1 SAHARA First Winter Retreat 16-18 January 2002 Randy H. Katz, Anthony Joseph, Ion Stoica Computer...
-
date post
22-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 SAHARA First Winter Retreat 16-18 January 2002 Randy H. Katz, Anthony Joseph, Ion Stoica Computer...
1
SAHARA First Winter Retreat16-18 January 2002
Randy H. Katz, Anthony Joseph, Ion StoicaComputer Science Division
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-1776
2
Retreat Goals &Technology Transfer
UC Berkeley Project Team Industrial CollaboratorsGovernment Sponsors
Friends
PeopleProject Status
Work in ProgressPrototype Technology
Early Access to TechnologyPromising Directions
Reality CheckFeedback
3
Who is Here (Industry)• AT&T Research
– Yatin Chawathe
• Ericsson Research– Per Johansson (VIF)– Tony Johansson– Martin Korling
• HRL– Son Dao
• Keynote Systems– Chris Overton
• Microsoft Research– Venkat Padmanabhan– Lili Qui– Helen Wang
• Nokia/Univ. Helsinki– Kimmo Raatikainen
• Nortel Networks– Tal Lavian (PhD student)– Ben Warren
• NTTDoCoMo– Shoji Kurakake– Takashi Suzuki (VIF)
• Siemens– Markus Wischy
• Sprint ATL– Chen-nee Chuah– Bryan Lyles– Timothy Roscoe (VIF)
• Stanford University– Peter Danzig
Italics indicates Ph.D. from BerkeleyVIF=Visiting Industrial Fellow
4
Who is Here (Berkeley)
• Professors– Anthony Joseph– Randy Katz– Ion Stoica
• Postdocs– Kevin Lai
• Technical & Admin Staff– Bob Miller– Keith Sklower– Glenda Smith
• Grad Students– Sharad Agarwal– Matt Caesar– Yan Chen– Weidong Cui
• Grad Students– Steve Czerwinski– Yitao Duan– Ling Huang– Karthik Lakshminarayanan– Sridhar Machiraju– Morley Mao– George Porter– Bhaskar Raman– Anantha Rajagoplala-Rao– Mukund Seshadri– Jimmy Shih– Lakshmi Subramanian– Ben Zhao– Shelley Zhuang
5
Retreat Purpose• First full SAHARA retreat
– Project launched 1 July 2001– Introduce project concept and goals
• “Generation after next” networks– Software “agents,” not protocols– Converged data and telecommunications networks– Heterogeneous access plus core networks
• Emerging network-aware distributed architecture
– Confederation vs. brokering in service provisioning– Exploiting network structure-awareness
• Industrial feedback and directions– Real-world networking problems/limitations– Helping us do relevant research at Internet-scale
6
Plan for the Retreat
• Wednesday, 16 January 2002– 1200-1330 Lunch– 1330-1500 Retreat Overview and Introductions
» Retreat Overview, Randy Katz» Sahara Project Overview, Randy Katz» AON Overview, Ion Stoica
– 1500-1530 Break– 1530-1700 Sahara Architecture Design Review and
Discussion, Randy Katz– 1700-1800 Graduate Student Panel Session, “How to
Do Internet-Scale Research in a University?” Randy Katz, Moderator
– 1800-1930 Dinner (Joint with ROC Retreat)– 1930-2100 Industry Panel Session, “Industrial
Strength Internet Services” (Joint with ROC Retreat)
7
Plan for the Retreat
• Thursday, 17 January 2002– 0730-0830 Breakfast– 0830-1000 Tapestry Session (Joint with ROC Retreat)
» Tapestry Implementation and Status (Ben Zhao)» Dynamic Management Algorithms for Tapestry (Kris Hildrun)» Attenuated Bloom Filters for Reducing Routing Stretch (Sean
Rhea)– 1000-1030 Break– 1030-1200 AON Design Review, Ion Stoica– 1200-1300 Lunch (Skiers box lunch, bus departs noon, pick-up 1545)– 1300-1600 Long Break– 1630-1800 SAHARA Research Highlight Talks
» Topological Properties of the Internet (Sharad Agarwal)» Geographical Properties of the Internet (Lakshmi)» Auction-based Resource Allocation (Matt Caesar/Weidong Cue)» Fault Tolerant Service Composition (Bhaskar Raman)
– 1800-1930 Dinner (Joint with ROC Retreat)– 1930-2100 Graduate Student Research Poster Session
8
Plan for the Retreat
• Friday, 18 January 2002– 0730-0830 Breakfast– 0830-1000 Six Month Planning (Anthony Joseph)– 1000-1030 Break/Room Checkout/Photo Session– 1030-1200 Industrial Feedback– 1200-1300 Lunch– 1300-1700 Bus back to Berkeley
9
Experimental SystemsResearch Methodology
• Analyze alternatives to select among approaches
Analyze &Design
Prototype
• Prototype selected alternatives to understand implementation complexities
• Repeat
Evaluate
• Evaluate existing system to discover bottlenecks
10
BARWAN: 1995-1998Bay Area Research Wireless Access Network
High-tier
Low-tier
Satellite
High Mobility Low MobilityWide Area
Regional Area
Local Area
• Universal multimedia information access with mobility spanning residences, businesses, public/pedestrian, mobile/vehicular, national, and global regions– Session/Transport/Routing Mobility+Performance (Hari, Venkat, Seshan,
Katz)– Client-Proxy-Server Architecture (Fox, Gribble, Brewer)– Soft-state Streaming Media Gateways (Amir, McCanne)
11
PSTN GSM PagerAccess Network
Plane
ICEBERG Network
Plane
ISP Plane
A
B
IAP IAP
ISP1 ISP2 ISP3
IAP
NY iPOP
NY iPOP
SF iPOP
Clearing House
IAP IAP IAP
PRCA
PACAPCNMS
• Name Mapping Service: Maps ICEBERG unique ID service end point• Preference Registry/Personal Activity Coordinator: user profile/user tracking• APC service: creates transcoding datapath between endpoints
SF iPOP
• iPOP: Clustered computing environ.• Call Agent: handles signaling, one per device per call party
ICEBERG: 1998-2001Internet-based CorE Beyond thiRd
Generation
12
ICEBERG Lessons
• Soft state enabled session establishment and maintenance (Helen Wang’s Ph.D.)
– Distributed not centralized session maintenance protocol to provide correctness and robustness
– Soft-state works well for tolerating transient component failures, network partitions, and exceptional conditions
• Clearinghouse architecture (Chen-nee Chuah’s Ph.D.)
– Cooperatively negotiated “soft QoS” across admin domains– Traffic-matrix admission control– Group policing for malicious flow detection
• Dynamic data transcoding (Several M.S. projects)– Operator + plus concept, extended to wide-area– Enables source/target data format independence/isolation– Rapid support for new devices (new device in 2 hrs!)– Universal In-box
13
ICEBERG Prelude to SAHARA
• ICEBERG lives on top of multiple access networks (e.g., cellular, pager, PSTN)
• ICEBERG service provider places iPOP in each service region, executes on highly available clusters, links regions via multiple core network ISPs
• Interactions among alternative service providers not explicitly addressed
• Assumes a homogeneous ICEBERG-capable universe
What about cooperation and competition among service providers?
14
Global Packet Network Internetworking(Connectivity)
ISPCLEC
Horizontal Service Model
Application-specificOverlay Networks
(Multicast Tunnels, Mgmt Svrcs)
Applications(Portals, E-Commerce,
E-Tainment, Media)
Application-specific Servers(Streaming Media, Transformation)ASP
InternetData Centers
Appl Infrastructure Services(Distribution, Caching,
Searching, Hosting)
AIPISV
15
SAHARA: 2001-2003
• Service• Architecture for• Heterogeneous• Access,• Resources, and• Applications
16
Sahara Research Themes
• New mechanisms, techniques for end-to-end services w/ desirable, predictable, enforceable properties spanning potentially distrusting service providers– Tech architecture for service composition & inter-operation
across separate admin domains, supporting peering & brokering, and diverse business, value-exchange, access-control models
– Functional elements» Service discovery» Service-level agreements» Service composition under constraints» Redirection to a service instance» Performance measurement infrastructure» Constraints based on performance, access control,
accounting/billing/settlements» Service modeling and verification
17
Competition vs. Cooperation
• Internet Service Providers: Competition– Peering for packet transport: BGP protocol– Charging based on traffic volumes
ISP A
ISP B
Hot PotatoRouting
PeeringPoint
PeeringPoint
18
Competition vs. Cooperation
• Wireless Operators: Cooperation– Telephone sessions span multiple providers– Well-defined roaming agreements among mobile
operators– Established methods for sharing revenue between
local access and transport providers– Context for Virtual Home Environment
19
ServiceProvider Cooperation
• Expense of 3G Infrastructures – European spectrum auctions: 150 billion+ ECU – Capital outlays likely to match spectrum expenses– Complex web of biz relationships among operators
• Collaborative deployment of physical network infrastructure
• Service infrastructure– Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO)– Content Dissemination Alliances
20
Any Way to Builda Network?
• Partitioning of frequencies independent of actual subscriber density
– Successful operator oversubscribe resources, while less popular providers retain excess capacity
– Different flavor of roaming: among collocated/competing service providing
• Duplicate antenna sites– Serious problem given community resistance
• Redundant backhaul networks– Limited economies of scale
21
CooperativeBusinessModels
• “Operators without networks”: MVNOs• “Operators without subscribers”: locally owned
access infrastructure– Overlay service provider (e.g., PBMS)– Organizational service provider (e.g., UCB IS&T)– Billing consolidation: single bill for service
• Device ensembles: virtual devices– Cooperation among access network providers, e.g.,
cellular/data + WLAN for hotspots/high rate data
22
The Case for Horizontal Architectures
“The new rules for success will be to provide one part of the puzzle and to cooperate with other suppliers to create the complete solutions that customers require. ... [V]ertical integration breaks down when innovation speeds up. The big telecoms firms that will win back investor confidence soonest will be those with the courage to rip apart their monolithic structure along functional layers, to swap size for speed and to embrace rather than fear disruptive technologies.”
The Economist Magazine, 16 December 2000
23
AccessNetworks
Core Networks
Connectivity and Processing
Transit Net
Transit Net
Transit Net
PrivatePeering
NAP
PublicPeering
InternetDatacenter
PSTNRegional
WirelineRegionalVoiceVoice
CellCell
Cell
CableModem
LAN
LAN
LAN
Premises-based
WLAN
WLAN
WLAN
Premises-based
Operator-based
H.323Data
Data
RAS
Analog
DSLAM
H.323
24
Summary and Conclusions
• Observations:– Support for multiple service providers had to be
retrofitted to original Internet architecture– Telephony architecture better developed model of
multiple service providers & peering, but with longer-lived agreements, fewer providers
– Need for support in a more dynamic environment, with larger numbers of service providers and/or service instances
• Key Approaches:– Service Composition– Topology-awareness– Brokering vs. Confederation– Market-based Mechanisms for Resource Allocation