Dr lawrence roberts ceo founder anagran
Download
1 / 26

Key-2 Roberts Evolution of the Internet - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 207 Views
  • Updated On :

Dr. Lawrence Roberts CEO, Founder, Anagran Internet Evolution The Beginning of the Internet ARPANET became the Internet 1965 – MIT- 1 st Packet Experiment -Roberts 1967 - Roberts to ARPA – Designs ARPANET 1969 – ARPANET Starts – 1 st Packet Network 1971 – ARPANET Grows to 18 nodes

Related searches for Key-2 Roberts Evolution of the Internet

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 'Key-2 Roberts Evolution of the Internet' - ostinmannual


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
Dr lawrence roberts ceo founder anagran l.jpg

Dr. Lawrence Roberts

CEO, Founder, Anagran

Internet Evolution


The beginning of the internet arpanet became the internet l.jpg
The Beginning of the InternetARPANET became the Internet

  • 1965 – MIT- 1st Packet Experiment -Roberts

  • 1967 - Roberts to ARPA – Designs ARPANET

  • 1969 – ARPANET Starts – 1st Packet Network

  • 1971 – ARPANET Grows to 18 nodes

  • 1983 – TCP/IP installed on ARPANET – Kahn/Cerf

  • 1986 – NSF takes over network - NSFNET

  • 1991 – Internet opened to commercial use

Roberts at MIT Computer


Internet early history l.jpg

Internet”

Name first used- RFC 675

Roberts term at ARPA

Kahn term at ARPA

Cerf term at ARPA

SATNET - Satellite to UK

Aloha-Packet Radio

PacketRadioNET

Spans US

DNS

TCP/IP Design

TCP/IP

NCP

Ethernet

EMAIL

FTP

ICCC Demo

X.25 – Virtual Circuit standard

Internet Early History


Original internet design it was designed for data l.jpg
Original Internet DesignIt was designed for Data

  • File Transfer and Email main activities

  • Constrained by high cost of memory

    • Only Packet Destination Examined

    • No Source Checks

    • No QoS

    • No Security

    • Best Effort Only

    • Voice Considered

    • Video not feasible

ARPANET July 1977

Not much change since then


Changing use of internet major changes in network use l.jpg
Changing Use of InternetMajor changes in Network Use

  • Voice Totally moving to packets

    – Low loss, low delay required

  • Video Totally moving to packets

    – Low loss, low delay jitter required

  • Emergency Services No Preference Priority

  • Security Cyberwar is now a real threat

  • TCP unfairness – multiple flows (P2P, Clouds, …)

    • Congests network – 5% of users take 80% of capacity


Internet traffic grown 10 12 since 1970 l.jpg
Internet Traffic Grown 1012 since 1970

Electronics – Double every 18 months

Double each year

TCP

ARPANET

NSFNET

COMMERICAL

In 1999 P2P applications discovered using multiple flows could give them more capacity and their traffic moved up to 80% of the network capacity


Where will the internet be in the next decade l.jpg

20082018

% World Population On-Line 22% 99%

Total Traffic PB/month 3,200 191,000

Traffic per User GB/month 2.2 26

GB/mo/user Developed areas 2.7 156

GB/mo/user Less Dev. areas 0.5 3

People in less developed areas will have more capacity than is available in developed areas today!

Users in developed areas could see 3-10 hours of video per day (HD or SD)

Requires a 60 times increase in capacity (Moore’s Law increase)

Where will the Internet be in the next decade


Network change required l.jpg
Network Change Required

  • Fairness

    • Multi-flow applications (P2P) overload access networks

  • Network Security

    • Need User Authentication and Source Checking

  • Emergency Services

    • Need Secure Preference Priorities

  • Cost & Power

    • Growth constrained to Moore’s law & developed areas

  • Quality & Speed

    • Video & Voice require lower jitter and loss, consistent speed

    • TCP stalls slow interactive applications like the web


Technology improvement flow management l.jpg
Technology Improvement – Flow Management

  • Historically, congestion managed by queues and discards

    • Creates delay, jitter, and random losses

    • TCP flow rates vary widely, often stall

    • UDP can overload, if so all flows hurt

  • Alternatively, flows can be rate controlled to fill link

    • Keep table of all flows, measure output, assign rates to each flow

    • Rate control TCP flows to avoid congestion but maintain utilization

    • Limit total fixed rate flow utilization by rejecting excessive requests

    • Assign rate priorities to flows to insure fairness and quality

  • Flow Management requires less power, size, & cost

    • There are 14 times as many packets as flows

    • Flows have predictable rate and user significance


Flow management architecture l.jpg
Flow Management Architecture

  • Flows measured and policed at input

  • Unique TCP rate control – Fair and precise rate/flow

  • Rates controlled based on utilization of both output port and class

  • All traffic controlled to fill output at 90%+

  • No output queue – Minimal delay

  • Voice and video protected to insure quality

Assign Rate, QoS, Output Port, & Class

Flow State Memory

Processors

Load Measurements

Input

Output

Switch

Discard

Rate of Each Flow Controlled

at Input

Traffic measured on both the output port and in up to 4000 Classes


Flow rates control with intelligent flow delivery ifd l.jpg
Flow Rates Control with Intelligent Flow Delivery (IFD)

Instead of random discards in an output queue:

  • Anagran controls each flows rate at the input

  • IFD does not ever discard if the flow stays below the Fair Rate

  • If the flow rate exceeds a threshold, one packet is discarded

  • Then the rate is watched until the next cycle and repeats

  • This assures the flow averages the Fair Rate

  • The flow then has low rate variance (s=.33) and does not stall

Discard 1 packet

Fair Rate


Ifd eliminates tcp stalls equalizes rates l.jpg
IFD Eliminates TCP Stalls, Equalizes Rates

  • Normal Network

  • Rates often stall

  • Peak utilization high

  • Response time is slow

  • Jumble hurts Video & Voice

  • With Flow Management

  • No stalled flows

  • Less peak utilization

  • 3 times faster response times

  • Video and Voice protected

Above graphs are actual data captures


Impact of flow management at network edge l.jpg
Impact of Flow Management at Network Edge

  • Web access three times faster

  • TCP stalls eliminated – all requests complete

  • Voice quality protected – no packet loss, low delay

  • Video quality protected – no freeze frame, no artifact

  • Critical apps can be assigned rate priority

  • When traffic exceeds peak trunk capacity:

    • Eliminates the many impacts of congestion

    • Smooth slowdown of less critical traffic

    • Voice and video quality maintained


Fairness in the beginning l.jpg
Fairness - In the beginning

  • A flow was a file transfer, or a voice call

  • The voice network had 1 flow per user

    • All flows were equal (except for 911)

    • Early networking was mainly terminal to computer

    • Again we had 1 flow (each way) per user

    • No long term analysis was done on fairness

  • It was obvious that under congestion:

Users are equal

thus

Equal Capacity per Flow

was the default design


Fairness where is the internet now l.jpg

P2P

FTP

Fairness - Where is the Internet now?

  • The Internet is still equal capacity per flow under congestion

  • Computers, not users, now generate flows today

    • Any process can use any number of flows

    • P2P takes advantage of this using 10-1000 flows

  • Congestion typically occurs at the Internet edge

    • Here, many users share a common capacity pool

    • TCP generally expands until congestion occurs

    • This forces equal capacity per flow

    • Then the number of flows determines each users capacity

  • The result is therefore unfair to users who paid the same


Typical home network access l.jpg
Typical Home Network Access

  • Internet Service Providers provision for average use

  • Average use today is about 100 Kbps per subscriber

  • Without P2P all users would usually get the peak TCP rate

  • With >0.5% P2P users, average users see much lower rates

1,000 Users

10 Mbps peak rate

100 Mbps

INTERNET

100 Kbps Average / User


Internet traffic recently l.jpg
Internet Traffic Recently

  • Since 2004, total traffic has increased 90% per year, about average

    • P2P has increased 91% per year – Consuming most of the capacity growth

    • Normal traffic has only increased 22% per year –Significantly slowdown from past

  • Since P2P slows other traffic 5:1, users can only do 1/5 as much

  • This may account for the normal traffic growth being about 1/3 what it should be with normal growth


Deep packet inspection dpi fails to stop p2p l.jpg
Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) Fails to Stop P2P

  • DPI currently main defense – but recently has problems with encrypted P2P

    • Studies show it detects < 75% of P2P – reducing the P2P users from 5% to 1.3%

    • As P2P adds encryption, DPI detection misses 25% already and encryption growing

    • Remainder of P2P simply adds more flows, again filling capacity to congestion

  • Result – Even ½ % P2P still overload the upstream channel

    • This slows the Average Users acknowledgements which limits their downstream usage

  • User Equalization based on flow rate management solves problem


A new fairness rule l.jpg
A New Fairness Rule

  • Inequity in TCP/IP – Currently equal capacity per flow

    • P2P has taken advantage of this, using 10-1000 flows

    • This gives the 5% P2P users 80-95% of the capacity

    • P2P does not know when to stop until it sees congestion

  • Instead we should giveequal capacity for equal pay

    • This is simply a revised equality rule – similar users get equal capacity

    • This tracks with what we pay

    • If network assures all similar users get equal service, file sharing will find the best equitable method – perhaps slack time and local hosts

  • This is a major worldwide problem

    • P2P is not bad, it can be quite effective

    • But, without revised fairness, multi-flow applications can take capacity away from other users, dramatically slowing their network use

    • It then becomes an arms race – who can use the most flows


P2p control with flow management l.jpg
P2P Control with Flow Management

  • These are actual measurements showing the effect of controlling P2P traffic as a class

  • In this case, all P2P was limited to a fixed capacity, then equalized for fairness

  • P2P was reduced from 67% to 1.6%

  • Normal traffic then increased by 4:1


Why is it important to change fairness rule l.jpg
Why is it Important to Change Fairness Rule?

  • P2P is attractive and growing rapidly

  • It cannot determine its fair share itself

  • The network must provide the fair boundary

  • Without fairness, normal users will slow down and stall

  • Multi-flow applications will be misled on economics

    • Today most P2P users believe their peak capacity is theirs

    • They do not realize they may be slowing down other users

    • The economics of file transfer are thus badly misjudged

    • This leads to globally un-economic product decisions

  • User equality will lead to economic use of communications


Network security l.jpg
Network Security

  • Wireshark users know the value of watching communication

  • Today the network is open and unchecked

  • All security is based on “flawless” computer systems

  • This needs to change - the network must help

  • Finding Bots is best done watching network traffic

  • Knowing who is trying to connect can help stop penetration

  • Allocating high priority capacity requires authentication

    • Emergency services, critical services, paid services

  • High value services need authentication, not passwords

    • On-line banking, credit transactions, etc.


Authentication security program l.jpg
Authentication Security Program

  • New DARPA project will allow users to be authenticated

  • The network can insure source IP address is not faked

  • The network can assign user based priorities

    • Emergency services needs priority

    • Corporations have priority applications

  • The recipient can know who is trying to connect

    • Filter out request from un-authenticated sources

    • Control application access to specific users

  • Today security is based on fixing all computer holes

  • Network assistance greatly reduces the threat


Darpa secure authentication program l.jpg
DARPA Secure Authentication Program

SH =Secure Hash (Identifies user when hashed with Key)

Each Flow Start: SH checked by NC using Key

Each Flow Start: User can be checked with AAA using SH

Each Flow Start: SH sent to NC

NC

Sender

Receiver

NC

NC

NC

First Packet: NC checks user via SH with AAA, get Key & priority

AAA Server

User Log-in: NC identifies self to AAA, gets SH & Key

NC=Network Controller

  • Network finds users priority & QoS info from AAA server

  • Receiver can check user ID if allowed & reject flow if desired

  • Intermediate NC’s can also check users priority & QoS

  • Result: Users ID securely controls network access & priority


The new network edge flow management l.jpg
The New Network Edge – Flow Management

  • Flow Management at the ISP edge can:

    • Insure fairness – equal capacity for equal pay

    • Eliminate overload problems (TCP stalls and video artifact)

    • Add authentication security to network

  • All these benefits at much lower cost & power vs. DP

40 Gbps capacity in 1 RU with Anagran


Summary l.jpg
Summary

  • Today’s IP Networks need improvement

  • Fairness is poor – 5% of users take 80% of capacity

    • The cause is the old rule of equal capacity per flow

    • This needs to change to equal capacity for equal pay

  • Response time and QoS suffer from random discards

    • Web access suffers from unequal flow rates, TCP stalls

    • Video suffers from packet loss and TCP stalls

    • Voice suffers from packet loss and excessive delay

  • Security could be improved if network did authentication

    • Avoid unknown users penetrating computers

    • Permit priority for emergency workers, critical apps

  • Flow Management allows these improvements at lower cost


ad