Archive for the 'Updates' Category

Report from the 2nd NDN Community Meeting (NDNcomm 2015)

Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 by kc

The report for the Second NDN Community Meeting (NDNcomm 2015) is available online now. The meeting, held at UCLA in Los Angeles, California on September 28-29, 2015, provided a platform for attendees from 63 institutions across 13 countries to exchange recent NDN research and development results, to debate existing and proposed functionality in NDN forwarding, routing, and security, and to provide feedback to the NDN architecture design evolution.

[The workshop was partially supported by the National Science Foundation CNS-1345286, CNS-1345318, and CNS-1457074. We thank the NDNcomm Program Committee members for their effort of putting together an excellent program. We thank all participants for their insights and feedback at the workshop.]

Recent papers on policy

Wednesday, October 21st, 2015 by kc

We recently posted two papers on policy that are worth highlighting:

Anchoring policy development around stable points: an approach to regulating the co-evolving ICT ecosystem, published in Telecommunications Policy, Aug 2015.


The daunting pace of innovation in the information and communications technology (ICT) landscape, a landscape of technology and business structure, is a well-known but under-appreciated reality. In contrast, the rate of policy and regulatory innovation is much slower, partly due to its inherently more deliberative character. We describe this disparity in terms of the natural rates of change in different parts of the ecosystem, and examine why it has impeded attempts to impose effective regulation on the telecommunications industry. We explain why a recent movement to reduce this disparity by increasing the pace of regulation – adaptive regulation – faces five obstacles that may hinder its feasibility in the ICT ecosystem. As a means to achieve more sustainable regulatory frameworks for ICT industries, we introduce an approach based on finding stable points in the system architecture. We explore the origin and role of these stable points in a rapidly evolving system, and argue that they can provide a means to support development of policies, including adaptive regulation approaches, that are more likely to survive the rapid pace of evolution in technology.

Full paper available on the CAIDA website.
Accompanying slides are also available.

Adding Enhanced Services to the Internet: Lessons from History
Presented at the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference (TPRC), Sep 2015.


We revisit the last 35 years of history related to the design and specification of Quality of Service (QoS) on the Internet, in hopes of offering some clarity to the current debates around service differentiation. We describe the continual failure to get QoS capabilities deployed on the public Internet, including the technical challenges of the 1980s and 1990s, the market-oriented (business) challenges of the 1990s and 2000s, and recent regulatory challenges. Our historical perspective draws on, among other things, our own work from the 1990s that offered proposals for supporting enhanced services using the Internet Protocol (IP) suite, and our attempts to engage both industry and policymakers in understanding the dynamics of the Internet ecosystem. In short, the engineering community successfully developed protocols and mechanisms to implement enhanced services (QoS), and a few individual service providers have deployed them internally or in trusted two-party scenarios. The long-standing failure has been to deploy this capability across the public Internet.

We reflect on lessons learned from the history of this failure, the resulting tensions and risks, and their implications for the future of Internet infrastructure regulation. First, the continued failure of QoS over the last three decades derives from political and economic (business) obstacles as well as technical obstacles. The competitive nature of the industry, and a long history of anti-trust regulation (at least in the U.S.) conflicts with the need for competing providers to agree on protocols that require sharing operational data with each other to parameterize and verify committed service qualities. Second, QoS technology can yield benefits as well as harms, so policymaking should focus on harms rather than mechanisms. To assure the benefit to consumers, regulators may need to require transparency about the state of congestion and provisioning on networks using such mechanisms. Third, using QoE as the basis for any regulation will require research, tools and capabilities to measure, quantify, and characterize QoE, and developing metrics of service quality that better reflect our understanding of QoS and QoE for a range of applications. Finally, profound shifts in interconnection arrangements suggest a reshaping of the debate over QoS on the public Internet. Some access networks are interconnecting their private IP-based network platforms to support enhanced services, and using this interconnected platform to vertically integrate infrastructure and applications. Access networks are also connecting directly to large content providers to minimize the risk of performance impairments. These changes trigger new regulatory concerns over the fate of the public Internet, including capital investment incentives and gaps across different bodies of law.

Barriers to the deployment of scalable interprovider QoS may be unsurmountable, but since any Internet of the future will face them, it is worth developing a systematic understanding to the challenge of enhanced services, and documenting successes and failures over the history of the Internet as carefully as possible.

Full paper available on the CAIDA website.

CAIDA’s Annual Report for 2014

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2015 by kc

[Executive Summary from our annual report for 2014:]

This annual report covers CAIDA’s activities in 2014, summarizing highlights from our research, infrastructure, data-sharing and outreach activities. Our research projects span Internet topology, routing, traffic, security and stability, future Internet architecture, economics and policy. Our infrastructure activities support measurement-based Internet studies, both at CAIDA and around the world, with focus on the health and integrity of the global Internet ecosystem.

Named Data Networking Next Phase (NDN-NP) Annual Report

Tuesday, June 30th, 2015 by kc

The Named Data Networking project recently published the NDN-NP annual report covering activities from May 2014 through April 2015.

V. Jacobson, J. Burke, L. Zhang, B. Zhang, K. Claffy, C. Papadopoulos, T. Abdelzaher, L. Wang, J. Halderman, and P. Crowley, “Named Data Networking Next Phase (NDN-NP) Project May 2014 – April 2015 Annual Report”, Tech. rep., Jun 2015.

This report catalogs a wide range of our accomplishments during the first year of the “NDN Next Phase (NDN-NP)” project. This phase of the project is environment-driven, in that we are focusing on deploying and evaluating the NDN architecture in two specific environments: building automation management systems and mobile health, together with a cluster of multimedia collaboration tools.

Workshop on Internet Economics (WIE2014) Final Report

Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 by kc

The final report for our Workshop on Internet Economics (WIE2014) is available for viewing. The abstract:

On December 10-11 2014, we hosted the 4th interdisciplinary Workshop on Internet Economics (WIE) at the UC San Diego’s Supercomputer Center. This workshop series provides a forum for researchers, Internet facilities and service providers, technologists, economists, theorists, policy makers, and other stakeholders to inform current and emerging regulatory and policy debates. The objective for this year’s workshop was a structured consideration of whether and how policy-makers should try to shape the future of the Internet. To structure the discussion about policy, we began the workshop with a list of potential aspirations for our future telecommunications infrastructure (a list we had previously collated), and asked participants to articulate an aspiration or fear they had about the future of the Internet, which we summarized and discussed on the second day. The focus on aspirations was motivated by the high-level observation that before discussing regulation, we must agree on the objective of the regulation, and why the intended outcome is justified. In parallel, we used a similar format as in previous years: a series of focused sessions, where 3-4 presenters each prepared 10-minute talks on issues in recent regulatory discourse, followed by in-depth discussions. This report highlights the discussions and presents relevant open research questions identified by participants.

See the full workshop report at

Slides from workshop presentations are available at

Draft white paper that motivated the workshop at:

RFC 7514 : Really Explicit Congestion Notification (RECN)

Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 by kc

I feel that somewhere up there Jon Postel is smiling about Matthew’s RFC 7514, published today:

The deployment of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] remains stalled. While most operating systems support ECN, it is currently disabled by default because of fears that enabling ECN will break transport protocols. This document proposes a new ICMP message that a router or host may use to advise a host to reduce the rate at which it sends, in cases where the host ignores other signals such as packet loss and ECN. We call this message the “Really Explicit Congestion Notification” (RECN) message because it delivers a less subtle indication of congestion than packet loss and ECN.

Mapping the Technological Frontier and Sources of Innovation

Friday, February 13th, 2015 by kc

Last weekend I had the honor of participating in a conference on “The Digital Broadband Migration: First Principles for a Twenty First Century Innovation Policy” hosted by the Silicon Flatirons Center at the University of Colorado. David Clark and I kicked off a panel on the topic of “Mapping the Technological Frontier and the Sources of Innovation”. The full video is archived on YouTube (Panel starts ~10m52s.) (slides here). A great conference hosted by a great organization (and a law school that seems like a wonderful place to teach and learn).

Report from the 1st NDN Community Meeting (NDNcomm)

Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 by admin

The report for the 1st NDN Community Meeting (NDNcomm) is available online now. This report, “The First Named Data Networking Community Meeting (NDNcomm)“, is a brief summary of the first NDN Community Meeting held at UCLA in Los Angeles, California on September 4-5, 2014. The meeting provided a platform for the attendees from 39 institutions across seven countries to exchange their recent NDN research and development results, to debate existing and proposed functionality in security support, and to provide feedback into the NDN architecture design evolution.

The workshop was supported by the National Science Foundation CNS-1457074, CNS-1345286, and CNS-1345318. We thank the NDNcomm Program Committee members for their effort of putting together an excellent program. We thank all participants for their insights and feedback at the workshop.

architecture innovation 2020 (and 2030)

Friday, October 17th, 2014 by kc

Today I participated as a panelist in the Internet Regulation 2020 hosted by Duke Law’s Center for Innovation Policy at the National Academy of Sciences. The questions for my panel were:

What are the most significant realistic changes in network architecture, capacity, and connectivity by 2020? In what ways might these developments be affected, perhaps even precluded, by regulatory policy? In what ways might these developments in turn affect regulatory policy? What are the costs and benefits of these developments and their possible regulation?

My slides (which link to related reading on last slide):

DRoP:DNS-based Router Positioning

Saturday, September 6th, 2014 by bradley

As part of CAIDA’s ongoing research into Internet topology mapping, we have been working on improving our ability to geolocate backbone router infrastructure. Determining the physical locations of Internet routers is crucial for characterizing Internet infrastructure and understanding geographic pathways of global routing, as well as for creating more accurate geographic-based maps. Current commercial geolocation services focus predominantly on geolocating clients and servers, that is, edge hosts rather than routers in the core of the network.

DRoP-process Figure 1, shows the inputs and steps used by the DRoP process to generate hostname decoding rules.

In a recent paper, DRoP:DNS-based Router Positioning, we presented a new methodology for extracting and decoding geography-related strings from fully qualified domain names (DNS hostnames). We first compiled an extensive dictionary associating geographic strings (e.g., airport codes) with geophysical locations. We then searched a large set of router hostnames for these strings, assuming each autonomous naming domain uses geographic hints consistently within that domain. We used topology and performance data continually collected by our global measurement infrastructure to ascertain whether a given hint appears to co-locate different hostnames in which it is found. Finally, we combine geolocation hints into domain-specific rule sets. We generated a total of 1,711 rules covering 1,398 different domains, and validated them using domain-specific ground truth we gathered for six domains. Unlike previous efforts that relied on labor-intensive domain-specific manual analysis, our process for inferring domain-specific heuristics is automated, representing a measurable advance in the state-of-the-art of methods for geolocating Internet resources.

DDec processFigure 2, shows how users interact with DDec to decode hostnames.

In order to provide a public interface and gather feedback on our inferences, we have developed DDec. DDec allows users to decode individual hostnames, exmaine rulesets for individual domains, and provide feedback on rulesets. In addition to DRoP’s inferences, we have also included undns rules.

For more details please review the paper or the slides.