Network Virtualization as a Mean for Service Convergence for Future Communication Systems – What can we learn from Federated Experimental Facilities? K. Tutschku ([email protected]) Chair of Future Communication Prof. Dr. K. Tutschku Institute for Multimedia and Distributed Systems Faculty of Computer Science
Chair of Future Communication Prof. Dr. K. Tutschku Institute for Multimedia and Distributed Systems Faculty of Computer Science. Network Virtualization as a Mean for Service Convergence for Future Communication Systems – What can we learn from Federated Experimental Facilities?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Network Virtualization as a Mean for Service Convergence for Future Communication Systems –What can we learn from Federated Experimental Facilities?
Chair of Future CommunicationProf. Dr. K. Tutschku
Institute for Multimedia and Distributed SystemsFaculty of Computer Science
Future Internet?
?
Overview
The Internet under pressure
The success of the Internet
Network virtualization: virtual structures for convergent services
The GENI experimental facility
Performance issues of Transport Virtualization
Conclusion
Accessnetworks
Core networks
Internet under Pressure
Internet will become a network of applications, services und content
Services are the new central elements Convergence in usage
What changes hereof are anticipated for users, mechanisms and the future network architectures?
GSM
Teletext
Data service
Serviceprovider
Networkoperator
Services
Applications
class. national PTT
POTS Mobile
ISDN
Voice(wired)
Voice(cellular)
Reseller AReseller A
X.25 / FR
Networks under Change: Services
Limited convergence
GPRS
Web
IP service
Serviceprovider
Networkoperator
Services
Applications
A B C D E
IP Service Provider
POTS mobile
ATM/ MPLS
Limit convergence Internet Protocol (IP) is main converging layer
Networks under Change: Services
Deficiencies of the Current Internet
Performance (“World wide wait”)
However: No convergence; QoS islands with are available (depending on technology and provider)
Reliability:
Again: no convergence Availability of the Internet ´03: 93.2% − 99.6% Availability of POTS: 99.99% – 99.999% However: sophisticated resilience mechanisms available
at experienced ISP
Competition / business models:
J. Crowcroft: “… I can go on the web and get my gas, electricity, … changed , why is it not possible to get a SPOT price for broad-band internet?” (E2E-interest mailing list on April 26th, 2008); contracts prohibit change
No convergence; even technically infeasible
UMTS
Web. Unified communication appl.
IP Service
xDSL
WLAN
PSTN
Serviceprovider
Networkprovider
Services
Applications
Multi-Network Services
Voice
Overlays (e.g. Skype)
VideoMessa-
gingData
Limit convergence
Internet Protocol (IP) is main converging layer (but: hour glass model!)
Integration of different technical and administrative domains by virtual networks: Overlays Overcome deficiencies and implement new features Networks/overlays have to be (self-)organized for the services
A B C D E
IP Service Provider
Networks under Change: Services
Services will be offered and controlled from the edge („edge-based services“) Central services will be virtualized Boundaries between consumer and provider vanish (“prosumer”)
Symmetrical rolls require new architectures (ADSL?) and permit new business models („Peer productivity“)
Management of edge-based services? Optimal placement? Different user behavior? Dimensioning?
Which functions should be self-*?
?
?
provider at edge of network
Data/
Service
distributed centralized
Network-based provider (server)D
ata/ S
ervice
Data/
Service
Data/
Service
Data/
Service
Data/
Service
consumer at edge of network
Networks under Change: Services
Application-oriented and self-organizing overlays outperform current services
Support for resources contribution by arbitrary users: „Overlays for Cooperation/ Participation“
What is the performance of self-*? Scalability? Churn? Dynamical traffic patterns?
Networks under Change: Services
Head-quarter
ATME3
Management plane
Remote office
Servicerequest (FAX, Web)
„semi-manual“ provisioning
Networks under Change: Transport Systems
Control Plane
Head-quarter
IP layer
100GE layer
DWDM layer
EPON
auto. provisioning
Management Plane
State-of-the-art optical transport systems: Ultra-high transmission capacities; embedding of different transport network into one
physical network (multi-layer networks) Decay of CAPEX per Bit Increased automation self-* features (self-operation,
self-organization)
However: higher complexity („numerous overlays“?) How to achieve convergence?
auto. Signaling
Remote office
Multi-Layer-Networks
Networks under Change: Transport Systems
Success of the Current Internet
Efficient P2P-based, self-organizingcontent distribution networks
Ratio of data traffic types at
public access node
Data traffic by IP TV
P2P, 67,3%
eMail, 1,2%
FTP, 0,3%
other, 23,3%Web, 7,9%Quelle: Telefonica (2003)
Terrabytes per month
YouTube − world wide (Cisco est., May 2008) 100.000
P2P Video streaming in China (Jan. 2008) 33.000
YouTube − USA (Mai 2008) 30.500
US. Internet back bone at year end 2000 25.000
US. Internet back bone at year end 1998 6.000
Quelle: CISCO (2008)
Multi-Source Download (eDonkey, BT)
Publish X
Publish X
Que
ry X
Transfer of segment A
Offers file X
Offers file X
Peer
Index server
Looking for X
Que
ry X
Transfer of segment B
Publish X
Offers file X
P2P: two overlays (virtual structures) with different application layer functions (two basic P2P functions: searching / content exchange); each with different topology, addressing, and routing
Search function: able of self-contained re-organization of search mechanism
Downloading peer: self-initiated selection of providing peer (parallel routing of content) based on resource quality (throughput) select the best (multi-)path for the content
→ Self-operation of basic P2P functions among networks convergence is possible
Diversity I: Multi-Provider Environment
High diversity wrt. paths: Three North-american nation-wide ISPs
Tier1 (AS 3967 Exodus, AS3356 Level3, AS6467 Abovenet; M. Liljenstam et al., 2003)
Multiple routes for increased
resilience and compe-
tition are (theoretically) readily
available!
Network selection not available in
current IP no convergence
Any way: autonomous identi-fication
of available resources needed (Thanks to Michael Menth für vsualization)
East coastWest coast
Diversity II: Multi-Quality Environment
25% of paths violate the triangle inequality (wrt. packet delay) Measurements in PlanetLab by
S. Banerjee et al. (2004)
➞ Internet routing is far from optimal ➞ Better paths exist; capazity is readily
available ➞ Can be offered (competition)
➞ Again: autonomous identification of available resources needed
! „Multi-homing“ not really available current IP protocols
Safe: Strong isolation of resources, e.g. for testing and debugging
Individual and powerful: User see whole computing center as his own computer
Efficient: reduction of CAPEX (consolidation of multiple machines in a single
physical one) and OPEX (operational issue) Convergence of operating systems
Virtual Networks for Convergent Services
Build a „personal network (PN)” for an application (PN PC) Integration of different technologies and administrative domains Re-use of generic infrastructure on small time scale Push application-layer mechanisms safely down the stack