Specification and Composition of Network Services in Future Internet Architectures
Xinming Chen, Abhishek Dwaraki, Hao Cai and Tilman Wolf Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA {xinmingchen,adwaraki,hcai,wolf}@ecs.umass.edu
ABSTRACT sender maketplace provider router(s) receiver Information Request offers Creation of The inadequacies of the current Internet data and control about service service offerings that meet offerings planes to adapt to changes have given rise to several new service needs proposed Internet architectures. In many cases, these new Set of services architectures enable a variety of “services” in the network offerings that meet that can be used to customize network functionality and specifications to add new features after deployment. One key challenge Decision on which to such network services is that they need to be composed service to choose from various networking resources at runtime. Therefore, Request for one service offering it is critical to develop methods for accurately specifying Request for payment the semantics of network services and composing them dy- payment Activation of namically. In this article, we propose a service description Setup of service service ack semantic, discuss how to formalize the service composition Credentials for problem and use the formalization in conjunction with a Use of service Execution of logic planner to provide an efficient solution . Transmission service (incl. credentials) Transmission (incl. credentials) Categories and Subject Descriptors C.2.6 [Computer-Communication Networks]: Internet- Figure 1: Interaction Timeline. working
Keywords where they are advertised. ChoiceNet suggests exposing this choice of services to customers. The providers can architect future Internet architecture, network service, data-path pol- their solutions by dynamically composing a set of services to icy, automated planning respond to customers’ requests. This runtime formulation, like SILO’s methods [1], allows service-centric networks to 1. INTRODUCTION establish connections that are customized to meet customer A major constraint impeding further growth of the Inter- requirements. To build and support this architecture, it is net is its inability to adapt to new services, frameworks, pro- imperative to have an accurate, standardized definition for tocols and such in the core of the network. This is restricting every network service and to develop computational meth- deployment of entities principal to next generation Internet ods for optimal service composition. architectures. ChoiceNet aims to address this by building In this poster, we propose a novel approach that aims at a networking architecture that is designed with choice as a addressing the problem of service description and composi- core principle [4]. The design is based on the interactions tion for service-centric network architectures. of technological choices with economic incentives to create a sustainable, innovative core for existing and future networks. 2. SERVICE DESCRIPTION Such interactions are illustrated in Figure 1. The ChoiceNet architecture is based on the idea that ev- In ChoiceNet’s architecture, every usable entity on the erything in the network, like link bandwidth, storage or soft- network is formally represented as a service in a marketplace ware services offered on nodes, is a service. Before consid- ering service composition, we need a formal definition of a service, such that providers can submit a service to the mar- Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for ketplace in a standardized manner. Based on the work in [3], personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are we describe a service as: not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to S
45 This example shows how the choice of service paths can be 20M R1 requirement based, like a customer’s choice and also service Server1 R3 1M dependent, like high bandwidth for video and low bandwidth 10M E2 10M for data. 10M 10M E1 1M If we represent every communication request as
Server1 :Online Banking Server logic planner such as LPG [2] that can be used to solve the : C1 Server2 :Video Server : C2 planning problem. The planner can then provide a list of E1, E2 :Routing, Firewall, Encryption/Decryption : C3 π ,p , π ,p ... π ,p R1, R3, R4 :Routing alternatives ( 1 1) ( 2 2) ( n n) with their associated R2 :Routing, Transcoding costs. Here each πi is a sequence of services (Si1,Si2...Sin). ES1 :End System The steps of service composition can be described as fol- lows: Figure 2: Service composition framework in
46