1 Attribute Based Communications University of California, Irvine Presented By : Ala Khalifeh (Note: Presented)

2 ABC Meeting Summary Pros and Cons Suggested architecture Models Service to use ABC

3 ABC Research Approaches

4 Our Approaches We have discussed using the ABC in certain application as a replacement of the current IP address. Example: Sensor network applications We did not agree Yet whether or Not the ABC can replace the IP in the current Internet infrastructure.

5 Sensor Networks / Seismic detection

6 Naming in ABC Similarity property

7 Pros and Cons  Pros In certain applications I am not interested in communicating with a specific peer. No need for unique ID for each node  May use only local / temporary ID No need for name resolution (DNS) User friendly (natural for users)  Cons Security  No way to identify sender/receiver Limitation in expression of attributes  Only can use attributes which are specified in routing scheme No Point to point guarantee for delivery  E.g., If you send data to the Attribute “A ”, you are not sure whether this message reached to each node or not.

8 What services does ABC require?  Naming Level of abstraction  A naming strategy that will enable clustering and grouping…to enable router ….  Directory service To keep track of the gather data.  Routing

9 2 Proposed Architectures 1.Attribute-Numbers Based Architecture 2.The Family Hierarchal Architecture.

10 1. Attribute-Numbers Based Architecture Each region will map to certain number range Each peer will have a unique number and attribute to number mapping Temp=15 -  <Temp<  0<Temp<100 10<Temp<20 Temp=15 200<Temp<300

11

12 App 1. Attribute-Numbers Based Architecture The process of Mapping the attribute into number is transparent to the user. The mapping process is done by the routers. (No DNS is involved )(No DB !) The Challenge in designing an efficient algorithm in the routers that can do the mapping ! (a magical algorithm to map million of names to certain numbers !)

13 What is missing ? Problems !  Scalability How many attributes to support May only support a small set of attributes in local area.  Dynamics of contents/attributes Routing scheme have to handle dynamics of contents/attributes What is missing  Ours Mechanism to create network structure / topology based on attribute Mechanism to adapt to dynamically changing contents/attributes

14 2.The Family Hierarchal Architecture. 3b 1d 3a 1c 2a AS3 AS1 AS2 1a 2c 2b 1b Intra-AS Routing algorithm Inter-AS Routing algorithm Forwarding Table (PEERING) 3c

15 Close look into the Internet Architecture The Internet is a network of networks. It is a network of ISP networks. The peers must be customers of one of these ISPs. There is a peering relationship among these ISP.

16 2.The Family Hierarchal Architecture. 3b 1d 3a 1c 2a Family 1 (ISP1) Family 2 ISP 2 Family 3 ISP 3 1a 2c 2b 1b Intra-Family communication Family-to Family Communications- Relations 3c

17 2. The Family Hierarchal Architecture If we look at the family Hierarchy

18 2. The Family Hierarchal Architecture No Name to Number mapping. The ISP are the Families ! All the peers are members of the ISP (members of the same family). Depends only on the naming property as a routing mechanism. I need to know the Family name (ISP name )+ the peer name of the other peer. Problems: Need efficient naming mechanism ! Which alphabets to deploy ! (The English characters (as currently in the URL ) 2 names to remember! Currently I need to remember 1. Uniqueness in name is no more big issue, except if I am in the same ISP (Domain ).

19 Our opinion: Challenges appears on designing algorithms to make these predicates reflect the user characteristics such as the place, interests area,and to be able to form “Subnets” (grouping )of these attributes. Remember how the IP addresses are grouped into subnet due to the fact that they are “Numerical based “presentation method…But in case of attributes??