Future Internet Design A new NSF initiative

1
Future Internet DesignA new NSF initiative

• David D. Clark
• John Wroclawski, Mothy Roscoe, David Andersen,
  Craig Partridge
• Darleen Fisher, Guru Parulkar

2
NeTS

• NeTS research program (NOSS ProWin NBD FIND)
• FIND Future INternet Design (Research funds
  FY2006)
• Designing the Internet you want in 10 to 15
  years trustable, manageable, evolvable, include
  emerging wireless/sensors/optical technologies
  devices, support new applications, economically
  viable, etc.
• Multiple-year clean-slate process Research
  not constrained by the features of the current
  Internet
• Network Architectural focus
• FY2006 NeTS solicitation
• New approaches to network elements/functions
  (naming, addressing, forwarding, etc.) not
  full-blown architectures
• But conscious that the elements are parts of a
  potential overall architecture
• February deadline??

3
FIND A challenge question

• 1) What are the requirements for the global
  network of 10 or 15 years from now, and what
  should that network look like?
• To conceive the future, it helps to let go of the
  present
• 2) How would we re-conceive tomorrows global
  network today, if we could design it from
  scratch?
• This is not change for the sake of change, but a
  chance to free our minds.

4
Isnt todays net good enough?

• Security and robustness.
• As available as the phone system
• Been trying for 15 years--try differently?
• Easier to manage.
• Really hard intellectual problem
• No framework in original design.
• Recognize the importance of non-technical
  considerations
• Consider the economic landscape.
• Consider the social context.

5
What will be happening in 10 years

• New network technology.
• Wireless
• Mobility
• Dynamic capacity allocation
• Dynamic impairments
• Advanced optics
• Dynamic capacity allocation (again!)
• New computing paradigms
• Embedded processor, sensors, everywhere
• Whatever computing is, that is what the Internet
  should support.
• The Internet grew up in a stable PC time.

6
The scope of the challenge

• Is it Internet classic? A cloud of routers with
  general purpose computers at the edges?
• No! The scope of the question is much bigger than
  that.
• Ask what will the edge look like. That is
  where the action is.
• Sensors. Embedded computers.
• Ask what is it that users do? Try to
  conceptualize a network that supports that.
• Information access and dissemination.
• Location management and location-aware systems.
• Identity management systems.
• Conceptualize at a higher level (not higher
  layer).

7
What should we reconsider?

• For the moment, everything.
• Packets, datagrams, circuits--everything.
• Our religious beliefs
• End to end, transparency, our model for layering.
• To conceive of a future, we have to let go of the
  present.
• This does not mean that we cannot get there
  incrementally.

8
Defining success

• We throw away the current Internet.
• The most dramatic form of success.
• We set a goal, and the we realize we can get
  there incrementally.
• Impose a bias or direction on change.
• Lots of fresh ideas leak into the present
  Internet.

9
If we dont do this?

• If we dont step up to conceive of what
  networking will be in 10 years
• A narrowing of the utility of the Internet to
  specific purposes. E-commerce?
• A pervasive loss of confidence in Internet.
• Limit our ability to exploit new technology.
• A loss of funding (inside NSF) to sectors that
  seem more relevant and vigorous.
• A gentle glide into irrelevance for research.

10
Possible topics

• Location services
• Identity management
• Identity without location
• Information arch
• The role of virtualization
• The role of overlays
• The role of packets
• Format need we agree
• Managing aggregates

• Dynamic circuits
• Diagnosis and repair
• DHMP
• Firewalls kill or love?
• Protecting the edge
• The future of E2E
• Secret life of apps.
• Diffusing traffic
• Complexity and limits

11
Question 1

• Give us an example or two of exciting and novel
  ideas that we should consider for a Future
  Internet Architecture.
• (I know, this is not a question. Answer it
  anyway)

12
A Wild Idea we ought to do someResearch on
Architecture

• Electricity Today
• (Architecture ???)

Electricity 1800 (Architecture Today)
13
Theoretically Derived Architectures

• MANET resource allocation formulated as global
  optimization problem
• Primal-dual decomposition generates a set of dual
  problems/algorithms/modules
• Local (except scheduling)
• Tied together through congestion prices
• System Architecture traceable to theoretically
  provable optimality..

Utility function U_sx_s (strictly concave
function of the sending rates)
Cross-layer interaction in form of congestion
prices (cost per unit flow of sending data
along a link to a destination)
Optimal Cross-Layer Congestion Control, Routing,
and Scheduling Design in Ad Hoc Wireless
Networks. Lijun Chen, Steven H. Low, Mung
Chiang, John C. Doyle (Caltech and Princeton)
14
Language-Defined Architecture

• Role Based Architecture imagined flexible,
  customizable location and composition of
  architectural functions
• But just a data path mechanism. Where do
  semantics come from?
• One possible idea Architecture Composition
  Languages
• Explicit description may give
• Introspection
• Run-time Validation

• ?(defmethod (flow check-security-policy)
• ((port protocol)
• (cond ((eq port 'smtp)
• ())))
• (defwrapper (flow check-security-policy)
• ((port protocol) . wrapped-body)
• (cond ((eq port 'smtp)
• (format t
• "s no mail for you, monkey-boy"
• self))
• (t
• ,_at_wrapped-body
• (format t
• "s pass traffic for s onward"
• self port))))

From Protocol Stack to Protocol Heap - Role
Based Architecture. Robert Braden, Ted Faber, and
Mark Handley. Proc. Hotnets-1, ACM SIGCOMM CCR,
v33 1, Jan 2003
15
Wild Ideas

• In Internet Architecture

16
Promises, promises

• What is the goal of routing?
• To provide a path from A-gtD
• How is it accomplished?
• A--B B--C C--D
• Add a sprinkle of transitivity
• Voila A-gtZ
• But it doesnt always work.

17
So what should routing do?

• Provide two (three? four?) paths from A-gtD.
• Maximally failure disjoint
• And then?
• Let end hosts/applications/networks choose
  between them
• Or use them in parallel
• Why?
• RON, SOSR, MONET, Akella et al., Detour
• Path choice helps in a big way.
• But all had warts

18
Internet Wart Removal

• Why do we have NATs and firewalls?
• Address space (perceived?) shortage
• Add more addresses. Easy.
• Security (or perception thereof).
• Theory
• For all networks, now and forever,
• Exist people who wants/needs to control traffic
  flow
• These people have money.
• Router vendors like money.
• If we do not provide the right mechanisms, they
  will create the wrong ones.

19
How do we remove the warts?

• Provide fine-grained network access control
• (see off by default - today.)
• Goal Access policy for host
• min(host policy network policy)
• Realization Capability-based
• Send a may I speak to you? packet
• Network can interpose on these. Doesnt need to
  interpose on normal traffic. (!)
• Get back a response. Or not. Possibly delegate
  (DOA).
• Eliminate need for innovation-crushing hacks.

20
Question 2

• How can we make the process of defining and
  testing a Future Internet Architecture a success?

21
FIND - Different Process

• Explicit goal oriented -- Future Internet
• Not usual for NSF
• Longer timescale with sustained funding
• Three phases -- iterative and overlapping
• Exploration
• Convergence
• Experimentation at scale
• Competitive cooperation model
• Competition to bring out the best
• Cooperation to build on each others work to
  deliver Future Internet
• Competition -- we know it well
• Cooperation -- we know it less well
• Regular meetings -- three times a year
• A community appointed group to help oversee,
  steer, and synthesize
• Commitment to openness and transparency

22
FIND Informational MeetingDecember 5th,
Washington Area