1

Dr. Lawrence RobertsCEO, Founder, Anagran

Internet Evolution into the FutureInternet Evolution into the Future

2

The Beginning of the Internet ARPANET 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

ARPANET 1971

3

Internet Early History

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987

Ho

sts

or

Tra

ffic

in

bp

s/1

0

Hosts

TrafficTCP/IPNCP

EMAIL FTP

ICCC Demo

Aloha-Packet Radio

SATNET - Satellite to UK

Spans US

Ethernet

DNSPacketRadioNET

“Internet”Name first used- RFC 675

TCP/IP Design

X.25 – Virtual Circuit standard

Roberts term at ARPA Kahn term at ARPACerf term at ARPA

4

Original Internet DesignIt was designed for Data

File Transfer and Email main activitiesConstrained by high cost of memory– Only Packet Destination Examined– No Source Checks– No QoS – No Security– Best Effort Only– Voice Considered– Video not feasible

Not much change since thenARPANET July 1977

5

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

Broadband Edge Must control Edge Traffic

P2P utilizes TCP unfairness – multiple flows – Congests network – 5% of users take 80% of capacity

Changing Use of InternetMajor changes in Network Use

6

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– Video & Voice require lower jitter and loss

7

Internet Traffic Grown 1012 since 1970

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

World Internet Traffic - History

0.000000001

0.00000001

0.0000001

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Pe

taB

yte

s p

er

mo

nth

Normal Traffic

P2P

TCP

ARPANET NSFNET COMMERICAL

Double each year

Electronics – Double every 18 months

8

Where will the Internet be in the next decade

2008 2018

% World Population On-Line 22% 99% Total Traffic PB/month 3,200 191,000Traffic per User GB/month 2.2 26GB/mo/user Developed areas 2.7 156GB/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)

9

Fairness - In the beginning

A flow was a file transfer, or a voice callThe 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 equalthus

Equal Capacity per Flowwas the default design

10

Fairness - Equal Capacity per Flow in Unfair

The Internet is still equal capacity per flow under congestionP2P uses 10-1000 flows – consumes neighbors capacity

Typically 1000 ISP users share a capacity poolCongestion here forces equal capacity per flowThe result is therefore unfair to users who paid the same

P2P FTP

Downstream Capacity Usage12 Mbps Downstream, 7 Mbps upstream

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0%% Users P2P

Tra

ffic

% c

apac

ity Wasted Capacity

P2P Users - 4 Mbps/user

Normal Users - 0.3 Mbps/user No Control DPI

Equality

11

Fairness - Internet Traffic Recently – 80% P2P

Since 2004, total traffic has increased 64% per year, about Moore’s Law – 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 being about 1/5 what it should be with normal growth

World Internet Traffic - History

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Pe

taB

yte

s p

er

mo

nth

Normal Traffic

P2P

12

Fairness - A New Rule is Needed

Today - 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 give Equal capacity for equal pay – This is simply a revised equality rule – similar users get equal capacity– This tracks with what we pay

This is a major worldwide problem– P2P is not bad, it can be quite effective– But, without revised fairness, multi-flow applications will proliferate– It then becomes an arms race – who can use the most flows

P2P FTP

13

Security – User Authentication in the Network

Today – All security is left to the computer– The network does not even verify the source address– There is no way to determine who sent Spam or Malware

Goal – Network to secure each connection (flow)– User and computer ID sent to network to be verified– Network to verify the source address is correct

Also, allow the receiver to verify the senders ID– If no legal ID, connection can be refused

This greatly improves Internet security– Source of Malware can be recorded and controlled– Computer security becomes much easier

Protocol for this is now proceeding in the ITU

14

Emergency Services – Required on Internet

Today – Telephone system has GETS for emergencies– However, Internet taking over voice and has no such service

Required – Both priority and user authentication security– Priority is not available in the Internet – it could be misused– Secure user authentication required before priority offered

Priority must provide higher rates, not just lower delaySame problem as Multi-Flow fairness – needs rate priority– Standard queue based discard for congestion cannot do it– Flow based rate control is required

Solution requires change at network edge– Flow rate control and per flow user authentication

15

A New Alternative - Flow Rate Management

Network Equipment now drops random packets– All traffic suffers delay and jitter if there is any congestion– Voice & Video do not slow down but still lose packets– Data flows often lose several packets and stall

Flow Rate Management - a new control alternative– Control the rate of each TCP flow individually– Smoothly adjust the TCP rates to fill the desired capacity– Insure congestion does not occur by controlling rates– Provide for user authentication and emergency service priorities

Replacing random drops with rate control:– Network Stability is maintained– All traffic moves smoothly without random loss and stalls– Voice & Video flows cleanly with no loss or delay jitter– Unfairness can be eliminated

16

Flow Rate Management – Why now?

Routers, WAN Optimizers, & DPI depend on processing– They process every packet – there are 14 packets per flow

Memory cost has come down faster than processing costFlow Rate Management is memory based (flow table)– Stream packets without delay, rate control flows

Allows it to support four 10 Gbps trunks in 1 RU

17

Cost and Power – Reduction help Internet Grow

Today – Network equipment is packet based – Every packet re-examined – Extensive processing

Flow Rate Management processes flows– Hardware lookup of flow record for incoming packets– Flow rate measured and, if required, controlled– Output rates measured, feedback insure no congestion

Result - comparing flow vs. packet processing: – Power, size and cost 3-5 times lower managing flows– New capabilities available: fairness, security, priority, quality

These factors allow a step-up in Internet capacity– Cost (4:1). Fairness (5:1). Congestion (2:1) – Total 40:1

18

Impact - Optical Network

Today – Fiber cost has crossed below Equipment cost– Fiber capacity cost has been reducing by half every 12 months– Equipment cost has been reducing b half every 18 months

This limits the Internet capacity growth to Moore’s Law– Equipment dominates, Income/user fixed, Thus growth limited

Flow Rate Management permits a major cost reduction– The network edge $/Gbps can be reduced by over 10:1– The network core can use primarily optical switching

This can let the Internet capacity double each year againLower power is also critical for the environment