dedicated to discussion of ideas for a new Internet architecture
It’s nice to see the press taking an interest in GENI and FIND. The Associated Press released an article on future internet design yesterday, one that was featured on the website Digg:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070413-1017-rebuildingtheinternet.html
Hi all, I thought I’d post my final project for the CSE570 course. I’m doing this because I think it’s not too shabby 
, but also because I’d be interested if other members of Class CSE570 of ‘06 were to post theirs. I’m sure it makes good reading, but on a more selfish note I had to leave before the 18th so I missed presentations on that day. So to kick off the dare, here is mine: http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~harri/stuff/SimulationMetanet.pdf
Read the rest of this entry »
Active Networks are definitely a computer scientist’s take on what networking could be. Scott Nettles of UT Austin and I wrote up some history and context in a paper, reachable at: http://repository.upenn.edu/cis_papers/46/ and give some visions for futures. While the name “Active Networking” evokes a variety of responses in the networking community, I believe the reality is far more compelling than the perception.
Best,
-JMS
GENI has revived interest in virtual infrastructures. Some of the proposals for active networking - see http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jms/switchware.pdf - included applications which would be realizable with a programmable virtual infrastructure. The applications in Section 3 of this technical paper from 1996 were far-fetched at the time but illustrate both the variety and capability achievable from a distributed systems view of networking.
Key questions: (1) are these (or similar) applications still hard to realize? (I think so, but am always eager to be educated), and (2) how would they (or similar) applications be realized with GENI.
-JMS
I have a question about one of the design principles from NewArch report, specifically the one implying the concept of no per-flow state in the network.
I was thinking about the paper we read last week in the networking seminar. In it, there were several examples of possible use of per flow state in routers. One was congestion control for video streaming, one was peer-to-peer traffic detection (even if the methodology was very imprecise) and the other one was traffic measurement. The authors mentioned that these services could also be implemented in other ways (e.g.: congestion control could be implemented through the addition of a priority field in the packet format), but the use of state information would offer more flexibility.
I was wondering whether the “fate-sharing” design principle implies that per flow state should not be used to implement this kind of services on network routers.
This site is concerned with the development of architectural innovations relating to the Internet. It is being used in the context of a new course CSE 570 - Reinventing the Internet, and will accumulate content as the semester proceeds. Anyone interested is welcome to join in, but you will need to register first (use the “Register” link in the “Meta” sidebar).