The Future Internet

8/14/2019 The Future Internet

1/17

I n t e r n a t i o n a l T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n U n i o n

The Future Internet

ITU-T Technology Watch Report 10April 2009

The Internet has grown from a small experiment into a collaborative network withmore than one billion users. The rise of mobile access poses additionalinfrastructure challenges including addressing and routing, which might require areview of the architecture. This Report surveys the current debate over the Internetarchitecture, and identifies key emerging trends and features of the Internet, in anattempt to provide pointers for future standards work for consideration by the ITU-T membership and the broader standards community.

Telecommunication Standardization Policy DivisionITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector


2/17

ITU-T Technology Watch Reports

ITU-T Technology Watch Reports are intended to provide an up-to-date assessment of promisingnew technologies in a language that is accessible to non-specialists, with a view to: Identifying candidate technologies for standardization work within ITU. Assessing their implications for ITU Membership, especially developing countries.

Other reports in the series include:

#1 Intelligent Transport System and CALM#2 Telepresence: High-Performance Video-Conferencing#3 ICTs and Climate Change#4 Ubiquitous Sensor Networks#5 Remote Collaboration Tools#6 Technical Aspects of Lawful Interception#7 NGNs and Energy Efficiency#8 Intelligent Transport Systems#9 Distributed Computing: Utilities, Grids & Clouds

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by Arthur Levin, Ewan Sutherland and Young-Han Choe.

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the viewsof the International Telecommunication Union or its membership.

This report, along with previous Technology Watch Reports, can be found atwww.itu.int/ITU-T/techwatch.

Your comments on this report are welcome, please send them to [email protected] or join theTechnology Watch Correspondence Group, which provides a platform to share views, ideas and

requirements on new/emerging technologies.

The Technology Watch function is managed by the ITU-T Standardization Policy Division (SPD).

ITU 2009

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, by any means whatsoever, without theprior written permission of ITU.
http://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000001/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000001/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000002/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000002/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000003/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000003/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000004/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000004/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000005/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000005/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000006/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000006/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000007/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000007/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000008/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000008/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000009/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000009/enhttp://www.itu.int/ITU-T/techwatchmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.itu.int/ITU-T/techwatchhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000009/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000008/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000007/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000006/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000005/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000004/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000003/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000002/enhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000001/en


3/17


The Future Internet (April 2009) 1

The Future Internet

1 IntroductionDespite many changes and transformationssince its inception, the Internet has provedto be flexible as new applications andservices arose:

It was conceived in the era of time-

sharing, but has survived into the era

of personal computers, client-server

and peer-to-peer computing, and the

network computer. It was designed

before LANs existed, but has

accommodated that new network

technology, as well as the more

recent ATM and frame switched

services. It was envisioned as

supporting a range of functions from

file sharing and remote login to

resource sharing and collaboration,

and has spawned electronic mail and

more recently the World Wide Web.

But most important, it started as the

creation of a small band of dedicated

researchers, and has grown to be a

commercial success with billions of

dollars of annual investment.1

From a simple means of communicatingamong computers, the Internet, coupledwith the uptake of broadband, has emergedas a fundamental part of modern society inmost countries. New applications emergeeveryday and some have become culturalicons, such as YouTube and Facebook. Itshierarchy has been extended frominternational, national and campusnetworks to include networks forbusinesses, homes, cars, and individuals.

The Internet has gone mobile, as deviceson cellular networks have been enabled forthe Internet Protocol (IP), already used byseveral millions of individuals andpotentially several billions. Sensors havebeen added to some networks, extending

the system to objects fitted with RFID tags,creating the potential for the Internet ofThings (IOT). 2 On top of these networksand devices lies a vast array of applicationsfor e-commerce, e-government, e-education and e-health, togethercomprising the Internet of Services (IOS).In order to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions, Internet services are also beingdeveloped to monitor energy use and toincrease energy efficiency.3

To meet the demands of new applications,services and users and to serve as a vitalpart of national and global infrastructure,the Internet is continually evolving. At thesame time, some observers havequestioned whether the underlyingarchitecture is sufficiently robust to evolveand adapt to these new demands, andinstead contend that a clean slateapproach is needed to develop a newInternet of the future. Supporters of the

clean slate approach often cite securityconcerns as one of the key reasons todevelop a new architecture.

To assess this debate and its impact onfuture standards work, this Report beginsby examining the design and architecture ofthe Internet, and contrasts the differentviews calling for evolutionary and radicalchanges to the Internet. It then examineskey trends in the Internet, how these mightdevelop and their impact on the futurearchitecture and design of the Internet. The

possible effects of the various trends arethen mapped onto the processes forstandardization to identify some futureareas of work. The Report ends by drawingsome conclusions.

2 Framing the Debate

The design of the Internet has been thesubject of debate for years. There havebeen periodic calls to purge theaccumulation of fixes and patches and toadopt the so-called clean slate approach.These call for radical change come bothfrom designers seeking to join the Internet

founding fathers, and also from some of thefounding fathers themselves.

The existing Internet architecture dates

back to the 1970s and was designed tocreate simplified network andimplementation protocols, guided byconcepts such as Layering and packet


4/17


switching. Among the design goals of theexisting Internet architecture are:

Connection of existing networks,

Survivability,

Support of multiple types of services,

Accommodation of a variety of physicalnetworks,

To allow distributed management,

Cost-effectiveness,

To allow for host attachment with a lowlevel of effort, and

To allow for resource accountability.

To achieve these goals, the following designprinciples were used:

Layering,

Packet switching,

Network of collaborating networks, and

Intelligent end-systems

The evolutionary view is that the Internetshould continue as it has over the pastdecade with targeted patches to fixproblems as they emerge. 4 In order tomeet the challenges of disruptivetechnologies, one suggested solution is the

use of overlay networks which can provideperformance and reliability withoutcompeting with existing infrastructure.5

Underlying this position is the view that theNet is now fully commercial and that theinertia of existing investments made byoperators and by individuals requires an

evolutionary approach. Moreover, the firmsinvesting billions of dollars will ensure that,one way or another, it survives andcontinues to grow and prosper. Some alsopoint out that the original architecture hasalready shown the capability to adapt tonew services and applications that were notimagined when the Internet began.

Some supporters of the evolutionary viewposit that the most commonly-citedproblems, such as security and spam, arenot a problem of architecture. In a recentpresentation at the 2008 IGF in Hyderabad,Bob Kahn, one of the original creators ofthe Internet, proposed new standards forDigital Object Architecture (DOA), to enablebetter information flow across the Internet.He contends that the DOA approach would

address the problems, but keep the basicarchitecture intact.

The claim for a new clean slate was putmost dramatically by MIT Professor DaveClark, who served as the Internets chiefprotocol architect during much of the 80s,in an article entitled The Internet isBroken that appeared in 2005:

The Nets basic flaws cost firms

billions, impede innovation, and

threaten national security. Its time

for a clean-slate approach.6

This view has been echoed by Princetoncomputer scientist Larry Peterson and manyothers.7 The next section describes some ofthe work currently underway to develop aclean slate.

3 Work Underway towards a New Internet

A number of initiatives are alreadyunderway, largely at the national and

academic level, to reinvent the Internetusing a clean slate approach.

Among the major challenges beingaddressed in these efforts to develop a newdesign are:

Security and privacy,

Resistance to Distributed Denial ofService (DDoS) attacks,

End-to-end QoS/QoE,

Mobility,

Reliability,

Addressing and identity.

The structures and new paradigm research

areas include: Flow-based routing and switching,

Dynamic circuit switching,

Backbone redesign,

Point to point model redesign,

Cross layer redesign,

Network virtualization, and

Design of a new security structure.

Examples from some of the current projects

underway give some indication of the futureInternet.


5/17



The USA has provided government fundingfor projects on Internet design, e.g. the USNational Science Foundation (NSF)currently has invested around US$ 20

million in two projects:

Global Environment for NetworkInnovations (GENI)8

Future Internet Design (FIND)9

The GENI vision is to create a nationalfacility to explore radical design for futureglobal networking infrastructure, based onpeople and content. Another initiative isthe NewArch project.10

The Stanford Clean Slate project is

intended to reinvent the Internet,assuming that nothing is sacred. 11 Itsscope is defined in very broad terms; notonly the TCP/IP protocol stack, switchesand routers, but also the services,computation and storage, plus the wayspeople connect to, and interact with, theInternet. It is an interdisciplinary projectincluding engineering, computer science,management and law including severalindustrial partners: Cisco Systems,Deutsche Telekom Laboratories, DoCoMo

Capital, NEC and Xilinx.

In Japan, the National Institute ofInformation and CommunicationsTechnology (NICT) launched the Akariprogramme to develop a new generation

network architecture (NWGN) by 2015-20.The philosophy of the project is to find anideal solution starting from a clean slate,unimpeded by existing constraints. 12 Among the new technologies being studiedare Photonic Network projects.

Major initiatives in the EU include FIRE(Future Internet Research andExperimentation), FP6 and FP7 (to date 500Million Euros in research) and EIFFEL(Evolved Internet Future for European

Leadership).

13

As most of these initiatives are in theirearly stages, it is too early to tell whetherthey will result in a feasible newarchitecture for the Internet that wouldhave universal appeal.

In addition, there have been a considerablenumber of conferences and workshops todiscuss Future Internet, such as The Futureof TCP: Train-wreck or Evolution?14 Thereare also series such as Hotnets15 , the EUFuture Internet Assembly16 and NetEcon.17

4 Meeting Future Needs- Key Trends

While cyberspace is littered with manyincorrect predictions about Internet use andkiller applications, several trends arecurrently underway that are shaping thefuture needs of Internet architecture anddesign. The growth of such features aspowerful search engines, social networks(Web 2.0), online media and mobility isdriving the future direction of the Internet.Some characterize these trends astransforming the network from a dumbpipe' to the users intelligent partner. Thissection describes the ever-increasing role ofthe Internet as a vital part of modernsociety as well as a number of developingtrends in Internet usage.

The com m erci al I n t e rne t

The intensive use of the Internet as ameans of commercial dealings and

transactions is a key driver of the futureInternet and of changes to traffic patterns.

What was once a purely academic networkhas been both commercialized and to someextent privatized. The academic part is nowvery much the minority, with commercialforces dominating the investment ofhundred of millions of dollars each year. Asnew services are offered over the Net, andas it becomes increasingly mobile andoperates at faster speeds, new demandsare placed on the architecture.

The topology of the Internet has evolvedrapidly, with the growth of InterneteXchanges Points (IXPs) (see Figure 1).This has allowed the exchange of IP trafficto be conducted on a more efficient basis,using a mixture of local and internationalexchanges. 18 However, a number ofobstacles remain, especially in developingcountries, including regulatoryenvironments that support monopolies or

oligopolies.19


6/17


Figure 1: Internet eXchange Points (I XPs)

Source: https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/

Given bottlenecks on the Internet, serviceproviders sought to improve the quality ofexperience by using caches, first proxiesand then hierarchies. The next step was theintroduction of Content Delivery Networks(CDNs), where a few specialists establishedthemselves on the market by providingoverlay networks and by placing serversclose to the edge of the Internet in order toensure rapid and effective delivery. 20

Initially CDNs addressed static, but lateradded dynamic content, streaming mediaand video on demand. The best knownexample is Akamai, which provides acontent acceleration service to majorinformation providers, ensuring theirmaterial is quickly available in keymarkets.21 There are now specialist CDNsfor mobile networks, such as Admob.22

Multinational corporations have their ownprivate voice and data networks, usuallyrunning Multiprotocol Label Switching(MPLS) over a range of infrastructureelements, including dark fibre, GigabitEthernet, SDH and leased lines. These areprovided by a handful of global NetworkService Providers (NSPs).23 As yet, there isstill limited use of Fixed-MobileConvergence (FMC), though some cellulardevices can switch to Wi-Fi, allowing accessto SIP-based services, including VoIP. TheMPLS networks have gateways to the publicInternet and also to the CDNs that delivertheir content to customers.

Satellite telecommunication technology (seeRecommendation ITU-R S.1782) has thepotential to accelerate the availability of

high-speed Internet services in developingcountries, including the least-developedcountries, the land-locked and islandcountries, and economies in transition.Studies into possibilities for providing globalaccess to the Internet at a high data-ratevia satellite have been carried out,including identification of suitable fixed-satellite service (FSS) bands.

Moreover, investments are being made by

Google, Liberty Global and HSBC in acompany called "O3b Networks", short forthe "other 3 billion" people who can't yetsurf the Net, that plans to launch 16 low-cost satellites whose purpose will be tobring high-speed affordable Internet accessto emerging markets across Asia, LatinAmerica, Africa and the Middle East.24 Theservice, expected to be ready to launch bylate 2010, aims to take the place of thefibre networks typically used in moredeveloped nations. The satellites will

actually offer low-latency links from 1 Mbpsto 10 Gbps for core trunking, instant fibre-path restoration and 3G Cellular / WiMaxbackhaul to areas currently without anyeasily accessible option.

Academic networks have advancedconsiderably, in particular benefiting fromthe liberalization of the provision ofinfrastructure which has allowed increasedaccess to dark fibre in Europe and NorthAmerica. Not only has this permittedtransmission speeds to be increased to

levels of multiple Gigabits per second, ithas also allowed the assignment ofseparate optical wavelengths for more
https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/


7/17


Box 1: Netherligh t

NetherLight was created in 2002 in Amsterdam to be an open optical

infrastructure and proving ground for network services supporting very high-performance applications. Initially it provided SONET/SDH cross connect andGigabit Ethernet switching facility, but has been moving to be an opticalwavelength switching facility as this technology and the control planes becomemore advanced.

At its heart, NetherLight has a Nortel HDXc optical cross connect thatinterconnects multiple 10 Gbps optical wavelengths (or lambdas). This allows theinterconnection of lightpaths from different national and international networkfacilities, including StarLight in the USA and the Global Lambda Integrated Facility(GLIF).

The connection to CERN provides access to one of the most intensive scientificapplications, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This is expected to generate around

15 PBytes of data each year and requires its own private 10 Gbps optical networkfor the transfer of data amongst its core group of researchers.

Source: http://www.surfnet.nl/nl/Thema/netherlight/Pages/Default.aspx

intensive networks (see Box 1). Thus, asingle infrastructure is able to supportmultiple real and virtual networks, withoutinterference or degradation of quality. It iseven possible to test new network designsand protocols on one optical frequency,providing massive capacity and

geographical coverage.

The addition of VoIP services to theInternet has been extremely popular.

However, these are successful in largemeasure because of gateways to the PSTN.A significant part of the success has beenachieved by overlay networks.25

The Mob i l e I n t e rne t

The explosive growth of mobile telephonymeans that the mobile will increasingly takethe place of the PC as the access mode tothe Internet. In developing countries, the

http://www.surfnet.nl/nl/Thema/netherlight/Pages/Default.aspxhttp://www.surfnet.nl/nl/Thema/netherlight/Pages/Default.aspx


8/17


mobile phone is likely to be the dominantaccess mode and thus the Internet willneed to meet the needs of those users.The number of people who surf the Net onphones has doubled since 2006, accordingto Nielsen Mobile, and some predict that by2012 there will be more mobile/wirelessInternet users than wired using PCs andlaptops.

At the same time, the roll-out of higherspeed mobile Internet in developedcountries continues apace, prompted in partby the launch of user-friendly smart phones.Increasingly, users want the full Internetexperience when they access via a mobile.

With IP included in cellular networks, thenumber of potential direct and indirectInternet users approaches several billions.

The technologies have been rapidlyadvancing in the networks and handsets,from 2 to 2.5G, and from 3G to 3.5G andon to 4G, delivering much faster

throughputs to devices. The evolution ofthese technologies is depicted in Figure 2(image provided by courtesy of 3GAmericas).

Continuing advances in 3G

technology under IMT-2000The ITU-R continues its partnership effortswith external organizations in the wirelessmobile broadband industry to capture andharmonize the state of the art advancesbeing made to the 3G and 3.5Gtechnologies (TDMA, CDMA and OFDMAsystems). These systems, which had theirinitial deployments in the year 2000, havebeen enhanced to significant broadbandcapabilities. In their latest versions (2009)they offer significant, almost order of

magnitude, improvement in end-userthroughput, performance and overall userexperience.

The current view of these evolved IMT-

Figure 2: Evolution of TDMA, CDMA and OFDMA systems

Source: 3G Americas, September 2008 EDGE, HSPA, LTE: Broadband Innovation,http://www.3gamericas.org/documents/EDGE_HSPA_and_LTE_Broadband_Innovation_Rysavy_Sept_2008.pdf
http://www.3gamericas.org/documents/EDGE_HSPA_and_LTE_Broadband_Innovation_Rysavy_Sept_2008.pdfhttp://www.3gamericas.org/documents/EDGE_HSPA_and_LTE_Broadband_Innovation_Rysavy_Sept_2008.pdfhttp://www.3gamericas.org/documents/EDGE_HSPA_and_LTE_Broadband_Innovation_Rysavy_Sept_2008.pdfhttp://www.3gamericas.org/documents/EDGE_HSPA_and_LTE_Broadband_Innovation_Rysavy_Sept_2008.pdf


9/17



2000 systems is composed of two majorelements: (1) a new radio access networkthat is optimized for an all IP-based trafficnetwork and (2) an evolutionary core

network architecture designed to workintegrally with the radio access network asa unified eco-system.

These evolved IMT-2000 systems promisesignificant improvement in networkperformance and operational efficiencies.Based on an all-IP packet based network,they enable operators to potentially reducethe number of network elements betweensubscribers and the internet. Higher speedsand increased support of full mobile

broadband will allow the end users to runapplications and services that areassociated today with wireline broadbandnetworks.

Developing 4G technology under

IMT-Advanced

The ITU is taking a strategic globalleadership in advancing mobile ICT to anew level in its work on IMT-Advanced. Asexplained in the December issue of the ITUNews:

To set the stage for the new wireless

future, in 2003 ITUR once again

provided a further strategic vision of

how the needs of the marketplace

and end users could evolve. That

vision is called IMT-Advanced. As

importantly, ITUR has now set in

place a plan to achieve this vision.

The plan and its related

Recommendations and Reports

define the IMT future through the

ongoing development of IMT-

Advanced.

26

IMT-Advanced is a leap beyond IMT 2000,as it offers new capabilities for the physicallayer of the radio interface and brings intoplay a greater level of radio resourcemanagement and control, advancedcapabilities for spectrum channel andbandwidth aggregation, and improvedperformance at all levels, including qualityof service aspects. IMT-Advancedrepresents a wireless telecommunicationplatform that has the flexibility to

accommodate services that are yet to beimagined.

The I n t e rne t o f Serv i ces

The Internet of Services (IOS) is anotherarea that has been very successful. The

best known class of services is e-commerce,with such leading firms as eBay andAmazon. The importance of searching andof the related advertising revenues enabledthe growth of Google. Similarly, thedevelopment of social networking sawFacebook and its competitors grow rapidly.The addition of Location Based Services(LBS) is expected to extend socialnetworking systems to mobile devices. Theproblem for network design has been theunpredictable nature of the successes (and

failures) of services, making it difficult toknow the nature and levels of traffic theywill generate.

I n n o v at i o n a n d Gr o w t h

In many countries, broadband Internet isnow viewed as a vital part of nationalinfrastructure and a centrepiece foreconomic and social development. Theeconomy has become, to an increasingextent, the Internet economy, including theapplications that are used in electroniccommerce, government and social activities.The Internet now extends far above theTCP/IP protocol stack, into services andtheir uses.

The 2008 OECD Ministerial Conferencestressed the importance of the Internet toinnovation and to the creation of jobs andeconomic growth.27

The European Union expressly addressedthe use of ICTs and innovation in its LisbonAgenda in 2000. 28 The revised Lisbon

Agenda focused on jobs and growth, againemphasizing a wide range of applications ofthe Internet. 29 To implement this, theEuropean Commission has policies for thewider availability of high-speed access tothe Internet and by a range of researchprojects under the banner of the futureInternet. For example, the FIRE projectexamines the long-term needs for Internetarchitecture, through a series of large-scale,interconnected test-beds.30

In Japan the development of ICTs is seenas a source of economic growth andproductivity gains. The U-Japan policy, tocreate the ubiquitous network society, was


10/17


launched in December 2004 by the Ministryof Internal Affairs and Communications(MIC). With this anything and anyone wasto be able to access networks and freelytransmit information from anywhere atanytime. 31 It was to create a number ofnew areas that would ensure the growth ofthe ICT industry, a theme taken up byleading Japanese manufacturers.32

I n t e r n e t a n d TV

The industry dream of one box in the livingroom is moving closer to reality. As theInternet encroaches on the market share,viewing hours and advertising revenues oftraditional broadcast media (already insome countries more time is viewed surfingthe Net than watching broadcast television),

new technologies are emerging to enhanceand facilitate Internet viewing overtelevision sets. 33 LG has recentlyintroduced a TV set that allows wirelessInternet viewing and Boxee is a small start-up that gives TV users a single interface toaccess all photos, video and music on theirhard drive, along with television showsfrom sites like Hulu and YouTube. Intel ispartnering with Yahoo to produce a widgetchannel that lets viewers email friends,trade shares or check the weather while

watching television programs. Thus, it ismore than likely that in 10 years InternetTV will be drastically different that what it istoday.

New Web Techno log ies

New web technologies may change thenature of data flows and searches on theInternet. The semantic web has beendescribed by Tim Berners-Lee, inventor ofthe World Wide Web, and others as the

web of the future, in which any piece ofinformation, such as a photo or banksstatement, could be linked to any other.Instead of a collection of pages, thesemantic web would enable directconnectivity between much more lower-level pieces of information, giving rise tonew services, and in effect is aboutmachines talking to machines. 34 Thesemantic web will, however, raise newprivacy and security challenges.

Prop r i e t a r y I n t e rne t

It has been widely observed that the open,transparent nature of the Internet is one ofthe key drivers of its success and its global

reach. The Network of Networks isgenerally accessible to all, although theprice may vary and languages may be abarrier.

On the other hand, some caution of the riskthat the Internet could break apart or that

some parts could be closed off, due in largepart to security concerns. Professor Zitrainof Harvard law School has warned that theInternet is closing:

We face a wholesale revision of the

Internet and PC environment of the

past 30 years. The change is coming

partly because of the need to address

security problems peculiar to open

technologies, and partly because

businesses want more control over

the experience that customers have

with their products.35

As examples, he cites the approvedsourcing of applications for the iPhone 2.0and Web 2.0 software-as services ventureslike the Facebook platform and Google Apps.Other refer to this Internet as a gatedcommunity, where users may have tosacrifice certain freedoms and anonymity inreturn for better security.36 This is alreadythe case for many corporate andgovernment Internet users.

CloudWith the growth in IT expenditures as acomponent of business costs andoperations, small and medium-sizedenterprises are turning to third parties tooutsource their IT needs. Cloud computingrefers to the trend of outsourcing IT needsand its growing popularity as a businessmodel will place further strains on theInternet, particularly with regard to security,reliability and cost of access. Technology

Watch published a separate report on thisphenomenon in March 2009.37

Traf f i c Jam s ( ?)

The rapid growth of the Internet has placednew demands on communications networksand this growth of Internet traffic has beenthe subject of periodic controversy. Newtechnologies that generate large quantitiesof traffic include video-sharing sites,videoconferencing, movie downloads, onlinegaming, remote medical imaging and online

storage of documents.

Some claim that the Internet will collapseunder the weight of traffic in general or of


11/17



specific events, giving rise to the term exaflood. A recent study by Nemertesconcludes that demand will exceed totalbroadband capacity at the access layer of

the Net by 2012 and will require investmentof some US 137 billion USD over the next 5years to keep pace with demand.

On the other hand, some consider that thegrowth will be manageable, largely due todeclining unit costs, even if some providersare unhappy about the costs they mustcarry. Andrew Odlyzko, a computerscientist at the University of Minnesota,estimated Internet traffic in 2007 to havebeen 3-5 EBytes worldwide, with a growth

rate of 50-60% per annum, but that theactual rate of traffic growth seems to bedecreasing, with traffic growth estimated at100% in prior years. 38 TeleGeographypublished figures last year showing that in2007-08, capacity grew faster than traffic.39

Usage Pat t ern s

While always billed as a global network (ofnetworks), reality is now beginning to

match the hyperbole. In its initial days, theInternet was largely a communications toolfor developed countries. But that picture ischanging.

According to some analysts, in 2008 thenumber of Internet users in the Top 10developing markets surpassed the numberin developed markets for the first time.40 Inpercentage terms, some of the fastergrowing user markets include China,Pakistan, Colombia, Iran, Egypt, Venezuelaand Nigeria. This transformation is having adramatic impact on the Internet, as agrowing diversity of languages, alphabets,access devices and cultures must beaccommodated.

5 Standards

The evolving trends in Internet use willhave a deep impact on standards work.

Early standards to ensure interoperability

included TCP/IP and related standards suchas File Transfer Protocol (FTP) Simple MailTransport Protocol (SMTP) and HTML, someof which are more than 30 years old. Asthe use of the Internet moves from text tomultimedia (video, images and audio) andas new types of devices are connected(laptop, smart phones, etc.), the number ofrequired standards also is increasing rapidly.Single access devices that provideextensive functionality (GPS mapping, Wi-FI, TV) may contain hundreds of embedded

standards.

The OECD Ministerial agreed to:

Uphold the open, decentralized and

dynamic nature of the Internet and

the development of technical

standards that enable its ongoing

expansion and contribute to

innovation, interoperability,

participation and ease of access.41

There are a wide range of organizationsinvolved in the formulation of standards for

the future Internet and the number is

increasing as the types of services andaccess devices grows.

The current architecture is overseen by the

Internet Society (ISOC), a non-governmental organization, comprisingnational chapters, with membership open toboth individuals and organizations.42 ISOChas issued charters to the IETF, IAB andIANA (Figure 3).

IETF43 is currently studying representativetopics which include scalability for routing,addressing, mobility, multi-homing androuting table related issues. Problem comesfrom the combination of Identifier andlocator. The IETF is open to any individualand comprises an international communityof network designers, operators, vendorsand researchers. 44 Several IETF workinggroups are managed by Area Directors whoare members of the Internet EngineeringSteering Group (IESG). 45 Oversight is bythe IAB, including adjudication of appealsagainst the IESG. 46 IANA coordinates theassignment of unique parameter values forInternet protocols. 47 The IRTF promotesresearch on the evolution of the futureInternet through Research Groups on

protocols, applications, architecture andtechnology.48


12/17


Figure 3: Internet architecture organizations

Internet Society(ISOC)

Internet Architecture Board(IAB)

Internet Assigned NumbersAuthority(IANA)

Internet EngineeringSteering Group

(IESG)

Internet Research TaskForce(IRTF)

Internet Engineering TaskForce(IETF)

I TUThe current work program of the ITU-T forthe Study Period 2009-2012 embracesmany Questions of relevance to theInternet. These activities are summarizedin Annex A.

6 Conclusion

For the reasons cited in this Report, it isdifficult to forecast future requirements forthe Internet with any certainty. This task

is made yet more difficult by the addition ofmillions of new users each year, many fromdeveloping countries using mobile devicesfor access, and of new services andapplications.

In RFC 1287, Clark et al acknowledged thatany change to the Internet design wouldtake years to plan and to implement.Nearly two decades later, systematicchange is even more difficult, with theprospect of modifying or replacingequipment for one billion being a significant

undertaking and one that gets more difficulteach day. The prospect of evenunintentional disruptions to e-commerce, e-government and day-to-day socialapplications as the result of a transition to anew design is potentially extremely risky.

It is very difficult to define a boundary forthe Internet, given the addition of overlaynetworks, applications and services, outsidethe TCP/IP stack, but still perceived as partof it. While to engineers architecture maybe the correct analogy, for users it is seenas a system, of which TCP/IP is an invisiblepart of underlying infrastructure.

The existing architecture has alreadyproved able to deliver or at least topermit the creation and rapid expansion ofeBay, Google, YouTube, Skype andFacebook. Despite some critics,evolutionary changes to the original designhave proved adequate to meet most newneeds.

The next few years of the Internet are tosome extent already baked in, with thefurther deployment of IP over cellularnetworks and, in developed countries, overfiber to the home.

Yet, despite the obstacles, there is a

significant constituency that argues for aclean slate approach to the Internet andwork is underway on features of such adesign. This Report has identified anumber of new trends that would need tobe addressed in any new architecture.While not directly addressed in this Report,security concerns and mounting monetarylosses due to cybercrime, phishing andtheir ilk lend support to calls for a cleanslate.

Since the evolutionary approach is ongoing,the question could be asked if there is atipping point that would favour the cleanslate advocates. One candidate to trigger


13/17



the transition to a new design would be anInternet catastrophe, such as acyberterrorist attack. 49 The rivalry in theUSA between FIOS and U-verse is already

an example of architectural competition,with the former deploying FTTH while thelatter has deployed FTTN/VDSL.

In this admittedly uncertain landscape, it isdifficult to anticipate future standards work

beyond the mid-term. As a result, thisReport has surveyed the debate overInternet architecture, and identified keyemerging trends and features of the

Internet, in an attempt to provide pointersfor future standards work for considerationby the ITU-T membership and the broaderstandards community.


14/17


12

Annex A

ITU-T Title Scope

SG2 Service definition, numbering,routing, disaster relief, earlywarning and telecommunicationmanagement

Numbering

Emergency communications

ENUM

SG3 Tariff and accounting principles,economic and policy issues

IIC

SG5 Protection againstelectromagnetic environmenteffects

EMC requirements

SG9 Television & sound transmissionand integrated broadband cable

networks

Voice and video IP applications

IPTV over CATV networks

SG11 Signaling requirements,protocols and testspecifications, intelligentnetworks and test specifications

Signalling requirements and protocols for IP-based networks, NGN, mobility, multimediarelated signalling aspects

SG12 Performance, quality of serviceand quality of experience

QoS and QoE

SG13 Future networks, NGN, mobilitymanagement and fixed-mobileconvergence

Architecture, Impact of IPv6 to an NGN (Q.7/13)

SG15 Optical transport networks andaccess network infrastructures

Access and core networks

SG16 Multimedia coding, systems andapplications, ubiquitousapplications and accessibility forpersons with disabilities

Multimedia capabilities for services andapplications for existing and future networks,including NGN and beyond

SG17 Security, identity management,languages and descriptiontechniques

Identity management

Security

Formal languages and description techniques

Conformance and interoperability testing

FGCarCom

From/In/To CarsCommunication

Car-to-Car

Infrastructure-to-Car

FG FN Future Networks Visions of future networks, based on newtechnologies

Interactions between future networks andnew services

Familiarize ITU-T and standardizationcommunities with emerging attributes offuture networks

Encourage collaboration between ITU-T andFN communities

FG ICTs& CC

Climate Change Methodology to measure impact of ICT on GHGemission reductions


15/17



Glossary

ATM Asynchronous Transfer ModeCDT Center for Democracy and Technology (USA)DoS Denial of ServiceFG Focus GroupFIND Future Internet Design (USA)FTP File Transfer ProtocolFTTH Fibre To The HomeFTTN Fibre To The NodeGENI Global Environment for Network Innovations (USA)GHG Greenhouse GasGLIF Global Lambda Integrated FacilityGNI Global Network InitiativeIAB Internet Architecture Board

IANA Internet Assigned Numbers AuthorityICTs Information and Communication TechnologiesIESG Internet Engineering Steering GroupIETF Internet Engineering Task ForceIOS Internet of ServicesIOT Internet of ThingsIP Internet ProtocolISP Internet Service ProviderISOC Internet SocietyITU International Telecommunication UnionIXP Internet eXchange PointLAN Local Area Network

LBS Location Based ServicesLTE Long Term EvolutionMIC Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Japan)MPLS Multi-Protocol Label SwitchingNAT Network Address TranslationNICT National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (Japan)NRPS Network Resource Provisioning SystemsNSF National Science Foundation (USA)NSP Network Service ProviderOECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentPAN Personal Area NetworkPCH Packet Clearing House

QoE Quality of ExperienceQoS Quality of ServiceRFC Request for CommentsRFID Radio Frequency IdentificationSDH Synchronous Digital HierarchySLA Service Level AgreementSG Study GroupSOA Service Oriented ArchitectureTCP Transmission Control ProtocolUSN Ubiquitous Sensor NetworkVDSL Very high speed Digital Subscriber LineVoIP Voice over Internet Protocol

VPN Virtual Private NetworkWAN Wide Area NetworkWSN Wireless Sensor NetworkWWW World Wide Web


16/17


14

Notes, sources and further reading

1 Barry Leiner, Vinton Cerf, David Clark, Robert Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry Roberts & Stephen

Wolff (2003) A brief history of the Internet. Internet Society. http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml2 ITU (2005)ITU Internet Reports 2005: The Internet of Things. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.

http://www.itu.int/publ/S-POL-IR.IT-2005/e3 Dynamic Coalition on Internet and Climate Change. http://www.itu.int/themes/climate/dc/4 In 1991, RFC 1287, by Clark, Cerf and others, questions about the future evolution of the Internet architecture were raised.

D. Clark, L. Chapin, V. Cerf, R. Barden & R. Hobby (1991) Towards the future Internet Architecture. RFC 1287.

By 1995, Scott Shenker was able to describe the literature as being replete with proposals for new designs and analyses of

existing designs.

Scott Shenker (1995) Fundamental Design Issues for the future Internet. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 13

(7) pp 1176-1188.

The approach taken had been to change the implementation but not the architecture, at the cost of increasing the available

bandwidth, though this might not continue to be feasible.5 Larry Peterson, Tom Anderson, David Culler & Timothy Roscoe (2003)A blueprint for introducing disruptive technology into the

Internet. ACME SITCOM Computer Communications Review 33 (1) 99 59-64.6 David Talbot (2005) The Internet is broken. MIT Technology Review.

http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_16051,258,p1.html7 Nicholas G. Carr (2008) The Big Switch. W.W. Norton & Co. p 180.8http://www.geni.net/9http://www.nets-find.net/10http://www.isi.edu/newarch/11http://cleanslate.stanford.edu/12http://akari-project.nict.go.jp/13 See The Future of the Internet, Report of the EU Conference held in Bled (31 March 2008).14http://yuba.stanford.edu/trainwreck/15http://www.sigcomm.org/learn/hotnets-workshop/16http://www.future-internet.eu/17http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2008/workshops/netecon/

18http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/resources/igf-ixp-report-2007.shtml19 OECD (2006)Internet traffic exchange: market developments and measurement of growth. Paris: Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/54/36462170.pdf20http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~apathan/CDNs.html21http://www.akamai.com/index.html?intl=122http://www.admob.com/s/solutions/metrics23 Neil Rickard and Eric Paulak (2007)Magic Quadrant for Global Network Service Providers. Gartner RAS Core Research Note

G00150113. Stamford: Gartner. http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/orangebusiness/vol2/article1/article1.html24http://www.o3bnetworks.com/25http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/voice/meeting.phtml26 ITU (2008)Development of IMT-Advanced: The SMaRT Approach. ITU News 12/2008.

http://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2008&issue=10&ipage=39&ext=html27 OECD (2008) The Seoul Declaration for the future of the Internet economy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/28/40839436.pdf28http://consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htm29http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=DOC/05/1&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en30http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fire/31http://www.johotsusintokei.soumu.go.jp/whitepaper/eng/WP2004/2004-index.html32 Teruyasu Murakami (2005)Japans national IT strategy and the ubiquitous network. NRI Papers No. 97. Tokyo: Nomura

Research Institute. http://www.nri.co.jp/english/opinion/papers/2005/pdf/np200597.pdf33 Analyst firm IDC predicts that Internet advertising will surpass ads on newspaper and cable and broadcast TV by 2012. Source:

BBC News, 16 January 2001.34 Times Online, March 12, 2008.35 Quote from article in Newsweek, December 8 2008 at p. 46.36 New York Times, February 15, 2009 Do We Need a New Internet?.37 ITU-T (2009)Distributed Computing: Utilities, Grids & Clouds. Technology Watch Report.

http://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000009/en38http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/39 The Economist, December 6, 2008 at p. 26.40 Morgan Stanley Research, IMF, ITU.41 OECD (2008) The Seoul Declaration for the future of the Internet economy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/28/40839436.pdf42http://www.isoc.org/43http://www.ietf.org/
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtmlhttp://www.itu.int/publ/S-POL-IR.IT-2005/ehttp://www.itu.int/themes/climate/dc/http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_16051,258,p1.htmlhttp://www.geni.net/http://www.nets-find.net/http://www.isi.edu/newarch/http://cleanslate.stanford.edu/http://akari-project.nict.go.jp/http://yuba.stanford.edu/trainwreck/http://www.sigcomm.org/learn/hotnets-workshop/http://www.future-internet.eu/http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2008/workshops/netecon/http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/resources/igf-ixp-report-2007.shtmlhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/54/36462170.pdfhttp://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~apathan/CDNs.htmlhttp://www.akamai.com/index.html?intl=1http://www.admob.com/s/solutions/metricshttp://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/orangebusiness/vol2/article1/article1.htmlhttp://www.o3bnetworks.com/http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/voice/meeting.phtmlhttp://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2008&issue=10&ipage=39&ext=htmlhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/28/40839436.pdfhttp://consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=DOC/05/1&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fire/http://www.johotsusintokei.soumu.go.jp/whitepaper/eng/WP2004/2004-index.htmlhttp://www.nri.co.jp/english/opinion/papers/2005/pdf/np200597.pdfhttp://www.nri.co.jp/english/opinion/papers/2005/pdf/np200597.pdfhttp://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000009/enhttp://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/28/40839436.pdfhttp://www.isoc.org/http://www.ietf.org/http://www.ietf.org/http://www.isoc.org/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/28/40839436.pdfhttp://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/http://www.itu.int/oth/T2301000009/enhttp://www.nri.co.jp/english/opinion/papers/2005/pdf/np200597.pdfhttp://www.johotsusintokei.soumu.go.jp/whitepaper/eng/WP2004/2004-index.htmlhttp://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fire/http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=DOC/05/1&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/28/40839436.pdfhttp://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2008&issue=10&ipage=39&ext=htmlhttp://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/voice/meeting.phtmlhttp://www.o3bnetworks.com/http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/orangebusiness/vol2/article1/article1.htmlhttp://www.admob.com/s/solutions/metricshttp://www.akamai.com/index.html?intl=1http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~apathan/CDNs.htmlhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/54/36462170.pdfhttp://www.isoc.org/educpillar/resources/igf-ixp-report-2007.shtmlhttp://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2008/workshops/netecon/http://www.future-internet.eu/http://www.sigcomm.org/learn/hotnets-workshop/http://yuba.stanford.edu/trainwreck/http://akari-project.nict.go.jp/http://cleanslate.stanford.edu/http://www.isi.edu/newarch/http://www.nets-find.net/http://www.geni.net/http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_16051,258,p1.htmlhttp://www.itu.int/themes/climate/dc/http://www.itu.int/publ/S-POL-IR.IT-2005/ehttp://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml


17/17


44 The IETF Mission Statement is given in RFC 3935. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3935.txt

45http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html46http://www.iab.org/47http://www.iana.org/48http://www.irtf.org/49 John Rollins & Clay Wilson (2007) Terrorist capabilities for cyberattack: overview and policy issues. Washington DC:

Congressional Research Service. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33123.pdf
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3935.txthttp://www.ietf.org/iesg.htmlhttp://www.iab.org/http://www.iana.org/http://www.irtf.org/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33123.pdfhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33123.pdfhttp://www.irtf.org/http://www.iana.org/http://www.iab.org/http://www.ietf.org/iesg.htmlhttp://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3935.txt

The Future Internet

Documents

Transcript of The Future Internet