1 / 13

From “input” to “parameter”: The Topology Dichotomy in the Future Wireless Internet

From “input” to “parameter”: The Topology Dichotomy in the Future Wireless Internet. NSF FIND Mobility Workshop, Sep. 27, 2007 Ram Ramanathan BBN Technologies Cambridge, MA (ramanath@bbn.com). The 3 dimensions of FIND…. Medium = (Wired, Wireless) Motion = (Stationary, Mobile)

gaylord
Télécharger la présentation

From “input” to “parameter”: The Topology Dichotomy in the Future Wireless Internet

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. From “input” to “parameter”: The Topology Dichotomy in the Future Wireless Internet NSF FIND Mobility Workshop, Sep. 27, 2007 Ram Ramanathan BBN Technologies Cambridge, MA (ramanath@bbn.com)

  2. The 3 dimensions of FIND…. Medium = (Wired, Wireless) Motion = (Stationary, Mobile) Between = (Router and Host, Router and Router)

  3. … and 3 trends to consider Increasing Waveform Diversity Software Radios Mesh Networking

  4. (1) Increasing waveform diversity • Waveform: The transmission/reception technology used for wireless communications, especially with respect to modulation, coding, spreading etc. (in other words the “physical layer protocol”) • The diversity of available waveforms has been rapidly increasing • Beamforming • Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) • Ultra-wide Band (UWB) • Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) • Spectrum agility • Each is useful in its own way and very different from others • E.g. MIMO is great in multipath-rich urban environments, but introduces processing latency; UWB is high-capacity but short range • The link profile created by each of these is unique in terms of capacity, latency, error rate, variation in latency and error rate, volatility, etc.

  5. (2) Software - Agile - Cognitive Radios Ampl Ampl freq freq Spectrum-agile Radio Spectrum-agile Radio Source: Vanu Inc. • Software Radio • Signal processing functions in software and so easily changeable • Many kinds, depending upon where hardware/software boundary exists (software defined, soft) • Gnu Radio • Waveform Agile Radio • A particular way of using software radios • Sense environment and adapt transmission characteristics • Cognitive Radio • Knows about itself, environment, policies, needs • Use reasoning and learning Source: Mitola, IEEE MMC 1999

  6. (3) Ad hoc / Mesh Networks Many vendors Commerical Community wireless METRICOM UMTS Wireless ISPs IETF MANET WG 802.11s 802.16a DARPA GloMo, SUO DARPA FCS-C MNM,… DARPA Packet Radio DARPA SURAN Military JTRS JTRS 1970 2010 1990 2000 1980 • Sudden increase in IEEE standards bodies interested in ad hoc / mesh networks, community wireless, vendors, etc. • 802.11s, 802.16a, 802.15.5, 802.20 …. • Quite possible that the Internet will evolve to have a hybrid wired/wireless infrastructure • Wireless access points, special rooftop nodes, standardized wireless routers

  7. The emergence of the topology dichotomy

  8. Waveform agility to topology control Trend1: Waveform Diversity Waveform agility Highly diverse, flexible,definable links Trend 2: Agile/cognitive Radios Much more diverse and controllable topologies Trend 3: Mesh Networks Can do or Can do or ( and ) Can’t do if or

  9. Recall the 3 dimensions of FIND Medium = (Wired, Wireless) Motion = (Stationary, Mobile) Between = (Router and Host, Router and Router)

  10. The Dichotomy for Internet Routing Fundamentally changes how Internet routing works! Consider Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) for example Wired, Stationary, Router-Router Constraints Topology is a given OSPF Routes Wireless, Stationary/Mobile, Router-Router Constraints Topology Is a controllable parameter Create OSPF Negotiate Routes

  11. Impact Multi-homed High-capacity • Mesh networks may only be stubs in the Internet • As is commonly depicted in most pictures Internet Internet Mesh Network • But they could well be transit networks too?! • Increasing performance equality with wired networks may make them tempting alternate paths especially in regions of poor wireline connectivity (rural/remote areas) • Is already being designed into the next generation U.S military networks • Waveform/link/topology agility and definability has a major impact on the architecture if the latter happens • Should a new architecture consider this possibility?

  12. Architectural Implications • Instead of abstraction and hiding details of lower layers, the entire system must be cognizant of and exploit physical layer flexibility • Cross-layer and beyond to new layering • Routing protocols should be able to control the topology of the wireless part of the network • Should be able to vary the communication waveforms and create desirable topologies • “Made to order” links supported by cross-layer or new stack approaches • Transport protocols should incorporate feedback control mechanisms that are adaptive to a wide range of underlying-media characteristics • A rich API or, even better, a control/knowledge plane that allows for a dialogue between routing and physical layer

  13. Summary • Wireless router-router links will likely be a part of the future Internet topology • Three trends are in play with significant combined impact • Waveform diversity • Agile/cognitive radios • Mesh networks • Diverse, agile, controllable, tradeoff-able links…. • are not part of current Internet architecture…. • but need to be in order to exploit the resources to the fullest • Next generation architecture should allow for a high degree of flexibility, adaptivity • Rethink layering • Rethink the notion of “interfaces”/“links” not just as “input” but also a “parameter” • Think topology control

More Related