Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
IEEE 802.1aq wikipedia , lookup
Computer network wikipedia , lookup
Distributed firewall wikipedia , lookup
Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) wikipedia , lookup
Airborne Networking wikipedia , lookup
Cracking of wireless networks wikipedia , lookup
Internet Indirection Infrastructure Ion Stoica, Daniel Adkins, Shelley Zhuang, Scott Shenker and Sonesh Surana Presented by Essi Vehmersalo Background ● ● ● Current point-to-point communication abstraction is not very well suited for mobility, multicast or anycast Solutions to decouple sending from receiving – Network level ->general, but require communitywide consensus and commitment – Application level -> more deployable, but several disjoint solutions exist (redundancy) I3 attempts to provide a general but deployable rendezvous based application level overlay Service Model ● Sources send packets to identifiers (id, data) and receivers express interest in packets sent to an identifier by inserting triggers (id, addr) to system ● Abstracts the number and location of receivers ● Further generalizations: – Inexact matching -> Anycast – Stack of identifiers -> Enables end-hosts to control routing Service Model (cont.) Examples of i3 Usage ● Enables for example – Service composition – Heterogeneous multicast – Server selection – Large scale multicast Design Issues ● Overlay of i3 servers storing triggers and forwarding packets, Chord used ● Robustness by soft-state and replicating triggers ● Triggers may be public or private ● Routing efficiency: caching i3 server addresses, choosing private triggers of nearby servers Design Issues (cont.) ● Caching triggers between i3 servers ● Scalability and incremental deployment ● Legacy applications can be supported with i3 proxy running on the host Security ● ● ● Problems and solutions of i3: – Eavesdropping -> using private triggers – Trigger hijacking -> indirection with private trigger – DoS against end-host or infrastructure (hierarchy of triggers with leaves pointing to either victim or root) -> challenges to ensure return routability of addresses, limiting resource use of triggers, loop detection Additional protection against denial of service attacks Using HIP with i3? Simulation Results ● ● ● Ratio of inter-node latencies of i3 and IP was used as a metric (latency stretch) Sampling triggers lowers latency stretch considerably (in practice 16-32 samples enough) Optimizations with considering network distance in Chord routing improve performance 2-3 times Conclusions and Further Questions ● ● ● ● Provides powerful and flexible communication abstraction Still too early to evaluate the limitations and expressiveness of i3 Economical model is still unclear Embedding information into identifiers? Location information? Hash of public key?