Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
NOVEMBER 2013 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
NOVEMBER 2013

NOVEMBER 2013

213 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

NOVEMBER 2013

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

  1. Supporting the Brave New World of the 4As: Anytime, Anywhere, Anyhow and Anything Glenford Mapp Associate Professor Middlesex University United Kingdom NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  2. Outline of My Talk • What is this new world really about • What are the challenges • Y-Comm – a bridge to this new world • Collaborations • What's new in my world • Joining the revolution NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  3. Anytime, Anywhere • Anytime • It's a generational thing • Anywhere • Actually I want to be able to communicate from anywhere in the universe. • So I will need to spawn networks and connect them to existing networks • Building, managing and controlling networks should be under user control NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  4. Anyhow • We are seeing the rise of new networks based on different technologies • Wi-Fi, WiMax, 4G, Ultrawideband, Optical Networks, etc • We are also seeing new types of networks • Delay Tolerant Networks (DTNs) • Home Networks, Personal Area Networks, • VANETs – Vehicular networks • Infrastructural networks: Sensor Networks • E-Health Networks: Patient monitoring • Social Networks:- Interaction between people NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  5. Anything • Most important of all • because a network is only useful if it is being used to carry information that people want • Content is King • Monitizing content – directly or indirectly - is the new El Dorado. • A massive paradigm shift in terms of what the Internet is being used for: • Multimedia, interactive games, real-time communication in all forms • Low latency financial applications NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  6. The Key Challenges of Building this Brave New World • Very different to the current Internet • Support for mobility and location management is of primary importance • Seamless, uninterrupted communication • Handover must be controlled and managed • Where you are may be used as a hint to where you may be in the future • Proactive approach • Know where network infrastructure is located • Privacy of Location Information NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  7. Challenges in Networks • How do we get networks to work together seamlessly • Heterogeneous Networking • Need a standard for ubiquitous handover between networks at a low level • Need to allow higher levels (transport protocol/application) to adapt • Multi-homing: managing all the network interfaces on a device NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  8. Challenges in QoS • As traffic is increasing we need to look at some sort of Quality-of-Service support • Lots of research into Internet QoS models • IntServ:- failed because it could not scale • DiffServ:- Works in the core network but not fine-grained enough to work on the periphery. • Need a new approach NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  9. Challenges in Security • Security must be also a key issue of the Future Internet • Current Internet is woefully inadequate • Edward Snowden • Multi-level security • Authentication, authorization • Denial of Service attacks • Privacy (use of the net not monitored) • Security needs to be built in from the start NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  10. Challenges of Big Data • New networks are producing data faster than we can analyse, categorize or process • Storage will also become a big issue • Data Security: who owns my data in the Cloud, who can access my data, do I have any say where the data is stored • Results of Big Data • Information is now gold NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  11. Challenges of Service Delivery • Delivering services will also need to change • Services need to be managed in a more autonomous manner • Spawn new server instances at different locations or migrate services when required in response to: • Geographical load patterns • User mobility • Network failure or recovery NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  12. Challenges of Different Types of Networking • Opportunistic Networking • Taking advantage of social interaction; sensor networks • Move towards more data-centric paradigms • Current Internet still communication-centric • Stresses host-to-host communication • Information Centric Networking • Getting information – irrespective of location • Publish and subscribe models NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  13. Meeting these challenges • Need an integrated approach • Cannot study one challenge in isolation • Failure is not an option • Internet is the most successful thing that humans have made; the wheel is a distant second • Problems are building up and need to be addressed • Affects all of us • No country, institution or company should be in total control of the Internet NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  14. How are we going to make this happen – what is the approach • Revolutionary Approach • Start from scratch • Clean Slate Project; Plan 9 test • Evolutionary Approach • Only incremental increases • IPv6, INTERNET 2 • Challenges mean that an evolutionary jump is needed NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  15. How are we going to make this happen – what is the approach • Try what has worked before • Agree on functionality; but not on implementation • Need a framework that gives us functionality but not say how the functionality is implemented • Worked for telephony; 3KHz standard • Worked for the Internet: OSI; TCP/IP NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  16. Why do you need a framework? • To be able to think about the issues coherently • Imposes mental discipline • Forces you to always keep the Big Picture in mind • Separates functionality/policy from mechanism • Frees us to: • Use or enhance existing mechanisms/standards • Only design new mechanisms when needed NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  17. PERIPHERAL NETWORK SECURITY LAYERS CORE NETWORK APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTS SAS SERVICE PLATFORM QBS QOS LAYER NETWORK QOS LAYER CORE TRANSPORT END SYSTEM TRANSPORT NTS NAS NETWORK MANAGEMENT MOBILITY MANAGEMENT CONFIGURATION LAYER HANDOVER MANAGEMENT NETWORK ABSTRACTION (MOBILE NODE) NETWORK ABSTRACTION (BASE STATION) HARDWARE PLATFORM (MOBILE NODE) HARDWARE PLATFORM (BASE STATION)

  18. A very brief Introduction to Y-Comm • This is not a talk about Y-Comm Talks, papers at: http://www.mdx.ac.uk/research/science_technology/informatics/projects/ycomm.aspx • In essence Y-Comm is an architecture that is trying to integrate: • Communication • Mobility • QoS • Security NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  19. Y-Comm: Still a work in progress • It is not the only architecture that is being studied • Ambient networks • Mobile Ethernet • Y-Comm is by far: • The most detailed • The most integrated • Architecture is stable • Recently tweaked some names of the layers to make their functionality better understood by the mobile telcoms community NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  20. Why is Y-Comm different • Y-Comm was predicated on two key assumptions: • Network Evolution • The Internet is decomposing into 2 components • A super-fast core using Optical Switching/MPLS • Wireless Peripheral Networks at the Edge • Devices will have multiple Interfaces • 3/4G, Wi-Fi, WiMax, etc • Called HETNET devices • Both the assumptions turned out to be true NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  21. Future Internet Current Internet BACKBONE ACCESS NETWORKS WIRELESS NETWORKS

  22. The Core Framework SERVICE PLATFORM LAYER NETWORK QOS LAYER CORE TRANSPORT SYSTEM NETWORK MANAGEMENT LAYER CONFIGURATION LAYER NETWORK ABSTRACTION LAYER HARDWARE PLATFORM LAYER

  23. The Peripheral Framework APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTS LAYER QOS LAYER END TRANSPORT SYSTEM MOBILITY MANAGEMENT LAYER HANDOVER MANAGEMENT LAYER NETWORK ABSTRACTION LAYER HARDWARE PLATFORM LAYER

  24. History of Y-Comm • Pre-Y-Comm (1998-2003) • Cambridge Wireless Testbed • 2006 – Peripheral Framework announced • 2007 – Y-Comm architecture announced • 2008 – USP & UFSCar join effort • 2010 – Loughborough University joins effort • 2012 – Lancaster University joins effort NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  25. Key People in Y-Comm • Glenford Mapp (Middlesex University) • Jon Crowcroft (University of Cambridge) • Edson Moreira (USP) • Helio Guardia (UFSCar) • Raphael Phan (Loughborough University) • Qiang Ni (Lancaster University) NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  26. Key PhD students • Fatema Shaikh (Middlesex University 2010) • David Cottingham (University of Cambridge 2010) • Renata Porto Vanni (USP 2010) • Mahdi Aiash (Middlesex University 2012) • Rigolin Lopes (USP 2012) • Mario Augusto (USP 2012) • Fragkiskos Sardis (Middlesex University) • Ann Samuels (Middlesex University) NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  27. Key Middlesex MSc Students • Diti Dave (2010) • Naveen Chinnam (2011) • Ali Mofidizati (2012) • Rajesh Lakkineni (2012) • Brian Ondiege (2012) • Eghe Akenuwa (2013) • Eric Ghokeng (2013) NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  28. What are the major contributions of Y-Comm so far • Handover • Handover Classification; Proactive vertical handover, Calculations for NDT and TBVH • Security • Integrated Security; Targeted Security Models; • Ontologies for Communication Architectures • Y-Comm Ontology, MyHand • Quality-of-Service • New QoS Framework NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  29. Things being worked on – NOT part of this talk • An implementation of IEEE 802.21 • To provide seamless handover (UFSCar) • Game Theory in Communication Systems • To see if game-theory can lead to optimum resource allocation (Lancaster University) • A new transport protocol for LANs • To optimize server speeds in LANs and Clouds (Middlesex University) • A Hybrid Internet QoS model • Combining IntServ and DiffServ (Middlesex University NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  30. End of Y-Comm Part • Y-Comm has been a success because it has provided a framework to allow us to begin to exploring how to support the 4As • Just a start; still a very long way to go before we get to this new world • Y-Comm has moved from the design/architectural phase to the implementation phase • Exploring using Software Defined Networking (SDN) as a way of building a full Y-Comm prototype NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  31. Questions on Y-Comm NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  32. Going Deep • In this section we want to look at how a section of the work in Y-Comm is impacting 3 key areas: • Resource Management in Core Networks • Mobile Services • VANETs • Need to understand proactive handover in Y-Comm NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  33. Basic Handover Terms • Hard vs Soft Handover • Hard:- break before make • Soft:- make before break • Network vs Client Handovers • Network-based • Client-based (Apple's Patent) • Upward vs Downward • Upward – smaller to bigger coverage • Downward – bigger to smaller coverage NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  34. Handover Classification HANDOVER ALTERNATIVE IMPERATIVE SERVICES NETPREF CONTEXT REACTIVE USERPREF PROACTIVE UNANTICIPATED ANTICIPATED MODEL-BASED KNOWLEDGE-BASED

  35. Knowledge-Based Proactive Handover (Cambridge)

  36. Model Based Proactive Handover • The work of Fatema Shaikh • Define a circular area of coverage called the Handover radius • Define a smaller radius called the Exit Radius at which handover must start in order for the handover to be completed at the Handover Radius • The time the mobile node has before it hits the Exit Radius is called Time Before Vertical Handover or TBVH NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  37. Model-Based Handover NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  38. Predictive Mathematical Model for TBVH(Simple Case) Movement of MS under BBS coverage (upward vertical handoff) • Introduction of additional functionality to Base Station at network boundary (BBS). • Distance between MS and BBS derived from location co-ordinates or • Estimated TBVH

  39. Simulation and Results TBVH simulation in OPNET Modeler:

  40. Why is TBVH important • If the Mobility Management Layer can calculate TBVH, it can signal to the higher layers that a handover will occur after a certain time so these layers can take action. • Minimize the effects of handover delay and packet loss by buffering and using fast retransmission techniques • It makes proactive handovers more seamless compared to reactive handovers • Can Fatema Shaikh's work be extended to any arbitrary situation? NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  41. Combining Transport and Communications to determine the optimum handover NET A A NET B S NET C B C T

  42. Analysis shows that it is possible to calculate these key points with some degree of accuracy C1 E1 Y2 Z1 A Y1 Y3 H1 C2 S B E2 C H3 E3 H2 T Z2 Z3

  43. Results

  44. What does it all mean? • If the mobile node knows: its location, direction and velocity • Via GPS or accelerometers • The location of the networking infrastructure • Type of access network, the position of the access points • Good estimation of the Handover Radius • Then we can calculate the optimal times to handover over a large region (a few miles) NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  45. WIRELESS NETWORK REQ (Time , TBVH, NDT) A A B REQ (Time , TBVH, NDT) B

  46. Rethink Allocation Strategy • MNA needs channel at (Time + TBVH) A • MNA releases channel at (Time + TBVH + NDT)A • MNB needs channel at (Time + TBVH)B • MNB releases channel at (Time + TBVH + NDT)B NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  47. There are 3 possible outcomes • No contention: • (Time + TBVH)A < (Time + TBVH)B • (Time + TBVH + NDT)A < (Time + TBVH)B • Contention: Two Types: Partial and Total • (Time + TBVH)A < (Time + TBVH)B • (Time + TBVH + NDT)A > (Time + TBVH)B • Partial Contention: • Total Contention: (Time + TBVH + NDT)A < (Time + TBVH + NDT)B (Time + TBVH + NDT)A >= (Time + TBVH + NDT)B NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  48. Request Summary • Requests granted as requested: • Channel granted at (Time + TVBH)A • Channel released at (Time + TBVH + NDT)A • Same with B • Requests granted but modified for B • Channel granted at (Time + TBVH + NDT)A • Channel released at (Time + TBVH + NDT)B • Request for B not granted: • Force B to handover to another network NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  49. Further Results • Simulation results show that there is a clear benefit to using this approach • Nodes that can use the channel are not forced to wait behind nodes that cannot use the channel • Nodes that cannot use the channel quickly handover to other networks so we avoid unnecessary handover attempts • Good result for operators NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP

  50. Mobile Services • PhD research by Fragkiskos Sardis • General idea: as the users of a service move around the latency between the user and the service could increase such that the user's QoE could be affected • A way around this is to be able to migrate or replicate the service at a location closer to the mobile user to reduce latency • Cloud Services now make this possible NOVEMBER 2013 WTD-ICMC-USP