Archive for the 'Future' Category

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):

http://www.caida.org/publications/presentations/2014/internet_architecture_innovation_duke/

Comment In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

Monday, September 22nd, 2014 by kc

From the executive summary of public comment to FCC GN Docket No. 14-28., Approaches to transparency aimed at minimizing harm and maximizing investment (by David Clark, Steve Bauer, and kc claffy):

Embedded in a challenging legal and historical context, the FCC must act in the short term to address concerns about harmful discriminatory behavior. But its actions should be consistent with an effective, long-term approach that might ultimately reflect a change in legal framing and authority. In this comment we do not express a preference among short-term options, e.g., section 706 vs. Title II. Instead we suggest steps that would support any short-term option chosen by the FCC, but also inform debate about longer term policy options. Our suggestions are informed by recent research on Internet connectivity structure and performance, from technical as well as business perspectives, and our motivation is enabling fact-based policy. Our line of reasoning is as follows.

  1. Recent discourse about Internet regulation has focused on whether or how to regulate discrimination rather than on its possible harms and benefits. For four reasons, we advocate explicit attention to possible harms, their causes, and means to prevent them. First, the court has stated that while the FCC cannot ban traffic discrimination unless it reclassifies Internet access providers under Title II, the FCC does have the authority to remedy harms. Second, a focus on harms provides a possible way to govern specialized services, which are currently not subject to traffic management constraints. Third, if the FCC chooses Title II, it will open up many questions about which parts to enforce, which will require a discussion of the harms vs. benefits of selective forbearance. Fourth, any new regulatory framework would be well-served by a thorough understanding of
    potential harms and benefits that result from behavior of various actors.
  2. (more…)

NSF Future Internet Architecture (Next Phase) PI Meeting

Thursday, June 5th, 2014 by Josh Polterock

On 19-20 May 2014, the NSF Computer and Network Systems (CNS) Core Programs hosted a kickoff meeting in Washington D.C. for the next phase of the Future Internet Architectures Program. The program funds three projects for an additional two years each to create and demonstrate prototype implementations of their architecture protocol suites and test and evaluate them in one or more relevant application environments. The meeting allowed the projects to present overviews of their architectures and the environments in which they plan to test them, as well as their thoughts on how their architecture may shift the balance of power among players in the Internet ecosystem, and other ideas on how to evaluate their architecture’s benefits and incentives to deploy. CAIDA participates in the Named-Data Networking Project (NDN), one of the three projects that receive funding from the FIA NP Program. The NDN team’s presentations at this meeting are posted at http://named-data.net/publications/presentations/.

NDN for humans

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014 by kc

Recently posted to the Named-Data Networking site:

In an attempt to lower the barriers to understanding this revolutionary (as well as evolutionary) way of looking at networking, three recently posted documents are likely to answer many of your questions (and inspire a few more):

(1) Almost 5 years ago, Van gave a 3+ hour tutorial on Content-Centric Networking for the Future Internet Summer School (FISS 09) hosted by the University of Bremen in Germany. We finally extracted an approximate transcript of this goldmine and are making it available, along with pointers to the slides and (4-part) video of his tutorial hosted by U. Bremen.

(Our FAQ answers the commonly asked question of How does NDN differ from Content-Centric Networking (CCN))

(2) A short (8-page) technical report, Named Data Networking, introducing the Named Data Networking architecture. (A version of this report will appear soon in ACM Computer Communications Review.)

(3) Another technical report exploring he potential social impacts of NDN: A World on NDN: Affordances & Implications of the Named Data Networking Future Internet Architecture. This paper highlights four departures from today’s TCP/IP architecture, which underscore the social impacts of NDN: the architecture’s emphases on enabling semantic classification, provenance, publication, and decentralized communication. These changes from TCP/IP could expand affordances for free speech, and produce positive outcomes for security, privacy and anonymity, but raise new challenges regarding data retention and forgetting. These changes might also alter current corporate and law enforcement content regulation mechanisms by changing the way data is identified, handled, and routed across the Web.

We welcome feedback on these and any NDN publications.

2001:deba:7ab1:e::effe:c75

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013 by Robert Beverly

[This blog entry is guest written by Robert Beverly at the Naval Postgraduate School.]

In many respects, the deployment, adoption, use, and performance of IPv6 has received more recent attention than IPv4. Certainly the longitudinal measurement of IPv6, from its infancy to the exhaustion of ICANN v4 space to native 1% penetration (as observed by Google), is more complete than IPv4. Indeed, there are many vested parties in (either the success or failure) of IPv6, and numerous IPv6 measurement efforts afoot.

Researchers from Akamai, CAIDA, ICSI, NPS, and MIT met in early January, 2013 to firstly share and make sense of current measurement initiatives, while secondly plotting a path forward for the community in measuring IPv6. A specific objective of the meeting was to understand which aspects of IPv6 measurement are “done” (in the sense that there exists a sound methodology, even if measurement should continue), and which IPv6 questions/measurements remain open research problems. The meeting agenda and presentation slides are archived online.

(more…)

The 2nd NDN Project Retreat

Sunday, February 5th, 2012 by kc

I kicked off 2012 with a visit to Colorado State University in Fort Collins, CO to attend the principal investigators (PI) retreat for the Named Data Networking Project, one of four projects funded under NSF’s “Future Internet Architecture” (FIA) program. Impressive progress since the first FIA meeting, with substantial development and coordination of the NDN Testbed connecting the initial participating institutions, including network status reporting, state of (phase-one) OSPF routing, and testbed status pages. This two-day meeting packed in a wide range of collaborative discussions of architecture and implementation issues, including: topology and namespace structure and constraints; organizational structure and network management; routing and forwarding strategy; security issues such as attribution and privacy; early experiences with application development; evaluation and measurement; social and ethical values in technology design; and educational outreach (classes teaching NDN concepts). We also discussed how to dispel the misconception that NDN is simply collaborative web caching. (The caching is essential but the most revolutionary piece of this new communication model is retrieving data by names.)

(more…)

Unsolicited Internet Traffic from Libya

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 by Emile Aben

Amidst the recent political unrest in the Middle East, researchers have observed significant changes in Internet traffic and connectivity. In this article we tap into a previously unused source of data: unsolicited Internet traffic arriving from Libya. The traffic data we captured shows distinct changes in unsolicited traffic patterns since 17 February 2011.

Most of the information already published about Internet connectivity in the Middle East has been based on four types of data:

(more…)

my first “Future Internet Architecture” PI meeting

Wednesday, January 5th, 2011 by kc

Among the interesting meetings I attended in 2010 was the principal investigators (PI) meeting for NSF’s new “Future Internet Architecture” (FIA) program. The FIA program builds on the successes of NSF’s previous Future Internet Design (FIND) program, the recommendations of a review panel, and a community summit in October 2009. (The FIND program itself has been integrated into NSF’s new Network Science and Engineering research program, while the four FIA teams are attempting to implement some of the ideas developed thus far.) CAIDA is participating in one of these projects — Named Data Networking (NDN), led by Van Jacobson at Xerox Parc and Lixia Zhang at UCLA. (Background links to 2010 technical report describing the proposed architecture, Van’s August 2006 video lecture and 2009 ACM Queue Q&A on NDN ideas.)

(more…)

Growth trends in the AS-level Internet

Friday, May 7th, 2010 by Amogh Dhamdhere

We have studied growth trends in the number of ASes seen advertised in the global routing system from different regional registries (similar to Geoff Huston’s 32-bit AS Number Report, but with per-registry trends). We used Routeviews and RIPE BGP dumps over the last 12 years, and Team Cymru’s WHOIS lookup service to map ASNes to registries as of March 2010. To our knowledge, historical data to map an ASN to a regional registry at any given time in the past is not available, so we cannot account for ASN movement between registries. More information about the data collection and pre-processing is in our IMC 2008 paper, “Ten Years in the Evolution of the Internet Ecosystem” and our supplemental data page.

(more…)

‘academic’ thoughts about a ‘future Internet’

Monday, October 12th, 2009 by kc

This post is our submitted response to NSF’s call for expressions of interest in the Future Internet Architectures summit, which i am attending this week.

What scientific contributions will you bring to the discussion about Future Internet architectures?

As scientists, we are compelled to explore how the peculiar structure relates to the function(s) of complex networks. Many complex networks in nature share the peculiar structural character of the Internet, but they also manifest phenomenal behavior: they efficiently route information without any observable routing protocol overhead. This achievement is currently beyond the reach of man-made networks. The Internet still uses a 30-year old routing architecture with fundamentally unscalable overhead requirements.  Yet in those 30 years, the Internet’s inter-domain topology has evolved toward a structure for which nature has superior routing technology, if only we can figure out how to use it!

(more…)