1. Next Generation Internet CMPT 771 – Internet Architecture & Protocols Presented by: Bassam Almohammadi

2. Motivation What is wrong with the current generation ? Slide 1 of 16

3. Old Design The original design of the Internet was developed more than 30 years ago. Before Personal Computers, Local Area Networks. Limited number of users, mostly scientists. Links speed <= 50 kbps Different requirements were considered. Slide 2 of 16

4. Old Requirements (and priorities) 1. Multiplexing - the primary goal. - network of sub-networks 2. Survivability - robustness 3. Service Generality - at transport level 4. Diverse subnet technologies - heterogeneity Slide 3 of 16

5. Old Requirements (and priorities) 1. Multiplexing - the primary goal. - network of sub-networks. 2. Survivability - robustness. 3. Service Generality - at transport level. 4. Diverse subnet technologies - heterogeneity. 5. Distributed Management. 6. Cost Effective 7. Ease of Attachment 8. Accountability. Slide 4 of 16

6. Why the design history matters? “ An understanding of the history of the design provides a necessary context for current design extensions. ” [David D. Clark, ‘88] Slide 5 of 16

7. What has changed? Requirements – what did we miss? Slide 6 of 16

8. What has changed ? 1- The Internet as an economic reality The full economic implications of the Internet architecture were not appreciated in the first design. “ I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and walked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year. ” Editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957 Slide 7 of 16

9. What has changed ? 1- The Internet as an economic reality ISPs  1990s. How the architecture design can influence the industry? The design of the network architecture induces the structure of the industry Open protocols among routers → competitive market in routers. BGP → competitive market in wide-area ISPs. The next generation cannot succeed without being economically worthy. Slide 8 of 16

10. What has changed ? 2- The erosion of trust and the need for security The size of the network. Universal transparency is scary! The core of the Internet is oblivious to the content of packets. It might be an important factor in the success of the Internet. However, it becomes prone to security risks. The size of the network and, the level of transparency and risk. Powerful transparent → seriously risky → firewalled ! Firewalls affected the ease of deploying new applications on the Internet. Slide 9 of 16

11. What has changed ? 3- The emergence of conflicting interests Privacy V.S. Lawful interception Protection from spam and adware V.S. Spammers and advertising agencies Sharing of multimedia V.S. Intellectual rights holders This existence of this tussle might prevent the achievements of essential goals. (security). An overarching objective of all architectural decisions : “Design for tussle”. Slide 10 of 16

12. What has changed ? 4- New application requirements Is the “best effort” specification for packet transfer service sufficient enough ? The network make no specific commitments about transfer characteristics. End-system software must take this unpredictability into account. “best effort” made Internet protocols could run “anything”. Is this acceptable in a “grown up” Internet ? As a commercial product with paying users. As a tool for more demanding applications (real-time). Wide range of operating conditions OR predictability? Tradeoff must be managed. Slide 11 of 16

13. What has changed ? 5- New technology features Since the Internet protocols were first proposed: High-speed local area networks – new wide-area technologies (ATM) – new mechanisms for virtualization and encapsulation (MPLS) and wavelength division multiplexing – the emergence of embedded devices. It’s remarkable how the Internet has accommodated most of new technologies. One certain technology that does challenge the original architecture ? Slide 12 of 16

14. What has changed ? 5- New technology features WIRELESS (Mobility) Some technical features (Higher loss rates) raise specific issues (Congestion Ctrl) Main issue: Mobility Raises: addressing, routing, security, service quality variation, etc. Slide 13 of 16

15. Architecture then and now In the light of the changing requirements Slide 14 of 16

16. Key architectural features Packets The basic idea is robust, and has stood the test of time. Abstraction should be rethought to meet today’s need. Addressing and identity The IP address must be rethought (separating location and identity). E.g. FARA [FARA03] Security Must not be viewed as a single dimensional space (i.e. more is better) but a multi-dimensional space, shaped by conflicting interests. Back to the conflict of interests to precisely define security requirements. Slide 15 of 16

17. New architectural directions New Congestion Control scheme To accommodate new higher speeds. E.g. XCP (eXplicit Congestion Protocol). [NewArch, 2003] An alternative to protocol layering Layered protocol: Increased complexity and rigidity. Serious architectural limitations (layer violations, feature interaction, proliferation) What about a non-layered architecture? E.g. RBA (role-based architecture). [NewArch, 2003] Slide 16 of 16

18. NGI Projects and Resources NewArch European Future Internet GENI : Global Environment for Network Innovation. GENI Clean Slate Research Program (Stanford University). Clean Slate Research Program FIRE : Future Internet Research & Experimentation. FIRE Internet 2 Future Internet Forum (Korea). Future Internet Forum AKARI (Japan). AKARI G-Lab (Germany). G-Lab

19. References Clark, D., Sollins, K., Wroclawski, J., Katabi, D., Kulik, J., Yang, X., and others, “New Arch: Future Generation Internet Architecture”. Final Technical Report. 2003. Clark, D., “The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet Protocols”. SIGCOMM 1988. Clark, D., Sollins, K., Wroclawski, J., Barden, R., “Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet”. ACM SIGCOMM 2002, August 2002. National Coordination Office for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development, “NGI: A Glimpse Into the Future”, Indiana University, April 9, 1998.