Internet Architecture and Assumptions.ppt

1、Internet Architecture and Assumptions,David Andersen CMU Computer Science,Course status,27 registered (goal: 24) 24 on waitlist (goal: 0) So still not looking so good. If youre dropping, remember to actually drop! Remember: Project groups!,Internet Architecture,Background “The Design Philosophy of t

2、he DARPA Internet Protocols” (David Clark, 1988). Fundamental goal: Effective network interconnection Goals, in order of priority: Continue despite loss of networks or gateways Support multiple types of communication service Accommodate a variety of networks Permit distributed management of Internet

3、 resources Cost effective Host attachment should be easy Resource accountability,Priorities,Technical Lessons Packet switching Fate Sharing/Soft state The effects of the order of items in that list are still felt today E.g., resource accounting is a hard, current research topic Lets look at them in

4、detail,Fundamental Goal,“technique for multiplexed utilization of existing interconnected networks”Multiplexing (sharing) Shared use of a single communications channel Existing networks (interconnection) Tries to define an “easy” set of requirements for the underlying networks to support as many as

5、possible,Sharing and Multiplexing,Question #1: How do you avoid an all-to-all network topology? Multiplexing! How can you do it? TDMA, FDMA, CDMA And you can do statistical multiplexing Stat mux: Efficient sharing of resources A link can always transmit when it has data!,Datagram Switching,Informati

6、on for forwarding traffic is contained in destination address of packet No state established ahead of time (helps fate sharing) Basic building block must build things like TCP on top Pretty much implies statistical multiplexing Alternatives: Circuit Switching: Signaling protocol sets up entire path

7、out-of-band. (cf. the phone network) Virtual Circuits: Hybrid approach. Packets carry “tags” to indicate path, forwarding over IP Source routing: Complete route is contained in each data packet,Preview: An Age-Old Debate,It is held that packet switching was one of the Internets greatest design choic

8、es. Of course, there are constant attempts to shoehorn the best aspects of circuits into packet switching. Examples: Capabilities, MPLS,ATM, IntServ QoS, etc.,Circuits vs Packets? Circuits: Guaranteed QoS, dedicated connection, easy accounting Packets: Efficiency, simplicity,Survivability,If network

9、 disrupted and reconfigured Communicating entities should not care! No higher-level state reconfiguration Ergo, transport interface only knows “working” and “not working.” Not working = complete partition. How to achieve such reliability? Where can communication state be stored?,Fate Sharing,Lose st

10、ate 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 todays network? NATs and firewalls Survivability compromise: Heterogenous network - less informat

11、ion available to end hosts and Internet level recovery mechanisms,Connection State,State,No State,Types of Service,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 ca

12、use of delay variation: reliable delivery Todays 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 No QoS support assumed from below In fact

13、, some underlying nets only supported reliable delivery Made Internet datagram service less useful! Hard to implement without network support QoS is an ongoing debate,Varieties of Networks,Interconnect the ARPANET, X.25 networks, LANs, satellite networks, packet networks, serial links Mininum set of

14、 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 engineer

15、ing then only has to be done once,So, how do you support them?,Need to interconnect many existing networks Hide underlying technology from applications Decisions: Network provides minimal functionality “Narrow waist”,Tradeoff: No assumptions, no guarantees.,Technology,Applications,The “Curse of the

16、Narrow Waist”,IP over anything, anything over IP Has allowed for much innovation both above and below the IP layer of the stack An IP stack gets a device on the Internet Drawbacks: difficult to make changes to IP Butpeople are trying (cf GENI) Only a small amount of information available about lower

17、 levels. (cf wireless),Goal #4: Distributed Management,Independently managed as a set of independent “Autonomous Systems” ISPs CMU Etc. BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) connects ASes together Completely (well) decentralized routing Is this a good thing? (wait two slides),A problem: Management,“Some of

18、the most significant problems with the Internet today relate to lack of sufficient tools for distributed management, especially in the area of routing.” The Internet is now a hugely complex beast 18,000 constituent networks Routing tables with 1,000,000+ entries Gajillions of $. Management and opera

19、tional expenses becoming increasingly important Remember that growth chart? Not just more b/w per user, but constantly more users & links,Local Actions, Global Consequences,“a glitch at a small ISP triggered a major outage in Internet access across the country. The problem started when MAI Network S

20、ervices.passed bad router information from one of its customers onto Sprint.” - , April 25, 1997,Florida Internet Barn,Goal #5: Cost Effectiveness,Packet headers introduce high overhead but so does circuit setup End-to-end retransmission of lost packets Potentially wasteful of bandwidth by placing b

21、urden on the edges of the network,Arguably a good tradeoff. Current trends are to exploit redundancy even more. Bandwidth is becoming cheaper in many environments,Goal #6: Ease of Attachment,IP is “plug and play” Anything with a working IP stack can connect to the Internet (hourglass model) A huge s

22、uccess! Lesson: Lower the barrier to innovation/entry and people will get creative (e.g., Cerf and Kahn probably did not think about IP stacks on phones, sensors, etc.) But.,Tradeoff: Burden on end systems/programmers.,Goal #7: Accountability,Huge problem. Accounting Billing? (mostly flat-rate. But

23、phones are moving that way too - people like it!) Inter-provider payments Hornets 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.

24、 security.,Stopping Unwanted Traffic is Hard,February 2000,March 2006,Some environments challenge the model,Wireless Host mobility Ad hoc wireless networks Satellite Space Sensor networks Dial-up / store and forward Disconnection High availability requirements No QoS assumed from below Reasonable bu

25、t non-zero loss rates Whats minimum recovery time? 1rtt But conservative assumptions end-to-end TCP RTO - min(1s)! Interconnect independent networks Federation makes things hard: My network is good. Is yours? Is the one in the middle? Scale Routing convergence times, etc.,Design wrapup,IP model: Sta

26、t mux, datagrams, fate sharing, narrow waist Successes: IP on everything! Drawbacks but perhaps theyre totally worth it in the context of the original Internet. Might not have worked without them!,“This set of goals might seem to be nothing more than a checklist of all the desirable network features

27、. It is important to understand that these goals are in order of importance, and an entirely different network architecture would result if the order were changed.”,Project Stuff,“These changes in the Internet design arose through the repeated pattern of implementation and testing that occurred befo

28、re the standards were set” - ddc, Design Philosophy The RFCs required “rough consensus and working code” - also coined by ddc,Some thoughts,“Simulation is doomed to succeed” - Rod Brooks (former MIT AI Lab director) Simulation depends on what you choose as input parameters. Easy to account for them

29、b/c you set them Easy to be sensitive to things you forgot! ex: wireless routing protocols (later),Some resources,See the list on the web page Writing: The Elements of Style Graphing: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information Research: Patterson “Bad Career” talk,Some tools,Please learn LaTeX i

30、f you dont know it already. Pick one of gnuplot, ploticus, or jgraph Each has advantages & disadvantages. I use gnuplot for most things and ploticus for really evil complex graphs. Script aggressively. Automate your analysis and eval from typing “run” to having graphs. Shorten the design/eval/re-thi

31、nk cycle! Up-front investment in time, but it pays off,Next Time: End-to-end Arguments, ALF,Read the E2E paper if you havent; think about the argument its making. Some points to ponder: What functions can only be implemented correctly with the help of the endpoints?What functions can not be implemented without the help of the network?ALF: Application needs vs. what the network stack provides,