The Metanet The future of networks? October 10th 2007 Lukas Schwab - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the metanet
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The Metanet The future of networks? October 10th 2007 Lukas Schwab - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 21, 2022 193 likes •606 views

Seminar in Distributed Computing The Metanet The future of networks? October 10th 2007 Lukas Schwab lschwab@student.ethz.ch The Internet - How it was intended 85.5.17.171 85.5.17.170 129.132.216.48 192.33.92.2 The Internet 129.132.46.11

slide-1
SLIDE 1

The Metanet

The future of networks?

Lukas Schwab lschwab@student.ethz.ch Seminar in Distributed Computing October 10th 2007

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

The Internet - How it was intended

The Internet

192.33.92.2 192.33.92.1 85.5.17.171 85.5.17.170 170.20.0.12 129.132.216.48 129.132.46.11 129.132.107.3

Uniform end-to-end connectivity

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

But what about...

  • NATs
  • Firewalls
  • Routers
  • Proxies
  • …

They divide the network in different regions

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

The Internet - How it is today

The Internet

192.33.92.2 192.33.92.1 192.168.1.11 85.5.17.170 170.20.0.12 129.132.216.48 129.132.46.11 129.132.107.3

No uniform end-to-end connectivity

192.168.1.10 192.168.1.1

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

The Internet - How it is today

The Internet

172.16.1.34 172.16.1.33 192.168.1.11 85.5.17.170 192.168.1.2 129.132.216.48 129.132.46.11 129.132.107.3

No uniform end-to-end connectivity

192.168.1.10 192.168.1.1 192.33.92.1 172.16.1.1 170.20.0.12 192.168.1.1

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Introducing: Regions

Regions should be made a new architectural component. The network is viewed as a collection of regions.

Sensor Network WLAN GPRS Network IPv4 Internet WLAN

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

What can we do with regions?

  • We assume that some invariants within a

region hold.

  • Algorithms & protocols may make use of that
  • Routing might become more efficient
  • The networks...
  • become more robust
  • are easier to manage
  • scale more gracefully
slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Two concepts associated with regions

  • Boundary crossing
  • The goal is still end-to-end communication
  • Can the other region be trusted?
  • Inter-region-routing and addressing has to be solved
  • Membership
  • All members of the regions share some common property
  • Region might be an ideal candidate to scope a search
slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

What is „The Metanet“?

„We call a network which builds coherent user level semantics from a regionalized infrastructure and qualitatively heterogeneous communication technologies a Metanet.“ - Metanet Whitepaper

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

What is „The Metanet“?

  • Different communication technologies
  • User does not realize that

Sensor Network WLAN GPRS Network IPv4 Internet WLAN

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Advantages of using different technologies

  • One can use special purpose infrastructure

(speed, low power, ...)

  • Integration of legacy infrastructure
  • Simplifies the use of any available technology
slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

The concept raises questions

  • How does addressing and routing work?

!

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

What is Plutarch?

A greek historian (46 AD - 127 AD) A crater on the moon

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

What is Plutarch? Plutarch bases on the same ideas as Metanet, but is more specific.

A Metanet

Sensor Network WLAN GPRS Network IPv4 Internet WLAN

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Motivation

  • IPv4 or IPv6 may be undesirable
  • e.g. sensor networks (low power consumption)
  • Original internet model is out of date
  • NATs, Firewalls, ...
  • Future architectural changes
  • Plutarch provides a clearer framework
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Sensor Network WLAN GPRS Network IPv4 Internet LAN

16

Architecture

  • Network end systems exist in a context
  • The same as regions from the Metanet approach
  • No global names or addresses
  • Interstitial functions
  • Huch. Ein
Nokia Logo. Ich mache nur für Macs Schleich- werbung ;-)
  • Huch. Ein
Nokia Logo. Ich mache nur für Macs Schleich- werbung ;-)

192.168.1.10 192.168.1.10

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Contexts

  • A context is an area in the network that is

homogenous in some respect

  • Protocol can be context-specific
  • A machine may exist in two or more contexts
  • Context membership may be dynamic

Ethernet LAN ATM Context S e n s

  • r

N e t w

  • r

k N A T e d I P v 4 L A N I P v 4 N e t w

  • r

k

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Interstitial functions (IF)

  • Exist between contexts
  • Transform the data to a different context
  • They already exist today
  • NATs, Firewalls, ...
  • Does not have to be the same protocol on

both sides

Interstitial function

Context A Context B

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Example

WLAN WLAN Sensor Network GPRS Network IPv4 Internet

  • Huch. Ein
Nokia Logo. Ich mache nur für Macs Schleich- werbung ;-)

Interstitial functions Chained context

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Example

Bluetooth Sensor Network GPRS Network IPv4 Internet

Interstitial functions Chained context

  • Huch. Ein
Nokia Logo. Ich mache nur für Macs Schleich- werbung ;-)
slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Connecting across contexts (1)

  • 1. There is no DNS ➠ Search for the other

machine

  • „epidemic-style gossip“
  • 2. Queries result in a set of chained contexts lists
  • e.g. {(GPRS, IPv4, SN), (GPRS, IPv4, WLAN)}

Sensor Network WLAN GPRS Network IPv4 Internet WLAN

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Connecting across contexts (2)

  • 3. Logic in the host selects one context chain
  • 4. Configure Interstitial Functions
  • 5. Instantiate the context chain and add it to the

host‘s list of known contexts

  • 6. Connection established

Sensor Network WLAN GPRS Network IPv4 Internet WLAN

Chained context 1 Chained context 2 Chained context 3

New chained context

Known context chains

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

The concept raises questions

  • How does addressing and routing work?
  • How does an address look like?

!

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Naming & Addressing

  • Naming
  • Location independent
  • e.g. URLs, personal names
  • Addressing
  • Location dependent
  • e.g. postal address, IPs (?), phone numbers (?)
slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Example: Postal network

  • The postal system has no names, only

addresses

  • Postal addresses are assigned hierarchically
  • Switzerland, 8092 (Zürich), Rämistrasse, 101, ...
  • Default routing
slide-26
SLIDE 26

Switzerland Germany Japan Zürich Bern Tokyo Berlin ETH HG Einsteinstr. Bundeshaus Kkyo 1 2

26

Default routing

Bundeshaus 3003 Bern Schweiz

江戸城 東京 日本

  • Every node knows its

children and its siblings

  • If a message is not for

them, pass it to the parent

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Example: telephone network

  • Earliest days: phone number were location

specific (address)

  • Similar to postal system
  • Computer-controlled telephone switches:

more complex forwarding logic

  • e.g. 0800 (toll-free), 0848 in Switzerland
  • They provide an additional level of indirection
  • They are more like names masquerading as addresses
slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

LSI & LII

  • Location Specific Identifier
  • Location Independent Identifier
  • Can masquerade as LSI
  • Translation from LII to LSI
  • Translation table (might result in LII ➠ recursion)
  • Default routing
slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

Naming & Addressing

  • Naming
  • Location independent
  • e.g. URLs, personal names
  • Addressing
  • Location dependent
  • e.g. postal address, IPs

, IPs (LII), phone numbers (LII) (LSI), phone numbers (LSI)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

30

New stuff

  • Naming vs. Addressing
  • Default routing
  • Location Specific Identifier (LSI)
  • Location Independent Identifier (LII)
  • Can masquerade as LSI

Let‘s go back to Plutarch!

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31

Addresses in Plutarch

Sensor Network WLAN GPRS Network IPv4 Internet WLAN

  • An address could be a pair of context

and internal name

  • e.g. (Sensor Network, Sensor 47)
  • But what about routing?

47

slide-32
SLIDE 32

32

Routing in Plutarch

Sensor Network WLAN GPRS Network IPv4 Internet WLAN

  • IF needs to know all the other IFs
  • In the Internet that is obviously not possible
  • But we can use traditional routing
  • e.g. BGP
slide-33
SLIDE 33

33

Routing in Plutarch

  • In a smaller network we might want to

have a hierarchical network structure

Internet

Default routing

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

Plutarch: Comments on related work

  • TRIAD
  • Retains the centrality of IPv4
  • IPNL

+ Private realm is similar to the notion of contexts

  • Retains the centrality of IPv4
slide-35
SLIDE 35

35

Personal opinion

My personal opinion about the Metanet and Plutarch. But...

  • The resulting model fits the internet

from today well

  • It makes things easier
  • e.g. Sensor Network example
  • Does not depend on IPv4 or another

specific protocol

slide-36
SLIDE 36

36

Criticism (1)

Approach The original model of the internet is not applicable anymore. So, let‘s change the model! ➠ ➠

How the software was designed How the software was written

➠ ➠

Whoops! How the software was designed

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37

Criticism (2)

Use of the old system as a starting point Metanet and Plutarch (TRIAD & IPNL as well) try to build something new out of the old system. Why not start from scratch? The old stuff is holding us back! General problem in computer related areas!

Year 2038 BIOS Now hiring: COBOL programmer

slide-38
SLIDE 38

38

Clean slate (1)

A research program at Stanford University Two questions:

  • With what we know today, if we were to start again

with a clean slate, how would we design a global communications infrastructure?

  • How should the Internet look in 15 years?

"The Internet? We are not interested in it." Bill Gates, 1993

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

Clean slate (2)

  • 1. Network architecture
  • 2. Heterogeneous applications
  • 3. Heterogeneous physical layer technologies
  • 4. Security
  • 5. Economics & policy

Five key areas for research: Research in progress…

slide-40
SLIDE 40

40

  • Plutarch: An argument for network pluralism.
  • J. Crowcroft, S. Hand, R. Mortier, T. Roscoe, A. Warfield

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/944759.944763

  • The Metanet: White Paper.
  • J. Wroclawski

http://www.cra.org/Policy/NGI/papers/wroklawWP

  • Naming, Addressing, and Forwarding Reconsidered.
  • S. Keshav

http://blizzard.cs.uwaterloo.ca/keshav/home/Papers/data/05/ naming.pdf

Papers

  • T. Roscoe
slide-41
SLIDE 41

41

  • Metanet & Plutarch (Slides)
  • B. Godfrey

http://cs.shenker.net/files/294lecture4a.pdf

  • Plutarch: An argument for network pluralism. (Slides)
  • A. Warfield

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~andy/papers/plutarch-fdna.pdf

  • Clean slate

http://cleanslate.stanford.edu/

Other Sources