skip to main content
10.1145/1868447.1868453acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

HTTP as the narrow waist of the future internet

Published:20 October 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Over the past decade a variety of network architectures have been proposed to address IP's limitations in terms of flexible forwarding, security, and data distribution. Meanwhile, fueled by the explosive growth of video traffic and HTTP infrastructure (e.g., CDNs, web caches), HTTP has became the de-facto protocol for deploying new services and applications. Given these developments, we argue that these architectures should be evaluated not only with respect to IP, but also with respect to HTTP, and that HTTP could be a fertile ground (more so than IP) for deploying the newly proposed functionalities. In this paper, we take a step in this direction, and find that HTTP already provides many of the desired properties for new Internet architectures. HTTP is a content centric protocol, provides middlebox support in the form of reverse and forward proxies, and leverages DNS to decouple names from addresses. We then investigate HTTP's limitations, and propose an extension, called S-GET that provides support for low-latency applications, such as VoIP and chat.

References

  1. Akamai DDoS Mitigation. http://www.dlt.com/akamai-ddos.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. DNS-O-Matic. http://dnsomatic.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Squid Web Cache. http://www.squid-cache.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2009--2014, 2010. http://tinyurl.com/3p7v28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Adobe. HTTP Dynamic Streaming. http://www.adobe.com/products/httpdynamicstreaming/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Alex Russell. Comet: Low Latency Data For Browsers. http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/wp-content/LowLatencyData.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. A. Alinone. Concrete Comet Examples. Comet Daily (cometdaily.com). http://cometdaily.com/2009/10/23/concrete-comet-examples/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. D. G. Andersen, H. Balakrishnan, N. Feamster, T. Koponen, D. Moon, and S. Shenker. Accountable internet protocol (aip). In ACM SIGCOMM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K. Argyraki and D. R. Cheriton. Active Internet Traffic Filtering: Real-time Response to Denialof-Service Attacks. In USENIX, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. H. Balakrishnan, K. Lakshminarayanan, et al. A layered naming architecture for the internet. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. H. Ballani, Y. Chawathe, S. Ratnasamy, T. Roscoe, and S. Shenker. Off by Default! In ACM HotNets, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. R. J. Bayardo and J. Sorensen. Merkle tree authentication of HTTP responses. In WWW '05. ACM, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. R. Cheriton and M. Gritter. Triad: A scalable deployable nat-based internet architecture. In Stanford Computer Science Technical Report, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. Demmer, K. Fall, T. Koponen, and S. Shenker. Towards a modern communications api. In HotNets-VI, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. K. Fall. A Delay-Tolerant Network Architecture for Challenged Internets. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. Fielding, J. Gettys, J. Mogul, H. Frystyk, L. Masinter, P. Leach, and T. Berners-Lee. HTTP/1.1. RFC 2616 (Draft Standard), June 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. B. Ford and J. Iyengar. Breaking Up the Transport Logjam. In HotNets, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. C. Gaspard, S. Goldberg, W. Itani, E. Bertino, and C. Nita-Rotaru. SINE: Cache-Friendly Integrity for the Web. Workshop on NPSec, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. P. B. Godfrey, I. Ganichev, et al. Pathlet routing. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. Guha and P. Francis. An End-Middle-End Approach to Connection Establishment. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Handley and A. Greenhalgh. Steps towards a dos-resistant internet architecture. In FDNA '04, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Internet Draft. RFC1633 - Int. Services in the Internet Architecture, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Internet Draft. RFC1992 - The Nimrod Routing Architecture, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Internet Draft. RFC2475 - An Architecture for Differentiated Services, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Internet Draft. RFC3344 - IP Mobility Support for IPv4, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. J. Ioannidis and S. M. Bellovin. Implementing Pushback: Router-Based Defense Against DDoS Attacks. In NDDS, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. V. Jacobson, D. K. Smetters, J. D. Thornton, M. F. Plass, N. H. Briggs, and R. L. Braynard. Networking Named Content. In CoNEXT, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. T. Koponen, M. Chawla, B.-G. Chun, et al. A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. C. Labovitz, S. Iekel-Johnson, D. McPherson, J. Oberheide, and F. Jahanian. Internet Inter-domain Traffic. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Microsoft. Smooth Streaming. http://www.iis.net/expand/SmoothStreaming.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander, P. Jokela, and T. Henderson. Host identity protocol, draft-moskowitz-hip-08. In IETF draft, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Nate Anderson. P2P traffic drops as streaming video grows in popularity. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/p2p-traffic-drops-as-streaming-video-grows-in-popularity.ars.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. A. M. Odlyzko. Internet traffic growth: sources and implications. volume 5247, pages 1--15. SPIE, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. L. Popa, N. Egi, S. Ratnasamy, and I. Stoica. Building Extensible Networks with Rule-Based Forwarding. In USENIX OSDI, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. L. Popa, A. Ghodsi, and I. Stoica. HTTP as the NarrowWaist of the Future Internet. UCB Technical Report, 2010. http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/%7Epopa/httpTechReport.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. J. Rosenberg. UDP and TCP as the New Waist of the Internet Hourglass. IETF Draft 08. http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass-00.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. S. Deering. Multicast Routing in a Datagram Internetwork, 1991. PhD thesis. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. E. Schonfeld. Cisco: By 2013 Video Will Be 90 Percent Of All Consumer IP Traffic And 64 Percent of Mobile, 2009. http://tinyurl.com/nw8jxg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. H. Schulze and K. Mochalski. Ipoque internet study 2008/2009. www.ipoque.com/resources/internet-studies/internet-study-2008_2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. A. Seehra, J. Nous, M. Walfish, D. Mazieres, A. Nicolosi, and S. Shenker. A Policy Framework for the Future Internet. In ACM Hotnets, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. D. K. Smetters and V. Jacobson. Securing network content. In PARC TR, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. I. Stoica, D. Adkins, S. Zhuang, S. Shenker, and S. Surana. Internet Indirection Infrastructure. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. A.-J. Su, D. R. Choffnes, A. Kuzmanovic, and F. E. Bustamante. Drafting behind Akamai (travelocity-based detouring). ACM SIGCOMM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. D. L. Tennenhouse, J. M. Smith, W. D. Sincoskie, D. J. Wetherall, and G. J. Minden. A Survey of Active Network Research. IEEE Comm., 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. P. Vixie and et al. Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System. RFC 2136, 1997. Updated by RFCs 3007, 4035, 4033, 4034.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. M. Walfish, H. Balakrishnan, and S. Shenker. Untangling the web from DNS. In NSDI'04, pages 17--17, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. M. Walfish, J. Stribling, M. Krohn, H. Balakrishnan, R. Morris, and S. Shenker. Middleboxes no longer considered harmful. In OSDI, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. W. Xu and J. Rexford. MIRO: Multi-path Interdomain ROuting. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. X. Yang, D. J. Wetherall, and T. Anderson. A DoS-limiting Network Architecture. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    Hotnets-IX: Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks
    October 2010
    136 pages
    ISBN:9781450304092
    DOI:10.1145/1868447

    Copyright © 2010 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 20 October 2010

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate110of460submissions,24%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader