Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Barriers to Disruptive Innovation:Greater in Wireless or Wired Worlds?
…and reflections on Emulab
Jay LepreauUniversity of Utah
NSF WMPG WorkshopAugust 2, 2005
4
Technical
Inherently geographically localizedWireless (+)– Bounded scale– Natural boundary enables autonomy:
administrative, architectural, namespaces, security, problem diagnosis
Wireless (-):– Costly production testbeds unavailable to many
distant researchers
5
Research
Wireless (+, -)Limited bandwidth– Can’t just overprovision: more constraints,
more good problems (+)– Bandwidth problems may distract from more
interesting/important ones (-)
6
Research
Wireless (+)Link layer research is trivially enabled by SDR (USRP, SoftMAC, …)
Wireless (-)Many wireless devices are mobile and
untethered, for which SDR is poor (energy)
7
Research
Wireless (+)Testbeds which offer real marginal value to users are more likely in wireless– Wired typically can only offer BW or security
Hard to beat the Internet except for eScience
– Consider a city or campus with 10,000 coolwireless gadgets.
8
Regulatory & Legal
Spectrum regulation– Wireless (-)
Limited availability of open spectrumLicensing barriers• Research-, Deployment-, Impact-
– Wireless (+)There IS open spectrum!More may be coming.
9
Commercial Landscape
Wireless (-)Dominated by a few commercial providers who control the edge (~billion phones?)– Their (simple?) base-station architecture
dominates anything from our community– Unlike historic PSTN, also true of growth
rates
10
Observation: Federation is Crucial
In network architecturesIn experimental infrastructures
Need Administrative AutonomyNeed Architectural Autonomy
12
Emulab: It’s Real
Doing it for 5 years, in production 24/7~200 (-> 360) physical cluster nodes todayRecent 12 month period:– 13,613 “virtual clusters” created– 166,519 physical nodes loaded, configured>1000 active users, >150 institutions
14
Emulab Installations
10 now, 6 in progress
In production– Utah, Kentucky, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, DETER ISI, Aerospace(2),
Uniten Malaysia, UBC, DETER UCB/extensionIn progress– Cornell, UT-Austin, KISTI S. Korea, SPARTA(2), Vanderbilt/Telcordia,
Ft. Monmouth?Planned– Special: Caltech (optical, real routers)– Wireless: MIT?, …
Maybe: Brazil, …
15
Current Device “Backends”PCs, VLANsWide-area FreeBSD nodes (RON, Utah)– Internet paths
Multiplexed VMs and links/LANs (virtual nodes & links)Simulated nodes and links/LANsPlanetLab virtual machines *Intel IXP1200 network processors802.11 a/b/g wirelessCisco routers: preconfigured scenarios (Wisconsin)Intel Stargates (ipaq-like) Motes: emotes, stargate motesRobots: GarciaSoftware Radio: “Universal Software Radio Peripheral” *
16
Future BackendsFirst-class layer 2 devices (for Telcordia/Vanderbilt DARPA)(Attenuated) 802.11 for mobile robots
IXP2400s – we have 20CMU’s FPGA-based wireless emulatorBetter support for commercial routers, optical gear– Wisconsin, Utah, DETER, Caltech
Generic clusters
17
But!
Little use of any devices except– PCs, VLANs– Virtual machines, multiplexed links– Widearea (RON) nodes– Some WiFi
18
Why?NewNot well advertisedInsufficient quantity of many new device typesAccidents of history and timingNot our community– Poor instincts?– Who we know? (advertising)
… Other communities don’t want to test in real life?
19
It’s Software!
A portable “operating system” for controllingexperimentation in networks and distributed systems
20
The Good News
Emulab is a portable, device-independent “OS” for controlling testbeds of networked devices… “devices” of all sorts: 12 types today: from PCs to virtual machines to wireless links to PlanetLab nodes to motes to software radios to high security
Dynamically reconfigurable. General-purpose testbed. Production system with huge usageWe solved many hard problemsNew neat stuff possible, making it even better for test, measurement, and development
22
Common Abstractions,Map to Diverse Mechanisms
Nodes– Machines, VMs, Accts, Slivers
Addresses– IPv4, ns nodeid, …
Links– VLANs, tunnels, Internet paths,
multiplexed link, virtual link
TopologyTopology generatorsQueuesQueuing disciplinesRouting
ApplicationsTraffic generators
Control channel/netSync, startup, replayEventsViz of topology and trafficMonitors on links, nodes
“Experiment” and life-cycleAdmin entities
23
Common Abstractions (cont’d)
“Experiment”– Config, active entities– Life cycle– Default environment– Customization:
• Per-expt• Per-node• Per-run
– Hard state– Soft state– Initial/clean state
Restart– Node, Apps, Traf gens, events
Projects
Users– PI, TA/lieut, members– Credentials (keys)
Experiments