Is the Internet Like the Highway System - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 22
About This Presentation
Title:

Is the Internet Like the Highway System

Description:

Travel times in both networks scale linearly with geographic distance (although ... Fiber is cheap, routers and people are expensive. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:37
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 23
Provided by: cdsCa
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Is the Internet Like the Highway System


1
Is the Internet Like the Highway System?
  • A Devils Advocate View
  • December 9, 2003

2
Basic Problem
  • There are a number of similarities between the
    Internet and the (Interstate) Highway System.
  • Some of these may be illustrative for thinking
    about how to build a secure Internet alternative.
  • However, these similarities may only be
    superficial.
  • If so, its important to understand where the
    analogy breaks down.

3
Topology
  • Similarities
  • The Internet and the Interstate are each a
    network of networks.
  • Both the Interstate Highway and the Internet are
    fully functional in providing local transport for
    traffic. However, the primary value of a
    subnetwork comes through its interconnection with
    other subnetworks. Thus, within each system the
    subnetworks are (somewhat) dependent on each
    other.
  • Differences
  • The Internet has overlapping, competing networks,
    whereas the Interstate has geographically-distinct
    , non-overlapping networks that have forced
    interconnections
  • An ISP can build a road to every city or person
    in the world, a state highway department
    cannotit can only reach those within its
    geographic borders
  • On the Internet, taking an alternate route from
    NY to LA (e.g. through Canada rather than Texas)
    slows you down by microseconds. On the
    Interstate, taking an alternate route from NY to
    LA slows you down by hours or days and is not
    usually a viable alternative.
  • These differences have severe implications of the
    inherent and fundamental economies that surround
    the Internet and Interstate. (See more about why
    ISPs are different than states)

4
ISPs and States
  • Similarities
  • Subnetworks correspond to network locality.
  • One aspect of locality is geography. Travel
    times in both networks scale linearly with
    geographic distance (although the Internet is
    much faster, of course).
  • Another aspect is administrative locality.
  • For the road system, administrative locality goes
    along with geography. The owner and operator of
    the local network is the State.
  • For the Internet, administrative locality is that
    of the Autonomous System (AS). The owner and
    operator of the AS is the Internet Service
    Provider (ISP).

5
ISPs and States
  • Differences
  • Choice users can trivially choose one ISP over
    anothereach will provide identical service.
    Users cannot choose one state highway over
    another unless they are willing to sacrifice
    hours or days of their time. This has huge
    effects on economics of decision making.
  • Policy concerns states are concerned with
    everything from economics to human well-being,
    ISPs are concerned only with the bottom line.
    States are supposed to protect/develop the
    commons, ISPs will trash the commons for their
    own benefit. The two bodies have different
    motivators and make decisions differently.
  • Cooperation required state must cooperate in
    order to create a useful highway system, but ISPs
    do not have to cooperate in the same way.
    Global-scale private networks do exist.
  • Competition ISPs compete for Internet customers,
    States do not compete for Interstate customers.
    This leads to weird economically-motivated
    situations (e.g. ISP interconnections are really
    slow because neither ISP has an incentive to make
    it fastthey would be paying not only for their
    own customers benefit but also for competitors
    customers benefit). States are forced by Feds to
    make fast interconnections.
  • Since the motivations and decision-making
    environments of states and ISPs are fundamentally
    different, they can only be equated to a certain
    extent.

6
ISPs and States
  • What would ISPs look like if they were equivalent
    to states?
  • Each ISP covers distinct and separate geographic
    area
  • ISP funded by taxpayers in that region
  • Everyone in that region or sending packets
    through that region must use that specific ISP
  • ISP receives federal funds to pay for fast
    interconnections with other ISPs
  • ISP limits access to adult content for all
    those under 16 (or something like this) in order
    to maintain common good
  • Clearly this does not look like todays Internet
    reality, so comparisons between ISPs and states
    must be tempered

7
Robustness
  • Similarities
  • Both networks are robust to the loss of
    individual components.
  • In the case of a local disruption, rerouting can
    be used to redirect traffic and maintain system
    performance.
  • However, the performance of each network can
    suffer from congestion.
  • Differences
  • Vast differences in time/distance scales affect
    what is possible
  • Rerouting FL to LA through Canada instead of
    Texas not really feasible on Interstate, but
    trivial and nearly cost-free on Internet

8
Infrastructure/Topology
  • Similarities
  • In order to take advantage of the economic
    benefits of multiplexing, efficient design
    dictates that the network constructed as a
    hierarchy.
  • The result of this hierarchy is that when
    traversing great distances, traffic tends to be
    aggregated on to a few long distance trunks.
  • Differences
  • Building backbone (high capacity, high speed)
    links is expensive and scales with distance on
    Interstate
  • Building backbone (high capacity, high speed)
    links is expensive but usually does NOT scale
    with distance on Internet. Fiber is cheap,
    routers and people are expensive. So large
    expenses scale with number of nodes rather than
    with distance.

9
Prior State
  • Highway System, pre-Interstate
  • Impossible to go cross-country by automobile.
    Army, commerce, everyday people cant get there
    from here
  • Random collection of state highways that do not
    interconnect. No overarching standards body.
  • Everyone in the entire country wants an
    interstatebusinesses, people, governmentbecause
    everyone in the entire country will use it
  • Internet, pre-Future Internet project
  • An Internet exists. It is a hugely successful and
    useful medium that provides a service sufficient
    to meet the demands of nearly all of its users.
    In fact, it is expressly designed to be generic
    and inclusive.
  • It has established and respected self-governing
    bodies that ensure standards.
  • What it lacks is the ability to serve a small
    segment of users (i.e. security-sensitive
    services)

10
Governability
  • Highway System
  • Federal government has authority to control every
    aspect of Interstate system, if it desires
  • Rare exceptions unsafe Mexican trucks (NAFTA)
  • Internet
  • No one has authority to govern Internet
  • Best you can do is promote a standard and hope it
    catches on globally

11
Differences
  • The road system is one in which there are clearly
    defined responsibilities.
  • Users must obtain a vehicle operator license.
  • To obtain the license, they must demonstrate the
    ability to follow best practices in safety.
  • The license identifies them and makes them
    accountable to following the rules of the road
  • Not all vehicles are permitted on the highway.
  • Vehicles must meet standards for safety.
  • Manufacturers are held accountable for unsafe
    designs.

12
Differences (2)
  • Not all road designs are permitted.
  • Best engineering practices in road design and
    maintenance are dictated by national standards
    organizations.
  • Practically speaking, ISPs are tied to standards,
    as well.
  • The road system is actively policed.
  • Highway patrol monitors the behavior of
    individual users.
  • Consumer protection groups and a product
    liability make sure that vehicle manufacturers
    are following the rules.
  • The federal government audits the Interstate
    system to ensure that States are following proper
    maintenance guidelines (?)

13
Differences (3)
  • In order to promote safety and protect national
    security, the federal government offers subsidies
    and other economic incentives.
  • Highway funding for states requires that they
    follow government guidelines (e.g., speed limits,
    drinking age, etc.)
  • Individuals receive subsidies to operate low
    emission vehicles
  • Do vehicle manufacturers receive incentives for
    design of better vehicles?

14
Conjecture
  • The Internet and Interstate have similarities and
    differences that reflect both policy differences
    and more fundamental differences.
  • The Interstate project can serve as inspiration
    on a number of fronts, though its used must be
    informed and tempered by differences between the
    two projects
  • Simply because there are so many differences one
    could point out, we should be wary of appearing
    to rely or build on this analogy too heavily.
    Dont want to risk the larger ideas, which are so
    important.

15
Remainder of Slides Unchanged
16
The Interstate Highway System
  • The Interstate Highway system was developed on
    top of the existing road network
  • It did not replace the pre-existing highway
    system - it complemented it and extended its
    utility
  • Its vastly superior effectiveness and
    affordability made it irresistible to users.
  • Its successful adoption was the result of strong
    economic incentives for key support industries
    (gas stations, hotels, restaurants) that
    benefited tremendously from it.
  • While desirable to all, a national system of
    interstate roads could only be effectively
    coordinated through federal efforts
  • The federal government had to work closely in
    partnership with the highway owners and operators
    (the states)
  • Roles and responsibilities had to be worked out
    for each of the key stakeholders owners and
    operators, vehicle manufacturers, and users

17
The Interstate Highway System (2)
  • The Highway System has clearly defined roles and
    responsibilities
  • For vehicle manufacturers there are standards
    for the types of vehicles that are allowed to
    travel on our highways.
  • Vehicles must pass safety tests (e.g. crash
    tests)
  • Vehicles must pass environmental tests (e.g.
    emissions)
  • Vehicles must follow norms (e.g. left-side
    steering wheels)
  • For owners and operators there are standards for
    the way in which the infrastructure must be built
    and maintained.
  • Roads must comply with standard widths, slopes,
    surface grades.
  • Roads and bridges must satisfy safety standards
    (e.g. for earthquakes)
  • Roads must follow norms (e.g. lane markings,
    signage, lighting)
  • For users there are standards for traveling on
    the highways
  • Users must obtain a vehicle operator license,
    updated regularly. There are different classes
    of operator licenses, based on vehicle type
  • Users must follow prescribed traffic laws (e.g.
    speed limits)
  • There are norms for vehicle operation (e.g. use
    of signals, right of way)

18
The Interstate Highway System (3)
  • The Interstate Highway System should not be taken
    as a literal model for building a Future
    Internet, however
  • it can serve as a template thinking about the
    types of roles and responsibilities that might
    need to be defined
  • it may provide inspiration for the types of
    relationships that the federal government might
    need to develop with infrastructure owners and
    operators
  • it may yield insight into methods for creating
    the appropriate economic incentives for the
    various stakeholders
  • it can serve as an example for the incremental
    development, deployment, and adoption of a
    critical infrastructure
  • it demonstrates how the federal government can
    facilitate a management framework that is
    effective without heavy-handed regulation.

19
Vision for a Future Internet
  • A network that is an appropriate foundation for
    the deployment and support of critical
    infrastructure systems, thereby enhancing our
    national security
  • A network in which there are clearly defined
    roles, responsibilities, and accountability for
    its owners, operators, support industries, and
    users
  • A network that grows incrementally on top of the
    existing mesh of intranets and extranets, driven
    by a properly incentivized innovation community
  • A network that interfaces and coexists with
    legacy infrastructure, providing incremental
    benefits to all who choose to participate
  • A network that has self-sustaining economics

20
A Potential Opportunity
  • The federal government has a real need to
    accelerate the deployment of a secure cyber
    platform to support critical infrastructures, but
    does not want to resort to regulation.
  • The government has considered developing a secure
    intranet (GovNet) for its own use.
  • ISPs (the owners and operators of the current
    Internet infrastructure) are in financial trouble
    and looking for a sustainable economic model.
  • Individual ISPs (Sprint) have announced the
    deployment of a secure network for government
    purposes.

21
A (Modest) Proposal
  • The federal government should
  • commission ISPs to deploy
  • a secure, semi-private network platform
  • suitable for the operation of critical
    infrastructures
  • and in parallel to the existing commercial
    Internet.
  • We will refer to this alternate network as
    SuperNet (yuckneed something better?)

22
Prerequisites
  • Clearly defined roles and responsibilities for
    all owners, operators, users, and vendors
  • Which ISPs will deploy and operate? With what
    responsibilities?
  • Which technologies will be used? Who will
    provide them? With what responsibilities?
  • What security best practices to employ?
  • Who will be the users? What can they do? What
    are their responsibilities?
  • What government agencies to fund and oversee?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com