towards an evolvable internet architecture
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Towards an Evolvable Internet Architecture

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 47

Towards an Evolvable Internet Architecture - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 143 Views
  • Uploaded on

change IP (routers, headers, addressing, …). Towards an Evolvable Internet Architecture. IP layer. Sylvia Ratnasamy (Intel Research), Scott Shenker (U.C. Berkeley/ICSI), Steven McCanne (Riverbed Tech.). hh Folklore ff. The Internet Architecture needs fixing

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Towards an Evolvable Internet Architecture' - dagmar


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
towards an evolvable internet architecture

change IP (routers, headers, addressing, …)

Towards an Evolvable Internet Architecture

IP layer

Sylvia Ratnasamy (Intel Research),

Scott Shenker (U.C. Berkeley/ICSI), Steven McCanne (Riverbed Tech.)

hh folklore ff
hhFolkloreff
  • The Internet Architecture needs fixing
    • IPNL, Triad, IP Multicast, Pushback, GIA, Traceback, IPv6, SIFF, FQ, CSFQ, XCP, Capabilities, DTN, HLP, RCP, AIF, i3, LFN, …
  • But, ISPs don’t deploy (our) fixes
    • IP Multicast, IPv6 are the success stories!
  • One reaction: ``Who needs the ISPs anyway?’’
overlays to the rescue v1
Overlays to the Rescue (v1)

Use overlays to augment IP

  • Implement change in application-level `routers’
    • Multicast: ESM (CMU), commercial CDNs
    • Routing: InterNAP, RON (MIT), SOSR (UW)
    • Quality-of-Service: OverQoS (UCB/MIT)
    • DoS: Mayday (MIT), SOS (Columbia), i3 (UCB/CMU)
overlays to the rescue v11
Overlays to the Rescue (v1)

Use overlays to augment IP

  • Implement change in application-level `routers’
  • Practical
    • bypass CISCO and the ISPs
overlays to the rescue v12
Overlays to the Rescue (v1)

Use overlays to augment IP

  • Implement change in application-level `routers’
  • Practical
  • Often even appropriate
    • keep complexity out of IP
overlays to the rescue v13
Overlays to the Rescue (v1)

Use overlays to augment IP

  • Implement change in application-level `routers’
  • Practical
  • Often even appropriate

But, if the problem is best solved at the IP layer, this doesn’t help

overlays v2
Overlays (v2)

Use overlays to undermine ISPs[Peterson, Shenker, Turner 04]

  • Next-Generation Service Provider (NGSP) enters the market
    • overlays a new architecture atop existing ISPs
    • legacy ISPs soon serve only to access NGSP
overlays v21
Overlays (v2)

Use overlays to undermine ISPs[Peterson, Shenker, Turner 04]

  • Next-Generation Service Provider (NGSP) enters the market
  • Eventually, NGSP replaces ISPs
    • lease dedicated lines
overlays v22
Overlays (v2)

Use overlays to undermine ISPs[Peterson, Shenker, Turner 04]

  • Next-Generation Service Provider (NGSP) enters the market
  • Eventually, NGSP replaces ISPs
  • Technically, practical and broad
    • (and invaluable as an experimental platform)
overlays v23
Overlays (v2)

Use overlays to undermine ISPs[Peterson, Shenker, Turner 04]

  • Next-Generation Service Provider (NGSP) enters the market
  • Eventually, NGSP replaces ISPs
  • Technically, practical and broad

But, requires disrupting the existing market structure

  • Evolution through (repeated) revolution

Are there other (more conservative) options?

this paper
This Paper
  • Can we enable evolution that
    • can retain the existing market structure
    • yet, allows non-incremental change

(revolution through evolution )

  • Approach:
    • design for evolution (vs. causing evolution)
design for evolution
Design for Evolution

The Internet will always be

  • multi-provider
  • decentralized in control

Common complaint

  • providers have little incentive to innovate

Is this due to flaw(s) in the architecture?

  • strategies, mechanisms, hooks that assist evolution
disclaimer
Disclaimer

Many possible reasons for ISP reluctance

  • architectural barriers to innovation
  • economic barriers (pricing models, etc.)
  • disconnect between research and reality
    • maybe the Internet is doing just fine
    • maybe the fixes we propose aren’t the right ones

This paper: architectural barriers

  • may well be the least of the problems
slide14

Paper

When a new version of IP, call it IPvN, is defined,

what conditions would lead ISPs to deploy it?

Outline

  • Toy example: deploying IPvN
  • Universal Access
  • Implementing Universal Access
  • Conclusion
toy example
Toy Example

IPvN supports comprehensive security

    • requires router support
    • new IP headers
  • Software vendor puts out an IPvN stack
  • Router vendors support IPvN
  • Content Provider (CP)is interested in using IPvN
  • ISPs consider deploying IPvN
deploying ipvn
Deploying IPvN

scale  partial deployment a necessity

partial deployment  partial usability

CP

IPv4

ISP A

partial deployment partial usability
partial usability

global usability

partial deployment  partial usability

development of applications/services stalled on global usability

global deployment

Proposal: separate deployment from usability

  • require global usability under partial deployment

any ISP can gate usability

low usage, user demand

independent innovation is high risk, yet offers no competitive advantage

no incentive for ISPs to deploy IPvN

universal access
Universal Access

If even a single ISP deploys IPvN, any endhost can use IPvN

  • enables customer choice, demand
  • encourages application development
  • no ISP can gate adoption
  • independent innovation; others follow to compete

Note assumption: UA leads to increased revenue flow

  • settlements?
  • application/service providers
outline
Outline
  • Toy Example: deploying IPvN
  • Universal Access
  • Implementing Universal Access
    • constraints
    • two components
    • putting it all together
  • Conclusion
achieving ua
Achieving UA

Constraints:

  • partial deployment
  • partial ISP participation
  • allow participating ISPs control
  • existing players
  • existing contractual agreements
achieving ua two components
Achieving UA: Two components

(1) partial deployment  multi-provider overlays*

IPv4

ISP A

achieving ua two components1
Achieving UA: Two components

(2) universal access  need redirection

IPv4

ISP A

redirection for ua
Redirection for UA

Involves knowing:

  • where IPvN routers are located
  • which IPvN router is the best choice for a source

(And the answer to both changes as deployment spreads!)

Mechanism is ~tunneling++

Key is who effects redirection

redirection options
Redirection: Options

Who

Recall Constraints

  • partial deployment
  • partial ISP participation
  • participant ISP control
  • no new players
  • existing contracts
redirection options1
Redirection: Options

Who

  • user: unwieldy

Recall Constraints

  • partial deployment
  • partial ISP participation
  • participant ISP control
  • no new players
  • existing contracts
redirection options2
Redirection: Options

Who

  • user: unwieldy
  • user’s ISP

Recall Constraints

  • partial deployment
  • partial ISP participation
  • participant ISP control
  • no new players
  • existing contracts
redirection options3
Redirection: Options

Who

  • user: unwieldy
  • user’s ISP
  • participant ISPs

Recall Constraints

  • partial deployment
  • partial ISP participation
  • participant ISP control
  • no new players
  • existing contracts
redirection options4
Redirection: Options

Who

  • user: unwieldy
  • user’s ISP
  • participant ISPs
  • application-layer

Recall Constraints

  • partial deployment
  • partial ISP participation
  • participant ISP control
  • no new players
  • existing contracts
redirection options5
Redirection: Options

Who

  • user: unwieldy
  • user’s ISP
  • participant ISPs
  • application-layer
  • network-layer

Recall Constraints

  • partial deployment
  • partial ISP participation
  • participant ISP control
  • no new players
  • existing contracts
network layer redirection
Network-Layer Redirection

Routers perform redirection

network layer redirection1
Network-Layer Redirection

Routers perform redirection

  • Challenge: no explicit participation from ‘ ’
proposal use ip anycast
Proposal: Use IP Anycast
  • ‘A’is the IPv(N-1) address used to deploy IPvN
  • IPvN routers advertise ‘A’ into the IPv(N-1) routing protocol
  • adiscovers IPvN routers via IPv(N-1) routing protocol

IPv4 DST = A

A

A

A

A

A

A

redirection options6
Redirection: Options

Who

  • user: unwieldy
  • user’s ISP
  • participant ISPs
  • application-layer
  • network-layer*

Recall Constraints

  • partial deployment
  • partial ISP participation
  • participant ISP control
  • no new players
  • existing contracts

*Caveat: less flexible redirection

but isn t anycast a non starter
But, Isn’t Anycast a Non-Starter?

Short answer: no.

  • Scales just fine
    • restricted service model vis-à-vis RFC 1546
      • deployed/used only by ISPs
    • a new IP needs one anycast address
  • And is deployable (see paper)
    • Intra-domain: minor change by participating ISPs
    • (+) Inter-domain v1 : simple policy change by all ISPs
    • (~) Inter-domain v2: no change by non-participant ISPs
outline1
Outline
  • Toy Example: deploying IPvN
  • Universal Access
  • Implementing Universal Access
    • constraints
    • two pieces
    • putting it all together
  • Conclusion
putting it all together
Putting It All Together

Case 1: Destination’s ISP supports IPvN

IPvN DST =Dn

IPvN DST =Dn

IPv4 DST = A

IPv4 DST = R

A

A

A

source

A

A

R

Dn

slide38

Case 2: Destination’s ISP does not supports IPvN

  • Two issues:
    • Addressing hosts in non-participant ISP domains

IPvN DST = ?

IPv4 DST = A

A

A

A

source

A

?

slide39

Case 2: Destination’s ISP does not supports IPvN

  • Two issues:
    • Addressing hosts in non-participant ISP domains
      • proposal: interim addressing à la RFC 3056

IPvN DST = D4-to-n

IPv4 DST = A

A

A

A

source

A

D4-to-n from D4

slide40

Case 2: Destination’s ISP does not supports IPvN

  • Two issues:
    • Addressing hosts in non-participant ISP domains
    • Routing to hosts in non-participant ISP domains (paper)
      • one proposal: advertises D4’s prefix into IPvN routing

R

D4-to-n ?

A

A

A

source

A

R

D4-to-n from D4

slide41

Case 2: Destination’s ISP does not supports IPvN

  • Two issues:
    • Addressing hosts in non-participant ISP domains
    • Routing to hosts in non-participant ISP domains (paper)

A

A

IPv4 DST = D4

A

source

A

D4-to-n =from D4

putting it all together1
Putting It All Together

Summary: Technical requirements for UA

  • Redirection
    • best achieved at the network-level
    • anycast: works under partial participation
  • Multi-provider virtual backbones
    • similar to the MBone, etc.
    • but, details of addressing and routing to destinations in non-IPvN domains requires some attention
open questions
Open Questions
  • End-host software architecture
    • dual-stack, NAT-PT, BIS, OCALA[UCB]
  • Exploring revenue flow:
    • ongoing work at SIMS (UCB)[Laskowski, Chuang]
  • Architectural limitations due to partial deployment, overlays
  • Clean-slate design for evolvability
conclusion
Conclusion

Proposal: A conservative approach to evolution [Floyd]

  • a preference for incremental strategies (that lead in the fundamentally right direction?)
  • value to understanding the compromises possible with existing network vs. brave new solutions
conclusion1
Conclusion

Proposal: A conservative approach to evolution [Floyd]

Conjecture: UA could enable ISP innovation

  • achievable with no change to the current architecture
  • a bit of synthesis, but no new mechanisms
conclusion2
Conclusion

Proposal: A conservative approach to evolution [Floyd]

Conjecture: UA could enable ISP innovation

Maybe the Internet is evolvable

Maybe the problem is not a technical one

  • worth exploring to avoid repeating the same mistake

Or, maybe there is no problem

ad