NSF/Mideast Workshop Future Internet Architectures Panel Convener: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

NSF/Mideast Workshop

Future Internet Architectures Panel

Convener: Zhi-Li Zhang University of Minnesota

Panelists

• Jeff Chase, Duke University
• Sonia Fahmy, Purdue University
• George Kesidis, Penn State University
• Taieb Znati, Pittsburgh University
• Zhi-Li Zhang, University of Minnesota

Internet: Past & Now

• From the original 4-node ARPANet (in 1969)

– underwent a few transformations

• to today’s “hourglass” Internet architecture

– based on TCP/IP (+ DNS & BGP) as the core networking protocols

• Original Internet Design Goals: David Clark [Sigcomm88]

In the order of importance:

Connect existing networks

• 1. Survivability
• 2. Support multiple types of services
• 3. Must accommodate a variety of networks
• 4. Allow distributed management
• 5. Allow host attachment with a low level of effort
• 6. Be cost effective
• 7. Allow resource accountability

What Has Become of Internet

• Information Service Platform

– deliver all kinds of information (web, iTune, YouTube, Netflix, …)

• Global Information Repository

– store and search for all kinds of information (e.g., Dropbox)

• Cyberspace and Virtual Communities

– keep in touch with friends and strangers (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)

• Enormous Super-Computer

– cloud & mobile computing and services

• What’s coming: Internet of Things

Ø … we increasingly depend on it!

Diverging Trends …

• Internet Core: concentration

– high bandwidth, dense connectivity – data centers: computing, storage, networking, …

• Internet Edges: diversification

– “smart” to “dumb” devices

• PCs with significant processing and storage capacities
• small or mobile devices with limited computing, memory, power, …

– broadband to narrowband – “always on” to intermittent connectivity

Challenges and Opportunities!

• vercome heterogeneity, seamlessly integrate
• new services & “disruptive” technologies

Within the Internet Core

• Large ISPs with large

geographical span and

• Large content providers

with huge data centers

• High capacity,

dense and rich topology

• Cloud Computing/Services

and Mobile Computing

On the Internet Edge …

• Large number of mobile

users

• Large number of “dumb”
• r “smart” devices and

appliances, some resource constrained

• Intermittent connectivity

with varying bandwidth

• Diverse applications and

services

• Heterogeneous

technologies

Internet ¡

Home users Banking & e-commerce dumb & smart phones POTS VoIP Multimedia Streaming Games Surveillance & Security Online TV Web/emails

Challenges Facing Today’s Internet

• Scalability: capability to connect tens of thousands, millions or

more users and devices

– routing table size, constrained by router memory, lookup speed

• Availability & Reliability: must be resilient to failures

– need to be “proactive” instead of reactive; need to localize effect of failures

• Mobility: users and hosts/servers are more mobile

– need to separate location (“addressing”) and identity (“naming”)

• Manageability: ease of deployment, “plug-&-play”

– need to minimize manual configuration

– self-configure, self-organize, while ensuring security and trust

• Security & Privacy:

– in addition to encryption, etc, how to distinguish “good” guys from “bad” guys à need a “social, behavioral & economic” perspectives!

• Economic Viability

– various stakeholders, often with shared but also competing interests

Challenges Facing Today’s Internet

• Scalability: capability to connect tens of thousands, millions or

more users and devices

– routing table size, constrained by router memory, lookup speed

• Availability & Reliability: must be resilient to failures

– need to be “proactive” instead of reactive; need to localize effect of failures

• Mobility: users and hosts/servers are more mobile

– need to separate location (“addressing”) and identity (“naming”)

• Manageability: ease of deployment, “plug-&-play”

– need to minimize manual configuration

– self-configure, self-organize, while ensuring security and trust

• Security & Privacy:

– in addition to encryption, etc, how to distinguish “good” guys from “bad” guys à need a “social, behavioral & economic” perspectives!

• Economic Viability

– various stakeholders, often with shared but also competing interests

Internet:

critical global information infrastructure, big, complex, massively distributed, and changing!

US NSF “Future Internet Architectures” Initiatives

Started circa 2006, two phases

• Phase I: FIND (Future Internet Network Design) Initiative

– A number of small and medium-size projects funded – See http://www.nets-find.net

• Phase 2: FIA (Future Integrative Architectures) Initiative

– Four large multi-institution projects funded

• eXpressive Internet Architecture (PI: Peter Steenkiste, CMU)
• MobilityFirst (PI: Dipankar Raychaudhuri, Rutgers U.)
• Named Data Networking (PI: Lixia Zhang, UCLA)
• NEBULA (PI: Jonathan Smith, U. of Pennsylvania)

– See http://www.nets-fia.net

• Separately, GENI Initiative (serving as testbed?)

Why Research on “Future/New Internet Architectures”

My personal perspective:

• Many short-term “fixes/patches” have been developed/applied

– fix some problems but introduce others; e.g., NAT, firewalls – also make things more complex and error-prone (esp. net config.)

• Certain limitations of the Internet architecture require radical

changes and long-term solutions

– need “out-of-the-box” re-thinking of network architectures – where the (academic) research community can play a significant role!

• “Clean-slate” (re-)designs of Internet architectures

– unconstrained by the current Internet’s “idiosyncrasies” – unencumbered by “conventional wisdoms”

Panelists

• Jeff Chase, Duke University
• Sonia Fahmy, Purdue University
• George Kesidis, Penn State University
• Taieb Znati, Pittsburgh University
• Zhi-Li Zhang, University of Minnesota

NSF/Mideast Workshop

New Internet Architectures Panel

VIRO: Scalable, Robust & Name-Independent

Virtual Id Routing

for (future) Large-scale, Dynamic Networks

Zhi-Li Zhang Qwest Chair Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Minnesota

Email: zhzhang@cs.umn.edu

Designed to Meet Challenges posed by Large, Dynamic Networks (e.g., Data Center Networks)

• Scalability: capability to connect tens of thousands, millions or

more users and devices

– routing table size, constrained by router memory, lookup speed

• Mobility: hosts are more mobile

– need to separate location (“addressing”) and identity (“naming”)

• Availability & Reliability: must be resilient to failures

– need to be “proactive” instead of reactive – need to localize effect of failures

• Manageability: ease of deployment, “plug-&-play”

– need to minimize manual configuration

– self-configure, self-organize, while ensuring security and trust – Agility: dynamically adapt to demand

• ......

Pros & Cons of Existing Technologies

• (Layer-2) Ethernet/Wireless

LANs

u Pluses:

• plug-&-play, minimal

configuration, better mobility

u Minuses:

• (occasional) data plane

flooding, sub-optimal routing (using spanning tree), not robust to failures

• Not scalable to large (&

wide-area) networks – IETF TRILL

q (Layer-3) IPv4/IPv6

¤ Pluses:

• better data plane scalability, more

“optimal” routing, …

¤ Minuses:

• control plane flooding, global effect of

network failures

• poor support for mobility
• difficulty/complexity in “network

renaming”

• Esp., changing addressing schemes

(IPv4 -> IPv6 transition) requires modifications in routing and other network protocols

Meeting the Challenges:

VIRO: A Scalable, Robust, Namespace-

Independent, “Plug-&-Play” Routing Architecture

• Decoupling routing from naming/”addressing”

– “native” naming/address-independent

• “future-proof” & capable of supporting multiple namespaces
• Introduce a “self-organizing” virtual id (vid) layer

– a layer 2 (LLC)/layer-3 convergence layer – subsume layer-2/layer-3 routing/forwarding functionality

• except for first/last hop: host to switch or switch to host
• layer-3 addresses (or higher layer names): global addressing or naming for

inter-networking and “persistent” identifiers

l

DHT-style routing using a topology-aware, structured vid space

• highly scalable and robust: going beyond shortest-path routing, with built-

in multi-path & fast rerouting capabilities,

– O(log N) routing table size, localize failures, enable fast rerouting

• support multiple topologies or virtualized network services

Virtual ID layer and VID space

• Topology-aware, structured virtual id (vid) space

– embed physical topology in a Kademlia-like “virtual” binary tree – virtual id’s (vid’s): encode location of nodes/switches, i.e., “locators” – self-configurable and self-organizing – support (interoperability of) multiple namespaces & multiple virtual nets

Layer 2 Physical Network Topology IPv4/IPv6 Virtual ID Layer Other Namespaces DNS Names M N H G J L K C F E B D A

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡ -­‑ ¡ -­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡ -­‑ ¡ -­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡
• ­‑ ¡

F ¡ E ¡ H ¡ G ¡ B ¡ A ¡ D ¡ C ¡ N ¡ M ¡ J ¡ L ¡ K ¡

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

VIRO: Three Core Components

• Virtual id space construction and vid assignment

– performed most at the bootstrap process (i.e., network set up):

• a vid space “skeleton” is created

– once network is set up/vid space is constructed:

• a new node (a “VIRO switch”) joins: assigned based on neighbors’ vid’s
• end-host/device: inherits a vid (prefix) from “host switch” (to which it is attached), plus

a randomly assigned host id; host may be agnostic of its vid

• VIRO routing algorithm/protocol:

– DHT-style, but needs to build end-to-end connectivity/routes

• a bottom-up, round-by-round process, no network-wide control flooding
• O(log N) routing entries per node, N: # of VIRO switches

l

(Persistent) layer-2/3 address/name resolution and vid look-up – DHT directory services built on top of the same vid space

• “persistent” identifier (e.g., MAC/IP address) hashed to a “vid” key, which is then used

for (pid, vid) mapping registration, look-up, etc.

l

Data forwarding among VIRO switches using vid only

Summary

• VIRO provides a scalable & robust substrate for future networks
• Enables (nearly) configuration-free networks
• Support for multiple namespaces
• Support mobility, multiple topologies, virtualized network

services, security

• Backward compatibility: compatible with current host protocols

(such as ARP etc)

• Ongoing & Future work:

– prototyping using Click and Openflow – virtualized services, inter-domain routing issues

Please visit http://networking.cs.umn.edu/newsite/veil-wiro for: demo videos, List of related publications, source code,

• r simply search online for “VIRO VEIL”