Presentation on theme: "IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 1 Meta-Headers: Top-Down Networking Architecture with Application-Specific Constraints Murat Yuksel University."— Presentation transcript:
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 1 Meta-Headers: Top-Down Networking Architecture with Application-Specific Constraints Murat Yuksel University of Nevada, Reno Reno, NV email@example.com http://www.cse.unr.edu/~yuksem
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 2 Motivation: The trends The variety of applications possible is increasing, especially in wireless wireless peer-to-peer, mobile data, community wireless The size is increasing: million-to-billion nodes The dynamism is increasing: vehicular networks, sensor networks, MANETs What is unavoidable?: More dynamism, more disruption tolerance, more entities, and more varieties
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 3 Motivation: The big picture (a) OSI Transport Network Data Link Physical Session Presentation Application (b) Wireline Transport (TCP, UDP) Network (IP) Data Link (Ethernet 802.3) Physical (Fiber, Cable) Application (c) Wireless Transport (TCP, UDP) Network & MAC (IP, Mobile IP, 802.1x) Physical (RF, Fiber, Cable) Application (d) MANET, peer-to-peer ? Network & Routing ? Application Physical (RF, FSO, Fiber, Cable) Application-Specific Hardware-Specific Network-Specific Static Structured Layered invariants Mobile, ad-hoc, dynamic Unstructured Cross-layer & layered invariants We need a systematic way of implementing vertical components to avoid an unhealthy monolithic stack architecture. Economics always has the bigger force: economically attractive applications will keep forcing more vertical components into the stack!
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 4 Motivation: Response to the trends Wireless research has been responding with optimizing via cross-layer designs adding custom-designed vertical components to the stack Old hat: layered vs. cross-layer tradeoff Bottom-up cross-layer has been the main approach Scarcity of wireless resources dominated the economics
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 5 Motivation: Response to the trends A paradigm shift: wireless resources are becoming massively available Community wireless WiFi hotspots Google WiFi, AT&T Metro WiFi Spectrum resources may still be scarce but connectivity is already ubiquitous The key metric to optimize is becoming application utility rather than the wireless resources App-specific vertical designs are needed.. We need top-down cross-layer designs in addition to the traditional bottom-up ones.
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 6 Why not continue merging layers? Merging layers: A greedy approach Makes it hard to standardize – bad for sw engineering Which layers must be absolutely isolated? Application, Network, Physical? Integrating lower level functions with a higher layer function will prevent them becoming a substrate for other higher layer protocols Cellular provisioning in the US – jailbreaks
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 7 Motivation: Application Layer Framing (ALF) Layering was a main component of the e2e architecture.. a major architectural benefit of such isolation is that it facilitates the implementation of subsystems whose scope is restricted to a small subset of the suites layers. Clark and Tennenhouse, SIGCOMM90 But, Integrated Layer Processing (ILP) was there too! To achieve better e2e efficiency and resource optimization ILP never become a reality due to the lack of a systematic way of doing it. An ALF-based approach is needed: network protocol services at lower layers can best be useful when applications characteristics and intents are conveyed to the lower layers.
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 8 Meta-Headers: A vertical design tool A packet meta-header: vertically travels across the network stack establishes a vertical communication channel among the traditional layers co-exist with the traditional per-layer packet headers Applications can communicate their intent across all the protocol layers by attaching the meta-headers to data.
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 10 Meta-Headers: Demultiplexing H3H4 message MH1MH2MH3MH4 Layer 3 Layer 4 Protocol 1Protocol 2 Demultiplexing with traditional headers H4 message MH1MH2MH3MH4 H4 message MH1MH2MH3MH4 Layer 3 Layer 4 Service 1Service 2 Demultiplexing with meta-headers H3H4 message MH1MH2MH3MH4
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 11 Informing Applications about Lower Layer Services How will upper layers know about the service primitives of the layers lower than the one below? Reactive – Meta-Headers in Reverse Direction detect lower layer services in an on-demand manner as connections arise meta-headers rewritten by lower layers in reverse direction Requires a closed-loop – connectionless or multi- receiver services may not work
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 12 Informing Applications about Lower Layer Services (contd) Proactive – Pre-informed Designer inform layer k designers about services of layers k-2 and below apriori too much complexity as the number of lower layer services increases – rank ordering might help May not be desirable by ISPs Regional service discovery via broadcasting – connectionless
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 13 End-to-End Coordination Application Layer 4 Layer 3 Layer 2 Layer 1 message MH4MH3MH2MH1 message H4MH3MH2H2MH1H3 message H4MH1MH2 message H4H3 Traditional packet headers Application- specific packet meta-headers H3H2H1H4 message Application Layer 4 Layer 3 Layer 2 Layer 1 Layer 3 Layer 2 Layer 1 H2MH1H3 message H4MH1MH2 message H4H3 H2H1H4 message Optional feedback loop for conveying available L1-L3 services 1 Application at source prepares meta-headers with default options and sets flags to probe for available services 2 Meta-headers may or may not get converted to traditional headers. 3 Meta-headers are filled with available L1-L3 services, and optionally fed back to the source application. 4 Meta-headers are filled with summary of available end-to-end L1- L4 services, and fed back to the source application. 5 Application at source readjusts meta-headers for joint vertical optimization of end-to-end performance. H3H2H1H4 message MH1MH2 message H4MH3H2MH1H3 message H4MH1MH2 message H4H3MH1MH2 message H4MH3MH1MH2 message MH4MH3 Feedback loop for conveying end-to-end multi-hop L1-L4 services, possibly as a sequence of options over multiple hops. Optional feedback loop for local optimization of last hop(s) of the end-to-end path. SOURCE ROUTER DESTINATION A dynamic end-to-end negotiation..
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 14 An optimization perspective Application Top-Down Value Choice Optimization Framework Application-Specific View of the Network Application-Specific Constraints Value Choices E (application-based cost) Q 3 (per-layer state) B (quality constraints) Meta-header probes questing lower layer services Meta-headers filled with available services Q 2 (per-layer state) W 2 (implicit) (per-layer constraints) Network Network State Information Network Resource Constraints Links Link State Information Link Resource Constraints W 3 (implicit) (per-layer constraints) Lagrange multipliers (pieces of E) Lagrange multipliers (pieces of Q 2 and Q 3 ) Vertical optimizations are possible More dynamic Meta-headers as Lagrange multipliers
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 15 Summary A top-down networking architecture with meta- headers Vertical optimizations at finer temporal and spatial granularity A variety of top-down optimizations: Top-down routing (layers 5, 3) Top-down QoS/value management (layers 5, 3, 2) Top-down dynamic transport (layers 4, 3, 2) A new class of optimization problems aiming to improve joint performance of multiple layers while respecting the isolation among them.
IEEE GLOBECOM FutureNet, Miami, FL, Dec 2010 16 Thank you! THE END This work is supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation awards 0721600 and 0721609.