Download
trend networking age n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Trend: Networking Age PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Trend: Networking Age

Trend: Networking Age

157 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Trend: Networking Age

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Trend: Networking Age Sept. 2007

  2. Trend: Networking Age • Virtual Schools • Virtual Workplace • Electronic commerce • virtual enterprise • new forms of value chains • virtual Cash • Internet entertainment • interactive sitcom • Ubiquitous

  3. Trend: Ubiquitous

  4. Trend: Convergence • Telephone • Voice Transport • Cable TV • Video Transport • Computer • Digital Media Storage/Handling • News/Advertising • Digital Media Production • Merging of Content Providers and Content transporters • Phone companies, cable companies, entertainment industry, and computer companies • Convergence stages: • Networking / devices / consumer

  5. Trend: Information Glut • Web => • Information production and dissemination costs are almost zero • Too much information • Needles in the haystack • Thousands of hits on each search • Need tools for summarizing the information • Opportunities for artificial intelligence • Need to express information so that both human and computers can understand

  6. Networking Trends • More Internet Traffic • Data > Voice (1998) • Traffic > Capacity ? • Traffic Engineering • Faster Media / Backbone • Bandwidth • Everything over IP • NGI - NGN • Wireless/Mobile: 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi • Ubiquitous

  7. Trend: Faster Media / Backbone • LAN: 1 Gbps over 4-pair UTP-5 up to 100 m, 10G being discussed. • Was 1 Mbps (1Base-5) in 1984. • Wireless networks: 54/100 Mbps (100m, 300m, 2km), 2.5 Gbps to 5km using light • Was 1 Mbps (IEEE 802.11) in 1998. • Backbone: Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) • OC-768 = 40 Gbps, a to 65 km, 1.6 - 10 Tbps. • Was 100 Mbps (FDDI) in 1993.

  8. DWDM - Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing 2.488 Gbps (1) 1310/1510 nm 2.488 Gbps (16) λ1 λ2 λ3 λ4 λ5 λ16 1530-1565 nm ramge 1310/1510 nm 16*2.488 Gbps = 40 Gbps 16 uncorrelated wavelengths 16 stabilized, correlated wavelengts

  9. Why Optical Networks?DWDM optoelectricl metro network

  10. Trend: Wireless / Mobile

  11. Trend: Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) in Your Future (1)

  12. Integration of 3G and WLAN-offer possibility of achieving anywhere, anytime, high speed and low expense Internet access

  13. Trend: Everything over IP • Data over IP => IP needs Traffic engineering • Voice over IP => Quality of Service and Signaling • Backbone -- Optic networksI • IP and DWDM => Winning combination • IPfor route calculation, traffic aggregation, protection • DWDM => Cheap bandwidth • Avoid the cost of SONET/ATM equipmnt • Internet technology + ATM philosophy

  14. Future Internet Research and Experimentation Oct. 2007

  15. Today’s Internet • Millions of users • Web, email, low-quality audio & video • Interconnect personal computers and servers • Applications adapt to underlying technology • Today’s Internet Doesn’t • Provide reliable end-to-end performance • Encourage cooperation on new capabilities • Allow testing of new technologies • Support development of revolutionary applications

  16. Tomorrow’s Internet • Billions of users and devices • Convergence of today’s applications with multimedia (telephony, video-conference, HDTV) • Interconnect personal computers, servers, and embedded computers • New technologies enable unanticipated applications (and create new challenges)

  17. Vint Cerf: Open Challenges • My primary disappointment has been the slow pace of high speed access for residential customers … • The second area of disappointment is the slow uptake of version 6 of the Internet protocol (IPv6). • Perhaps the third area is the continuing difficulty caused by viruses, worms and distributed denial of service attacks.”

  18. How to make the Internet better???! • Addressing current problems • Security􀂾 • Privacy􀂾 • Self-diagnosis & self-healing networks􀂾 • Cheap connectivity for poor area and third world countries􀂾 • Wireless mesh networks􀂾 • sensors􀂾 • Mobility􀂙 • New cool apps􀂾 • What is after IPTV, VoIP, BitTorrent,

  19. Why Internet2 (1996)? • The Internet was not designed for: • Millions of users • Congestion • Multimedia • Real time interaction • But, only the Internet can: • Accommodate explosive growth • Enable convergence of information work, mass media, and human collaboration

  20. Internet2 Project • Develop and deploy advanced network applications and technologies, accelerating the creation of tomorrow’s Internet. • Goals • Enable new generation of applications • Re-create leading edge R&E network capability • Transfer capability to the global production Internet • 206 University Members, Jan. 2005

  21. Internet2 Focus Areas • Advanced Network Infrastructure - Abilene • Backbones operate at 10 Gbps capacity - 100 Gbps (2007) • Middleware • A layer of software between the network and the applications • Authentication • Identification • Authorization • Directories • Security • Engineering • IPv6, Measurement, Multicast, QoS, Routing, Security, Topology • Advanced Applications • Distributed computation • Virtual laboratories • Digital libraries • Distributed learning • Digital video • Tele-immersion • All of the above in combination

  22. Abilene Connections :: Apr-2000 Abilene Connections: July 2006

  23. Abilene Connections :: Apr-2000 Abilene International Peering 2006

  24. Internet Development Spiral Commercialization Privatization Today’s Internet Internet2 Research and Development Partnerships Source: Ivan Moura Campos

  25. Internet2 and the Next Generation Internet Initiative Internet2 NGI Federal agency-led University-led Developing education and research driven applications Agency mission-driven and general purpose applications Building out campus networks, gigaPoPs and inter-gigapop infrastructure Funding research testbeds and agency research networks Interconnecting and interoperating to provide advanced networking capabilities needed to support advanced research and education applications

  26. Our Founding (Funding) Fable • Researchers invent new architectures • Architectures are validated on a testbed • IETF, ISPs, and router vendors collaborate to deploy new design • This is complete BS!

  27. Do Traditional Testbeds Really Test? • Production-oriented testbeds: • Real traffic provides good validation • But can test only very incremental changes • Research-oriented testbeds: • Can test radical architectures • Lack of real traffic results in poor validation • Both are expensive (dedicated bandwidth)

  28. What about Deployment? • Architectural change requires ISP consensus • - Hard to agree • - No competitive advantage from architectural innovation • - All have huge sunk investment in the status quo • ISPs are unlikely candidates for architectural change • Architecture isn’t just static, its decaying • Ad hoc workarounds muddy the architectural waters

  29. We are at an Impasse • We can’t test new architectures • - Despite sizable investments in testbeds • We can’t deploy new architectures • - And things are getting worse, not better • Yet there are pressing requirements for which the current architecture is not well suited

  30. The Community’s Response • Focus on areas where we can have impact: • Empirical studies • Incremental changes (subject to current constraints) • Small stream of architectural proposals • Paper designs without hope of deployment • More science fiction than engineering • Have largely abandoned hope of effecting fundamental architectural change • Living with, rather than overcoming, the impasse

  31. Overcoming the Impasse? • Must be able to test new architectures: • Wide range of architectures • Real traffic from willing individuals • Low overhead for individual researchers • Meet the grand challenge of reinventing the Internet • Empirical, incremental research is great, but not enough • If someone put us in charge, what would we do? • What about deployment? • Several options, none good, but no excuse to not have an answer to the grand challenge

  32. Testing: Virtual Testbed • Overlay testbed: (think RON, etc.) • Host proxy directs packets to overlay • Proxy must architecturally neutral, and flexible • Individuals (anywhere) opt-in by turning on proxy • Shared testing infrastructure (think Planetlab) • Overlay nodes shared among experiments • Slicing on per-packet timescales • Virtualized routers • These ideas have turned into the GENI program

  33. Why GENI (Global Environment for Network Innovations) / Future Internet Network (2005)? • The original designing idea of current information networks is basically a specific network supports one major service. • The limitation of the original designing idea can not support the multiple requirements for networks and services (such as Telecom network、Internet) • The original design mode of Internet leads to it’s shortage in mobility, security, controllable and administrable. • We urgently need redesign the framework of new generation Internet to overcome the serious shortage of current Internet. • Providing pervasive and trusted services based on a specific network has became the key research directions of national informatization.

  34. GENI (Global Environment for Network Innovations) - NSF 2005 (1) • What is GENI? • GENI is a facility concept being explored by the US computing community • back to an NSF workshop in 2005 • focus on architectural research, and provide the experimental infrastructure needed to support that research • focus on the research agenda (and infrastructure needs) of the optical, wireless, sensor network, and distributed systems communities

  35. GENI (Global Environment for Network Innovations) (2) • The goal of GENI • Goal: a Future Internet that meets the demands of 21st century • to increase the quality and quantity of experimental research outcomes in networking and distributed systems • to accelerate the transition of these outcomes into products and services • enhance economic competitiveness and secure the Nation's future • Ultimately, to lead to a transition of the Internet

  36. GENI Research Opportunities(3) • Two dichotomy thought (false, or at least unnecessary) • a "clean slate" reconceptualization of Internet architecture • today's 30-year-old architecture that limit its ability to cope with emerging threats and opportunities • eroding trust, reduced innovation, slowing update • future innovation will take the form of new services and applications running on top of the Internet

  37. GENI Research Opportunities(4) • GENI discussion • First, we interpret "Future Internet" very broadly to include innovations at any level of the architecture • alternative protocols and architectures running inside the network (as overlays on top of today's network) • Second, research should employ clean slate thinking, but this does not imply that an entirely new Internet will be necessary. In other words, "clean slate" is a process, not a result. • Third, opportunities between two perspectives • exploring how today's architecture is best evolved to support emerging overlay services.

  38. GENI Facility Concept(5) • Facility Concept • experimental platforms for both research and deployment • filling the gap between small-scale exp and mature tech • GENI evaluate new network systems on large-scale • Two levels • Physical level, GENI substrate will consist of a collection of links, forwarders, storage, processors, and wireless net • On top of this substrate, a software management framework will be overlay network experiments on the substrate

  39. GENI Facility Concept(6) • Four key ideas • substrate components will be programmable - possible to embed any network experiment, including clean-slate designs • Substrate will be virtualizable - possible to embed multiple slices in the substrate at the same time (allow experimental services and architectures to run continuously) • GENI will include mechanisms that allow end-users to seamlessly opt-in to experimental services • GENI will be modular (architecture and interfaces) - possible to extend GENI with new networking technologies . GENI will not be a static artifact, but rather a dynamic infrastructure that is continually renewed.

  40. FIND (Future Internet Network Design)– NSF 2006 (1) • FIND asks two broad questions: • What are the requirements for the global network in 15 years • How would we re-conceive tomorrow's global network today, if we could design it from scratch? • FIND program solicits "clean slate process" research proposals in the broad area of network architecture, principles, and design

  41. FIND (Future Internet Network Design)(2) • FIND research might address wide questions: • What will the edge of the network look like in 15 years? How might the network architecture of 15 years hence best accommodate sensors, embedded systems, and the like? • How might the network of 15 years from now support what users really do (and care about)? How might such functions as information access, location management or identity management best fit into a new overall network architecture? • What will the core of the network look like in 15 years? How might the changing economics of optical systems affect the overall design of the larger network?

  42. Clean Slate Network(1) • 100x100 Clean Slate Project - NSF November 2003 • CMU, Fraser Research, Stanford, Berkeley, Rice, ATT Research, Internet 2 • Clean Slate Network – Stanford 2005 • They believe that the current Internet • has significant deficiencies that need to be solved • Internet's shortcomings will not be resolved by the conventional incremental and 'backward-compatible' style • Program can be characterized by two research questions: • Today, if we were to start again with a clean slate, how would we design a global communications infrastructure? • How should the Internet look in 15 years?