1 / 15

Enabling an Energy-Efficient Future Internet Through Selectively Connected End System

Enabling an Energy-Efficient Future Internet Through Selectively Connected End System. Mark Allman Ken Christensen Bruce Nordman Vern Paxson.

keefe-huber
Download Presentation

Enabling an Energy-Efficient Future Internet Through Selectively Connected End System

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. Enabling an Energy-Efficient Future Internet Through Selectively Connected End System Mark Allman Ken Christensen Bruce Nordman Vern Paxson

  2. The title is “Enabling an Energy-Efficient Future Internet Through Selectively Connected End Systems”. It seems to be powerful, however, not systematical, Incomplete! • What the paper really did does not match the title.

  3. The motivation is good, which realizes the energy conservation. But the proposed methodology (or technical content) does not make much sense.

  4. Many of today’s end systems have a “wake on LAN” functionality built in NIC about sleeping and wakeup. You argue that it is not enough, but what are your styles? Only On, Off, Sleeping? What is your merit?

  5. Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) is an approach to computer network architecture that seeks to address the technical issues in mobile or extreme environments that lack continuous network connectivity. • DNT needs the reworking of how application use the network, but your proposed work need the rebuilt of network architecture. How do you evaluate the pros and cons? How can you convince others yours are better?

  6. Assistant… Assistant?? Features include: • Insane clicking of mouse and keyboard • Punchable to release anger and stress • Press the SLEEP button when you leave your computer • Can carry out SIMPLE commands in Internet • Nuclear Powered – no need to consume energy • Able to tell others you are already asleep when you are actually having dinner • Drink your coffee for you

  7. Assistant • Seriously, the concept of assistant sounds magical, but it does NOT solve the problems faced by other mechanisms like Wake-On-LAN. (too few or too many wake-ups? lack of connectivity?)

  8. Assistant • It’s like someone appoints a secretary to do the preliminary work for all your business. But how can you be sure your business secrets will not be disclosed? How can you be sure she/he can handle all the unimportant business nicely? How will you know if she/he is using the title of your company to do some malicious things for others?

  9. Assistant • And if we are the your partner company, how can we trust what your secretary says if she/he just makes decision without even asking the boss? And how are we supposed to respond if your secretary keeps saying “my boss is out of town TEMPORARILY” forever? • If one day every host all gets one assistant, will it cause result in a dramatic increase of traffic/processing time/…?

  10. Security • How can end systems securely delegate tasks to assistants? • How do remote hosts trust that an assistant indeed has authorization to act on behalf of an end system, and is not an imposter? • How do we layer our use of cryptography mechanisms such that we can expose some portions of communications to assistants, while not exposing sensitive data to intermediaries? • To what degree do our generalized notions of soft state expose network elements to denial-of-service state-holding attacks? • If an adversary wishes to undermine the use of selective connectivity to conserve energy, to what degree will the resulting system be vulnerable to such “denial-of-money” attacks? • …blablabla…

  11. Security • The authors’ honesty is truly highly appreciated. • But should they consider these security flaws (or at least one or two of them) before they publish this paper? • Are all those problems really solvable? (assume set_of_solutions≠Ф) • Are the solutions difficult to implement?

  12. Security • Network security is NOT a joke.

  13. Final Remarks • The data looks frightening. But is the source reliable? • How many people actually leave their computers turned on only for preserving network state? Or maybe they just do not have the habit to turn off the computer? • If finally one day, the proposed plan can be widely accepted one day, who will ever turn off their computer again then?

  14. Final Remarks • It’s great that the community starts to consider GO GREEN. • BUT, without reliable data, plausible initial experiment result, doable implementation steps and enough (or any) consideration for security, such a design can only stay on the paper…

  15. Thanks for your attention! • Questions?? • Comments?? Presented by: Kai Chen and Shiqi Chen

More Related