Applied Networking-IV (2231114)

Lecture Week-13
The Future of Internet Networking

Lecture by: Djadja.Sardjana, S.T., M.M.

www.slideshare.net/djadja

The state of
internet-4m
THE GOALS

reexamine all networking assumptions;

reinvent where needed;

design for intended capabilities;

deploy and validate architectures;

build new services and applications;

encourage users to participate in experimentation;
and

take a system-wide approach to the synthesis of new
architectures.
The Internet is becoming wireless

Laptop sales exceeded desktop PC sales in July 2003

2B mobile phones in use by the end of 2005 > ~1B Internet users
>~0.5B networked PC’s …most new phones also have packet data
capability

Overall, this means that by 2015, # wireless Internet terminals >> #
wired!
 Laptops, cell-phones, PDA’s, iPoD’s ~ 10x PC’s/servers
 Embedded devices (sensors, actuators, RFID,…) ~ 10-100x PC’s & growing

This has important implications for network architecture, both wired
and wireless:
 Wireless access networks must scale and handle new types of devices (sensors,
etc.)
 The Internet, which was designed in the 70’s for wired PC-PC/server
connections, needs to scale and evolve towards changing service needs
Wireless Internet Access Evolution
MSC

Internet
Public Switched Network
(PSTN) Mobile/wireless service enhancements
Custom
BSC
Mobile
Infrastructure
(e.g. GSM, 3G) BTS
WLAN
BTS Access Infostation
cache
Point
WLAN
VOIP Hot-Spot

CDMA, GSM
Ad-hoc
or 3G radio network
access network extension

VOIP
Broadband Media cluster (dual-mode)
(e.g. UWB or MIMO)

Today Low-tier clusters

Future?
(e.g. low power 802.11 sensor)
Impact on Internet
Architecture
Internet Architecture: Prior Work

Clark, et al completed a DARPA project on “Future Generation
Internet Architecture” in Dec 2003: emerging requirements from a
wired-network perspective,
 Addressing: separation of identity from routable location
 Security: trust-mediated transparency… remains largely open problem.
 User empowerment: competitive service provides, NIRA vs. BGP
 Precise semantics: verification, protocol normalizer…
 Congestion control: beyond TCP  XCP
 Alternatives to layering: “role-based architecture”
 Region-based or geographically aware architecture
 Knowledge Plane: overlay for distribution of status information
 End-to-End Principle: reevaluation of current model
 Mobility: optimize for mobility, or mobility as a special case?
 QoS: need for economic enablers
Internet Architecture: Caveats

Previous attempts at upgrading of IP spec have not had the
expected result:
 IPv6 standardized but not widely deployed...
 Little progress with end-to-end QoS in the Internet
 Mobile IP for first wave of wireless needs not implemented
 IP’s lowest common denominator (best effort datagram) also its greatest strength!

Earlier attempts at utopian new network architectures mostly ended

in failure, in spite of technical merits
 B-ISDN/ATM did not take off (...complexity, lack of organic growth model)
 Significant standards activity and community endorsement not sufficient to launch new network
architectures...
 Problems with 3G wireless

This doesn’t mean that new networks aren’t needed, but

architectures needed to encourage bottom-up transformation without
loss of investment in legacy system:
 Evolutionary strategies preferable
 New approaches to protocol standards: hierarchies, modularity, open-source,..
 Economic incentives for deployment
Internet Architecture: Next Steps

Wireless and sensor network scenarios lead to a set of next-
generation Internet requirements, including:

REVISE!!!!!
 Network optimized for mobile end-points, support for mobile routers
 Connection oriented flows + packet datagram, multicast
 Overlay services such as location- or content-aware routing
 In-network processing and storage, delayed delivery
 Self-organization, auto-configuration capabilities
 Elimination of ad-hoc to IP gateway
 Unified routing metrics across ad-hoc and IP nets
 Geographic, location-aware or content-aware routing
 Cross-layer protocol support
 New security and privacy models for wireless/ad-hoc
 Lightweight protocol options
 Attribute-based address resolution
 Power-efficient protocol modes
 In-network computation for sensors
 Reevaluation of end-to-end transport arguments
 New socket abstractions and transport services
Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change

Evolutionary approach
 Design a new wireless, ad-hoc and sensor “low-tier IP network profile to be “compatible” with
IP global network (e.g. IPv6, BGP routing, MPLS, etc.)
 Identify critical hierarchy and core IP extensions needed and pass requirement to IETF, etc.
 Evolve IP functionality via new RFC’s
 As wireless service needs proliferate, new low-tier IP may replace current IP intra-network

Border
New Interface Spec
GLOBAL INTERNET Router IP Access
for IPv4 Network
Border IPv6 extensions (e.g. IPv4)
Router
for IPw Border
Router
for IPw
IP Wireless/Sensor
Access Network (IPw)
IP Wireless/Sensor
Access Network (IPw)

New Protocol Spec

Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change

Overlay approach
 Design new wireless, ad-hoc or sensor access net to work across global overlay network
 Specify and build new overlay networks optimized for wireless needs
 May include concept of an “IP knowledge plane” accessible by overlay
 If successful, IP is pushed down to a “layer 3-” service, while overlay is “3+”
 Permits significant flexibility in advanced service features, but tight optimization of packet overhead more
difficult due to IP encapsulation

new knowledge plane?

GLOBAL INTERNET Border

IP Tunnel Router
IP Access
Network

Overlay Net
Gateway
GLOBAL OVERLAY NETWORK

new wireless-specific services

Overlay Net
Gateway
Overlay Net
Gateway
New Wireless/Sensor
Access Network
New Wireless/Sensor
Access Network

New Design (non-IP)

Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change

Revolutionary approach
 Specify a new “beyond IP” network optimized for mobile/wireless/sensor
 Build a prototype nationwide network and offer it for experimental use
 Use this network for emerging mobile data and real-time sensor actuator applications with
demanding performance and efficiency requirements
 Most radical, risks being marginalized by Internet evolution and legacy staying power

Next-Gen GLOBAL INTERNET

Border
optimized for
New Designs (beyond IP) emerging needs including Gateway
IP Access
wireless-specific services
Network

New Access Network

New Access Network
optimized for
wireless, etc.
The NSF WMPG (Wireless
Mobile Planning Group)
Workshop Aug 2-3, 2005
NSF Wireless Mobile Planning Group (WMPG)
Workshop - Rutgers Aug 2-3, 2005

A group of about 30 researchers in the wireless area met at

Rutgers (under the leadership of Ray Dipankar) to discuss:
 Unique requirements posed by wireless mobile users
 Potential impact on the Internet architecture
 Experimental facilities required to explore the new Internet architecture solutions

A report was issued in October:

“New Architectures and Disruptive Technologies for the Future
Internet:Wireless, Mobile and Sensor Network Perspective”
www.winlab.rutgers.edu/WMPG
The “wireless” requirements

Identify new requirements placed by wireless users on the Internet “network

layer”

These new requirements may trigger a “redesign” of the IP stack (or more
generally the way we do networking)

We were not concerned with SOLUTIONS at this point

Questions to be addressed:
 What is the wireless scenario/application you are addressing?
 What is the problem to be solved?
 What are the new qualitative requirements on the network layer?
 What is the impact of these innovations on user performance?
The wireless scenarios

We identified three representative scenarios:

 The individual mobile user, interacting only with Internet resources

 The mobile “constellation”: the users equipped with several devices/interfaces,

interacting with the Internet, with environment (instrumented user) and with each
other (opportunistic ad hoc networking). This model applies to individuals while
they walk, drive cars, fly planes, ride trains etc.

 The “dynamic” pervasive sensor fabric”: this concept includes the traditional
environment sensor fields as well as the mobile sensor fields (people, car sensor
fabrics). This latter scenario is clearly connected with the instrumented
constellation scenario
Wireless Service
Requirements
Summary of Network Requirements and Architecture
Challenges

 1. Naming and addressing flexibility

 2. Mobility support for dynamic migration of end-users and network devices
 3. Location services that provide information on geographic position
 4. Self-organization and discovery for distributed control of network topology
 5. Security and privacy considerations for mobile nodes and open wireless
channels
 6. Decentralized management for remote monitoring and control
 7. Cross-layer support for optimization of protocol performance
 8. Sensor network features such as aggregation, content routing and in-
network processing
 9. Cognitive radio support
 10. Economic incentives to encourage efficient sharing of resources
 Wireless Requirements: Mobile Data

Fast growth of (conventional) mobile data terminals with wireless access
link implies a need for new services on the Internet:
 Terminal mobility (authentication, roaming and dynamic handoff)…mobile IPv6
 Multicasting …IP multicast
 Security …e.g. protection against AP spoofing
 Efficient transport layer protocols (..non TCP)

Major topic in research & standards during 90’s, but limited use..

Roaming,
INTERNET handoff

Access
High packet Point (AP)
Error rate

Mobile data
mobility
terminal

Radio multicasting
Wireless Requirements: Mobile P2P

P2P, 7DS, Infostations, etc. represent another emerging category
of mobile applications on the Internet
 Router mobility
 Network may be disconnected at times …delayed delivery?
 Caching and opportunistic data delivery …. In-network storage
 Content- and location- aware data delivery

Internet
Mobile Infostation
Infostation
Low-speed wide-area
Data access
Opportunistic Cache
Opportunistic
High-Speed Link
Ad-Hoc High-Speed Link
(MB/s) Infostation
Network (MB/s)
cell
Mobile User

Roadway Sensors
 Wireless Requirements: Ad-Hoc Nets

Ad-hoc nets with multiple radio hops to wired Internet useful for various
scenarios including mesh 802.11, sensor, etc.
 Discovery and self-organization capabilities
 Seamless addressing and routing across wireless-wired gateway
 Geographic routing options
 Support for end-to-end cross-layer protocol approaches where needed
 Privacy and security considerations

Best sensor-to-mobile path via wired network

Wired Internet (needs unified routing)

IP-Ad-hoc Net
Wireless link with
Protocol Conversion
Access varying speed and QoS
Gateway
Point

Local Interference
and MAC Congestion
Ad-Hoc
Network Sensor

Relay Node
Dynamically changing
Network topology
 Ad-Hoc Network: Discovery Protocol

Creates efficient ad-hoc network topology just above MAC layer in
order to reduce burden on routing protocol…

Internet

AP
coverage AP AP
Access Point (AP)
area
Self-organized Low-tier access links
ad-hoc network (AP/FN Beacons, MN
Forwarding Associations, Data)
Node (FN)
FN FN
MN MN
MN
Ad-hoc infrastructure
links between FNs and
MN MN APs AP
MN FN (AP/FN Beacons, FN
Associations, Routing
FN
Low-tier coverage
Exchanges, Data)
(e.g. sensor) area
Mobile Node (MN)
MN MN

FN FN Beacon
•Scan all channels
Channel 4
•Find minimum delay links to AP
Beacon Transmit Power
•Set up routes to AP
Required: 4mW
•Send beacons Assoc
•Forward SN data
Channel 2
Transmit Power SN
Hops
Source Broadcast Node Packet Cluster Sequence Node Transmit Required: 1mW •Scan all channels
MAC MAC ID Type ID Number Type
To
Power •Associate with FN/AP
AP
•Send data

Beacon Frame Format

Cross-Layer Protocols: Transport Source Destination

Syn messa
Src 1 Dest 1
ge
Internet Syn Ack
AP
Rate 1
} 1
2 Data Requires
exchange
of routing,
Src 2 n1
Dest 2 congestion

Network Stack in Src Rate 2

} n1 + 1

ACK (n
1, 0)
and link
quality/rate
odic information
L1 peri
n2 across
Application layer } X wired-
wireless

Network Status Aggregation

Cross-Layer Aware Flow Rate Network Status Rate 3
boundary

Control Plane
Transport Protocol Pkt Size
X
(CLAP) Algorithm Packet loss rate
Rate 4
} (L1,00
00 0010)
Network Layer Route Status
n3
NACK
Retx
MAC / Link Layer
Congestion Indicator Rate 5
} n3 + 1 Retx
L1
L1+7

Physical Layer Channel Quality, Fin Messa

ge
Channel Rate
Fin Ack

CLAP HIGHLIGHTS 5 Throughput - No Network Congestion 5 Throughput w ith Netw ork Congestion
4.5 4.5
• Cross Layer Aware 4 TCP 4 TCP
3.5 3.5
CLAP CLAP
Mbps

• Separate Error and 3 3

Mbps
2.5 2.5
Flow Control 2 2
1.5 1.5
• Rate-based Flow 1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
• Selective-Repeat 1 Flow 2 Flow s 3 Flow s 4 Flow s 1 Flow 2 Flow s 3 Flow s 4 Flow s
Wireless Requirements: Cognitive Radio

Cognitive radio drives consideration of adaptive wireless networks
involving multi-hop collaboration between radio nodes
 Needs Internet support similar to ad-hoc network discussed earlier
 Rapid changes in network topology, PHY bit-rate, etc.  implications for routing
 Fundamentally cross-layer approach – need to consider wired net boundary
 High-power cognitive radios may themselves serve as Internet routers…

PHY A
INTERNET
PHY C
Bootstrapped PHY &
C control link PHY B

B
B
Multi-mode radio PHY
Ad-Hoc Discovery
DD Control
& Routing Capability

(e.g. CSCC)
E
Adaptive Wireless
A
A Network Node
(…functionality can be quite
challenging!)
End-to-end routed path
From A to F F
 Wireless Requirements: Sensors

Sensors and actuators with size/power constraints
 Limited CPU processing & memory (?)
 Communication speed may be low
 Intermittent connectivity (power saving modes)
 Relatively unreliable components
 Very different application requirements

Important new paradigm, since # sensors potentially MIT DVS

in the billions
 Protocols & system designs still at an early stage
 First sensor nets for simple measurement applications
 More complex “closed-loop” sensor/actuator in future

UC Berkeley MOTE
Sensor Applications: Highway Safety

Sensors in roadway interact with sensor/actuator in cars
 Opportunistic, attribute-based binding of sensors and cars
 Ad-hoc network with dynamically changing topology
 Closed-loop operation with tight real-time and reliability constraints
Sensor Applications: Assisted Living

Emergency event triggers interaction between object sensors and
body sensors and initiate external communication
 Heterogeneous ad-hoc network
 Sensors used to detect events and specify location
 Real-time communication with care provider
Sensor Systems: Overlay Services

Overlay networks can be used for content distribution or dynamic
binding between sensor devices and servers, agents, end-users
 Use of XML or similar content descriptor to specify sensor data and application profile
 “Layer 7” overlay network (implemented over IP tunnels) provides content mcast or
binding service between producers (sensors) and consumers (servers, users)

Application
Agent
Interest Profile

XML
Descriptor Overlay
Router
B
Mobile User
Overlay
Router
A

Sensor Content Content Consumers

Producer
Sensor Systems: Socket Abstractions

Need for more powerful socket abstractions for general-purpose
sensor net programming. Requirements include:
 Choice of networking modes (ad-hoc, content-based, proxy IP, etc.)
 Choice of datagram and static/dynamic binding modes
 Transport layer reliability and flow control options
Wireless Requirements: Sensor Nets

Self-organizing and robust ad-hoc network

Lightweight protocols with low packet overheads

Optimization of protocols for power efficiency

Attribute- or location- based connectivity

Potential use of in-network processing & storage

New privacy and security considerations

New socket abstractions & TP options

The Experimental
Facilities
Experimental Infrastructure for Future
Wireless Network Research

Techniques for Flexible Experimental Wireless Networks

 Virtualization of Wireless MAC
 Cognitive Radio
 Wireless Network Monitoring and Measurement

Measuring and characterizing mobility.

Measuring heterogeneous networks overlapping in space.

Measuring cellular and DTN networks.

Cooperative sharing of measurements
 Wireless Network Repository
 Emulation and Simulation Testbeds for Wireless
 Wireless Networking Platforms
 Platform Software and End-to-End Architecture
Experimental Infrastructure for Future
Wireless Network Research (cont)

Wireless Network Repository

Emulation and Simulation Testbeds for Wireless

Wireless Networking Platforms

Platform Software and End-to-End Architecture
Virtualized Multi-MAC
Experimental Wireless Networks
Integration of Existing Testbeds
Ad Hoc Mesh Networks
Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation 1: the Internet will undergo a fundamental transformation over

the next 10-15 years; invest in research programs aimed at creating necessary
technical foundations.

Recommendation 2: Increase research focus on central network architecture
questions related to future mobile, wireless and sensor scenarios.

Recommendation 3: Invest in development of flexible wireless technologies and
platforms necessary to implement programmable and evolvable experimental
networks.

Recommendation 4: Fund development of large-scale experimental wireless
networks for effective validation and competitive selection of new architecture and
protocol concepts.

Recommendation 5: Encourage collaborative research that would result in end-to-
end deployment and evaluation of future wireless/mobile and sensor networks and
applications over the global Internet.
Examples of Research enabled by the new
testbed platforms

Vehicle Grid Applications
 Car Torrent
 Ad Torrent
 Car to Car Games
 Vehicle Sensor Network
Co-operative Downloads: Car-torrent, Ad
torrent

Internet

Vehicle-Vehicle Communication

Exchanging Pieces of File Later

Car2Car Games: Game Server Architecture +
Car-networking Scenario
Vehicular Sensor Network (VSN)

Applications
 Monitoring road conditions for Navigation Safety or Traffic control
 Imaging for accident or crime site investigation

1. Fixed Infrastructure
Infostation 2. Processing and storage

Car to Infostation

1. On-board “black box”

2. Processing and storage

Car-Car multi-hop
Thank you!
Project Plan
Project Plan: High-Level Goals

12 month pilot project aimed at developing a strategic agenda
for next-generation Internet architecture from a wireless and
sensor network perspective:
 Defining the problem scope
 Identification of emerging wireless & sensor net requirements

Study of future wireless scenarios leading to network service specs

Input from wireless technical community, including academic and industrial

Proof-of-concept research projects on 2-3 novel networking requirements
 Evaluation of prospects for evolutionary change to Internet standards

Study of IPv6+∆ as well as more radical next-gen IP efforts (Clark, etc.)

Discussions with Internet technical community
 Recommendations for realizing next-generation Internet responsive to wireless
and sensor net requirements

Wireless/sensor network rationale and related open research problems

Strategies for meeting requirements through Internet evolution

Strategies for more fundamental change to the Internet architecture

Outline of a 5-yr technology, policy and standards research agenda to drive this forward
Project Plan: Methodology

Wireless & sensor network contributions from core team, leading to
a next-generation requirements white paper
 Representative group including both academic and industrial members
 Tap into existing pool of NSF PI’s in NeTS and other related programs
 Leverage next-gen wireless community surrounding ORBIT project at WINLAB
 Email, teleconferences and ~1-2 meetings

Small research projects on key wireless/sensor net protocols
 ~2-3 selected wireless/sensor net research projects to evaluate critical architectural needs
 Papers and proof-of-concept demos leveraging other project resources

Using this white paper as a basis, initiate discussions with Internet
community at both standards and research levels
 IETF, Internet Architecture Group
 Other future Internet architecture research projects, e.g. Clark DARPA, ..
 Overlay network community, e.g. Planetlab,..
 Contacts with standards and project leads, + a publicly announced workshop

Write final report for NSF
 Wireless and sensor net rationale & requirements
 Strategies for changing Internet architecture to reflect these needs
 Research agenda
Project Plan: Potential Contributors

Core Project Team (total ~7-8) prospects
 D. Raychaudhuri, Rutgers

extensive experience with wireless and broadband network architecture and technology development

 David Johnson, Rice U

leading academic researcher in ad-hoc networking and experimental wireless networks

 Badri Nath, Rutgers

strong track record as an innovator in wireless and Internet protocols (mobile IP, I-TCP, geo-routing..)

 Arup Acharya, IBM Research

protocol specialist with research and standards experience on mobile IP, mobile ATM, VOIP, ad-hoc nets

 Krishan Sabnani, Lucent Bell Labs

extensive experience with wireless and wired network protocols (RMTP, transport protocols, ...)

 Marco Gruteser, Rutgers

academic researcher in the area of location-aware networking and sensor sockets

 Jim Kurose, U Mass

leading academic researcher in network protocols and performance, both wired and wireless

 Mario Gerla, UCLA

prominent academic researcher in ad-hoc, sensor and tactical network architecture and prototyping

 Victor Bahl, Microsoft Research

currently leading Microsoft’s mesh network deployment projects; also founded of ACM M2CR

 David Culler, UC Berkeley

leading academic researcher in the area of sensor networks

 Wade Trappe, Rutgers

active academic researcher in the area of wireless network security and privacy

 Dirk Grunwald, U Colorado

established academic researcher working on mobility, location-aware systems, cognitive radio
Project Plan: Deliverables & Outcomes

~12 month project with two phases as shown:
 wireless & sensor net white paper (Months 0-4)
 small proof-of-concept projects, leveraging other resources (Months 2-12)
 Internet architecture study, workshop & report (Months 5-12)
Papers,
Proof-of-
Small Research Projects on Key Wireless/Sensor Protocols concept
demos

Wireless
Wireless & Sensor Net Architecture
& Sensor
and Requirements Study Net
Architecture Internet Architecture Study/Workshop Final
White Paper and Strategies for Change Report

Month- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Applied Networking-IV (2231114)
Lecture Week-13
The Future of Internet Networking
“Closing Word”
Lecture by: Djadja.Sardjana, S.T., M.M.
www.slideshare.net/djadja

Top_10_Fore
casts__2009
Global Environment for Networking
Investigations (GENI)

explore new networking capabilities that will advance

science and stimulate innovation and economic
growth….
GENI

Build in security and robustness;

Enable the vision of pervasive computing and bridge
the gap between the physical and virtual worlds by
including mobile, wireless and sensor networks;

Enable control and management of other critical
infrastructures;

Include ease of operation and usability; and

Enable new classes of societal-level services and
applications.
GENI

The GENI Initiative includes:
 A research program; and
 A global experimental facility designed to explore new architectures at
scale.

CISE is encouraging a broad community effort that

engages:
 other agencies
 other countries, and
 corporate entities.
Geni

develop new networking and distributed systems
capabilities by:
 Creating new core functionality: Going beyond existing paradigms of datagram,
packet and circuit switching; designing new naming, addressing, and overall
identity architectures, and new paradigms of network management;･ ･
 Developing enhanced capabilities: Building security into the architecture;
designing for high availability; balancing privacy and accountability; designing
for regional difference and local values;･ ･
 Deploying and validating new architectures: Designing new architectures that
incorporate emerging technologies (e.g., new wireless and optical technologies)
and new computing paradigms enabled by pervasive devices;･ ･
 Building higher-level service abstractions: Using, for example, information objects,
location-based services, and identity frameworks;･ ･
 Building new services and applications: Making large-scale distributed applications
secure, robust and manageable; developing principles and patterns for
distributed applications; and
 Developing new network architecture theories: Investigating network complexity,
scalability, and economic incentives.
GENI FACILITY WILL ENABLE

Shared use through slicing and virtualization in time and
space domains (i.e., where "slice" denotes the subset of
resources bound to a particular experiment);

Access to physical facilities through programmable
platforms (e.g., via customized protocol stacks);

Large-scale user participation by "user opt-in" and IP
tunnels;

Protection and collaboration among researchers by
controlled isolation and connection among slices;

A broad range of investigations using new classes of
platforms and networks, a variety of access circuits and
technologies, and global control and management software;
and

Interconnection of independent facilities via federated
design.
Geni Facility

The GENI Facility will leverage the best ideas and
capabilities from existing network testbeds such as
PlanetLab, ORBIT, WHYNET, Emulab, X-Bone, DETER
and others.

However, the GENI Facility will need to extend beyond
these testbeds to create an experimental
infrastructure capable of supporting the ambitious
research goals of the GENI Initiative.
In planning for GENI:

CISE has supported numerous community workshops
and is supporting on-going planning efforts, including
needs assessment and requirements for the GENI
Facility.

CISE will hold town meetings and continue to support
future workshops to broaden community participation.
CISE will work with industry, other US agencies, and
international groups to broaden participation in GENI
beyond NSF and the US government.