NewArch: A new architecture for an Internet David D. Clark, Steve Bellovin, Bob Braden, Noel Chiappa, Ted Faber, Aaron Falk Mark Handley, Scott Shenker,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Desperately Seeking Default Internet Policy Update A Perspective from the Pacific June 1994 – INET94 Presentation Geoff Huston Australian Academic and.
Advertisements

End-to-End and Innovation Geoff Huston Chief Scientist, APNIC.
Fundamental Issues of Future Internet Introduction, Design Goals and Principles Mingwei Xu Qingdao.
1 From Grids to Service-Oriented Knowledge Utilities research challenges Thierry Priol.
E-Marketplaces.
Information-centric networking: Concepts for a future Internet David D. Clark, Karen Sollins MIT CFP November, 2012.
Lemonade and Mobile e- mail Stéphane H. Maes – Lemonade Intermediate meeting Vancouver, BC October 2004.
Three fun things to work on in your spare time John Wroclawski USC/ISI.
Information-Centric Networks02b-1 Week 2 / Paper 2 Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tommorow’s Internet –David D. Clark, John Wroclawski, Karen R. Sollins.
4/27/2015Slide 1 Rethinking the design of the Internet: The end to end arguments vs. the brave new world Marjory S. Blumenthal Computer Science and Telecomms.
Autonomic Computing A Knowledge Plane for the Internet, D. Clark, J. Ramming, J. Wroclawski, SIGCOMM, August David Choffnes, Winter 2006.
Lecture 2 Page 1 CS 236, Spring 2008 Security Principles and Policies CS 236 On-Line MS Program Networks and Systems Security Peter Reiher Spring, 2008.
Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow ’ s internet (2002) D.Clark, J. Wroclawski, K. Sollins & R. Braden Presented by: Gergely Biczok (Slides in courtesy.
Web Caching Schemes1 A Survey of Web Caching Schemes for the Internet Jia Wang.
Next Generation Internet CMPT 771 – Internet Architecture & Protocols Presented by: Bassam Almohammadi.
Middle Boxes Lixia Zhang UCLA Computer Science Dept Sprint Research Symposium March 8-9, 2000.
Disrupting the Disruption: The revenge of end to end David D. Clark March 2003.
November 2005IETF 64 - ECRIT Impact of architecture on requirements draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-mapping-arch Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University
CS 268: Future Internet Architectures Ion Stoica May 1, 2006.
Rethink the design of the Internet CSCI 780, Fall 2005.
Internet Research Needs a Critical Perspective Towards Models –Sally Floyd –IMA Workshop, January 2004.
Today’s Topics Globalization & Democratization 1.Positive impact of international factors on democratization. 2.Negative impact of international factors.
Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow ’ s internet D.Clark, J.Wroclawski, K.Sollins & R.Braden Presented by: Ao-Jan Su (Slides in courtesy of: Baoning.
Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet by David D. Clark, John Wroclawski Karen R. Sollins, Robert Braden Offense: Ionut Trestian.
What you talk 'in bout?. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership.
Future Research Directions Jennifer Rexford Advanced Computer Networks Tuesdays/Thursdays 1:30pm-2:50pm.
CS 268: Future Internet Architectures Ion Stoica May 6, 2003.
1 Routing as a Service Karthik Lakshminarayanan (with Ion Stoica and Scott Shenker) Sahara/i3 retreat, January 2004.
FIREWALL TECHNOLOGIES Tahani al jehani. Firewall benefits  A firewall functions as a choke point – all traffic in and out must pass through this single.
Online and Mobile Banking. Online banking Online Banking  Online banking is a fairly established practice in our internet-saturated world.  Many people.
MSDN – Media Story Delivery Network Delivering Personalised and Distributed Media Stuart PorterBen Tagger.
COnvergence of fixed and Mobile BrOadband access/aggregation networks Work programme topic: ICT Future Networks Type of project: Large scale integrating.
What does it take to define an architecture? (Part 2) David D. Clark July, 2012.
Controlling Internet Quality with Price Market Managed Multi-service Internet Bob Briscoe BTexact Research, Edge Lab, University College London & M3I Technical.
FIND experimental requirements David D. Clark. FIND Future Internet Design (FIND) is an NSF program (now folded in to NetSE) to envision the Internet.
Copyright © 2006 CyberRAVE LLC. All rights reserved. 1 Virtual Private Network Service Grid A Fixed-to-Mobile Secure Communications Framework Managed Security.
Using Routing and Tunnelling to Combat DoS Attacks Adam Greenhalgh, Mark Handley, Felipe Huici Dept. of Computer Science University College London
NSIS Authentication, Authorization and Accounting Issues (draft-tschofenig-nsis-aaa-issues-00.txt) Authors: Hannes Tschofenig Henning Schulzrinne Maarten.
Tussel in Cyberspace Based on Slides by I. Stoica.
Economics and industry structure David D. Clark MIT July, 2012.
1 An Introduction to the future of the Internet (part 1) David Clark MIT CSAIL July 2012.
Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow’s internet D.Clark, J.Wroclawski, K.Sollins, R.Braden Presenter: Baoning Wu.
Page 1 Battling Botnets: Implications for a Cybercrime Strategy July 8, 2010.
Network Architecture: Design Philosophies IS250 Spring 2010 John Chuang
11/19/09© Copyright 2009 David P. Reed1 David P. Reed MIT Communications Futures Program MIT Media Laboratory Viral Communications Research Group
Security protocols and their verification Mark Ryan University of Birmingham Midlands Graduate School University of Birmingham April 2005 Steve Kremer.
Network Security Lecture 20 Presented by: Dr. Munam Ali Shah.
Economic Incentives in Information- Centric Networking: Implications for Protocol Design and Public Policy Group Members: Muhammad Kamran Siddique Adel.
Chapter 17 Internetworking: Concepts, Architecture, and Protocols
(we need your advice!) Jon Peterson MIT– December 2010 IETF & Privacy.
Some questions about multipath Damon Wischik, UCL Trilogy UCL.
1 Lecture 2 – Networking Paradigms University of Nevada – Reno Computer Science & Engineering Department Fall 2015 CS 791 Special Topics: Network Architectures.
Infrastructure and Commons Brett M. Frischmann Assistant Professor of Law Loyola University Chicago School of Law.
Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet Presented by: Khoa To.
Application Architecture Internet Architecture David D. Clark MIT CSAIL September 2005.
Developing a Next-Generation Internet Architecture Robert Braden, David Clark,Scott Shenker, and John Wrokclawski Presented By Ding Lizhao.
Emergency Services Workshop, 21th-24 th of October, Vienna, Austria Page 1 IP-Based Emergency Applications and Services for Next Generation Networks PEACE.
Tufts Wireless Laboratory School Of Engineering Tufts University Paper Review “An Energy Efficient Multipath Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks”,
HIT Policy Committee NHIN Workgroup HIE Trust Framework: HIE Trust Framework: Essential Components for Trust April 21, 2010 David Lansky, Chair Farzad.
Information-Centric Networks Section # 2.2: Internet Evolution Instructor: George Xylomenos Department: Informatics.
Ασύρματες και Κινητές Επικοινωνίες
CJK 7 th Plenary: NGN-WG (IPv6 based NGN) IPv6 based NGN (NGNv6)
Hiearchial Caching in Traffic Server. Hiearchial Caching  A set of techniques and mechanisms to increase the size and performance of network caches.
MPLS Introduction How MPLS Works ?? MPLS - The Motivation MPLS Application MPLS Advantages Conclusion.
Agenda Time Activity 1410 Welcome and introductions 1415
The NPD Group - Enterprise DC Agenda
Distributed Content in the Network: A Backbone View
Internet Interconnection
Internet Research Needs a Critical Perspective Towards Models
Security Principles and Policies CS 236 On-Line MS Program Networks and Systems Security Peter Reiher.
Presentation transcript:

NewArch: A new architecture for an Internet David D. Clark, Steve Bellovin, Bob Braden, Noel Chiappa, Ted Faber, Aaron Falk Mark Handley, Scott Shenker, Karen Sollins, John Wroclawski

What has changed? The Internet as an economic reality. ISPs have to make money. Facilities are important. The erosion of trust. Universal transparency is scary. The rise of third-party involvement. A tussle of interests. A broader class of users. DIY is not empowerment. New application requirements. Quality of service, placement in the network, delegation. New technology features. Mobility, embedded processing, location aware computing, etc. We did not fully understand any of these.

High level-examples Facilitate, and not impede, the deployment of new applications. Old: End to end, transparent carriage. New:?? Design so that failures in the network impair the end point activities no more than necessary. Old: No state in net that end points depend on. New? Bursty traffic and aggregation are fundamental. Recognize that people and societal issues are a part of the Internet. Technology shapes the balance of power. Support the tussle.

Thinking about “architecture” A future Internet architecture must: Better preserve itself. Be (more) tolerant of evolving requirements. Can we invent better design principles for architecture?

Some fundamentals Loss of trust--a basic change. The Internet as an economic entity. Dealing with increasing heterogeneity Routing--still fundamental after all those years. Resource management.

Trust--fundamentals Trust (among people) is assuming that another will act in our best interest even though not externally constrained. The power and the risk is the lack of constraint. Constraint is the opposite of trust. The Internet implies human trust. We no longer trust most of the people we meet on the Internet.

Trust-architecture Users want selective transparency, regulated by trust relationship. A framework for identity is central. Identity theft is destructive. Need mechanisms for control of transparency. Firewalls of the future--delegate trust. Who, not just what. Some support is “in” the network. Enforce trust locally. Trust and constraint are dual approaches. Think “middle players”, not “middle boxes”.

Economics--fundamentals Internet service is provided by a set of players, some of which have economic motivations. A number of entities with self interest. E.g. ISPs want to make money. ISPs sit in the middle. Transparency commoditizes them. How can we constrain the resulting tussle? Architectural purity? Nope… Architect to exploit self-interest.

Economics--architecture Payment for services is a necessary part of a competitive market. Does not imply “simple” per-byte billing. No single scheme, not just two-party. Competition is a tool to shape commercial practice, and encourage change. Other tools include law and societal pressure. We can design a marketplace, “they” cannot. Competition will only discipline the provider based on actual user preference. Beware the “AOL trap”.

Economics-route selection Route selection defines an important competitive marketplace. Old: Users picks his access ISP. That ISP picks next ISP, and so on. Better: User can pick a path of providers. Why? Insufficient competition in access. Example: Force deployment of QoS. Implication: pay for what you use. General principle: global change through local action.

Heterogeneity Technology heterogeneity. Lossy wireless vs. fiber vs. ??? Both very fast and very slow. Traffic heterogeneity. Single flows and aggregates are different. “Duration” heterogeneity. Operational heterogeneity. Among friends vs. hostile vs. costly. Continuous, not point solutions.

Next Generation Application Architecture (NGAA) Transparency is not enough. Explicit talk about division of responsibility. Naming, finding peers. Identity framework. Abstraction of network performance. Application-level routing. Application-defined transparency/conversion. Controlled delegation. Who do you trust? Role of the third parties.

Architecture: Data carriage We must define transparency carefully. Syntactic vs. semantic transparency. Who controls conversion: net or application. User must be able to control transparency. Data must be associated with identity. Implies constraints on routing. User must be able to control routing at ISP level. Data must carry info to support payment. ISP must be able to validate service request. Traffic policing. Routing will also occur at application level. A clean separation between forwarding and other functions. Balance what ISP, others can see.

Implications for data carriage Network must deal with a wider range of issues than in current Internet. Trust, user-specified routes, accounting, etc. Require a new model for amortizing complexity/overhead/cost. Not always pure datagrams. Not mandatory connections. Self-detection (caching, adaptive algs, etc.)? Application guidance?

Balance of power User empowerment in the new world. Vs.: The employer as an ISP. Vs.: Governments and other third parties. Designing the trade-off. What is visible to whom? Hiding contents weakens power of third parties. Who controls routing? Who can attach a connection to a “region”?

Our list of design rules What should an architecture do? Don’t design for rigid outcome, but to allow a tussle. Design marketplaces to shape technology. Design for competition, to discipline the market and drive change. Mechanisms will come in pairs--trust and constraint.

Current projects Data transport abstraction. Location and rendezvous architecture. Role based architecture. Map/abstraction routing. Network projection of trust models. Economics framework (routing money?)