1 / 33

A Self-Managed Scheme for Free Citywide Wi-Fi

A Self-Managed Scheme for Free Citywide Wi-Fi. Elias C. Efstathiou and George C. Polyzos Mobile Multimedia Laboratory Department of Computer Science Athens University of Economics and Business. WoWMoM-ACC, June 13, 2005. Outline. P2PWNC Overview and Motivation

tieve
Télécharger la présentation

A Self-Managed Scheme for Free Citywide Wi-Fi

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Self-Managed Scheme for Free Citywide Wi-Fi Elias C. Efstathiou and George C. Polyzos Mobile Multimedia Laboratory Department of Computer Science Athens University of Economics and Business WoWMoM-ACC, June 13, 2005

  2. Outline • P2PWNC Overview and Motivation • Background (hotspot market, P2P, and incentives in P2P) • P2PWNC Design Principles • P2PWNC Design • The NWAY Decision Algorithm • Simulations • Protocol and Implementation • Summary and Conclusions

  3. The Peer-to-Peer Wireless Network Confederation (P2PWNC) • A wireless LAN (WLAN) aggregation scheme • Unites WLANs in citywide [con]federations • Requires no authorities • Relies on reciprocity between peers • Motivation • Numerous WLANs, connected to the Internet, are within the range of passersby Manhattan WLANs, 2002 Skyhook Wireless Wi-Fi Positioning System (WPS) 1 of 25

  4. P2PWNC Motivation • Motivation (II) • Many WLANs are secured against outsiders • Need incentives to keep them open • Motivation (III) • WLAN-enabled mobile phones are on the market • Motivation (IV) • Public WLAN operators mainly target “hotspots” • Municipal wireless still in its infancy Motorola CN620 Nokia 9500 2 of 25

  5. The Rules of P2PWNC • P2PWNC: An incentives-based P2P system • Teamsprovide WLAN access to each other • Teams should provide in order to consume Blue team White team Green team : WLAN access point : team member WLAN view Team view 3 of 25

  6. Background

  7. The Public Hotspot Market • From Gartner: • 2001: 1200 public hotspots worldwide • 2003: 71000 public hotspots worldwide • 2005: 23500 WLANs in hotels worldwide • A subscription buys you (June 2005): • Sprint PCS: 19000 hotspots worldwide • Boingo Wireless: 17400 hotspots worldwide • T-Mobile HotSpot: 16663 hotspots worldwide • Skyhook Wireless data (2005): • 50000 WLANs in just 5 Massachusetts cities and towns (Watertown, Brookline, Roxbury, Newton, and Cambridge) 4 of 25

  8. P2P Systems • General term • Usually associated with file sharing systems • Also includes: • Grids (computation) • (Mobile) ad hoc networks (packet forwarding) • Distributed Hash Tables (scalable, fault-tolerant storage) • eBay-likecommunities (electronically mediated communities • of providers and consumers) • Distinctive characteristics • Peers act as both providers and consumers of resources • System relies on peer cooperation • Free-riding will prevail if: • there is a cost involved with providing resources • there are no authorities that can punish or reward • exclusion from consuming the shared resources is impossible 5 of 25

  9. Incentive Schemes for P2P (and representative papers) • Micropayments • Digitally signed tokens used as payment • Requires online bank to check for double spending (and to issue the credits) Yang, Garcia-Molina, “PPay: Micropayments for P2P Systems,” ACM CCS’03 • Tamperproof modules • Each peer maintains its own account balance • Increase when providing, decrease when consuming Buttyan, Hubaux, “Stimulating Cooperation in Self-Organizing MANETs,” ACM/Kluwer MONET 2003 • Multiple account holders • Other peers maintain a peer’s account balance • Use majority rule in case of disagreement Visnumurthy, Chandrakumar, Sirer, “Karma: A Secure Economic Framework for P2P Resource Sharing,” p2pecon’03 6 of 25

  10. P2PWNC Design Principles

  11. P2PWNC Design Principles • Why P2P? • A lot of underexploited WLANs out there set up by individuals • Hotspot operators (the corresponding “centralized model”): • operate only a small fraction of the WLANs out there • further segregate WLANs by competing for venues among themselves • Micropayments, tamperproof modules, multiple account holders: • Why choose another incentive scheme? • Require central authority (micropayments) • Are unrealistic (tamperproof modules) • Assume peers want to maintain accounts for others and/or perform auditing • by trying to encourage “account holding” we get back where we started • We need a simple incentive scheme that will encourage participation and cooperation even at the expense of accurate accounting 7 of 25

  12. N-way Exchanges • Adopt N-way exchanges as the incentive technique • A generalization of barter, which retains some of its simplicity • “Provide to those [who provided to those]* who provided to me” • A type of indirect reciprocity (sociology term) • Scales to larger populations, compared to direct-only exchanges • Does not require (central or distributed) authorities A B C D Some variants of the basic N-way scheme: Cox, Noble, “Samsara: Honor Among Thieves in P2P Storage,” SOSP’03 Ngan, Wallach, Druschel, “Enforcing Fair Sharing of P2P Resources, “ IPTPS’03 Anagnostakis, Greenwald, “Exchange-based Incentive Mechanisms for P2P File Sharing,” ICDCS’04 Feldman, Lai, Stoica, Chuang, “Robust Incentive Techniques for P2P Networks,” ACM EC’04 8 of 25

  13. P2PWNC Design

  14. System Entities • Team = Members + Access Points (APs) • Teams := P2PWNC peers • Assume intra-team trust • Team ID = (unique) PK-SK pair • Member certificate • Member ID = (unique) PK-SK pair • Member certificate binds Member PK to Team PK • Receipt • Encodes P2PWNC transactions between teams • Signed by consuming member • Receipt weight: amount of bytes the AP forwarded PK: public key SK: private key Member PK Team PK Signed by Team SK Team PK Member cert Timestamp Weight Signed by Member SK 9 of 25

  15. Receipt Generation 11:50am = t0 (member connects) 11:51am (P requests 1st receipt) CONN RREQ P P C C CACK RCPT RCPT timestamp = t0 RCPT weight = w1 11:52am (P requests 2nd receipt) 11:53am (member has departed) RREQ RREQ (timeout) P P C Receipt Repository RCPT RCPT RCPT timestamp = t0 RCPT weight = w2 > w1 P stores last receipt 10 of 25

  16. The Receipt Graph Directed weighted graph (with cycles) W1 F E Graph security Free-riders and colluders can create an arbitrary number of fake vertices and edges They cannot create fake outgoing edges starting from teams who are outside the colluding group (they do not have the relevant private keys) W2 W4 B W3 G W5 W6 W9 W7 W14 A I W8 H W13 W10 W11 D C W12 Vertices: team public keys Edge weight: sum of weights of corresponding receipts Edges point from the consuming team to the providing team 11 of 25

  17. Receipt Repository • Two options: • Centralized repository • Requires a well-known server that all teams can agree on • All receipts are visible by all teams • Server drops oldest receipts when full • Mostly used to gauge the effectiveness of decentralized repositories • Could have some practical importance • Decentralized repository • Each team maintains its own private repository • Fills it with receipts it receives during a WLAN transaction • And with receipts it receives when gossiping Gossiping algorithm: • Roamingmembers carry receipts from their team repositories • They present them to the teams they visit • With RSA-1024 keys, a receipt is about 650 bytes long • With ECC-160 keys, a receipt is about 150 bytes long 12 of 25

  18. Cooperation Strategies • Three cooperation strategies tested so far, each one: • Uses a different decision algorithm • Input: the receipt graph • Output: a decision of whether to provide service or not • May use a different gossiping algorithm (in the decentralized case) • Different ways to choose the receipts that roaming members present • May use a different bootstrapping algorithm • New teams need to provide before starting to consume • For how long, and to whom? • Specific decision algorithms include: • NWAY (assumes unit weights on receipts) • maxflow (borrowed from Feldman, Lai, Stoica, Chuang, “Robust Incentive Techniques for P2P Networks,” ACM EC’04) • gmf (generalized maximum flow) Progressively more robust against double-spending and collusion 13 of 25

  19. The NWAY Decision Algorithm • Searches for potential N-way exchanges • Red provides to Blueif there is a chain of receipts connecting Redto Blue • Redthen discards all receipts in the discovered chain X R: “B?” B Y Z G R Team PK Team PK Member cert Member cert Timestamp Timestamp Timestamp Timestamp Weight Weight Weight Weight Signed by Member SK Signed by Member SK 14 of 25

  20. NWAY: Space Requirements • Each team maintains 4 receipt repositories • IR – Incoming Receipts • OR – Outgoing Receipts • RR – Random Receipts • DR – Discarded Receipts • holding up to sIR, sOR, sRR, sDR entries • replacement rule: delete oldest receipt • Each team has a Time Horizon (TH) • When DR overflows, TH holds the timestamp of the receipt that was just evicted • TH and DR allow ignoring all discarded receipts (at a cost…) R’srepositories R R IR OR RR Hashes of discarded DR DR (filled to capacity) evictions discardings time THOLD THNEW 15 of 25

  21. NWAY Operation • Step 1. Provider searches for chain in merged repositories • Temporarily merge IRC, RRC, RRP, ORP • Consumer should carry IRC, RRC: space requirements? • Consumer information revelation: incentives? • Step 2. Provider discards receipts and updates TH • First receipt can simply be deleted from ORP • Provider may still want to send locally discarded receipts to its own roaming members • Step 3. Provider and consumer store new receipt • Consumer sends it to home ORC: incentives? • Step 4. Receipt dissemination (as a side-effect) • Provider updates RRP with receipts from IRC and RRC C is visiting P … … … … … … … … … C P … … IRC RRC+RRP ORP C P 16 of 25

  22. Evaluation Framework • Used to evaluate the performance of the 3 cooperation strategies against each other and against 3 strategies that do not rely on feedback (ALLC, ALLD, RAND) • Teams are randomly paired • 1 round: every team gets one chance to consume, one to provide • if a team decides to provide service, it loses c = 1 points • if a team is provided service by another team, it gains b = 7 points • Peers may learn – evolve towards the highest-rated strategy from the ones available • With probability proportional to the difference in rating • A strategy’s rating := • the average of the running average score/round of its followers • weighted according to how many rounds they have been using the strategy • We also simulate system growth • Start with two teams; a new team joins at the end of each round; teams never leave • NWAY parameters for the experiments that follow: • sIR = sRR = sDR = 100, sOR = 400 17 of 25

  23. NWAY against ALLC, ALLD 18 of 25

  24. NWAY against ALLC, ALLD, RAND 19 of 25

  25. NWAY against Traitors 20 of 25

  26. Design Summary 21 of 25

  27. P2PWNC Implementation

  28. P2PWNC Protocol Messages (1/2) • CONN • Sent by the roaming member to the AP • Contains the member certificate (base64-encoded) • CACK • Positive or negative response to connection request, sent by the AP • If positive, contains timestamp of session and public key of the providing team • RREQ • Request to sign a new receipt for this session, sent by the AP • Contains the volume of traffic, as measured by the AP 22 of 25

  29. P2PWNC Protocol Messages (2/2) • RCPT • Receipt (base64-encoded) • Sent by members to APs and by APs to the repository • UPDT (only in distributed repository mode) Request by member to home repository for an update with the latest receipts (newer than a timestamp) • QUER and QRES (algorithm specific) Communication between AP and home (or global) repository. The request contains the public keys of the (prospective) consuming and providing teams. The response contains a PROVIDE or DO_NOT_PROVIDE reply 23 of 25

  30. Linksys WRT54GS • Linux-based WLAN access point • We implemented the P2PWNC protocol (AP side) on it • 32 MB RAM, 8 MB Flash, 200 MHz CPU • Retails for less than $70 • Cryptographic, maxflow performance comparable to 200 MHz PC • Can act as home repository (storing more than 10000 receipts) 24 of 25

  31. Conclusion

  32. Final Points and Summary • Hurdle to P2PWNC deployment: ISP sharing prohibitions? • Centralized or decentralized deployments? • People living in the outskirts: will the notion of teams be enough to incorporate them? (In all 3 decision algorithms, teams end up having to provide approximately as much as they consume – how will this work within a team?) • We demonstrated a family of practical incentive techniques for WLAN sharing • Teams do not have to trust one another! • There are no hard service guarantees • More at http://mm.aueb.gr/research/p2pwnc/ 25 of 25

  33. Thanks! • Elias C. Efstathiou • Mobile Multimedia Laboratory • Department of Computer Science • Athens University of Economics and Business • http://mm.aueb.gr/people/efstath/

More Related