A Vision of the Next Generation Internet: A Policy Oriented Perspective

The host centric design of the current Internet does not recognize data and end-users as integral entities of the system. The first generation of Internet has been very successful and yet business, organizations, governments are finding it difficult to enforce their policies on their networks with the same ease that they do other methods of communications and transport. Ad-Hoc solutions e.g. firewalls, NAT, middle boxes etc, that tries to mitigate these issues end up providing localized myopic fixes which often hurt the basic underlying principles of the original design. The current Internet usage is “data centric” as evidenced by the popularity of the peer-to-peer applications. Data centric view abstracts a data requestor from having to know where the data comes from. We envision the future internet to be a dynamic, heterogeneous, secure, energy efficient omnipresent network flexible enough to support innovations and policy enforcements both at the edge and the core. The first step towards the next generation is the redesign of naming and name binding mechanisms. We, therefore, propose a Policy Oriented Network Architecture (PONA) and an abstract two part protocol stack with a virtualization layer in between. PONA provides a generic architecture which allows us to implement datacentric, host-centric, and user-centric Internet architecture. We also introduce the concept of generalized communication end-points – hosts, users, data/services, instantiate the ideas with the Mapping and Negotiation layer and provide an integrated framework for the next generation Internet. Both new Internets hope to develop new, faster technologies to enhance research and communication, and it is expected that both projects will eventually improve the current commercial Internet.

[1]  Renato Iannella,et al.  URN Namespace Definition Mechanisms , 1999, RFC.

[2]  Raouf Boutaba,et al.  Service naming in large-scale and multi-domain networks , 2005, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[3]  David D. Clark,et al.  FARA: reorganizing the addressing architecture , 2003, FDNA '03.

[4]  Pekka Nikander,et al.  Hi3: An efficient and secure networking architecture for mobile hosts , 2008, Comput. Commun..

[5]  Pekka Nikander,et al.  Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture , 2006, RFC.

[6]  R. Jain,et al.  A Survey of Naming Systems : Classification and Analysis of the Current Schemes Using a New Naming Reference Model , 2008 .

[7]  David Clark,et al.  New ARCH: Future Generation Internet Architecture , 2004 .

[8]  Michael Walfish,et al.  A layered naming architecture for the internet , 2004, SIGCOMM '04.

[9]  Pekka Nikander,et al.  Host Identity Indirection Infrastructure (Hi3) , 2004 .

[10]  Chinya V. Ravishankar,et al.  Name space models for locating services , 1991, CASCON.

[11]  Charles E. Perkins,et al.  IP Mobility Support for IPv4 , 2002, RFC.

[12]  Ion Stoica,et al.  ROFL: routing on flat labels , 2006, SIGCOMM '06.

[13]  Marco Furini,et al.  International Journal of Computer and Applications , 2010 .

[14]  Jon Postel,et al.  Internet Protocol , 1981, RFC.

[15]  Renato Iannella,et al.  Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition Mechanisms , 2002, RFC.

[16]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Internet indirection infrastructure , 2004, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[17]  Raj Jain,et al.  A vision of the next generation internet: a policy oriented perspective , 2008 .

[18]  Michael O'Dell,et al.  GSE - An Alternate Addressing Architecture for IPv6 , 1997 .

[19]  Jon Crowcroft,et al.  Plutarch: an argument for network pluralism , 2003, FDNA '03.

[20]  Michalis Faloutsos,et al.  PeerNet: Pushing Peer-to-Peer Down the Stack , 2003, IPTPS.

[21]  Paul V. Mockapetris,et al.  Domain names - implementation and specification , 1987, RFC.

[22]  Kevin R. Fall,et al.  A delay-tolerant network architecture for challenged internets , 2003, SIGCOMM '03.

[23]  Stephen E. Deering,et al.  Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification , 1995, RFC.

[24]  Ben Y. Zhao,et al.  Tapestry: a resilient global-scale overlay for service deployment , 2004, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[25]  Saikat Guha,et al.  NUTSS: A SIP based approach to UDP and TCP connectivity , 2004, Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication.

[26]  Jerome H. Saltzer,et al.  On the Naming and Binding of Network Destinations , 1993, RFC.

[27]  Raj Jain,et al.  MILSA: A Mobility and Multihoming Supporting Identifier Locator Split Architecture for Naming in the Next Generation Internet , 2008, IEEE GLOBECOM 2008 - 2008 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference.

[28]  Jürgen Falb,et al.  The Internet Protocol , 2005, The Industrial Information Technology Handbook.

[29]  Christian Huitema,et al.  STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through Network Address Translators (NATs) , 2003, RFC.

[30]  Antony I. T. Rowstron,et al.  Pastry: Scalable, Decentralized Object Location, and Routing for Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems , 2001, Middleware.

[31]  Mark Handley,et al.  SIP: Session Initiation Protocol , 1999, RFC.

[32]  Mark Handley,et al.  A scalable content-addressable network , 2001, SIGCOMM '01.

[33]  Charles E. Perkins,et al.  IP Mobility Support , 1996, RFC.

[34]  Ellen W. Zegura,et al.  Application-layer anycasting: a server selection architecture and use in a replicated Web service , 2000, TNET.

[35]  Michael Walfish,et al.  Peering Peer-to-Peer Providers , 2005, IPTPS.

[36]  Raj Jian,et al.  Internet 3.0: Ten Problems with Current Internet Architecture and Solutions for the Next Generation , 2006, MILCOM 2006 - 2006 IEEE Military Communications conference.

[37]  Marcelo Bagnulo,et al.  Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol for IPv6 , 2009, RFC.