1 / 24

Seminar on “Clean Slate Design for the Internet” Nick McKeown nickm@stanford

Seminar on “Clean Slate Design for the Internet” Nick McKeown nickm@stanford.edu. High level. “Given what we know today, if we were to start over with a Clean Slate, how would we design a global communications network?”

lok
Download Presentation

Seminar on “Clean Slate Design for the Internet” Nick McKeown nickm@stanford

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Seminar on “Clean Slate Design for the Internet”Nick McKeownnickm@stanford.edu

  2. High level • “Given what we know today, if we were to start over with a Clean Slate, how would we design a global communications network?” • “Ideally, how will the network look in 15-20 years, and how will we get there from here?”

  3. Prelims • What’s wrong with the Internet…? • Why is the research and business community not already solving it? • What are other groups doing? • What we plan to do at Stanford • An example of “Clean Slate” design

  4. Original Architecture • A dumb connectionless packet-forwarding packet-switched infrastructure, with high-level functionality at the edge • Single, simple lowest-common denominator data delivery service (IP), with reliable stream service built on top • Fixed-size numerical addresses with {network, host} hierarchy; one per physical network interface • Later • Separation of IP and TCP (including congestion control using packet loss as congestion signal) • Subnetting, autonomous systems (EGPs and IGPs), DNS, CIDR

  5. What is needed • Wouldn’t we like a network that we can trust to be always there, always on, easy to use, universally accessible, secure, and economically viable.  • David Cheriton’s example: If the FAA carried all of its traffic over the public Internet, you'd be nuts to fly. • Some obvious desirable characteristics • Robustness and Availability • Security • Naming and Addressing: accountability vs anonymity • Predictability • Mobility • Economic Viability • What else?

  6. Prelims • What’s wrong with the Internet…? • Why is the research and business community not already solving it? • What are other groups doing? • What we plan to do at Stanford • An example of “Clean Slate” design

  7. Prelims • What’s wrong with the Internet…? • Why is the research and business community not already solving it? • What are other groups doing? • What we plan to do at Stanford • An example of “Clean Slate” design

  8. What are others doing? • Background • Incrementalism and “victim of success” of Internet • New era of more radical and fundamental thinking about the future of networks and communications • New-arch (MIT) • 100x100 (CMU) • Geni (NSF/Gov)

  9. New-arch (2000) • Requirements for new network • Mobility: Highly dynamic and efficient • Policy-driven auto-configuration • Highly time-variable resources • Allocation of capacity • http://www.isi.edu/newarch/

  10. 100x100 (CMU/Stanford/Rice) • NSF Large ITR (2003-2008) • Questions: • Can structure be used to make networks more robust, predictable and manageable? • What economic principles drive the operation of access and backbone networks? • What security primitives must be built into the network? • Can/should network and protocol architectures be designed to take advantage of long-term technology trends? • http://100x100network.org/

  11. NSF Geni Initiative (2005) • CISE major effort, seeking congressional funding of approx $300M starting 2008 • Two parts: Research program; Global experimental facility to explore new architectures • Areas of interest: • Creating new core functionality, including naming, addressing, identity, management. • Developing enhanced capabilities: building security intot he architecture; design for high availability; privacy/accountability; design for regional differences and local values • Deploying and validating new architectures • Building higher-level service abstractions • Building new services and applications • Developing new network architecture theories

  12. Prelims • What’s wrong with the Internet…? • Why is the research and business community not already solving it? • What are other groups doing? • What we plan to do at Stanford • An example of “Clean Slate” design

  13. Prelims • What’s wrong with the Internet…? • Why is the research and business community not already solving it? • What are other groups doing? • What we plan to do at Stanford • An example of “Clean Slate” design

  14. What we plan to do at Stanford • Weekly Seminar in Fall and Winter • Fall: Talk by professor followed by discussion • Goals • To get thinking about the problem • To learn from each other • To identify some collaborative research projects

  15. Prelims • What’s wrong with the Internet…? • Why is the research and business community not already solving it? • What are other groups doing? • What we plan to do at Stanford • An example of “Clean Slate” design How to design backbone networks from a clean slate?

  16. Backbone Networks: Emerging Structure • 10-50 routing centers interconnected by long-haul optical links • Increasingly rich topology for robustness and load-balancing • Typical utilization < 25%, because • Uncertainty of traffic matrix network is designed for • Headroom for future growth • Headroom to carry traffic when links and routers fail • Minimize congestion and delay variation • Efficiency sacrificed for robustness and low queueing delay

  17. How flexible are networks today? What fraction of allowable traffic matrices can they support? Verio Abilene 25% Over Prov: 0.0004% 50% Over Prov: 1.15% 25% Over Prov: 0.025% 50% Over Prov: 0.66% AT&T Sprint 25% Over Prov: 0.0006% 50% Over Prov: 0.15% 25% Over Prov: 0.0003% 50% Over Prov: 0.06% Verio, AT&T and Sprint topologies are from RocketFuel

  18. Desired Characteristics • RobustRecovers quickly; continues to operate under failure • Flexible Will support broad class of applications, new customers, and traffic patterns • PredictableCan predict how it will perform, with and without failures • EfficientDoes not sacrifice cost for robustness

  19. Backbone Design • Assume underlying reliable mesh of physical circuits • Dynamic circuit switching over underlying mesh, or • Load-balanced logical network. Describing today

  20. Approach • Assume we know/estimate traffic entering and leaving each Regional Network • Requires only local knowledge of users and market estimates • Use Valiant Load Balancing (VLB) over whole network • Enables support of all traffic matrices

  21. Valiant Load-Balancing 2r1r2 /rN r2 r1 1 2 3 N rN r3 4 … r4 Capacity provisioned over existing robust mesh of physical circuits

  22. A Predictable Backbone Network • Performance: 100% throughput for any valid traffic matrix. • Only need to know aggregate node traffic. • Under low load, no need to spread traffic. • Robustness • Upon failure, spread over working paths • Small cost to recover from k failures: Provision approx 2rirj/r(N-k) • Simple routing algorithm • Efficient • VLB is lowest cost method to support all traffic matrices • Similar cost, while supporting significantly more traffic matrices.

  23. How expensive would VLB be? Cost normalized to VLB routing. Cost of switching = cost of transmission for 370miles Verio Abilene 25% Over Prov: 0.0003% Cost: 0.99 50% Over Prov: 1.08% Cost: 1.19 25% Over Prov: 0.026% Cost: 0.87 50% Over Prov: 0.66% Cost: 1.04 AT&T Sprint 25% Over Prov: 0.0004% Cost: 0.94 50% Over Prov: 0.14% Cost: 1.12 25% Over Prov: 0.0002% Cost: 0.86 50% Over Prov: 0.04% Cost: 1.04

  24. Open questions • Worst case propagation delay doubled • Low variance in delay • There are “express paths” • (How) are multiple VLB networks connected, and how does performance change? • Economics and policy: how do operators compete?

More Related