Henning Schulzrinne Professor at Columbia University, ex-CTO of the FCC Networking is no longer a new area of computer science and engineering – it has matured as a discipline and the major infrastructure it supports, the Internet, is long past being primarily a research artifact. I believe that we should consider ourselves as the civil engineers of the Internet, primarily helping to understand and improve a vast and critical infrastructure. This implies that implementing changes takes decades, not conference cycles, and that implementation is largely driven by compatibility with existing infrastructure and considerations of cost effectiveness, where resources that research focuses on, such as bandwidth and compute cycles, often play a much smaller role than limited organizational capacity for change. Telecommunications carriers, in particular, have become akin to airlines, largely operating equipment designed by others, with emphasis on marketing, not innovation. Even more than in other engineering disciplines, standards matter, whether set by standards bodies or dominant players. Given the multi-year time frames of standards and the limited willingness of national funding bodies to support standardization work, this makes research impact harder, as does the increasing complexity of cellular networks and barriers to entry that shut out most researchers from contributing to large parts of commercial mobile networks.

1. Networking research — A reflection in
the middle years
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University
Computer Communications (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2018.07.001
10/17/19 1

2. 10/17/19 2

3. We’re all getting older
10/17/19 3

4. It’s been a while…
1980
10/17/19 4

5. 25 years ago
Mosaic 1.0: November 1993
IBM Simon (announced 11/1993)
GMD webcam (1997)
Euro-ISDN: 1994
DSL patent: 1990
DOCSIS started 1995
DSL in Germany: 7/1999
August 1993
10/17/19 5

6. Internet and networks timeline
6
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
theory
university
prototypes
production use
in research
commercial
early residential
broadband
home
email
ftp
DNS
RIP
UDP
TCP
SMTP
SNMP
finger
ATM
BGP, OSPF
Mbone
IPsec
HTTP
HTML
RTP
100 kb/s 1 Mb/s 10 Mb/s
XML
OWL
SIP
Jabber
100 Mb/s 1 Gb/s
port
speeds
Internet
protocols
queuing
architecture
routing
cong. control
DQDB, ATM
QoS
VoD
p2p
ad-hoc
sensor
10/17/19

7. 7
Fully new (scale) applications are extremely rare
Application First demonstrated (on Internet)
Video 1992: mbone (multicast audio & video)
Augmented reality 1968: Ivan Sutherland invents the head-mounted
display and positions it as a window into a virtual world
Virtual reality 1979: Eric Howlett developed the Large Expanse, Extra
Perspective (LEEP) optical system
IoT 1985: term ”Internet of Things” used
Connected cars 2001: OnStar remote diagnostics
Games 1984: “Islands of Kismai” (first commercial online game)
better cheaperfaster
mobile
fewer wires (last hop)5GWF Dresden

8. 8
IoT is not exactly new (1978)
5GWF Dresden

9. We’re civil engineers repaving
roads
10/17/19 9

10. The great infrastructures
• Technical structures that support a society à “civil
infrastructure”
• Large
• Constructed over generations
• Not often replaced as a whole system
• Continual refurbishment of components
• Interdependent components with well-defined interfaces
• High initial cost
10/17/19 10
water energy transportation communication

11. We’re done
Telegraph
• text only
Telephone
• voice + text
Internet
• anything digital
10/17/19 11

12. Once developed, basic functions don’t change
1908 (1925) 1958
10/17/19 12

13. 10/17/19 13
Interfaces define industries (and stay the same)
~1915 (2 prong)
1901
110/220V
• Lots of other (niche) interfaces
• Replaced in a few applications
NEMA 1-15R
http://www.centennialbulb.org/cam.htm

14. 10/17/19 14
The Internet Protocol Hourglass
email WWW phone...
SMTP HTTP RTP...
TCP UDP…
IP
ethernet PPP…
CSMA async sonet...
copper fiber radio...
small number of long-term stable interfaces
S. Deering, 2001

15. The Victorian Internet
10/17/19 15

16. It always takes longer than you
think
10/17/19 16

17. 17
Kurose/Ross, 2000
10/17/19

18. 10/17/19 18

19. IETF25 (1992) looks familiar
Agenda of the Twenty-Fifth IETF
IETF Overview 21
1.1 Future IETF Meeting Sites ........................ 25
1.2 On Line IETF Information ........................ 27
1.2.1 The IETF Directory ....................... 28
1.2.2 The Internet-Drafts Directory .................. 29
1.3 Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts ................ 31
Area and Working Group Reports
2.1 Applications Area .............................
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.2
33
35
Internet Mail Extensions (smtpext) ............... 53
Internet Message Extensions (822ext) .............. 61
Network Database (netdata) ................... 63
Network News Transport Protocol (nntp) ............ 81
Network Printing Protocol (npp) ................ 85
TELNET (telnet) .........................
Internet Area ............................... 9].
2.2.1 Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc) ............... 117
2.2.2 IP Address Encapsulation (ipae) ................. 123
2.3
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
2.2.9
IP over AppleTalk (appleip) ................... 137
IP over Asynchronous Transfer Mode (atm) .......... 141
P. Internet Protocol (pip) .................... 155
Point-to-Point Protocol. Extensions (pppext) .......... 159
Router Requirements (rreq) ................... 165
Simple Internet Protocol (sip) .................. 167
TCP/UDPover CLNP.-addressed Networks (tuba) ....... 173
Network Management Area ....................... 177
2.3.1 Bridge MIB (bridge) ....................... 191
2.3.2 Chassis MIB (chassis) ...................... 193,
2.3.3 DS1/DS3 MIB (trunkmib) .................... 19c~*
iii
2.4
2.3.12 X.25 Management Information Base (x25mib) ......... 253
OSI Integration Area ........................... 255
2.4.1 MHS-DS (mhsds) ......................... 265
2.4.2 MIME-MHSInterworking (mimemhs) .............. 273
2.4.3 Network OSI Operations (noop) ................. 275
2.4.4 OSI Directory Services (osids) .................. 279
2.4.5 Ot~ce Document Architecture (oda) ............... 283
2.4.6 SNMPover a Multi-protocol Internet (mpsnmp) ........ 285
2.4.7 X.400 Operations (x400ops) ................... 287
2.5 Operational Requirements Area ..................... 293
2.5.1 BGPDeployment and Application (bgpdepl) .......... 301
2.5.2 Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg) .............. 307
2.5.3 Network Joint Management (njm) ................ 311
2.5.4 Operational Statistics (opstat) .................. 325
2.5.5 User Connectivity (ucp) ..................... 329
2.6 Routing Area ............................... 333
2.6.1 Border Gateway Protocol (bgp) ................. 349
2.6.2 IP over Large Public Data Networks (iplpdn) ......... 353
2.6.3 IP Routing for Wireless/Mobile Hosts (mobileip) ....... 359
2.6.4 ISIS for IP Internets (isis) .................... 363
2.6.5 Inter-Domain Policy Routing (idpr) ............... 365
2.6.6 Multicast Extensions to OSPF (mospf) ............. 369
2.6.7 OSI IDRP for IP over IP (ipidrp) ................ 371
2.6.8 Open Shortest Path First IGP (ospf) .............. 381
2.6.9 RIP Version II (ripv2) ...................... 389
2.7 Security Area ............................... 391
2.7.1 CommercialInternet Protocol Security Option (cipso) ..... 405
2.7.2 CommonAuthentication Technology (cat) ........... 407
2.7.3 Internet Protocol Security Protocol (ipsec) ........... 413
2.7.4 Network Access Server Requirements (nasreq) ......... 417
2.7.5 Privacy-Enhanced Electronic Mail (peru) ............ 425
2.7.6 SNMP Security (snmpsec) .................... 431
2.7.7 TCP Client Identity Protocol (ident) .............. 437
2.8 Transport and Services Area ....................... 439
2.9
2.8.1
2.8.2
2.8.3
2.8.4
2.8.5
2.8.6
User
2.9.1
Audio/Video "~iNnsport (avt) .................. 441
Distributed File Systems (dfs) .................. 449
Domain Name System (dns) ................... 451
Service Location Protocol (svrloc) ................ 455
TCP Large Windows (tcplw) .................. 459
Trusted Network File Systems (tnfs) .............. 461
Services Area ............................ 463
Directory Information Services Infrastructure (disi) ...... 469
10/17/19 19

20. 10/17/19 20
Why so little change in the Internet?
Browser Data center Access
networks
Internet
Major changes
in last decade
WebRTC,
HTML5,
WebSocket,
CSS3, …
SDN,
heterogeneous
computing,
rack-scale,
accelerators
5G, DOCSIS 3.x QUIC
Major players 3 4 (or 7) Major wireless
Comcast
Hundreds to
thousands
Backward
compatible
Easy Local Separate
frequencies
Minimum
feature set
Incentive Competition Revenue Spectral
efficiency
Limited
(OpEx?)

21. 10/17/19 21
Random Dagstuhl slide
With exception of QUIC and maybe YANG, no major new protocols in last 10 years.
Implementations
Not protocols or
algorithms

22. Design for 20 years
2210/17/19

23. “The future has arrived — it’s just not evenly
distributed yet.” (Gibson, 1992)
IPng WG: July 1994
RFC 2460: December 1998
10/17/19 23

24. Telecom infrastructure
on asset utilization, such as retail. Most telecom optimization efforts have been driven by need—
as witnessed 10 years ago when operators sold assets to fund growth or retire debt. In Europe, for
example, BT, Orange France, and Telecom Italia spun off their real estate assets into separate
subsidiaries and in some instances formed partnerships with real estate developers to generate
cash. However, these efforts have not been consistent or aggressive enough to unlock the full
potential of fixed assets.
The book value of the top 30 telcos’ fixed
assets is more than $2.4 trillion. If sold at
market value, theoretically these assets
could be enough to wipe debt off their
balance sheets.
Three gems from the treasure chest
And it turns out that fixed assets are holding captive an array of financial benefits. Although
each operator is unique, telecom assets can be broadly grouped into three categories with a10/17/19 24

25. 25
Networks never die, they just drop nodes
The Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council V Working Group 10
Final Report March 2017
years of rapid growth in mobile communications, the scale of SS7 approaches Internet
proportions. Today, networks based on SS7 protocols manage the circuit-switched links among
hundreds of carriers for wireline and wireless services and operators serving the majority of the
7.46 billion mobile subscribers worldwide as of June 2016.3
The SS7 Network was originally founded on the basis of trust between members of a small
closed community of carriers. Carriers interconnected their SS7 networks because they properly
presumed that the information and messages they receive from other carriers are valid and for
legitimate purposes, and the system has proven effective and reliable over a significant amount
of time. However, the SS7 Community has evolved over time as the industry and ecosystem
expanded, yielding several consequences:
* 1982
March, 2017 WORKING GROUP 10
Legacy Systems Risk Reductions
Final Report
è We’ll still have phone numbers and IPv4 addresses in 2043…
10/17/19

26. The inverse network effect
The difficulty of changing a network is exponential to its size.
10/17/19 26

27. 10/17/19 27
Simple core protocols have acquired technical
debts
DNS:
~143 active
RFCs

28. Publish it and they will
implement
10/17/19 28

29. The universal equation for engineering
! = lim
&→(
)*+,-&
./012 +,+345
= 0
impact factor, redefined: citations à real world
10/17/19 29

30. Research: Pasteur’s quadrant
QuestforFundamentalUnderstanding? Yes
Pure basic research
(Bohr)
Use-inspired basic research
(Pasteur)
No
Pure applied research
(Edison)
No Yes
Considerations of Use?
Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Stokes 1997 (modified)
Guessing at
problems
(Infocom)
Most
networking
research
is here
Most
networking
research
wants to be
here
10/17/19 30

31. Cause of death (or delay) for the next big thing
31
QoS multi-
cast
mobile IP active
networks
IPsec IPv6
not manageable across competing
domains
V V V V
not configurable by normal users
(or apps writers)
V V V
no business model for ISPs V V V V V V
no initial gain V V V V V
80% solution in existing system V V V V V V
(NAT)
increase system vulnerability V V V V
10/17/19

32. Network layer minimalism wins
• Almost all attempts to add functionality to the network layer have been
unsuccessful or multi-decade
• IPv6 [*1994] à NAT, CGN (despite address exhaustion)
• IP multicast, CCN à CDN
• IP QoS à FTTH
• network-layer security à TLS
• IP mobility à no mobile servers + rare IP address changes
10/17/19 32

33. 33
Generational surprises
Generation Expectation Surprise Cost per GB
0G
(landline)
voice fax & modem
1G corporate limousine eavesdropping
2G better voice quality (“digital!”) SMS $1000
3G WAP web $100
4G IMS YouTube, WhatsApp,
notifications
$10
5G IoT (low latency) ? $1?
• underestimated cost and fixed-equivalence as drivers
• are the even generations the successful ones?10/17/19

34. What makes the paper-to-product pipeline hard?
• Even highly cited papers rarely impact practice
• and usually not useful as input into meta-studies (medicine)
• many papers have more authors than readers
• “You just published a paper and expect me to change the Internet?”
• other disciplines: niche papers for niche problems
• what are niche networks? We try...
• “standing on the shoulders of thousand midgets”
10/17/19 34

35. Paper-to-network transitions are difficult
?
10/17/19 35

36. The streetlight effect
10/17/19 36

37. ||Wi-Fi|| >> ||LTE||
Irfan Ali 1Irfan Ali
LTE/EPC Specifications
UE
MME
HSS
Serving
GW
PDN GW
PCRF
Internet
S6a
S11
S1u
S1-MME
LTE-Uu
S5
Gx
Rx
SGi
eNB
S10
X2
SPR
Sp
Stage-3 Specification
Stage-2 Specification
Stage-1 Specification
Stage-1: 22.278
E-UTRAN Stage-2:
36.300
Evolved Packet Core Stage 2: 23.401
29.274 GTPC
29.281 GTPU
29.274 GTPC
36.410 General
36.411 Layer 1
36.412 (Sig xport)
36.413 (S1AP)
29.212
29.213 Sig Flow
36.201,211,213,214 PHY
36.321 MAC
36.322 RLC
36.323 PDCP
36.331 RRC
36.410 General
36.411 Layer 1
36.414 (Data xport)
29.281 GTPU
PCC Stage 2: 23.203
Charging Stage 2: 32.240
36.420 General
36.421 Layer 1
36.422 (Sig xport)
36.424 (Data xport)
36.423 (X2AP)
29.281 GTPU
29.214
36.304 Idle
36.306 Capability
36.314 Measurement
23.122 Idle-NAS
24.301 NAS
Unspecified
Online
Charging
Function
Offline
Charging
Function
Billing
Domain
Gy/Ro
Gz/Rf
Bx
32.251
32.251
General:
23.003 Identifiers
29.303 DNS
33.401 Security Stage 2&3
S9
29.215
29.061
29.272
36.133 RRM Reqds
Operator
Services
Link to get latest 3GPP specs per release: ftp://ftp.3gpp.org/Specs/latest
Link to find out what a spec covers: http://www.3gpp.org/Specification-Numbering
ORBIT, Rutgers
10/17/19 37

38. Funding agencies want broader
impact, but don’t fund standards
work
10/17/19 38

39. Translational activities as broader impact?
• RFCs may or may not count as publications
• Contributing to standards increasingly costly (travel, time)
• NSF may ”count”, but uncommon
• European projects seem to be more flexible
10/17/19 39

40. Standards contributions
10/17/19 40

41. Math hammers, looking for nails
10/17/19 41

42. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes
• Common theme
• path finding (routing)
• congestion control
• scarcity of X à resource management
• Almost every quantitative & statistical
technique
• queueing theory
• matrix methods
• machine learning
bandwidth
video!
10/17/19 42

43. Almost 25100 years of QoS
Toll Telephone Traffic
Experiments are described to determine the relationship between telephone circuit
loads and the corresponding delay to traffic. The operating methods employed and the
number of circuits available determine in general the number of messages per day which
can be handled over a single toll circuit. The average delay to traffic obviously depends
upon the number of messages per circuit per day, or the circuit loads. With a given load
factor, increase in the circuit loads will increase the average delay to traffic. At the same
time the revenue per circuit mile will correspondingly increase. The practical limit,
however, is approached when the delays to traffic reach a point where the service is
unsatisfactory. The results of the experiments described illustrate the fact that increasing
circuit loads increase the delay to traffic, and vice versa. The revenue per circuit mile is
directly proportional to the product of the circuit load and the toll rate per minute-mile;
consequently the relationship between the quality of service and the toll rate is generally
obvious, assuming a certain rate of return on the plant investment.
Frank Fowle, Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, June 1914
10/17/19 43

44. QoS research
• IEEE: 25,583 papers with “QoS” in metadata through 5/2010
• 84,257 with QoS in meta data or text
• 2 papers/PhD year
• $50,000/PhD year
• à $640M in QoS research
10/17/19 44

45. Telecommunication carriers are
like airlines
10/17/19 45

46. 10/17/19 46
Equipment vendors & operators
Boeing 737
designed 1967
livery
advertising
pricing
commodity
(rarely loved, only hated less)
770-800
800 GSM operators

47. 10/17/19 47
“We don’t want to be bit pipes”
France Telecom
Minitel era (~2000)
Which prevents them from being good bit pipes
à unusual, but inherent, conflict of interest between provider and customer
à Avoid commoditization (competition on price only)
Two mechanisms: provide better services vs. withhold services (”APIs”) or price-differentiate
2008
WAP IMS
Linear
video
Cloud Content

48. 48
Networking companies don’t want to be
content
video
distribution
advertising
10/17/19

49. Bits, bytes and cycles are
cheaper than humans
10/17/19 49

50. 10/17/19 50
Network economics, (over)simplified
Equipment
4%
Construction
11%
Operations
85%
% OF REVENUE
Equipment Construction Operations
Motivating carriers to fund fiber
infrastructure likely requires a method to
improve carrier margins and free up money
for capital investment. As market share
losses in both voice and broadband access
mount, carriers have been aggressive in
slashing costs. However, cost reduction
opportunities are fundamentally limited
without an ability to completely retire
legacy TDM products and assets. Without
the ability to shutter real estate and
decommission support systems entirely,
cost cutting alone cannot keep pace with
customer loss and corresponding revenue
declines. As legacy TDM wireline networks
continue to descale, the percentage of fixed
costs overwhelms the cost structure which
could lead to even greater margin pressure.
Carriers are willing to invest in, and could
potentially gain tremendous efficiency from
deploying new IP networking architectures
like Software Defined Networks and
Network Function Virtualization (SDN NFV).
However, the requirement to operate and
maintain legacy TDM-based networks
limits carriers’ ability to take advantage
of the savings and shift capital to deep
fiber deployment.
The ratio of cash OPEX to CAPEX in Exhibit
8 depicts the predicament of operating
a legacy network given ongoing market
share loss. Operating two networks
(legacy TDM and IP) forces the largest
wireline carriers to spend, on average,
five to six times as much on operating
expenses as they do capital expenditures.
High operating costs due to maintenance
of legacy products and systems consume
the vast majority of service revenues,
leaving less for capital expenditures.
Wireline carriers have both a capital
intensive and labor-intensive business
model. Other labor-intensive industries
such as construction, hospitality and
agriculture typically have capital intensities
below 5 percent compared to a typical
wireline telecom carrier with the expected
capital intensity of 14–18 percent.45
Shifting
OPEX dollars to capital investment in fiber
deployment requires that carriers operate
one network instead of two. Retirement of
legacy TDM networks could greatly reduce
the operating expenses to free up funds
for fiber investment. TDM retirement
also frees up capital previously reserved
for maintenance of the legacy networks
and systems.
Exhibit 8
2016 Average OPEX to CAPEX ratios44
Wireless
3.8X
Cable Wireline
2.7X
5.2X
Retirement of legacy TDM
networks would greatly
reduce operating expenses,
freeing up funds for fiber
investment.
70%
30%
traditional: 12-15 staff/10k customers
Iliad, FR: 3-4 staff/10k

51. Which will be autonomous first?
10/17/19 51

52. Automation & NFV
5210/17/19

53. We do not consider cost (enough)
• Most engineering is cost minimization, given constraints
• But hard for networking
• cost data not available (proprietary)
• very little economics in our network teaching
• improvements are in operations and management more than protocols and
algorithms
• Would require better software skills in carrier work force
• and willingness to develop own software
• and get rid of legacy systems and services
10/17/19 53

54. Statements of faith
10/17/19 54

55. We have fashions and movements
OSI (vs. IP)
text vs. binary
sensor networks
blockchain
machine
learning
NAT vs. IPv6
ATM
5G
IoT
10/17/19 55
CCN

56. 5G – the next moonshot
• “5G could be one of the great moonshots of this generation” (FCC Chairman Pai,
July 2019)
• “And because many of the game-changing applications of 5G have not yet been
invented or even imagined, we will certainly run into skeptics who think this will
be useful for nothing more than faster downloads of movies or cat videos to our
phones.” (same)
• ”Secure 5G networks will absolutely be a vital link to America’s prosperity and
national security in the 21st century. 5G will be as much as 100 times faster than
the current 4G cellular networks. It will transform the way our citizens work,
learn, communicate, and travel. It will make American farms more productive,
American manufacturing more competitive, and American healthcare better and
more accessible. Basically, it covers almost everything, when you get right down
to it. Pretty amazing.” (your guess)
565GWF Dresden

57. Our version of history telling
ATM
10/17/19 57

58. Industrial research is a monopoly
game
10/17/19 58

59. Only monopolists with patient shareholders do
research
AT&T Labs
Bellcore
DEC
Ericsson
Fujitsu
HP
IBM
Intel
Marconi
Microsoft Research
Nokia
Nortel
Siemens
Sprint
Sun Microsystems
Xerox PARC
non-networking relatives may survive
10/17/19 59

60. Stuck in the middle
10/17/19 60

61. Depending on those above and below
email WWW phone...
SMTP HTTP RTP...
TCP UDP…
IP
ethernet PPP…
CSMA async sonet...
copper fiber radio...
all major applications
developed outside the CS
academic community
(WWW, blockchain, P2P)
wireless PHY
optical PHY
MIMO
core networking
research
10/17/19 61

62. PhD students are our future
0
5
10
15
20
25
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
AI Networks OS Security
10/17/19 62

63. Sensor networks optimized the wrong thing
63
http://eschatologist.net/blog/?p=266
• Most IoT systems will be near power since they’ll interact with energy-
based systems (lights, motors, vehicles)
• Most IoT systems will not be running TinyOS (or similar)
• Protocol processing overhead is unlikely to matter
• Low message volume à cryptography overhead is unlikely to matter
• exceptions: light switches and similar 1-function I/O devices à
BT/Zigbee fixed-function devices
$35.00
• A 900MHz quad-core ARM
Cortex-A7
• 1 GB RAM
16-41x
28 EU projects
10/17/19

64. 64
But (largely) ignored user concerns
10/17/19

65. Moving up (and down)
privacy à data usage
cyber security
network neutrality
news, real & fake
5G, 6G, …
quantum communications
10/17/19 65

66. You cannot replicate yourself to
funding or tenure
10/17/19 66

67. Good intentions, bad incentives
Reproducing results is only likely to occur if somebody
really cares about the result.
Many high-profile measurement projects
rely on “secret” data
10/17/19 67

68. Resource scarcity, the money
part
10/17/19 68

69. Money sources
1980-2000s now
NSF
$14.4M/year
industry
DARPA
NSF
è networking for X
10/17/19 69

70. I know how you feel…
H2020
NSF
networkingAI
10/17/19 70

71. The internet is not meant to be
secure
10/17/19 71

72. Security is an incentives problem
• “Making the Internet secure” assumes that this is a layer-3 problem
• But identity and intent reside higher in the stack
• Encryption helps only because networks are now untrustworthy
• Internet has an identity problem, not a (generic) security problem
• Struggling to implement network hygiene:
• BCP 38 (address spoofing)
• DNSSEC (domain spoofing)
• MANRS, RPKI (route spoofing)
• STIR/SHAKEN (phone number spoofing)
10/17/19 72

73. Connectivity is not good
10/17/19 73

74. 10/17/19 74

75. 1996
1997
10/17/19 75

76. 5G: all the credit, none of the blame
• Typical argument:
• we have a problem ∈ {competitiveness, aging society, traffic accidents, climate change}
• IT can play some role in ameliorating the problem
• IT needs networks
• 5G is a new network technology
• thus, 5G fixes problem!
• But
• is 5G critical for the particular application?
• or is it just connectivity – Wi-Fi, fiber, LoRa, satellite?
• how large is the impact – broadband impact studies often inconclusive
• 5G as innocent technology: somehow doesn’t facilitate all the connectivity-
related problems
• privacy, online crime, IoT attacks, election manipulation, …
• all the credit, none of the blame
5GWF Dresden 76

77. 10/17/19 77
Making networks smaller à application TTL

78. The future is …
10/17/19 78

79. We’re not done yet
• Internet = electricity or Metro: only discussed if unreliable
• Limited increase in user-visible speeds – variable, instead of fixed
• Finally self-managing networks?
• but ping + reboot have survived 40 years…
• End of Moore’s Law à specialized hardware for most functions
• Increasing system and component complexity à ever harder for researchers to
contribute (except measure)
• New upper-layer services: P2P storage à block chain à ?
• Data privacy (data minimization) à data usage protections (hopefully) – data
fiduciary
• Networks as enablers for everything, not necessarily as object itself
• One of the most powerful amplification tools, but limited influence on use
We will still be reviewing QoS papers
10/17/19 79

80. Learning from the past
• Underestimating adversaries
• Underestimating greed
• privacy, lack of security progress
• Underestimating hardware (and PHY) progress
• QoS, sensor networks, ATM, DQDB
• Believing (or fostering) hype
• But not asking “Why did X not live up to expectations?”
• Are there lessons for future research
• Falling back on the same tropes
• “QoS for X” & “Y for QoS” (ATM, IP, cloud, blockchain)
10/17/19 80

81. Civil engineering
• Automation
• Increased reliability
• Safety
• ”Connecting the world”
• Measurement
• Evaluation (“anti-marketing”)
Network thinking
• Layering
• Robustness to failures
• Evolvable technology
• Performance modeling (?)
• Governance
Two visions for the future of networking
10/17/19 81