* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download ppt - CSE Labs User Home Pages
Survey
Document related concepts
Wake-on-LAN wikipedia , lookup
Distributed firewall wikipedia , lookup
Net neutrality wikipedia , lookup
Network tap wikipedia , lookup
Zero-configuration networking wikipedia , lookup
Computer network wikipedia , lookup
Internet protocol suite wikipedia , lookup
Airborne Networking wikipedia , lookup
Deep packet inspection wikipedia , lookup
Net neutrality law wikipedia , lookup
Cracking of wireless networks wikipedia , lookup
Piggybacking (Internet access) wikipedia , lookup
Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Internet Design: Big Picture • Internet architectural, design and implementation principles – not “scriptures”, but guidelines – understand pros and cons, trade-offs involves • Original Internet Design Goals – what contributed to the huge success? – what still amiss, biggest weaknesses? • Internet as a case study – virtualization., layered architecture, end-to-end argument, soft-state, fate sharing, … • Readings: ; [Cla88], [SRC84], [Car96] – See Reading List CSci5221: Internet Design 1 Architectural Principles (not unique to networks!) Zhi-Li’s version (synthesized from various sources) • End-to-end argument – functionality placement • Modularity – Increase inter-operability and manage complexity • vertical partition -> layered architecture • horizontal partition? • Keep it simple, stupid (KISS principle) – Occam’s Razor: choose simplest among many solutions! • complicated design increases system coupling (interdependence), amplifies errors, .. • don’t over-optimize! • Separating policies from mechanisms – decouple control from data – “semantics-free” • Design for scale – hierarchy, aggregation, … CSci5221: Internet Design 2 Network Architecture What is (Network) Architecture? – not the implementation itself – “design blueprint” on how to “organize” implementations • what interfaces are supported • where functionality is implemented • Two Basic Architectural Principles – Modularity (e.g., layering) • how to break network functionality into modules – End-to-End Argument • where to implement functionality CSci5221: Internet Design 3 Some Design/Implementation Principles • • • • • • • • virtualization indirection soft state vs. hard state fate sharing randomization expose faults, don’t suppress/ignore caching …… CSci5221: Internet Design 4 Original Internet Design Goals [Clark’88] In order of importance: 0 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Connect existing networks – initially ARPANET and ARPA packet radio network Survivability - ensure communication service even with network and router failures Support multiple types of services Must accommodate a variety of networks Allow distributed management Allow host attachment with a low level of effort Be cost effective 7. Allow resource accountability CSci5221: Internet Design 5 Priorities • The effects of the order of items in that list are still felt today – E.g., resource accounting is a hard, current research topic • Different ordering of priorities would make a different architecture! • How well has today’s Internet satisfied these goals? • Let’s look at them in detail CSci5221: Internet Design 6 0. Connecting Existing Networks 1974: multiple unconnected networks – – – – ARPAnet data-over-cable networks packet satellite network (Aloha) packet radio network – – – – – addressing conventions (i.e., address formats) packet formats and packet sizes Performance: bandwidth, latency, loss rate, … error recovery mechanisms routing .. differing in: • How to inter-network various (heterogeneous) network technologies? CSci5221: Internet Design 7 Cerf & Kahn: Interconnecting Two Networks ARPAnet • • • • satellite net “…interconnection must preserve intact the internal operation of each network.” “ ..the interface between networks must play a central role in the development of any network interconnection strategy. We give a special name to this interface that performs these functions and call it a GATEWAY.” “.. prefer that the interface be as simple and reliable as possible, and deal primarily with passing data between networks that use different packet-switching strategies “…address formats is a problem between networks because the local network addresses of TCP's may vary substantially in format and size. A uniform internetwork TCP address space, understood by each GATEWAY and TCP, is essential to routing and delivery of internetwork packets.” CSci5221: Internet Design 8 Design Alternatives • Through translation/mapping: – Map one address format to another: nxn mappings – Difficulty in dealing with different features supported by networks – Scales poorly with # of network types, addition of new types • Virtualization: – Provide one common format overlaid on top of “lower-level” addresses – Map lower level addresses to common format: nx1 and 1xn mappings • role of ARP, encapsulation/decapsulation – Layering necessary • but what info from “lower layer” (underlying “physical” networks) to hide, and what to expose! CSci5221: Internet Design 9 Gateway Alternative • Translation – Difficulty in dealing with different features supported by networks – Scales poorly with number of network types (N^2 conversions) • Standardization/Virtualization – “IP over everything” – Minimal assumptions about network – Hourglass design CSci5221: Internet Design 10 Design of Original Internet via Gateways (cf. Cerf and Kahn) Internetwork layer: • addressing: internetwork appears as a single, uniform entity, despite underlying local network heterogeneity • network of networks Gateway: • “embed internetwork packets in local packet format or extract them” • route (at internetwork level) to next gateway gateway ARPAnet CSci5221: Internet Design satellite net 11 Historical Aside: Proposed Internetwork packet in 1974: local source dest. byte seq. # header address address count network TCP identifier 8 16 CSci5221: Internet Design flag field text checksum 12 Cerf & Kahn’s Internetwork Architecture What is virtualized? • two layers of addressing: internetwork and local network • new layer makes everything homogeneous at internetwork layer • underlying local network technology (cable, satellite, 56K modem) is “invisible” at internetwork layer CSci5221: Internet Design 13 1. Survivability 1. As long as the network is not partitioned, two endpoints should be able to communicate 2. Failures (excepting network partition) should not interfere with endpoint semantics (why?) • Maintain state only at end-points – – • • Fate-sharing, eliminates network state restoration stateless network architecture (no per-flow state) Routing state is held by network (why?) No failure information is given to end-points CSci5221: Internet Design 14 Survivability (cont’d) • If network disrupted and reconfigured: – Communicating entities (“end systems”) should not care! – No higher-level state reconfiguration • How to achieve such reliability? – Where can communication state be stored? Network Host Failure handling Replication “Fate sharing” Switches Maintain only routing state; otherwise “stateless” Maintain perflow/per-connection state Host trust Less More CSci5221: Internet Design 15 Fate Sharing Connection State No State State • Lose connection state information for an entity if (and only if?) the entity itself is lost • Examples: – OK to lose TCP state if one endpoint crashes • NOT okay to lose if an intermediate router reboots – Is this still true in today’s network? • NATs, firewalls and other middle-boxes CSci5221: Internet Design 16 Soft-State • Basic behavior – Announce state – Refresh state – Timeout state • Penalty for timeout – poor performance • Robust way to identify communication flows – Possible mechanism to provide non-best effort service? • Helps survivability CSci5221: Internet Design 17 End-to-End Argument • Deals with where to place functionality – Inside the network (in switching elements) ? – At the edges (end-points) ? • Argument: – There are functions that can only be correctly implemented by the endpoints – do not try to completely implement these elsewhere CSci5221: Internet Design 18 Discussion • Is there any need to implement reliability at lower layers? • Yes, but only to improve performance • If network is highly unreliable – Adding some level of reliability helps performance, not correctness – Don’t try to achieve perfect reliability! – Implementing a functionality at a lower level should have minimum performance impact on the applications that do not use the functionality CSci5221: Internet Design 19 Design Challenges and Trade-offs • Install functions in network that aid application performance…. • …without limiting the application flexibility of the network • Trade-offs: – application has more information about the data and semantics of required service (e.g., can check only at the end of each data unit) – lower layer has more information about constraints in data transmission (e.g., packet size, error rate) • Note: these trade-offs are a direct result of layering! CSci5221: Internet Design 20 Do These Belong in the Network? • • • • Multicast? Routing? Quality of Service (QoS)? Name resolution? (is DNS “in the network”?) • Web or media caches? CSci5221: Internet Design 21 2. Types of Service • • • • Best effort delivery All packets are treated the same Relatively simple core network elements Building block from which other services (such as reliable data stream) can be built • Contributes to scalability of network • No QoS support assumed from below – Accommodates more networks – Hard to implement without network support – QoS is an ongoing debate… CSci5221: Internet Design 22 Types of Service (cont’d) • TCP vs. UDP – – – – Elastic apps that need reliability: remote login or email Inelastic, loss-tolerant apps: real-time voice or video Others in between, or with stronger requirements Biggest cause of delay variation: reliable delivery • Today’s net: ~100ms RTT • Reliable delivery can add seconds. • Original Internet model: “TCP/IP” one layer – First app was remote login… – But then came debugging, voice, etc. – These differences caused the layer split, added UDP CSci5221: Internet Design 23 3. Varieties of Networks • Minimum set of assumptions for underlying net – Minimum packet size – Reasonable delivery odds, but not 100% – Some form of addressing unless point to point • Important non-assumptions: – – – – Perfect reliability Broadcast, multicast Priority handling of traffic Internal knowledge of delays, speeds, failures, etc. • Much engineering then only has to be done once CSci5221: Internet Design 24 The “Other” goals • 4. Management – Each network owned and managed separately – Will see this in BGP routing especially • 5. Attaching a host – Not awful; DHCP and related autoconfiguration technologies helping. • 6. Cost effectiveness – Economies of scale won out – Internet cheaper than most dedicated networks – Packet overhead less important by the year • But… CSci5221: Internet Design 25 7. Accountability • Huge problem! • Accounting – Billing? (mostly flat-rate. But phones are moving that way too - people like it!) – Inter-provider payments • Hornet’s nest. Complicated. Political. Hard. • Accountability and security – Huge problem! – Worms, viruses, etc. • Partly a host problem. But hosts very trusted. – Authentication • Purely optional. Many philosophical issues of privacy vs. security. – Greedy sources aren’t handled well CSci5221: Internet Design 26 Other IP Design Weaknesses • Weak administration and management tools • Incremental deployment difficult at times – Result of no centralized control – No more “flag” days – Are active networks the solution? CSci5221: Internet Design 27 Internet Motto We reject kings , presidents, and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code.” David Clark CSci5221: Internet Design 28 Real Goals 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Something that works….. Connect existing networks Survivability (not nuclear war…) Support multiple types of services Accommodate a variety of networks Allow distributed management Easy host attachment Cost effective Allow resource accountability CSci5221: Internet Design 29 Summary: Internet Architecture • Packet-switched datagram network • IP is the “compatibility layer” – Hourglass architecture – All hosts and routers run IP • Stateless architecture – No per flow state inside network CSci5221: Internet Design TCP UDP IP Ethernet Cellular WiFi 30 Summary: Minimalist Approach • Dumb network – IP provide minimal functionalities to support connectivity • Addressing, forwarding, routing • Smart end system – Transport layer or application performs more sophisticated functionalities • Flow control, error control, congestion control • Advantages – Accommodate heterogeneous technologies (Ethernet, modem, satellite, wireless) – Support diverse applications (telnet, ftp, Web, X windows) – Decentralized network administration • Beginning to show age – Unclear what the solution will be probably IPv6? CSci5221: Internet Design 31 Questions • What priority order would a commercial design have? • What would a commercially invented Internet look like? • What goals are missing from this list? • Which goals led to the success of the Internet? CSci5221: Internet Design 32 Requirements for Today’s Internet Some key requirements (“-ities”) • Availability and reliability – “Always on”, fault-tolerant, fast recovery from failures, … • Quality-of-service (QoS) for applications – fast response time, adequate quality for VoIP, IPTV, etc. • Scalability – millions or more of users, devices, … • Mobility – untethered access, mobile users, devices, … • Security (and Privacy?) – protect against malicious attacks, accountability of user actions? • Manageability – configure, operate and manage networks – trouble-shooting network problems • Flexibility, Extensibility, Evolvability, ……? – ease of new service creation and deployment? – evolvable to meet future needs? CSci5221: Internet Design 33