Community-Lab introduction

* Challenges and requirements
** Simple management vs. Distributed node ownership
- In contrast with esp. indoors testbeds that belong wholly to the same
  entity.

** Features vs. Lightweight, low cost (free & open)
- Devices ranging from PCs to embedded boards located on roofs (or worse).
# Node on roof, frozen tower.
- Need light system able to run on a variety of devices.

** Familiarity & flexibility vs. System stability
- Familiar Linux env with root access to researchers.
- Keep env isolation (nodes are shared by experiments).
- Keep node stability (to avoid in-place maintenance, some difficult to reach
  node locations).


** Flexibility vs. Network stability
- Network experiments running on nodes in a production network.
- Allow interaction with CN at the lowest level possible but not disrupting or
  overusing it.

** Traffic collection vs. Privacy of CN users
................................................................................

** Heterogeneity vs. Compatibility
- Lots of different devices (disparate connectivity and software openness).
- Lots of different link technologies (wireless, wired, fiber).

* Community-Lab testbed architecture
** Overall architecture
This architecture applies to all testbeds using the CONFINE software.  All
CONFINE software and documentation is released under Free licenses.  Anyone
can setup a CONFINE testbed.
# Move over overlay diagram less overlay connections plus overlay network.
- A testbed consists of a set of nodes managed by the same server.
  - Server managed by testbed admins.
  - Network and node managed by node admins (usually node owners).
  - Node admins must adhere to a set of conditions.
  - Problematic nodes are not eligible for experimentation.
  - Solves management vs. ownersip problem.
- All components in testbed reachable via management network (tinc mesh VPN).
  - Server and nodes offer APIs on that network.
  - Avoids address scarcity and incompatibility (well structured IPv6 schema).
  - Avoids problems with firewalls and private networks.
  - Thus avoids most CONFINE-specific network configuration of the node (CD).

  - Public addresses still used for experiments when available.
  - Odd hosts can also connect to the management network.
- Gateways connect disjoint parts of the management network.
  - Allows a testbed spanning different CNs and islands through external means
    (e.g. FEDERICA, the Internet).
  - A gateway reachable from the Internet can expose the management network
    (if using public addresses).
- A researcher runs the experiments of a slice in slivers each running in a
  different node…
................................................................................
Mostly autonomous, no long-running connections to server, asynchronous
operation: robust under link instability.
# Node simplified diagram, hover to interesting parts.
- The community device
  - Completely normal CN network device, possibly already existing.
  - Routes traffic between the CN and devices in the node's local network
    (wired, runs no routing protocol).
  - CD/RD separation allows minimum CONFINE-specific configuration for RD, but
    adds one hop for experiments to CN.
- The research device
  - More powerful than CD, it runs OpenWrt (Attitude Adjustment) firmware
    customized by CONFINE.




  - Slivers are implemented as Linux containers.
    - LXC: lightweight virtualization (in Linux mainstream).
    - Resource limitation.
    - Allows a familiar env with resource isolation and keeping node
      stability.
    - Root access to slivers always available to researchers via SSH to RD.


  - Control software
    - Manages containers and resource isolation using LXC.
    - Ensures network isolation and stability through traffic control (QoS)
      and filtering (from L2 upwards).
    - Protects users' privacy through traffic filtering and anonimization.
  - Provides various services to slivers through internal bridge.
  - Optional, controlled direct interfaces for experiments to interact
    directly with the CN.
  - CD/RD separation allows greater compatibility and stability, as well as
    minimum CN-specific configuration, avoids managing CN hardware.
- The recovery device can force a hardware reboot of the RD from several
  triggers and help with upgrade and recovery.

** Alternative node arrangements
Compatible with the current architecture.
- RD hosts CD as a community container: low cost (one device), less stable.
  Not yet implemented.
- CD hosts RD as a KVM: for a powerful node such as a PC, in the future with
  radios linked over Ethernet and DLEP.

** Node and sliver connectivity
# Node simplified diagram, hover to interesting parts.
Slivers can be configured with different types of network interfaces depending
on what connectivity researchers need for experiments:
- Home computer behind a NAT router: a private interface placed into the
  internal bridge, where traffic is forwarded using NAT to the CN.  Outgoing
  traffic is filtered to ensure network stability.
- Publicly open service: a public interface (with a public CN address) placed
  into the local bridge, with traffic routed directly to the CN.  Outgoing
  traffic is filtered to ensure network stability.
- Traffic capture: a passive interface placed on the bridge of the direct
  interface used for capture.  Incoming traffic is filtered and anonimized by
  control software.
- Routing: an isolated interface using a VLAN on top of a direct interface.
  Other slivers with isolated interfaces must be within link layer reach.  All

  traffic is allowed.
- Low-level testing: the sliver is given raw access to the interface.  For
  privacy, isolation and stability reasons this should only be allowed in
  exceptional occasions.

* How the testbed works
# Event diagram, hover over components explained.
An example experiment: two slivers, one of them (source sliver) pings the
other one (target sliver).

1. The researcher first contacts the server and creates a slice description
   which specifies a template for slivers (e.g. Debian Squeeze i386).
   Experiment data is attached including a program to setup the experiment
   (e.g. a script that runs =apt-get install iputils-ping=) and another one to
   run it.
2. The server updates the registry which holds all definitions of testbed,
   nodes, users, slices, slivers, etc.
3. The researcher chooses a couple of nodes and creates sliver descriptions
   for them in the previous slice.  Both sliver descriptions include a public
   interface to the CN and user-defined properties for telling apart the
   source sliver from the target one.  Sliver descriptions go to the registry.
4. Each of the previous nodes gets a sliver description for it.  If enough
................................................................................
At all times there can be external services interacting with researchers,
server, nodes and slivers, e.g. to help choosing nodes, monitor nodes or
collect results.

* Community-Lab integration in existing community networks
# CN diagram (buildings and cloud).
A typical CN looks like this, with most nodes linked using WiFi technology
(cheap and ubiquitous), but sometimes others as optical fiber.  Remember that

CNs are production networks with distributed ownership.  Strategies:

# CN diagram extended with CONFINE devices (hover over interesting part).
- Take an existing node owned by CN members, CONFINE provides a RD and
  connects it via Ethernet.  Experiments are restricted to the application
  layer unless the node owner allows the RD to include a direct interface
  (i.e. antenna).
- Extend the CN with complete nodes, CONFINE provides both the CD and the RD
  and uses a CN member's location.  All but low-level experiments are
  possible with direct interfaces.
- Set up a physically separated cloud of nodes, CONFINE extends the CN with a
  full installation of connected nodes at a site controlled by a partner
  (e.g. campus).  All kinds of experiments are possible with direct
  interfaces.  Users are warned about the experimental nature of the network.

* Recap

- Community networks are an emerging field to provide citizens with
  connectivity in a sustainable and distributed manner in which the owners of
  the networks are the users themselves.

* Challenges and requirements
** Simple management vs. Distributed node ownership
- In contrast with esp. indoors testbeds that belong wholly to the same
  entity.

** Features vs. Lightweight, low cost (free & open)
- Devices ranging from PCs to embedded boards.

- Need light system able to run on a variety of devices.

** Familiarity & flexibility vs. System stability
- Familiar Linux env with root access to researchers.
- Keep env isolation (nodes are shared by experiments).
- Keep node stability (to avoid in-place maintenance, some difficult to reach
  node locations).
# Frozen tower.

** Flexibility vs. Network stability
- Network experiments running on nodes in a production network.
- Allow interaction with CN at the lowest level possible but not disrupting or
  overusing it.

** Traffic collection vs. Privacy of CN users
................................................................................

** Heterogeneity vs. Compatibility
- Lots of different devices (disparate connectivity and software openness).
- Lots of different link technologies (wireless, wired, fiber).

* Community-Lab testbed architecture
** Overall architecture
This architecture applies to all testbeds using the CONFINE software.  Since
all CONFINE software and documentation is released under Free licenses, anyone
can setup a CONFINE testbed.
# Move over overlay diagram less overlay connections plus overlay network.
- A testbed consists of a set of nodes managed by the same server.
  - Server managed by testbed admins.
  - Network and node managed by node admins (usually node owners).
  - Node admins must adhere to a set of conditions.

  - Solves management vs. ownersip problem.
- All components in testbed reachable via management network (tinc mesh VPN).


  - Avoids problems with firewalls and private networks.

  - Avoids address scarcity and incompatibility (well structured IPv6 schema).
  - Public addresses still used for experiments when available.

- Gateways connect disjoint parts of the management network.
  - Allows a testbed spanning different CNs and islands through external means
    (e.g. FEDERICA, the Internet).
  - A gateway reachable from the Internet can expose the management network
    (if using public addresses).
- A researcher runs the experiments of a slice in slivers each running in a
  different node…
................................................................................
Mostly autonomous, no long-running connections to server, asynchronous
operation: robust under link instability.
# Node simplified diagram, hover to interesting parts.
- The community device
  - Completely normal CN network device, possibly already existing.
  - Routes traffic between the CN and devices in the node's local network
    (wired, runs no routing protocol).


- The research device
  - More powerful than CD, it runs OpenWrt (Attitude Adjustment) firmware
    customized by CONFINE.
  - Experiments run here.  The separation between CD and RD allows:
    - Minumum CONFINE-specific tampering with CN hardware.
    - Minimum CN-specific configuration for RDs.
    - Greater compatibility and stability for the CN.
  - Slivers are implemented as Linux containers.
    - LXC: lightweight virtualization (in Linux mainstream).




    - Easier resource limitation, resource isolation and node stability.
    - Provides a familiar env for researchers.
  - Control software
    - Manages containers and resource isolation through LXC tools.
    - Ensures network isolation and stability through traffic control (QoS)
      and filtering (from L2 upwards).
    - Protects users' privacy through traffic filtering and anonimization.

  - Optional, controlled direct interfaces for experiments to interact
    directly with the CN (avoiding the CD).


- The recovery device can force a hardware reboot of the RD from several
  triggers and help with upgrade and recovery.








** Node and sliver connectivity
# Node simplified diagram, hover to interesting parts.
Slivers can be configured with different types of network interfaces depending
on what connectivity researchers need for experiments:
- Home computer behind a NAT router: a private interface with traffic
  forwarded using NAT to the CN.  Outgoing traffic is filtered to ensure
  network stability.
- Publicly open service: a public interface (with a public CN address) with
  traffic routed directly to the CN.  Outgoing traffic is filtered to ensure
  network stability.
- Traffic capture: a passive interface using a direct interface for capture.
  Incoming traffic is filtered and anonimized by control software.

- Routing: an isolated interface using a VLAN on top of a direct interface.

  It only can reach other slivers of the same slice with isolated interfaces
  on the same link.  All traffic is allowed.
- Low-level testing: the sliver is given raw access to the interface.  For
  privacy, isolation and stability reasons this should only be allowed in
  exceptional occasions.

* How the testbed works
# Event diagram, hover over components explained.
An example experiment: two slivers, one of them (source sliver) pings the
other one (target sliver).

1. The researcher first contacts the server and creates a slice description
   which specifies a template for slivers (e.g. Debian Squeeze i386).
   Experiment data is attached including a program to setup the experiment and

   another one to run it.
2. The server updates the registry which holds all definitions of testbed,
   nodes, users, slices, slivers, etc.
3. The researcher chooses a couple of nodes and creates sliver descriptions
   for them in the previous slice.  Both sliver descriptions include a public
   interface to the CN and user-defined properties for telling apart the
   source sliver from the target one.  Sliver descriptions go to the registry.
4. Each of the previous nodes gets a sliver description for it.  If enough
................................................................................
At all times there can be external services interacting with researchers,
server, nodes and slivers, e.g. to help choosing nodes, monitor nodes or
collect results.

* Community-Lab integration in existing community networks
# CN diagram (buildings and cloud).
A typical CN looks like this, with most nodes linked using WiFi technology
(cheap and ubiquitous), but sometimes others as optical fiber.  The CONFINE
project follows three strategies taking into account that CNs are production
networks with distributed ownership:

# CN diagram extended with CONFINE devices (hover over interesting part).
- Take an existing node owned by CN members, CONFINE provides a RD and
  connects it via Ethernet.  Experiments are restricted to the application
  layer unless the node owner allows the RD to include a direct interface
  (i.e. antenna).
- Extend the CN with complete nodes, CONFINE provides both the CD and the RD
  and uses a CN member's location.  All but low-level experiments are possible
  using direct interfaces.
- Set up a physically separated cloud of nodes, CONFINE extends the CN with a
  full installation of connected nodes at a site controlled by a partner
  (e.g. campus).  All kinds of experiments are possible using direct
  interfaces.  Users are warned about the experimental nature of the network.

* Recap

- Community networks are an emerging field to provide citizens with
  connectivity in a sustainable and distributed manner in which the owners of
  the networks are the users themselves.