1. Applied Networking-IV (2231114)
Lecture Week-13
The Future of Internet Networking
Lecture by: Djadja.Sardjana, S.T., M.M.
www.slideshare.net/djadja
The state of
internet-4m

2. THE GOALS
reexamine all networking assumptions;
reinvent where needed;
design for intended capabilities;
deploy and validate architectures;
build new services and applications;
encourage users to participate in experimentation;
and
take a system-wide approach to the synthesis of new
architectures.

3. The Internet is becoming wireless
Laptop sales exceeded desktop PC sales in July 2003
2B mobile phones in use by the end of 2005 > ~1B Internet users
>~0.5B networked PC’s …most new phones also have packet data
capability
Overall, this means that by 2015, # wireless Internet terminals >> #
wired!
Laptops, cell-phones, PDA’s, iPoD’s ~ 10x PC’s/servers
Embedded devices (sensors, actuators, RFID,…) ~ 10-100x PC’s & growing
This has important implications for network architecture, both wired
and wireless:
Wireless access networks must scale and handle new types of devices (sensors,
etc.)
The Internet, which was designed in the 70’s for wired PC-PC/server
connections, needs to scale and evolve towards changing service needs

4. Wireless Internet Access Evolution
MSC
Internet
Public Switched Network
(PSTN) Mobile/wireless service enhancements
Custom
BSC
Mobile
Infrastructure
(e.g. GSM, 3G) BTS
WLAN
BTS Access Infostation
cache
Point
WLAN
VOIP Hot-Spot
CDMA, GSM
Ad-hoc
or 3G radio network
access network extension
VOIP
Broadband Media cluster (dual-mode)
(e.g. UWB or MIMO)
Today Low-tier clusters
Future?
(e.g. low power 802.11 sensor)

5. Impact on Internet
Architecture

6. Internet Architecture: Prior Work
Clark, et al completed a DARPA project on “Future Generation
Internet Architecture” in Dec 2003: emerging requirements from a
wired-network perspective,
Addressing: separation of identity from routable location
Security: trust-mediated transparency… remains largely open problem.
User empowerment: competitive service provides, NIRA vs. BGP
Precise semantics: verification, protocol normalizer…
Congestion control: beyond TCP XCP
Alternatives to layering: “role-based architecture”
Region-based or geographically aware architecture
Knowledge Plane: overlay for distribution of status information
End-to-End Principle: reevaluation of current model
Mobility: optimize for mobility, or mobility as a special case?
QoS: need for economic enablers

7. Internet Architecture: Caveats
Previous attempts at upgrading of IP spec have not had the
expected result:
IPv6 standardized but not widely deployed...
Little progress with end-to-end QoS in the Internet
Mobile IP for first wave of wireless needs not implemented
IP’s lowest common denominator (best effort datagram) also its greatest strength!
Earlier attempts at utopian new network architectures mostly ended
in failure, in spite of technical merits
B-ISDN/ATM did not take off (...complexity, lack of organic growth model)
Significant standards activity and community endorsement not sufficient to launch new network
architectures...
Problems with 3G wireless
This doesn’t mean that new networks aren’t needed, but
architectures needed to encourage bottom-up transformation without
loss of investment in legacy system:
Evolutionary strategies preferable
New approaches to protocol standards: hierarchies, modularity, open-source,..
Economic incentives for deployment

8. Internet Architecture: Next Steps
Wireless and sensor network scenarios lead to a set of next-
generation Internet requirements, including:
REVISE!!!!!
Network optimized for mobile end-points, support for mobile routers
Connection oriented flows + packet datagram, multicast
Overlay services such as location- or content-aware routing
In-network processing and storage, delayed delivery
Self-organization, auto-configuration capabilities
Elimination of ad-hoc to IP gateway
Unified routing metrics across ad-hoc and IP nets
Geographic, location-aware or content-aware routing
Cross-layer protocol support
New security and privacy models for wireless/ad-hoc
Lightweight protocol options
Attribute-based address resolution
Power-efficient protocol modes
In-network computation for sensors
Reevaluation of end-to-end transport arguments
New socket abstractions and transport services

9. Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change
Evolutionary approach
Design a new wireless, ad-hoc and sensor “low-tier IP network profile to be “compatible” with
IP global network (e.g. IPv6, BGP routing, MPLS, etc.)
Identify critical hierarchy and core IP extensions needed and pass requirement to IETF, etc.
Evolve IP functionality via new RFC’s
As wireless service needs proliferate, new low-tier IP may replace current IP intra-network
Border
New Interface Spec
GLOBAL INTERNET Router IP Access
for IPv4 Network
Border IPv6 extensions (e.g. IPv4)
Router
for IPw Border
Router
for IPw
IP Wireless/Sensor
Access Network (IPw)
IP Wireless/Sensor
Access Network (IPw)
New Protocol Spec

10. Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change
Overlay approach
Design new wireless, ad-hoc or sensor access net to work across global overlay network
Specify and build new overlay networks optimized for wireless needs
May include concept of an “IP knowledge plane” accessible by overlay
If successful, IP is pushed down to a “layer 3-” service, while overlay is “3+”
Permits significant flexibility in advanced service features, but tight optimization of packet overhead more
difficult due to IP encapsulation
new knowledge plane?
GLOBAL INTERNET Border
IP Tunnel Router
IP Access
Network
Overlay Net
Gateway
GLOBAL OVERLAY NETWORK
new wireless-specific services
Overlay Net
Gateway
Overlay Net
Gateway
New Wireless/Sensor
Access Network
New Wireless/Sensor
Access Network
New Design (non-IP)

11. Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change
Revolutionary approach
Specify a new “beyond IP” network optimized for mobile/wireless/sensor
Build a prototype nationwide network and offer it for experimental use
Use this network for emerging mobile data and real-time sensor actuator applications with
demanding performance and efficiency requirements
Most radical, risks being marginalized by Internet evolution and legacy staying power
Next-Gen GLOBAL INTERNET
Border
optimized for
New Designs (beyond IP) emerging needs including Gateway
IP Access
wireless-specific services
Network
New Access Network
New Access Network
optimized for
wireless, etc.

13. The NSF WMPG (Wireless
Mobile Planning Group)
Workshop Aug 2-3, 2005

14. NSF Wireless Mobile Planning Group (WMPG)
Workshop - Rutgers Aug 2-3, 2005
A group of about 30 researchers in the wireless area met at
Rutgers (under the leadership of Ray Dipankar) to discuss:
Unique requirements posed by wireless mobile users
Potential impact on the Internet architecture
Experimental facilities required to explore the new Internet architecture solutions
A report was issued in October:
“New Architectures and Disruptive Technologies for the Future
Internet:Wireless, Mobile and Sensor Network Perspective”
www.winlab.rutgers.edu/WMPG

15. The “wireless” requirements
Identify new requirements placed by wireless users on the Internet “network
layer”
These new requirements may trigger a “redesign” of the IP stack (or more
generally the way we do networking)
We were not concerned with SOLUTIONS at this point
Questions to be addressed:
What is the wireless scenario/application you are addressing?
What is the problem to be solved?
What are the new qualitative requirements on the network layer?
What is the impact of these innovations on user performance?

16. The wireless scenarios
We identified three representative scenarios:
The individual mobile user, interacting only with Internet resources
The mobile “constellation”: the users equipped with several devices/interfaces,
interacting with the Internet, with environment (instrumented user) and with each
other (opportunistic ad hoc networking). This model applies to individuals while
they walk, drive cars, fly planes, ride trains etc.
The “dynamic” pervasive sensor fabric”: this concept includes the traditional
environment sensor fields as well as the mobile sensor fields (people, car sensor
fabrics). This latter scenario is clearly connected with the instrumented
constellation scenario

17. Wireless Service
Requirements

18. Summary of Network Requirements and Architecture
Challenges
1. Naming and addressing flexibility
2. Mobility support for dynamic migration of end-users and network devices
3. Location services that provide information on geographic position
4. Self-organization and discovery for distributed control of network topology
5. Security and privacy considerations for mobile nodes and open wireless
channels
6. Decentralized management for remote monitoring and control
7. Cross-layer support for optimization of protocol performance
8. Sensor network features such as aggregation, content routing and in-
network processing
9. Cognitive radio support
10. Economic incentives to encourage efficient sharing of resources

19. Wireless Requirements: Mobile Data
Fast growth of (conventional) mobile data terminals with wireless access
link implies a need for new services on the Internet:
Terminal mobility (authentication, roaming and dynamic handoff)…mobile IPv6
Multicasting …IP multicast
Security …e.g. protection against AP spoofing
Efficient transport layer protocols (..non TCP)
Major topic in research & standards during 90’s, but limited use..
Roaming,
INTERNET handoff
Access
High packet Point (AP)
Error rate
Mobile data
mobility
terminal
Radio multicasting

20. Wireless Requirements: Mobile P2P
P2P, 7DS, Infostations, etc. represent another emerging category
of mobile applications on the Internet
Router mobility
Network may be disconnected at times …delayed delivery?
Caching and opportunistic data delivery …. In-network storage
Content- and location- aware data delivery
Internet
Mobile Infostation
Infostation
Low-speed wide-area
Data access
Opportunistic Cache
Opportunistic
High-Speed Link
Ad-Hoc High-Speed Link
(MB/s) Infostation
Network (MB/s)
cell
Mobile User
Roadway Sensors

21. Wireless Requirements: Ad-Hoc Nets
Ad-hoc nets with multiple radio hops to wired Internet useful for various
scenarios including mesh 802.11, sensor, etc.
Discovery and self-organization capabilities
Seamless addressing and routing across wireless-wired gateway
Geographic routing options
Support for end-to-end cross-layer protocol approaches where needed
Privacy and security considerations
Best sensor-to-mobile path via wired network
Wired Internet (needs unified routing)
IP-Ad-hoc Net
Wireless link with
Protocol Conversion
Access varying speed and QoS
Gateway
Point
Local Interference
and MAC Congestion
Ad-Hoc
Network Sensor
Relay Node
Dynamically changing
Network topology

22. Ad-Hoc Network: Discovery Protocol
Creates efficient ad-hoc network topology just above MAC layer in
order to reduce burden on routing protocol…
Internet
AP
coverage AP AP
Access Point (AP)
area
Self-organized Low-tier access links
ad-hoc network (AP/FN Beacons, MN
Forwarding Associations, Data)
Node (FN)
FN FN
MN MN
MN
Ad-hoc infrastructure
links between FNs and
MN MN APs AP
MN FN (AP/FN Beacons, FN
Associations, Routing
FN
Low-tier coverage
Exchanges, Data)
(e.g. sensor) area
Mobile Node (MN)
MN MN
FN FN Beacon
•Scan all channels
Channel 4
•Find minimum delay links to AP
Beacon Transmit Power
•Set up routes to AP
Required: 4mW
•Send beacons Assoc
•Forward SN data
Channel 2
Transmit Power SN
Hops
Source Broadcast Node Packet Cluster Sequence Node Transmit Required: 1mW •Scan all channels
MAC MAC ID Type ID Number Type
To
Power •Associate with FN/AP
AP
•Send data
Beacon Frame Format

23. Cross-Layer Protocols: Transport Source Destination
Syn messa
Src 1 Dest 1
ge
Internet Syn Ack
AP
Rate 1
} 1
2 Data Requires
exchange
of routing,
Src 2 n1
Dest 2 congestion
Network Stack in Src Rate 2
} n1 + 1
ACK
(n1,
0) and link
quality/rate
odic information
L1 peri
n2 across
Application layer } X wired-
wireless
Network Status Aggregation
Cross-Layer Aware Flow Rate Network Status Rate 3
boundary
Control Plane
Transport Protocol Pkt Size
X
(CLAP) Algorithm Packet loss rate
Rate 4
}
} (L1,00
00 0010)
Network Layer Route Status
n3
NACK
Retx
MAC / Link Layer
Congestion Indicator Rate 5
} n3 + 1 Retx
L1
L1+7
Physical Layer Channel Quality, Fin Messa
ge
Channel Rate
Fin Ack
CLAP HIGHLIGHTS 5 Throughput - No Network Congestion 5 Throughput w ith Netw ork Congestion
4.5 4.5
• Cross Layer Aware 4 TCP 4 TCP
3.5 3.5
CLAP CLAP
Mbps
• Separate Error and 3 3
Mbps
2.5 2.5
Flow Control 2 2
1.5 1.5
• Rate-based Flow 1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
• Selective-Repeat 1 Flow 2 Flow s 3 Flow s 4 Flow s 1 Flow 2 Flow s 3 Flow s 4 Flow s

24. Wireless Requirements: Cognitive Radio
Cognitive radio drives consideration of adaptive wireless networks
involving multi-hop collaboration between radio nodes
Needs Internet support similar to ad-hoc network discussed earlier
Rapid changes in network topology, PHY bit-rate, etc. implications for routing
Fundamentally cross-layer approach – need to consider wired net boundary
High-power cognitive radios may themselves serve as Internet routers…
PHY A
INTERNET
PHY C
Bootstrapped PHY &
C control link PHY B
B
B
Multi-mode radio PHY
Ad-Hoc Discovery
DD Control
& Routing Capability
(e.g. CSCC)
E
Adaptive Wireless
A
A Network Node
(…functionality can be quite
challenging!)
End-to-end routed path
From A to F F

25. Wireless Requirements: Sensors
Sensors and actuators with size/power constraints
Limited CPU processing & memory (?)
Communication speed may be low
Intermittent connectivity (power saving modes)
Relatively unreliable components
Very different application requirements
Important new paradigm, since # sensors potentially MIT DVS
in the billions
Protocols & system designs still at an early stage
First sensor nets for simple measurement applications
More complex “closed-loop” sensor/actuator in future
UC Berkeley MOTE

26. Sensor Applications: Highway Safety
Sensors in roadway interact with sensor/actuator in cars
Opportunistic, attribute-based binding of sensors and cars
Ad-hoc network with dynamically changing topology
Closed-loop operation with tight real-time and reliability constraints

27. Sensor Applications: Assisted Living
Emergency event triggers interaction between object sensors and
body sensors and initiate external communication
Heterogeneous ad-hoc network
Sensors used to detect events and specify location
Real-time communication with care provider

28. Sensor Systems: Overlay Services
Overlay networks can be used for content distribution or dynamic
binding between sensor devices and servers, agents, end-users
Use of XML or similar content descriptor to specify sensor data and application profile
“Layer 7” overlay network (implemented over IP tunnels) provides content mcast or
binding service between producers (sensors) and consumers (servers, users)
Application
Agent
Interest Profile
XML
Descriptor Overlay
Router
B
Mobile User
Overlay
Router
A
Sensor Content Content Consumers
Producer

29. Sensor Systems: Socket Abstractions
Need for more powerful socket abstractions for general-purpose
sensor net programming. Requirements include:
Choice of networking modes (ad-hoc, content-based, proxy IP, etc.)
Choice of datagram and static/dynamic binding modes
Transport layer reliability and flow control options

30. Wireless Requirements: Sensor Nets
Self-organizing and robust ad-hoc network
Lightweight protocols with low packet overheads
Optimization of protocols for power efficiency
Attribute- or location- based connectivity
Potential use of in-network processing & storage
New privacy and security considerations
New socket abstractions & TP options

31. The Experimental
Facilities

33. Experimental Infrastructure for Future
Wireless Network Research
Techniques for Flexible Experimental Wireless Networks
Virtualization of Wireless MAC
Cognitive Radio
Wireless Network Monitoring and Measurement
Measuring and characterizing mobility.
Measuring heterogeneous networks overlapping in space.
Measuring cellular and DTN networks.
Cooperative sharing of measurements
Wireless Network Repository
Emulation and Simulation Testbeds for Wireless
Wireless Networking Platforms
Platform Software and End-to-End Architecture

34. Experimental Infrastructure for Future
Wireless Network Research (cont)
Wireless Network Repository
Emulation and Simulation Testbeds for Wireless
Wireless Networking Platforms
Platform Software and End-to-End Architecture

36. Virtualized Multi-MAC

37. Experimental Wireless Networks

38. Integration of Existing Testbeds

39. Ad Hoc Mesh Networks

40. Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation 1: the Internet will undergo a fundamental transformation over
the next 10-15 years; invest in research programs aimed at creating necessary
technical foundations.
Recommendation 2: Increase research focus on central network architecture
questions related to future mobile, wireless and sensor scenarios.
Recommendation 3: Invest in development of flexible wireless technologies and
platforms necessary to implement programmable and evolvable experimental
networks.
Recommendation 4: Fund development of large-scale experimental wireless
networks for effective validation and competitive selection of new architecture and
protocol concepts.
Recommendation 5: Encourage collaborative research that would result in end-to-
end deployment and evaluation of future wireless/mobile and sensor networks and
applications over the global Internet.

41. Examples of Research enabled by the new
testbed platforms
Vehicle Grid Applications
Car Torrent
Ad Torrent
Car to Car Games
Vehicle Sensor Network

42. Co-operative Downloads: Car-torrent, Ad
torrent
Internet
Vehicle-Vehicle Communication
Exchanging Pieces of File Later

43. Car2Car Games: Game Server Architecture +
Car-networking Scenario

44. Vehicular Sensor Network (VSN)
Applications
Monitoring road conditions for Navigation Safety or Traffic control
Imaging for accident or crime site investigation
1. Fixed Infrastructure
Infostation 2. Processing and storage
Car to Infostation
1. On-board “black box”
2. Processing and storage
Car-Car multi-hop

45. Thank you!

46. Project Plan

47. Project Plan: High-Level Goals
12 month pilot project aimed at developing a strategic agenda
for next-generation Internet architecture from a wireless and
sensor network perspective:
Defining the problem scope
Identification of emerging wireless & sensor net requirements
Study of future wireless scenarios leading to network service specs
Input from wireless technical community, including academic and industrial
Proof-of-concept research projects on 2-3 novel networking requirements
Evaluation of prospects for evolutionary change to Internet standards
Study of IPv6+∆ as well as more radical next-gen IP efforts (Clark, etc.)
Discussions with Internet technical community
Recommendations for realizing next-generation Internet responsive to wireless
and sensor net requirements
Wireless/sensor network rationale and related open research problems
Strategies for meeting requirements through Internet evolution
Strategies for more fundamental change to the Internet architecture
Outline of a 5-yr technology, policy and standards research agenda to drive this forward

48. Project Plan: Methodology
Wireless & sensor network contributions from core team, leading to
a next-generation requirements white paper
Representative group including both academic and industrial members
Tap into existing pool of NSF PI’s in NeTS and other related programs
Leverage next-gen wireless community surrounding ORBIT project at WINLAB
Email, teleconferences and ~1-2 meetings
Small research projects on key wireless/sensor net protocols
~2-3 selected wireless/sensor net research projects to evaluate critical architectural needs
Papers and proof-of-concept demos leveraging other project resources
Using this white paper as a basis, initiate discussions with Internet
community at both standards and research levels
IETF, Internet Architecture Group
Other future Internet architecture research projects, e.g. Clark DARPA, ..
Overlay network community, e.g. Planetlab,..
Contacts with standards and project leads, + a publicly announced workshop
Write final report for NSF
Wireless and sensor net rationale & requirements
Strategies for changing Internet architecture to reflect these needs
Research agenda

49. Project Plan: Potential Contributors
Core Project Team (total ~7-8) prospects
D. Raychaudhuri, Rutgers
extensive experience with wireless and broadband network architecture and technology development
David Johnson, Rice U
leading academic researcher in ad-hoc networking and experimental wireless networks
Badri Nath, Rutgers
strong track record as an innovator in wireless and Internet protocols (mobile IP, I-TCP, geo-routing..)
Arup Acharya, IBM Research
protocol specialist with research and standards experience on mobile IP, mobile ATM, VOIP, ad-hoc nets
Krishan Sabnani, Lucent Bell Labs
extensive experience with wireless and wired network protocols (RMTP, transport protocols, ...)
Marco Gruteser, Rutgers
academic researcher in the area of location-aware networking and sensor sockets
Jim Kurose, U Mass
leading academic researcher in network protocols and performance, both wired and wireless
Mario Gerla, UCLA
prominent academic researcher in ad-hoc, sensor and tactical network architecture and prototyping
Victor Bahl, Microsoft Research
currently leading Microsoft’s mesh network deployment projects; also founded of ACM M2CR
David Culler, UC Berkeley
leading academic researcher in the area of sensor networks
Wade Trappe, Rutgers
active academic researcher in the area of wireless network security and privacy
Dirk Grunwald, U Colorado
established academic researcher working on mobility, location-aware systems, cognitive radio

50. Project Plan: Deliverables & Outcomes
~12 month project with two phases as shown:
wireless & sensor net white paper (Months 0-4)
small proof-of-concept projects, leveraging other resources (Months 2-12)
Internet architecture study, workshop & report (Months 5-12)
Papers,
Proof-of-
Small Research Projects on Key Wireless/Sensor Protocols concept
demos
Wireless
Wireless & Sensor Net Architecture
& Sensor
and Requirements Study Net
Architecture Internet Architecture Study/Workshop Final
White Paper and Strategies for Change Report
Month- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

51. Applied Networking-IV (2231114)
Lecture Week-13
The Future of Internet Networking
“Closing Word”
Lecture by: Djadja.Sardjana, S.T., M.M.
www.slideshare.net/djadja
Top_10_Fore
casts__2009

52. Global Environment for Networking
Investigations (GENI)
explore new networking capabilities that will advance
science and stimulate innovation and economic
growth….

53. GENI
Build in security and robustness;
Enable the vision of pervasive computing and bridge
the gap between the physical and virtual worlds by
including mobile, wireless and sensor networks;
Enable control and management of other critical
infrastructures;
Include ease of operation and usability; and
Enable new classes of societal-level services and
applications.

54. GENI
The GENI Initiative includes:
A research program; and
A global experimental facility designed to explore new architectures at
scale.
CISE is encouraging a broad community effort that
engages:
other agencies
other countries, and
corporate entities.

55. Geni
develop new networking and distributed systems
capabilities by:
Creating new core functionality: Going beyond existing paradigms of datagram,
packet and circuit switching; designing new naming, addressing, and overall
identity architectures, and new paradigms of network management;･ ･
Developing enhanced capabilities: Building security into the architecture;
designing for high availability; balancing privacy and accountability; designing
for regional difference and local values;･ ･
Deploying and validating new architectures: Designing new architectures that
incorporate emerging technologies (e.g., new wireless and optical technologies)
and new computing paradigms enabled by pervasive devices;･ ･
Building higher-level service abstractions: Using, for example, information objects,
location-based services, and identity frameworks;･ ･
Building new services and applications: Making large-scale distributed applications
secure, robust and manageable; developing principles and patterns for
distributed applications; and
Developing new network architecture theories: Investigating network complexity,
scalability, and economic incentives.

56. GENI FACILITY WILL ENABLE
Shared use through slicing and virtualization in time and
space domains (i.e., where "slice" denotes the subset of
resources bound to a particular experiment);
Access to physical facilities through programmable
platforms (e.g., via customized protocol stacks);
Large-scale user participation by "user opt-in" and IP
tunnels;
Protection and collaboration among researchers by
controlled isolation and connection among slices;
A broad range of investigations using new classes of
platforms and networks, a variety of access circuits and
technologies, and global control and management software;
and
Interconnection of independent facilities via federated
design.

57. Geni Facility
The GENI Facility will leverage the best ideas and
capabilities from existing network testbeds such as
PlanetLab, ORBIT, WHYNET, Emulab, X-Bone, DETER
and others.
However, the GENI Facility will need to extend beyond
these testbeds to create an experimental
infrastructure capable of supporting the ambitious
research goals of the GENI Initiative.

58. In planning for GENI:
CISE has supported numerous community workshops
and is supporting on-going planning efforts, including
needs assessment and requirements for the GENI
Facility.
CISE will hold town meetings and continue to support
future workshops to broaden community participation.
CISE will work with industry, other US agencies, and
international groups to broaden participation in GENI
beyond NSF and the US government.