Post on 14-Dec-2015
1
Re-Thinking Internet Architecture• Today’s Internet
– Original Design Goal, Philosophy and Principles– End-to-End Principle and “Hourglass” Architecture of
Internet– Pros and Cons; Challenging Issues– What have changed? What may have yet to come?
• Overlay Networks
• Future Internet Architectures?– What are key challenges/issues?
• E.g., mobility, security, “services-oriented” …• Diversity of “end systems”: laptops, cell phones,
sensors, …
2
Network Architecture
What is (Network) Architecture?– not the implementation itself– “design blueprint” on how to “organize”
implementations• what interfaces are supported• where functionality is implemented
• Two Basic Architectural Principles – Modularity (e.g., layering)
• how to break network functionality into modules– End-to-End Argument
• where to implement functionality
3
Architectural Principles (not unique to networks!)
Zhi-Li’s version (synthesized from various sources)• End-to-end argument
– functionality placement• Modularity
– Increase inter-operability and manage complexity• vertical partition -> layered architecture• horizontal partition?
• Keep it simple, stupid (KISS principle)– Occam’s Razor: choose simplest among many solutions!
• complicated design increases system coupling (inter-dependence), amplifies errors, ..
• don’t over-optimize!• Separating policies from mechanisms
– decouple control from data– “semantics-free”
• Design for scale – hierarchy, aggregation, …
4
Some Design/Implementation Principles
• virtualization• indirection• soft state vs. hard state• fate sharing• randomization• expose faults, don’t suppress/ignore• caching• ……
5
Original Internet Design Goals[Clark’88]
0 Connect existing networks– initially ARPANET and ARPA packet radio network
1. Survivability- ensure communication service even with network and
router failures 2. Support multiple types of services3. Must accommodate a variety of networks4. Allow distributed management5. Allow host attachment with a low level of effort6. Be cost effective
7. Allow resource accountability
In order of importance:
6
Priorities• The effects of the order of items in that list are
still felt today– E.g., resource accounting is a hard, current research
topic• Different ordering of priorities would make a
different architecture!• How well has today’s Internet satisfied these
goals? • Let’s look at them in detail
7
Summary: Internet Architecture
• Packet-switched datagram network
• IP is the “compatibility layer” – Hourglass architecture– All hosts and routers run
IP• Stateless architecture
– No per flow state inside network
IP
TCP UDP
ATM
Satellite
Ethernet
8
Summary: Minimalist Approach
• Dumb network– IP provide minimal functionalities to support
connectivity• Addressing, forwarding, routing
• Smart end system– Transport layer or application performs more
sophisticated functionalities• Flow control, error control, congestion control
• Advantages– Accommodate heterogeneous technologies
(Ethernet, modem, satellite, wireless)– Support diverse applications (telnet, ftp, Web, X
windows)– Decentralized network administration
• Beginning to show age– Unclear what the solution will be probably IPv6?
9
Questions• What priority order would a commercial
design have?• What would a commercially invented
Internet look like?• What goals are missing from this list?• Which goals led to the success of the
Internet?
10
Requirements for Today’s Internet
Some key requirements (“-ities”)• Availability and reliability
– “Always on”, fault-tolerant, fast recovery from failures, …• Quality-of-service (QoS) for applications
– fast response time, adequate quality for VoIP, IPTV, etc.• Scalability
– millions or more of users, devices, …• Mobility
– untethered access, mobile users, devices, … • Security (and Privacy?)
– protect against malicious attacks, accountability of user actions?• Manageability
– configure, operate and manage networks– trouble-shooting network problems
• Flexibility, Extensibility, Evolvability, ……? – ease of new service creation and deployment?– evolvable to meet future needs?
11
End System Based Overlay/P2P Services/Solutions
• General Concept of Overlays • Some Examples• End-System Multicast
– Rationale– How to construct “self-organizing” overlay– Performance in support conferencing applications
• Internet Indirection Infrastructure (i3)– Motivation and Basic ideas– Implementation Overview– Applications
12
Overlay Networks
13
Overlay NetworksFocus at the application level
14
Overlay Networks• A logical network built on top of a physical
network– Overlay links are tunnels through the underlying
network• Many logical networks may coexist at once
– Over the same underlying network– And providing its own particular service
• Nodes are often end hosts– Acting as intermediate nodes that forward traffic– Providing a service, such as access to files
• Who controls the nodes providing service?– The party providing the service (e.g., Akamai)– Distributed collection of end users (e.g., peer-to-
peer)
15
Routing Overlays• Alternative routing strategies
– No application-level processing at the overlay nodes– Packet-delivery service with new routing strategies
• Incremental enhancements to IP– IPv6– Multicast– Mobility– Security
• Revisiting where a function belongs– End-system multicast: multicast distribution by end
hosts
• Customized path selection– Resilient Overlay Networks: robust packet delivery
16
IP Tunneling• IP tunnel is a virtual point-to-point link
– Illusion of a direct link between two separated nodes
• Encapsulation of the packet inside an IP datagram– Node B sends a packet to node E– … containing another packet as the payload
A B E FtunnelLogical view:
Physical view:A B E F
17
6Bone: Deploying IPv6 over IP4
A B E F
IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6
tunnelLogical view:
Physical view:A B E F
IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6
C D
IPv4 IPv4
Flow: XSrc: ADest: F
data
Flow: XSrc: ADest: F
data
Flow: XSrc: ADest: F
data
Src:BDest: E
Flow: XSrc: ADest: F
data
Src:BDest: E
A-to-B:IPv6
E-to-F:IPv6
B-to-C:IPv6 inside
IPv4
B-to-C:IPv6 inside
IPv4
18
MBone: IP Multicast• Multicast
– Delivering the same data to many receivers– Avoiding sending the same data many times
• IP multicast– Special addressing, forwarding, and routing schemes– Not widely deployed, so MBone tunneled between
nodes
unicast multicast
19
End-System Multicast• IP multicast still is not widely deployed
– Technical and business challenges– Should multicast be a network-layer service?
• Multicast tree of end hosts– Allow end hosts to form their own multicast tree– Hosts receiving the data help forward to others
20
RON: Resilient Overlay NetworksPremise: by building application overlay network,
can increase performance and reliability of routing
Two-hop (application-level)Berkeley-to-Princeton route
application-layer router
Princeton Yale
Berkeley
21
RON Can Outperform IP Routing
• IP routing does not adapt to congestion– But RON can reroute when the direct path is
congested
• IP routing is sometimes slow to converge– But RON can quickly direct traffic through
intermediary
• IP routing depends on AS routing policies– But RON may pick paths that circumvent policies
• Then again, RON has its own overheads– Packets go in and out at intermediate nodes
• Performance degradation, load on hosts, and financial cost
– Probing overhead to monitor the virtual links• Limits RON to deployments with a small number of
nodes
22
Secure Communication Over Insecure Links
• Encrypt packets at entry and decrypt at exit• Eavesdropper cannot snoop the data• … or determine the real source and destination
23
Communicating With Mobile Users
• A mobile user changes locations frequently– So, the IP address of the machine changes often
• The user wants applications to continue running– So, the change in IP address needs to be hidden
• Solution: fixed gateway forwards packets– Gateway has a fixed IP address– … and keeps track of the mobile’s address changes
gatewaywww.cnn.com
24
Unicast Emulation of Multicast
End Systems
Routers
Gatech
CMU
Stanford
Berkeley
25
IP Multicast
• No duplicate packets• Highly efficient bandwidth usage
Key Architectural Decision: Add support for multicast in IP layer
Berkeley
Gatech Stanford
CMU
Routers with multicast support
26
Key Concerns with IP Multicast
• Scalability with number of groups– Routers maintain per-group state– Analogous to per-flow state for QoS guarantees– Aggregation of multicast addresses is complicated
• Supporting higher level functionality is difficult– IP Multicast: best-effort multi-point delivery service– End systems responsible for handling higher level
functionality – Reliability and congestion control for IP Multicast complicated
• Deployment is difficult and slow– ISP’s reluctant to turn on IP Multicast
27
End System MulticastStanford
Gatech Stan1
Stan2
Berk1
CMU
Stan1
Stan2
Berk2
Overlay TreeGatech
Berk1
Berkeley Berk2
CMU
28
• Scalability– Routers do not maintain per-group state– End systems do, but they participate in very few groups
• Easier to deploy• Potentially simplifies support for higher level
functionality– Leverage computation and storage of end systems– For example, for buffering packets, transcoding, ACK
aggregation– Leverage solutions for unicast congestion control and reliability
Potential Benefits
29
Design Questions• Is End System Multicast Feasible?• Target applications with small and
sparse groups • How to Build Efficient Application-Layer
Multicast “Tree” or Overlay Network? – Narada: A distributed protocol for constructing
efficient overlay trees among end systems– Simulation and Internet evaluation results to
demonstrate that Narada can achieve good performance
30
Performance Concerns
CMU
Gatech Stan1
Stan2
Berk1
Berk2
Duplicate Packets:
Bandwidth Wastage
CMU
Stan1
Stan2
Berk2
Gatech
Berk1
Delay from CMU to
Berk1 increases
31
What is an efficient overlay tree?• The delay between the source and receivers is
small• Ideally,
– The number of redundant packets on any physical link is low
Heuristic used:– Every member in the tree has a small degree – Degree chosen to reflect bandwidth of connection to
Internet
Gatech
“Efficient” overlay
CMU
Berk2
Stan1
Stan2
Berk1Berk1
High degree (unicast)Berk2
Gatech
Stan2CMU
Stan1
Stan2
High latency
CMU
Berk2
Gatech
Stan1
Berk1
32
Why is self-organization hard?
• Dynamic changes in group membership – Members may join and leave dynamically– Members may die
• Limited knowledge of network conditions– Members do not know delay to each other when they join– Members probe each other to learn network related
information – Overlay must self-improve as more information available
• Dynamic changes in network conditions – Delay between members may vary over time due to
congestion
33
Performance Metrics• Delay between members using Narada• Stress, defined as the number of identical copies
of a packet that traverse a physical link
Berk2
GatechStan1
Stress = 2CMU
Stan2
Berk1
Berk2CMU
Stan1
Stan2Gatech
Berk1
Delay from CMU to
Berk1 increases
34
ESM Conclusions• Proposed in 1989, IP Multicast is not yet widely
deployed– Per-group state, control state complexity and scaling
concerns– Difficult to support higher layer functionality– Difficult to deploy, and get ISP’s to turn on IP
Multicast• Is IP the right layer for supporting multicast
functionality?• For small-sized groups, an end-system overlay approach
– is feasible– has a low performance penalty compared to IP
Multicast– has the potential to simplify support for higher layer
functionality– allows for application-specific customizations
35
Internet Indirection Infrastructure (i3)
Motivations• Today’s Internet is built around a unicast point-
to-point communication abstraction:– Send packet “p” from host “A” to host “B”
• This abstraction allows Internet to be highly scalable and efficient, but…
• … not appropriate for applications that require other communications primitives:– Multicast – Anycast – Mobility– …
36
Why?• Point-to-point communication implicitly
assumes there is one sender and one receiver, and that they are placed at fixed and well-known locations– E.g., a host identified by the IP address 128.32.xxx.xxx is
located in Berkeley
37
IP Solutions• Extend IP to support new communication
primitives, e.g., – Mobile IP – IP multicast– IP anycast
• Disadvantages:– Difficult to implement while maintaining Internet’s
scalability (e.g., multicast)– Require community wide consensus -- hard to achieve in
practice
38
Application Level Solutions• Implement the required functionality at
the application level, e.g., – Application level multicast (e.g., Narada, Overcast,
Scattercast…)– Application level mobility
• Disadvantages:– Efficiency hard to achieve– Redundancy: each application implements the same
functionality over and over again– No synergy: each application implements usually
only one service; services hard to combine
39
Key Observation• Virtually all previous proposals use
indirection, e.g., – Physical indirection point mobile IP– Logical indirection point IP multicast
“Any problem in computer science can be solved by adding a layer of indirection”
40
i3 Solution
• Use an overlay network to implement this layer– Incrementally deployable; don’t need to change IP
Build an efficient indirection layer
on top of IP
IP
TCP/UDP
Application
Indir.layer
41
Internet Indirection Infrastructure (i3): Basic Ideas
• Each packet is associated an identifier id• To receive a packet with identifier id, receiver R
maintains a trigger (id, R) into the overlay network
Sender
id Rtrigger
iddata
Receiver (R)
iddata
Rdata
42
Service Model
• API– sendPacket(p);– insertTrigger(t);– removeTrigger(t) // optional
• Best-effort service model (like IP)• Triggers periodically refreshed by end-
hosts• ID length: 256 bits
43
Mobility
• Host just needs to update its trigger as it moves from one subnet to another
Sender
Receiver(R1)
Receiver(R2)
id R1id R2
44
iddata
Multicast
• Receivers insert triggers with same identifier• Can dynamically switch between multicast
and unicast
Receiver (R1)id R1
Receiver (R2)
id R2
Sender
R1data
R2data
iddata
45
Anycast• Use longest prefix matching instead of exact
matching– Prefix p: anycast group identifier – Suffix si: encode application semantics, e.g., location
Sender
Receiver (R1)p|s1 R1
Receiver (R2)p|s2 R2
p|s3 R3
Receiver (R3)
R1datap|adata p|adata
46
Service Composition: Sender Initiated
• Use a stack of IDs to encode sequence of operations to be performed on data path
• Advantages– Don’t need to configure path– Load balancing and robustness easy to achieve
SenderReceiver (R)
idT Tid R
Transcoder (T)
T,iddata
iddata
Rdata
idT,iddata idT,iddata
47
Service Composition: Receiver Initiated
• Receiver can also specify the operations to be performed on data
Receiver (R)
id idF,R
Firewall (F)
Sender idF F
idF,Rdata
Rdata
F,Rdata
iddata iddata
48
Quick Implementation Overview
• i3 is implemented on top of Chord– But can easily use CAN, Pastry, Tapestry, etc
• Each trigger t = (id, R) is stored on the node responsible for id
• Use Chord recursive routing to find best matching trigger for packet p = (id, data)
49
Routing Example• R inserts trigger t = (37, R); S sends packet p = (37, data)• An end-host needs to know only one i3 node to use i3
– E.g., S knows node 3, R knows node 35
3
7
20
35
41
37 R
37
20
35
41
37 R
S
R
trigger(37,R)
send(37, data)
send(R, data)
Chord circle
S
R
02m-1
[8..20]
[4..7]
[21..35]
[36..41]
[40..3]
50
Sender (S)
Optimization #1: Path Length• Sender/receiver caches i3 node mapping a
specific ID• Subsequent packets are sent via one i3
node
[42..3]
[4..7]
[8..20]
[21..35][36..41]
37 R
37data
Rdatacache node Receiver (R)
51
Optimization #2: Triangular Routing
• Use well-known trigger for initial rendezvous• Exchange a pair of (private) triggers well-located• Use private triggers to send data traffic
[42..3]
[4..7]
[8..20]
[21..35][36..41]
37 RR[2]
2 S37[2]
2 [30]30 R
S [30]30data
Rdata
Receiver (R)
Sender (S)
52
Example 1: Heterogeneous Multicast
• Sender not aware of transformations
Receiver R1(JPEG)
id_MPEG/JPEG S_MPEG/JPEG
id (id_MPEG/JPEG, R1)
send(id, data)
S_MPEG/JPEG
Sender(MPEG)
send((id_MPEG/JPEG, R1), data)
send(R1, data)
id R2
Receiver R2(MPEG)
send(R2, data)
53
Example 2: Scalable Multicast
• i3 doesn’t provide direct support for scalable multicast– Triggers with same identifier are mapped onto the same i3 node
• Solution: have end-hosts build an hierarchy of trigger of bounded degree
R2
R1
R4R3
g R2
g R1
gx
x R4
x R3
(g, data)
(x, data)
54
Example 2: Scalable Multicast (Discussion)
Unlike IP multicast, i31. Implement only small scale replication
allow infrastructure to remain simple, robust, and scalable
2. Gives end-hosts control on routing enable end-hosts to – Achieve scalability, and– Optimize tree construction to match their needs, e.g.,
delay, bandwidth
55
Example 3: Load Balancing• Servers insert triggers with IDs that have random
suffixes• Clients send packets with IDs that have random
suffixes
S1
1010 0101 S2
1010 1010 S3
1010 1101 S4
S1
S2
S3
S4
A
B
send(1010 0110,data)
send(1010 1110,data)
1010 0010
56
Example 4: Proximity• Suffixes of trigger and packet IDs encode
the server and client locations
1000 0010 S1
1000 1010 S21000 1101 S3
S1
S2S3
send(1000 0011,data)
57
Outline
• Implementation• Examples• SecurityApplications
Protection against DoS attacks– Routing as a service– Service composition platform
58
Applications: Protecting Against DoS
• Problem scenario: attacker floods the incoming link of the victim
• Solution: stop attacking traffic before it arrives at the incoming link– Today: call the ISP to stop the traffic, and hope for the
best!
• Our approach: give end-host control on what packets to receive– Enable end-hosts to stop the attacks in the network
59
Why End-Hosts (and not Network)?
• End-hosts can better react to an attack– Aware of semantics of traffic they receive– Know what traffic they want to protect
• End-hosts may be in a better position to detect an attack– Flash-crowd vs. DoS
60
Some Useful Defenses1. White-listing: avoid receiving packets on
arbitrary ports2. Traffic isolation:
– Contain the traffic of an application under attack– Protect the traffic of established connections
3. Throttling new connections: control the rate at which new connections are opened (per sender)
61
1. White-listing• Packets not addressed to open ports are dropped
in the network– Create a public trigger for each port in the white list– Allocate a private trigger for each new connection
IDS S
Sender (S)
Receiver (R)
S [IDR]
IDS [IDR]IDR
RRdata
IDPR
R[IDS]
IDP[IDS]IDR data
IDP – public trigger IDS, IDR – private triggersIDP – public trigger IDS, IDR – private triggers
62
2. Traffic Isolation• Drop triggers being flooded without affecting
other triggers– Protect ongoing connections from new connection
requests– Protect a service from an attack on another services
Victim (V)
Attacker(A)
Legitimate client(C)
ID2V
ID1 V
Transaction server
Web server
63
2. Traffic Isolation (cont’d)• Drop triggers being flooded without affecting
other triggers– Protect ongoing connections from new connection
requests– Protect a service from an attack on another services
Victim (V)
Attacker(A)
Legitimate client(C)
ID1 V
Transaction server
Web server
Traffic of transaction serverprotected from attack on web server
Traffic of transaction serverprotected from attack on web server
64
3. Throttling New Connections• Redirect new connection requests to a
gatekeeper – Gatekeeper has more resources than victim – Can be provided as a 3rd party service
Server (S)Client (C)IDC C
X S
puzzle
puzzle’s solution
Gatekeeper (A)
IDPA
65
Service Composition Platform• Goal: allow third-parties and end-hosts to
easily insert new functionality on data path– E.g., firewalls, NATs, caching, transcoding, spam filtering,
intrusion detection, etc..
• Why i3? – Make middle-boxes part of the architecture– Allow end-hosts/third-parties to explicitly route through
middle-boxes
66
Example• Use Bro system to provide intrusion
detection for end-hosts that desire so
M
client Aserver B
i3
Bro (middle-box)
idM MidBA B
idAB A
(idM:idBA, data)(idBA, data)
(idM:idAB, data)(idAB, data)
67
Design Principles
1) Give hosts control on routing– A trigger is like an entry in a routing table!– Flexibility, customization– End-hosts can
• Source route• Set-up acyclic communication graphs • Route packets through desired service points• Stop flows in infrastructure• …
2) Implement data forwarding in infrastructure– Efficiency, scalability
68
Design Principles (cont’d)
Host Infrastructure
Internet &Infrastructure overlays
Data plane
Control plane
p2p & End-host overlays
Data plane
Control planei3 Data planeControl plane
69
Conclusions• Indirection – key technique to implement
basic communication abstractions– Multicast, Anycast, Mobility, …
• I3– Advocates for building an efficient Indirection Layer on
top of IP – Explore the implications of changing the communication
abstraction; already done in other fields• Direct addressable vs. associative memories• Point-to-point communication vs. Tuple space (in
Distributed systems)
70
Requirements for Today/Tomorrow’s Internet?
Some key requirements (“-ities”)• Availability and reliability
– “Always on”, fault-tolerant, fast recovery from failures, …• Quality-of-service (QoS) for applications
– fast response time, adequate quality for VoIP, IPTV, etc.• Scalability
– millions or more of users, devices, …• Mobility
– untethered access, mobile users, devices, … • Security (and Privacy?)
– protect against malicious attacks, accountability of user actions?• Manageability
– configure, operate and manage networks– trouble-shooting network problems
• Flexibility, Extensibility, Evolvability, ……? – ease of new service creation and deployment?– evolvable to meet future needs?
71
Key Issues, Challenges, Solutions …A More Network-Centric View• New Naming/Addressing?
– Separating “identifiers” and “locators” to better support mobility– “semantic-free” flat id space ?– Data centric? – Role of “search” on naming, etc.
• Scalable and Robust Routing– Better and more adaptive to failures, and other network events– Also better support for network management, security, …– how to perform routing on “flat id” space?– Or shall we decouple routing from “naming” or “addressing” ?
• Manageability– “Centralized” approach – …?
• Security (and Privacy?)– More “accountable” networks, e.g., through “naming,” or id
management?– …?
72
Key Issues, Challenges, Solutions …Applications and Technology are Dual Drivers !• More devices are connected, novel technologies,
disruptive new applications/services– Google, and its impact of how we access Internet today– social networking: Facebook, MySpace, … – iPod/iTune, Skype, BitTorrent, P2P video streaming,
YouTube, Hulu.com, Kindle and Amazon, Ebay, …– smart phones, etc., “third screen”– “Cloud computing”, data centers, and “software as
services”–
• Flexibility, Evolvability, and Economic Viability of Network Architectures! – It’s “service”, stupid!
• But is network a (shared) “utility”, “commodity”, or “service” ?
– “Networks” as services (e.g., VPNs), network security as services, …
– Network Virtualization and Virtualized Network Architectures– User/application “customize-able” network services?
Ultimately, networks should be “invisible” !