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

THE GOALS

� reexamine all networking assumptions;

� reinvent where needed;

� design for intended capabilities;

� deploy and validate architectures; � 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.

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 >> # � 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

Wireless Internet Access Evolution

Internet

Infostation cache

WLANAccess Point

Public Switched Network(PSTN)

BTS

BTS

BSC

MSC

CustomMobileInfrastructure(e.g. GSM, 3G)

Mobile/wireless service enhancements

Point

WLANHot-Spot

VOIP(dual-mode)

Low-tier clusters(e.g. low power 802.11 sensor)

Ad-hocnetwork

extension

VOIP

Broadband Media cluster(e.g. UWB or MIMO)

CDMA, GSMor 3G radio access network

Today Future?

Impact on Internet ArchitectureArchitecture

� 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”

Internet Architecture: Prior Work

� 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

� 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)

Internet Architecture: Caveats

� 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

� 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

Internet Architecture: Next Steps

� 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

� 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

Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change

BorderRouterfor IPw Border

Routerfor IPw

BorderRouterfor IPv4

GLOBAL INTERNET

IP Wireless/SensorAccess Network (IPw)

IP Wireless/SensorAccess Network (IPw)

IP AccessNetwork

(e.g. IPv4)

New Interface Spec

New Protocol Spec

IPv6 extensions

� 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

Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change

BorderRouter

GLOBAL OVERLAY NETWORK

New Wireless/SensorAccess Network

IP AccessNetwork

New Design (non-IP)

new wireless-specific services

GLOBAL INTERNET

Overlay NetGateway

Overlay NetGateway

IP Tunnel

Overlay NetGateway

New Wireless/SensorAccess Network

new knowledge plane?

� 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

Internet Architecture: Strategies for Change

New Designs (beyond IP)optimized for

emerging needs includingwireless-specific services

Next-Gen GLOBAL INTERNET

New Access Network

optimized forwireless, etc.

New Access Network

BorderGateway

IP AccessNetwork

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

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� Experimental facilities required to explore the new Internet architecture solutions

� A report was issued in October:“New Architectures and Disruptive Technologies for the FutureInternet:Wireless, Mobile and Sensor Network Perspective”

www.winlab.rutgers.edu/WMPG

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 � We were not concerned with SOLUTIONS at this point � Questions to be addressed:

� What is the wireless scenario/application you are a ddressing? � What is the problem to be solved? � What are the new qualitative requirements on the ne twork layer? � What is the impact of these innovations on user per formance?

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 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

Wireless Service RequirementsRequirements

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 wireless5. Security and privacy considerations for mobile nodes and open wirelesschannels

� 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

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..

INTERNET

AccessPoint (AP)

Mobile dataterminal

High packetError rate

mobility

Radio multicasting

Roaming,handoff

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

Low-speed wide-areaaccess

Infostationcell

Mobile Infostation

Roadway Sensors

Mobile User

Data Cache

Ad-HocNetwork

OpportunisticHigh-Speed Link

(MB/s)

Infostation

OpportunisticHigh-Speed Link

(MB/s)

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

Relay Node

AccessPoint

Sensor

Wireless link withvarying speed and QoS

Local Interferenceand MAC Congestion

Dynamically changingNetwork topology

Best sensor-to-mobile path via wired network(needs unified routing)Wired Internet

Ad-HocNetwork

IP-Ad-hoc NetProtocol Conversion

Gateway

Low-tier access links(AP/FN Beacons, MN Associations, Data)Forwarding

Node (FN)

Access Point (AP)

FN

AP

APcoverage

area

Self-organized ad-hoc network

MN MN

Internet

FN

AP

Ad-Hoc Network: Discovery Protocol� Creates efficient ad-hoc network topology just abov e MAC layer in

order to reduce burden on routing protocol…

TransmitPower

HopsToAP

NodeType

SequenceNumber

Cluster ID

PacketType

NodeID

BroadcastMAC

SourceMAC

Beacon Frame Format

Ad-hoc infrastructure links between FNs and APs(AP/FN Beacons, FN Associations, Routing Exchanges, Data)FN

coveragearea

Low-tier(e.g. sensor)Mobile Node (MN)

FN

MN

MN

MN

MN

MN

MN

MN MN

Channel 4

Channel 2

Beacon

Transmit Power Required: 1mW

Beacon

Assoc

Transmit Power Required: 4mW

FN

AP

SN•Scan all channels•Associate with FN/AP•Send data

FN•Scan all channels•Find minimum delay links to AP•Set up routes to AP•Send beacons•Forward SN data

DestinationSource

Syn messageSyn Ack

Data

periodic ACK (n1, 0)

1

2

n1

}

Rate 1

X

Rate 2

n1 + 1

n2

NACK (L1,00000010)

L1

X

Rate 3

}}}

Rate 4n3

Cross-Layer Protocols: Transport

APInternet

Dest 2Src 2

Src 1 Dest 1

Network Stack in Src

Network Layer

Cross-Layer AwareTransport Protocol

(CLAP)

Application layer

Flow RatePkt Size

Algorithm

Con

trol

Pla

ne

Net

wor

k S

tatu

s A

ggre

gatio

n

Route Status

Packet loss rate

Network Status

Requires exchange of routing,congestion and link quality/rateinformation across wired-wirelessboundary

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Mbp

s

1 Flow 2 Flow s 3 Flow s 4 Flow s

Throughput w ith Network Congestion

TCP

CLAP

NACK

Fin MessageFin Ack

Retx L1Retx L1+7}}

Rate 5n3 + 1

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Mbp

s

1 Flow 2 Flow s 3 Flow s 4 Flow s

Throughput - No Network Congestion

TCP

CLAP

CLAP HIGHLIGHTS• Cross Layer Aware

• Separate Error and Flow Control

• Rate-based Flow

• Selective-Repeat

Physical Layer

MAC / Link Layer Con

trol

Pla

ne

Net

wor

k S

tatu

s A

ggre

gatio

n

Channel Quality,Channel Rate

Congestion Indicator

Route Status

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…

INTERNET

AA

BB

D

C

D

E

F

Bootstrapped PHY &control link

End-to-end routed pathFrom A to F

PHY A

PHY B

PHY C

Control(e.g. CSCC)

Multi-mode radio PHYAd-Hoc Discovery

& Routing Capability

Adaptive WirelessNetwork Node

(…functionality can be quitechallenging!)

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� Important new paradigm, since # sensors potentially 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

MIT DVS

UC Berkeley MOTE

� 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

Sensor Applications: Highway Safety

� 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

Sensor Applications: Assisted Living

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)

Content ConsumersSensor ContentProducer

OverlayRouter

A

Interest Profile

XMLDescriptor Overlay

RouterB

ApplicationAgent

Mobile User

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

� 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

Wireless Requirements: Sensor Nets

� Potential use of in-network processing & storage

� New privacy and security considerations

� New socket abstractions & TP options

The Experimental FacilitiesFacilities

Experimental Infrastructure for Future Wireless Network Research

� Techniques for Flexible Experimental Wireless Netwo rks� Virtualization of Wireless MAC

� Cognitive Radio

� Wireless Network Monitoring and Measurement� Measuring and characterizing mobility .� Measuring and characterizing mobility .� Measuring heterogeneous networks overlapping in spa ce. � 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

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

Virtualized Multi-MAC

Experimental Wireless Networks

Integration of Existing Testbeds

Ad Hoc Mesh Networks

Summary of Recommendations

� Recommendation 1: the Internet will undergo a fundamental transformation overthe next 10-15 years; invest in research programs aimed at creating necessarytechnical foundations.

� Recommendation 2: Increase research focus on central network architecturequestions related to future mobile, wireless and sensor scenarios.

� Recommendation 3: Invest in development of flexible wireless technologies andplatforms necessary to implement programmable and evolvable experimentalnetworks.

� Recommendation 4: Fund development of large-scale experimental wirelessnetworks for effective validation and competitive selection of new architecture andprotocol concepts.

� Recommendation 5: Encourage collaborative research that would result in end-to-end deployment and evaluation of future wireless/mobile and sensor networks andapplications over the global Internet.

Examples of Research enabled by the new testbed platforms

� Vehicle Grid Applications� Car Torrent� Ad Torrent� Car to Car Games� Vehicle Sensor Network

Co-operative Downloads: Car-torrent, Ad torrent

Internet

Vehicle-Vehicle Communication

Exchanging Pieces of File Later

Car2Car Games: Game Server Architecture + Car-networking Scenario

Vehicular Sensor Network (VSN)

Infostation1. Fixed Infrastructure2. Processing and storage

� Applications� Monitoring road conditions for Navigation Safety or Traffic control� Imaging for accident or crime site investigation

Car-Car multi-hop

1. On-board “black box” 2. Processing and storage

Car to Infostation

Thank you!

Project Plan

� 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

Project Plan: High-Level Goals

� 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

� 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

Project Plan: Methodology

� 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

� 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, ...)

Project Plan: Potential Contributors

� 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

� ~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)

Project Plan: Deliverables & Outcomes

Small Research Projects on Key Wireless/Sensor Prot ocols

Papers,Proof-of-conceptdemos

Internet Architecture Study/Workshopand Strategies for Change

Month- 0 2 4 6 8 10

Wireless& Sensor

NetArchitectureWhite Paper

FinalReport

Wireless & Sensor Net Architectureand Requirements Study

12

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_Forecasts__2009

Global Environment for Networking Investigations (GENI)

� explore new networking capabilities that will advance science and stimulate innovation and economic growth….

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;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.

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.

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 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.

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 � 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.

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.

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.