Meta-Headers: Top-Down Networking Architecture with - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Meta-Headers: Top-Down Networking Architecture with Application-Specific Constraints Murat Yuksel University of Nevada, Reno Reno, NV yuksem@cse.unr.edu http://www.cse.unr.edu/~yuksem IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 1
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
1
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
2
The variety of applications possible is increasing,
wireless peer-to-peer, mobile data, community
The size is increasing:
million-to-billion nodes
The dynamism is increasing:
vehicular networks, sensor networks, MANETs
What is unavoidable?: More dynamism, more
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
3
(a) OSI Transport Network Data Link Physical Session Presentation Application (b) Wireline Transport
(TCP, UDP)
Network
(IP)
Data Link
(Ethernet 802.3)
Physical
(Fiber, Cable)
Application (c) Wireless Transport
(TCP, UDP)
Network & MAC
(IP, Mobile IP, 802.1x)
Physical
(RF, Fiber, Cable)
Application (d) MANET, peer-to-peer
Network & Routing
Application Physical
(RF, FSO, Fiber, Cable)
Application-Specific Hardware-Specific Network-Specific
Static Structured Layered invariants Mobile, ad-hoc, dynamic Unstructured Cross-layer & layered invariants
We need a systematic way of implementing vertical components to avoid an unhealthy monolithic stack architecture. Economics always has the bigger force: economically attractive applications will keep forcing more vertical components into the stack!
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
4
Wireless research has been responding with
optimizing via cross-layer designs adding custom-designed vertical components to the
Old hat: layered vs. cross-layer tradeoff
Bottom-up cross-layer has been the main
Scarcity of wireless resources dominated the
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
5
A paradigm shift: wireless resources are
Community wireless WiFi hotspots Google WiFi, AT&T Metro WiFi
Spectrum resources may still be scarce but
The key metric to optimize is becoming
App-specific vertical designs are needed..
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
6
Merging layers:
A greedy approach Makes it hard to standardize – bad for sw engineering
Which layers must be absolutely isolated?
Application, Network, Physical?
Integrating lower level functions with a higher
Cellular provisioning in the US – jailbreaks
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
7
Layering was a main component of the e2e architecture..
But, Integrated Layer Processing (ILP) was there too!
To achieve better e2e efficiency and resource optimization ILP never become a reality due to the lack of a systematic way
An ALF-based approach is needed:
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
8
A packet meta-header:
vertically travels across the network stack establishes a vertical communication channel among
co-exist with the traditional per-layer packet headers
Applications can communicate their intent across
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
9
Application Layer 4 Layer 3 Layer 2 Layer 1
message
H4
message
MH1 MH2 MH3 MH4 H3 H4
message
MH1 MH2 MH3 MH4 H3 H2 H1 H4
message
MH1 MH2 MH3 MH4 H3 H2 H4
message
MH1 MH2 MH3 MH4
Traditional packet headers Application-specific packet meta-headers
Application Layer 4 Layer 3 Layer 2 Layer 1
Traditional packet headers Application-specific packet meta-headers
Explicit Meta-Headers
message message
MH4 MH3 MH2 MH1 MH1
message
H4 MH3 MH2 H2 MH1 H3
message
H4 MH1 MH2
message
H4 H3 H3 H2 H1 H4
message
Implicit Meta-Headers
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
10
H3 H4
message
MH1 MH2 MH3 MH4
Layer 3 Layer 4 Protocol 1 Protocol 2
Demultiplexing with traditional headers
H4
message
MH1 MH2 MH3 MH4 H4
message
MH1 MH2 MH3 MH4
Layer 3 Layer 4 Service 1 Service 2
Demultiplexing with meta-headers
H3 H4
message
MH1 MH2 MH3 MH4
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
11
How will upper layers know about the service
Reactive – Meta-Headers in Reverse Direction
detect lower layer services in an on-demand manner
meta-headers rewritten by lower layers in reverse
Requires a closed-loop – connectionless or multi-
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
12
Proactive – Pre-informed Designer
inform layer k designers about services of layers k-2
too much complexity as the number of lower layer
May not be desirable by ISPs Regional service discovery via broadcasting –
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
13
Application Layer 4 Layer 3 Layer 2 Layer 1
message message
MH4 MH3 MH2 MH1 MH1
message
H4 MH3 MH2 H2 MH1 H3
message
H4 MH1 MH2
message
H4 H3
Traditional packet headers Application- specific packet meta-headers
H3 H2 H1 H4
message
Application Layer 4 Layer 3 Layer 2 Layer 1 Layer 3 Layer 2 Layer 1
H2 MH1 H3
message
H4 MH1 MH2
message
H4 H3 H3 H2 H1 H4
message
Optional feedback loop for conveying available L1- L3 services
1
Application at source prepares meta-headers with default options and sets flags to probe for available services
2
Meta-headers may
converted to traditional headers.
3
Meta-headers are filled with available L1-L3 services, and
the source application.
4
Meta-headers are filled with summary of available end-to-end L1- L4 services, and fed back to the source application.
5
Application at source readjusts meta-headers for joint vertical
end-to-end performance.
H3 H2 H1 H4
message
MH1 MH2
message
H4 MH3 H2 MH1 H3
message
H4 MH1 MH2
message
H4 H3 MH1 MH2
message
H4 MH3 MH1 MH2
message
MH4 MH3
Feedback loop for conveying end-to-end multi-hop L1-L4 services, possibly as a sequence of
Optional feedback loop for local
hop(s) of the end- to-end path.
SOURCE ROUTER DESTINATION
A dynamic end-to-end negotiation..
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
14
Application Top-Down Value Choice Optimization Framework
Application-Specific View of the Network Application-Specific Constraints
Value Choices
E
(application-based cost)
Q3
(per-layer state)
B
(quality constraints)
Meta-header probes questing lower layer services Meta-headers filled with available services
Q2
(per-layer state)
W2
(implicit)
(per-layer constraints)
Network
Network State Information Network Resource Constraints
Links
Link State Information Link Resource Constraints
W3
(implicit)
(per-layer constraints) Lagrange multipliers (pieces of E) Lagrange multipliers (pieces of Q2 and Q3)
Vertical
possible More dynamic Meta-headers as Lagrange multipliers
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
15
A top-down networking architecture with meta-
Vertical optimizations at finer temporal and spatial
A variety of top-down optimizations: Top-down routing (layers 5, 3) Top-down QoS/value management (layers 5, 3, 2) Top-down dynamic transport (layers 4, 3, 2) A new class of optimization problems aiming to
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
16
This work is supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation awards 0721600 and 0721609.
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010
17
Meta-header probes questing paths
Application-Specific View of the Network Application-Specific Constraints
Routing Choices
Meta-headers filled with available paths
E
(application-based path costs)
Q
(link states or path-vectors)
B
(path quality constraints)
W
(implicit)
(link weights)
Network Topology Information Network Resource Constraints Lagrange multipliers (pieces of E) Lagrange multipliers (pieces of Q)
Vertical optimizations are possible: More dynamic Meta-headers as Lagrange multipliers