At the KiVS 2009 conference, I received the Master Thesis Award from the communication in distributed systems (KuVS) group for my thesis entitled Statistical Error Model to Impair an H.264 Decoder. See a copy of the award here and retrieve the slides of my talk here. Please find below some pictures of the award session, taken by KiVS organisers.

Me giving the talk.

Professor Lars Wolf, head of the award comitee, ceremoniously presented the KuVS award to me.

The workshop is finally over and I’m back to Germany. All in all I have to say that IWQoS was a very interesting workshop, having contributions of a very high quality. I want to present a brief résumé  here, but I’m not giving an extensive review and thus recommend you to take a look at the program on your own.

• Two-state Markov models for describing transmission channels are still popular (e.g. used by Liu et al.)
• Algorithms in the field of Pre-Congestion Notification are subject to performance evaluations, which is a good thing in general as evaluations of RED active queue management have been published when RED was already widely deployed and thus were too late to be taken into account. It seems like this is not the case for PCN.
• An interesting contribution has been made to the field of profile based traffic classification in the work of Hu et al., where data mining techniques are applied to generate distinct behavioral application profiles. The authors present an evaluation of an rule set for BitTorrent and PPLive. In contrast to the techniques presented in our talk about Spam and Traffic Profiling techniques in 2006, this approach seems to be more flexible — at least at first sight.
• YouTube has been again subject to an extensive evaluation. In contrast to the papers presented at the Internet Measurement Conference in 2007, this paper discusses the social networks formed in YouTube and their small world character.
• The invited talk given by a colleague of David Hutchison entitled QoS: (Still) a Grand Challenged? reviewed the evolution of QoS techniques starting from ATM and Broadband ISDN. The conclusion drawn from this talk is that QoS is still a considerable challenge and security and resilience issues need to be taken more seriously, which seems to be reasonable.However, it remains to be seen whether the delivery of 100 MBit/s to the home really changes the world as much as highlighted in the talk. What is known to me about ADSL service providers is that most of the users are not extensively using the big pipe they pay for and rather stick with ocassionally using HTTP and checking their mail. In the first days of ADSL deployment, those access lines were extensively used by power users and thus resulted in a high increase of traffic in the core. However, traffic in the core increases much more slowly with a increasing number of ADSL users nowadays, as most of the users are not using their access link very extensively. I’m wondering if this will be similar for 100 Mbit/s access links in the future.

I discovered RFC 3251 today, which describes Electricity over IP as persiflage to numerous RFC’s published by the IETF themed “X over Y”, whereas “X over Y” will be followed by “Y over X” sooner or later. Just for instance, once we had the usual setup where IP packets were encapsulated in Ethernet frames which is a often used link layer protocol (IP over Ethernet). Nowadays, Ethernet over IP is possible as well (RFC 3378: “EtherIP: Tunneling Ethernet Frames in IP Datagrams“), turning the ordinary protocol stack upside down by sending layer 2 protocols over layer 3.

Once upon a time, MPLS was used to go round the “time intensive” routing process in IP backbone networks by using pre-defined switching paths to guide the packet’s way through the network (IP over MPLS). Since June 2007 we got RFC 4817 describing how to encapsulate MPLS in IP packets (MPLS over IP).

In the 90’s, service providers were deploying ATM networks before they were suppressed by the more cost-effective Ethernet technology about a decade later [1]. ATM was once famous partly due to its Quality of Service abilities. Following the general trend, the next step towards a upside down protocol stack is to introduce the notion of pseudo-wires in order to route ATM over IP.

The next step is to tunnel Synchronous Optical Networking (SONET) over MPLS (over IP over … ?), which is interesting as SONET is synchronous whereas IP is not and easily leads to jitter within the transmission.

By the way, not only the IETF is tunnelling the whole protocol stack from every possible direction when needed. Also amateur radio operators encapsulate TCP/IP in AX.25 (the layer 2 protocol used for wireless transmissions in amateur radio) using the 44. class A IP subnet for accessing their own WWW called HamWeb or chatting over IRC instead of more appropriate solutions. So here we have IP over AX.25, which is just like IP over Ethernet, fine. However, when no radio is available, the radio network can be accessed by tunnelling AX.25 over IP (AXIP). So here we’re sending a layer 2 protocol over a layer 3 one again.

As Spam over IP is already old-fashion, we now got IP over Spam. Yes, online banking can now be encapsulated in Viagra! Note that this approach is new as layer 3 packets are now encapsulated in layer 7 data! We do no longer stick to tunnelling the lower layer but consider higher layers also. The potential benefit of this encapsulation is that the great (fire)wall in China can be overcome, as they’re sending and receiving a lot of spam which turns it into a high-bandwidth, low-latency channel, as Dan Kaminsky highlighted in his talk.

So what’s next? Well, RFC 3251 will give the definite answer: Electricity over IP, where IP packets carry electricity in discrete, digitalized form. The document is based on the discovery that the distribution network for electricity is not an IP network. So do service providers have to extend their triple play offerings (classical Internet, (IP)TV, telephone) by electricity over IP to get the IETF into non-technical areas such as the distribution of electricity? Electricity could be routed “over the Internet to reach remote places which presently do not have electricity connections but have only Internet kiosks (e.g., rural India)”. Well, I suggest to read the document and find out about newly emerging technologies, such as:

• MPLampS: Mostly Pointless Lamp Switching
• LER: ‘Low-voltage Electricity Receptor – fancy name for “lamp”‘
• VPN: Voltage Protected Network

So long,

Oliver — waiting for the first electricity trojan or worm and wondering whether houses are no longer in danger due to electricity thieves.

PS: When will we become tunnelling approaches that consider layer 8 (guess who’s controlling the applications …)? I could imagine IP over long or short term memory by memorizing the packet. I’m wondering how Raptor codes (a state-of-the-art Forward Error Correction technique) would perform when coping with an error process called forgetting?

PPS: RFC 2549 introduced Internet Protocol over Avian Carriers (IPoAC) . Will there be Avian Carriers over IP soon?

[1] Disclaimer (just to prevent of someone getting me wrong): Yes, I know how ADSL traffic is still carried (although there is a trend to migrate to Ethernet as this technology is cheaper than ATM due to its wide-spreadness), remember that this post is devoted to RFC 3251 which is a joke so some statements may be a bit “overgeneralised” here Moreover, I also know they benefits of tunnelling layer 2 protocols over IP, they are mostly written in the article “Layer 2 over IP/MPLS” by Chris Metz (Cisco) published in IEEE Internet Computing journal back in 2001. However, this post is not an article discussing pro’s and con’s of several technologies.