COntent Mediator architecture for content-aware nETworks

Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 1 © COMET

Francisco Javier Ramón Salguero (fjrs@tid.es)

Telefónica Investigación y Desarrollo

Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 2 © COMET

• COMET (COntent Mediator architecture for content-aware nETworks)• FP7 project, Collaborative project (STREP)

• Theme: ICT-2009.1.5 Networked Media and 3D Internet

• Duration: 3 years

• Budget: 4,948,612 € (EC contribution: 3,259,365 €)

• Partners:Industrial partners

• Web: http://www.comet-project.org/

The COMET projectIntroduction

Academic partners

Slide 3 © COMETConcertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010

RationaleThe environment

• QoE in Internet:

RationaleQoE expectations

Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 4 © COMET

“I have watched a TV episode and it was great.Definition was fine.”

“I have watched a TV episode and it was great.Definition was fine.”

It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and

the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.

means

• QoE in Internet:

• QoE in IPTV:

RationaleQoE expectations

Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 5 © COMET

“I have watched a TV episode and it was great.Definition was fine.”

“I have watched a TV episode and it was great.Definition was fine.”

It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and

the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.

means

It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.It works well 90% of times. I started watching the episode quickly and

the episode was not abnormally interrupted. Definition was not too bad.

becomes

“My ISP is cheating on me!”“My ISP is cheating on me!”

… but this d

uality in

expectations is vanish

ing

Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 6 © COMET

• COMET aims to provide a unified interface for content access whatever the content characteristics are:– temporal nature (pre-recorded or live), – physical location (centralised or distributed), – interactivity requirements (elastic or real-time), or – any other relevant features

• It also aims to apply the most appropriate end-to-end transport strategy:– By mapping the content according to its requirements and user

preferences to the appropriate network resources• best quality of experience for end users

– All different types of content distribution will be supported:• Unicast, anycast, multicast…

The COMET projectTop-level objectives

… while preserving network availability and structural resilience, as key factors in perceived QoE

… while preserving network availability and structural resilience, as key factors in perceived QoE

Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 7 © COMET

USER VIEW: FLEXIBILITY

End user

Router

Router Router Content server

Content server

Router

Router Router

End user

PHYSICAL NETWORK: SCALABILITY & STABILITY

IMPLICATIONS:o Maximum BW & Users with minimum costo Minimum number of IDs and rules (aggregation)

IMPLICATIONS:o Interface as simple as possibleo Flexible identificationo Help to search capabilitieso A huge amount of IDs and information (disaggregation)

BUILDING BLOCKS:

• Local QoS & Multicast• Evolution of basic network services (DNS, RADIUS, LDAP)

Contradiction between both

worlds???

Content mediation for efficient traffic distributionRequirements

THE COMET CONCEPT: Mediation to connect both worlds efficiently Locating content according to delivery requirements (content mediation) Delivering it using the most suitable resources (network mediation)

Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 8 © COMET

End user

Router

Router Router Content server

Content server

Router

Router Router

End user

Mediation server

Mediation server

Mediation server

USER VIEW: FLEXIBILITY

PHYSICAL NETWORK: SCALABILITY & STABILITY

Content Mediation Plane

Content Forwarding Plane

IMPLICATIONS:o Interface as simple as possibleo Flexible identificationo Help to search capabilitieso A huge amount of IDs and information (disaggregation)

BUILDING BLOCKS:

• Local QoS & Multicast• Evolution of basic network services (DNS, RADIUS, LDAP)

VIRTUALIZATION

NEW NETWORK SERVICES

Contradiction between both

worlds???

IMPLICATIONS:o Maximum BW & Users with minimum costo Minimum number of IDs and rules (aggregation)

EFFICIENTINFRASTRUCTUR

E

Content mediation for efficient traffic distributionRequirements

• Project oriented to practice

– Focused on practical objectives: satisfaction of actual demands

• We should solve something demanded by someone

– Feasible:

• Technically possible

• Scalable (for actual deployments)

– Demonstrable in practice

• Proof-of-concept prototypes in realistic network testbeds

• Scalability and performance evaluated through theoretical studies and

simulations.

• Project oriented to standardization and dissemination

• Internet-wide scope

• Required to influence IndustryConcertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 © COMET 2009Slide 9

Our objectives, brieflyProject orientation

Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 10 © COMET

The COMET projectOrganization - Workplan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

WP1: Project Management

WP2: Requirements and System Architecture

WP3: Content Mediation System

WP4: Content-aware Network Enhancement

WP5: Integration, Validation and Evaluation

WP6: Experimentation and Demonstration

WP7: Exploitation, Dissemination and Standardization

1.1: Project Administration

1.2: Website and Mailing Lists Maintenance

2.1: System Requirements

2.2: Business Models

2.3: Architecture and High-level Design

3.1: User/Application Interaction with the Content Mediation System Edge

3.2: Intra Content Mediation System Protocols and Algorithms

3.3: Network and Content Server Awareness in the Content Mediation System

3.4: Content Mediation System Implementation

4.1: Non-disruptive Deployment on the Current Internet

4.2: Non-disruptive Deployment on IP networks with Multi-Service Capabilities

4.3: Disruptive Deployment Based on Edge Computed Routing (ECR)

7.1 Coordination of Dissemination and Standardization

7.2 Development of Exploitation Plans and Roadmaps for Deployment

4.4: Router Prototypes Adapted to Content-aware Networking

5.1: Integration with Selected Applications

5.2 Integration and Validation of the COMET System

5.3: Evaluation of COMET System Scalability

6.1 Demonstration Scenarios

6.2 Prototype Experimentation and Demonstration

Deliverable Milestone Internal Report

D3.2

D2.1

D2.2

D3.3

D4.2

D4.3

D7.4

D5.1

D2.3

D7.2

D6.1

I3.1

I4.1

D5.2

I2.1

I5.1

I5.2

MS31

MS41

MS51

MS52

MS11 MS12 MS13

MS21

D6.2

D3.1

D4.1

D7.1 D7.3MS71

Y1: Design of thearchitecture

Y2: Implementation

Y3: Demonstration

Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 11 © COMET

The COMET projectWP organization

Project Management

WP1

TID

Requirements andSystem Architecture

WP2

TID

Integration, Validationand Evaluation

WP5

WUT

I2.1

D3.2,D3.3

I3.1, D3.1

I4.1, D4.1

D4.2,D4.3

Experimentationand Demonstration

WP6

PrimeTel

D2.2

D2.3

D2.1

I2.1

D3.1 D3.3

D4.1D4.2

D7.1 D7.2

I5.1, I5.2

D5.1

D5.2D5.1

D6.2

D6.1

I5.1I5.2

D7.3 D7.4

Exploitation, Disseminationand Standardization

WP7

INTRACOM TELECOM

D3.2

Content MediationSystem

WP3

UCL

I3.1

I4.1

Content-awareNetwork Enhancement

WP4

UniS

D4.3

Concertation Meeting, Brussels, 3rd February 2010 Slide 12 © COMET

The COMET project