Plutarch: an argument for network pluralism

ABSTRACT

It is widely accepted that the current Internet architecture is insufficient for the future: problems such as address space scarcity, mobility and non-universal connectivity are already with us, and stand to be exacerbated by the explosion of wireless, ad-hoc and sensor networks. Furthermore, it is far from clear that the ubiquitous use of standard transport and name resolution protocols will remain practicable or even desirable.In this paper we propose Plutarch, a new inter-networking architecture. It subsumes existing architectures such as that determined by the Internet Protocol suite, but makes explicit the heterogeneity that contemporary inter-networking schemes attempt to mask. To handle this heterogeneity, we introduce the notions of context and interstitial function, and describe a supporting architecture. We discuss the benefits, present some potential scenarios, and consider the research challenges posed.

References

1. ADJIE-WINOTO, W., SCHWARTZ, E., BALAKRISHNAN, H., AND LILLEY, J. The Design and Implementation of an Intentional Naming System. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGOPS Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (December 1999), pp. 186--201.
2. ANDERSEN, D. G., BALAKRISHNAN, H., KAASHOEK, M. F., AND MORRIS, R. Resilient Overlay Networks. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles (SOSP'01), Banff, Canada (October 2001).
3. BIRMAN, K. The Surprising Power of Epidemic Communication. In Proceedings, Workshop on Future Directions in Distributed Computing (FuDiCo 2002). Bertinoro, Italy (June 2002), Spinger-Verlag.
4. BRADEN, R., CLARK, D., SHENKER, S., AND WROCLAWSKI, J. Developing a Next-Generation Internet Architecture, July 2000. Whitepaper, available at http://www.isi.edu/newarch/DOCUMENTS/WhitePaper.ps.
5. BRADEN, R., FABER, T., AND HANDLEY, M. From Protocol Stack to Protocol Heap --- Role-Based Architecture. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-I) (October 2002).
6. BUSH, R., AND MEYER, D. Some Internet Architectural Guidelines and Philosophy. RFC 3439, IETF, Dec. 2002.
7. Carpenter, B., and Brim, S. Middleboxes: Taxonomy and Issues. RFC 3234, IETF, Feb. 2002.
8. CASTINEYRA, I., CHIAPPA, N., AND STEENSTRUP, M. The Nimrod Routing Architecture. RFC 1992, IETF, Aug. 1996.
9. CHAKRAVORTY, R., CARTWRIGHT, J., AND PRATT, I. Practical experience with TCP over GPRS. In Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM 2002 (2002).
10. CHERITON, D., AND GRITTER, M. TRIAD: A new next generation Internet architecture, March 2000. Available from http://www-dsg.stanford.edu/triad/triad.ps.gz.
11. CLARK, D. The design philosophy of the DARPA internet protocols. Computer Communication Review 18, 4 (Aug. 1988), 106--114. Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 1988.
12. FALL, K. A Delay-Tolerant Network Architecture for Challenged Internets. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Karlsruhe, Germany (August 2003).
13. FELDMEIER, D., MCAULEY, A., SMITH, J., BAKIN, D., MARCUS, W., AND RALEIGH, T. Protocol Boosters. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication (JSAC) 16, 3 (Apr. 1998), 437--444. Special Issue on Protocol Architectures for 21st Century.
14. FRANCIS, P., AND GUMMADI, R. IPNL: A NAT-Extended Internet Architecture. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, San Diego, CA (August 2001).
15. GRITTER, M., AND CHERITON, D. R. An Architecture for Content Routing Support in the Internet. In Proceedings of 3rd USENIX Symposium on Internet Techologies and Systems (USITS'01) (March 2001), pp. 37--48.
16. HILL, J., SZEWCZYK, R., WOO, A., HOLLAR, S., CULLER, D. E., AND PISTER, K. S. J. System architecture directions for networked sensors. In Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (2000), pp. 93--104.
17. MORTIER, R., ISAACS, R., AND FRASER, K. Switchlets and resource-assured MPLS networks. Tech. Rep. UCAM-CL-TR-510, University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory, May 2000.
18. NAKAO, A., PETERSON, L., AND BAVIER, A. Constructing End-to-End Paths for Playing Media Objects. In 2001 IEEE Open Architectures and Network Programming Proceedings (Ancorage, AK USA, Apr. 2001), pp. 117--128.
19. NG, T. S. E., STOICA, I., AND ZHANG, H. A Waypoint Service Approach to Connect Heterogeneous Internet Address Spaces. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, Boston, MA (June 2001).
20. RENESSE, R. V., AND BIRMAN, K. P. Protocol composition in horus. Tech. Rep. TR95-1505, 29, 1995.
21. ROSENBERG, J., WEINBERGER, J., HUITEMA, C., AND MAHY, R. STUN -- Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through Network Address Translators (NATs). RFC 3489, IETF, Mar. 2003.
22. SALTZER, J. H. Naming and Binding of Objects. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 60: Operating Systems -- An Advanced Course, R. Bayer, R. M. Graham, and G. Seegmueller, Eds. Springer-Verlag, 1978, pp. 99--208.
23. SRISURESH, P., AND EGEVANG, K. Traditional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT). RFC 3022, IETF, Jan. 2001.
24. SRISURESH, P., KUTHAN, J., ROSENBERG, J., MOLITOR, A., AND RAYHAN, A. Middlebox communication architecture and framework. RFC 3303, IETF, Aug. 2002.
25. STOICA, I., ADKINS, D., ZHUANG, S., SHENKER, S., AND SURANA, S. Internet indirection infrastructure. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 2002, Pittsburgh, PA (August 2002).
26. TSCHUDIN, C., AND GOLD, R. Network pointers. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-I) (October 2002).
27. TURANYI, Z., VALKO, A., AND CAMPBELL, A. 4+4: An Architecture for Evolving the Internet Address Space Back Toward Transparency, 2003. submitted to ACM Computer Communicatinons Review (CCR).
28. VANDER LINDEN, R. The ANSA Naming Model. Tech. Rep. APM.1003.01, Architecture Projects Management (APM) Limited, May 1993.
29. VIXIE, P., ED., THOMSON, S., REKHTER, Y., AND BOUND, J. Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE). RFC 2136, IETF, Apr. 1997.
30. WROCLAWSKI, J. T. The Metanet. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Research Directions for the Next Generation Internet (1997). Whitepaper, available at http://www.cra.org/Policy/NGI/papers/wroklawWP.

• Networks