexibility – nested addressing

  10. Nested Addressing DNS BB1 BB2 Cloud ID 1.1 BB3 Cloud ID– 2.1:1 DNS DR1 DR4 DR2 DR3 Cloud ID– 3.1:1:1 AR4 AR3 Global ID– 3.1:1:1:x BB2 Tier 1 – 1.1 • Flexibility at tier level • Internal addressing structure • Private, partly private/public • DNS to locate • DNS hierarchy • domain name service /tier BB1 OR1 OR2 Tier 2 – 2.1:1 Client network Small ISP DNS

  11. Special Handling Length field = 00 – No forwarding Address field • 00 – Last address field • 01 - Roaming user • 02 - Proprietary addressing • IPv4 • IPv6? • 03 – sensor networks • 04 – user requires an address • 05 – user requires some service Length field 2 bits 01 – 4 bits 10 – 8 bits 11- 12 bits 00- special handling

  12. Roaming User AAA server Cloud ID 1.1 BB1 BB2 3.1:1:1:1 3.1:1:1:2 3.1:2:1:4 AAA server BB3 AAA server Cloud ID– 2.1:1 DR1 Cloud ID– 2.1:2 DR4 DR2 DR3 AR2 AR1 Cloud ID– 3.1:1:1 AR4 Cloud ID– 3.1:2:1 Request – length=00, Afield=01 Request – length=00, Afield=01 TIER LEVEL DISTRIBUTED AAA SERVERs MN MN Address assigned – 3.1:1:1:1:x Address assigned – 3.1:1:1:2:x NO HOME ADDRESS CONCEPT – LOCATE BY NAME SERVICE ONLY

  13. The Protocol Stack Application with reliable transmission if required Max routing table size -4096 Tier 1 ISPs - around 10 entries Impact on all optical networks Inter ISP agreements (RPI &UNR) ISP - transit services (RPI & UNR) Port Services Switch up/down, Intra-tier routing Medium Access control Physical layer

  14. Architectural studies - Progress • Proposed architecture, addressing developed in Opnet • Imported AT & T topology from Rocketfuel • Imported to Opnet for simulation studies • Imposing hierarchy in the ISP topology • Cytoscape based optimization study

  15. AT & T Seattle POP Rocket fuel – Cytoscape (architectural studies)

  16. Address Length DistributionAT&T (USA)

  17. Wireless Network-Roaming studies • Studying seamless roaming scenarios • Addressing during roaming • Mobility Anchor points concept • Common prefix • Optimization • AAA service • DNS service

  18. Transition studies (Technical) • Inherent in the solutions • Structural topology– ISP topologies start point • Addressing – ISP and wireless friendly • backward compatible • What is different? • The structure is not an overlay • Effect of underlying structure is still there • Virtual effect, complex • Solution can be implemented at layer 2 • Impact the underlying structure • Modification to MPLS – HLSP (hierarchical Label switching) • Label stacking – hierarchy can be introduced

  19. Test Beds • Test bed of 12 Linux systems • IP applications • MPLS test bed - transition • MPLS based testing at RIT network

  20. Tier 1 11 12 21 24 Tier 2 22 23 Tier 3 32 34 36 31 37 33 35 21-32 / 32 21-11-23-35 / 11-23-35/ …… 21-22-33 / 22 – 33 / 33 21- 12- 24- 37 / 12 -24-37/ …. 21 – 12- 24- 36 / 12-24-36/ … 21-22-34 / 22-34 /34

  21. 123 1 111121 12 1111 1111212 1231 11 11112 111 124 111212 122 RIP ? OSPF ? DIJSKTRA’S 122 1 1112 11121 12311 1221 124 1 12211 1121 11211 MULTI MESHED TREE ALGORITHM 112

  22. Socioeconomic and Business Impact studies

  23. The Socioeconomic Piece: Towards Understanding the Market Context for Network Innovation • Initial Business Industry Analysis • Buyer Power • Language check: Deployment ≠ Adoption

  24. Which forces are prevalent in the Internet Industry? Traditional Business Analysis (ala Porter) looks at 5 Forces in an Industry. Collectively, these forces inform the business opportunities available in this Industry Note: The threat of New Entrants and Supplier Power are the key Drivers according to Datamonitor 2007

  25. Which entities are capturing value? Shawn O'Donnell’s 2002 Economic Map of the Internet is being enhanced to reflect the state of the 2009 Internet Industry. An Economic Value Map can help to identify key influencers in the Industry.

  26. But what else is happening? “Web could collapse as video demand soars” –Daily Telegraph 4/28/2008 “Study: 44% Of Internet Traffic Is Peer-to-Peer” Multichannel News 6/23/2008 “NebuAd loses CEO, business model in wake of tracking furor” ArsTechnica 12/5/2008 susanbeebeRT @Dan_Agnew: RT @LeeDrake: I am putting together a website to try to attract VerizonFIOS to Rochester. #TWC needs some real competition about 8 hours ago from TweetDeck

  27. Traditional analysis does not capture the new importance of users • Scott Jordan’s 4 Tenets • ISP adoption driven by consumer “product” (example VOIP or Video) • Fixing problems versus enabling features • “Glacial” adoption of IPv6 Science Engineering Economics Business Here Be Dragons

  28. Know the Consumers We are conducting a study of Internet stakeholders to evaluate the adoption of a new Internet infrastructure. Initial 90 respondents from NANOG 2009

  29. And further • Clemon’s concept of Informedness alters traditional thinking on Product, Promotion, Pricing(2008). • How might we designing “Products” and/or Incentives for various target Customers (ISP, CIO, End User) • Contract Switching…coming up next

  30. Questions ?

More Related