Self-organising Management Overlays for Future Internet Services

  • Lawrence Cheng
  • Alex Galis
  • Bertrand Mathieu
  • Kerry Jean
  • Roel Ocampo
  • Lefteris Mamatas
  • Javier Rubio-Loyola
  • Joan Serrat
  • Andreas Berl
  • Hermann de Meer
  • Steven Davy
  • Zeinab Movahedi
  • Laurent Lefevre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5276)


Networks are becoming service-aware implying that all relevant business goals pertaining to a service are fulfilled, and also the network resources are used optimally. Future Internet Networks (FIN) have time varying topology (e.g. such networks are envisaged in Autonomic Internet [1], FIND program [2], GENI program [3], FIRE program [4], Ambient Networks [5], Ad-hoc networks [6]) and service availability and service context change as nodes join and leave the networks. In this paper we propose and evaluate a new self-organising service management system that manages such changes known as the Overlay Management Backbones (OMBs). The OMB is a self-organising solution to the problem space in which each OMB node is dynamically assigned a different service context task. The selection of OMB nodes is conducted automatically, without the need of relatively heavy-weighted dynamic negotiations. Our solution relies on the scalability and dynamicity advantages of Distributed Hash Tables (DHTs). This system is needed to select continuously, automatically, and dynamically a set of network nodes, to become responsible for collecting the availability information of service context in the changing network. This solution advances the state of the art avoiding dynamic negotiations between all network nodes reducing management complexity and cost for bandwidth-limited environments.


Self-organised management Autonomic Internet Distributed hash tables Peer-to-Peer 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bassi, A., Denazis, S., Galis, A., Fahy, C., Serrano, M., Serrat, J.: Autonomic Internet: A Perspective for Future Internet Services Based on Autonomic Principles. In: IEEE 3rd Intl. Week on Management of Networks and Services Manweek 2007 / MACE 2007 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Modelling Autonomic Communications Environments, San José, California, USA, October 29 – November 2 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Future Internet Design (FIND) Program,
  3. 3.
    Global Environment for Network Innovation (GENI) Program,
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Ambient Networks (ANs) Project,
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Gnutella development forum, the gnutella v0.6 protocol,
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Clarke, I., Sandberg, O., Wiley, B., Hong, T.W.: Freenet: A distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval system. Freenet White Paper (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lua, E., Crowcroft, J., Pias, M., Sharma, R., Lim, S.: A Survey and Comparison of Peer-to-Peer Overlay Network Schemes. In: IEEE Communications Survey and Tutorial (March 2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ratnasamy, S., Francis, P., Handley, M., Karp, R., Shenker, S.: A Scalable Content-Addressable Network. In: ACM conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications (SIGCOMM), pp. 161–172, San Diego, CA, USA (August 2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rowstron, D.P.: Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: Guerraoui, R. (ed.) Middleware 2001. LNCS, vol. 2218, pp. 329–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashoek, M.F., Balakrishnan, H.: Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications. In: The ACM conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications (SIGCOMM), San Diego, USA (August 2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zach, M., Parker, D., Fahy, C., Carroll, R., Lehtihet, E., Georgalas, N., Marin, R., Serrat, J., Nielsen.: Towards a framework for network management applications based on peer-to-peer paradigms. In: NOMS 2006, Vancouver, Canada (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Booth, D., Haas, H., McCabe, F., Newcomer, E., Champion, M., Ferris, C., Orchard, D.: Web Services Architecture. In: W3C Working Group Note, W3C (Febraury 2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fehskens, A.: Monitoring Systems. In: 1st IFIP Integrated Network Management Symposium, Boston (May 1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Autonomic Internet Project,
  18. 18.
    Cheng, L., Ocampo, R., Jean, K., Galis, A., Simon, C., Szabo, R., Kersch, P., Giaffreda, R.: Towards Distributed Hash Tables (De)Composition in Ambient Networks. In: State, R., van der Meer, S., O’Sullivan, D., Pfeifer, T. (eds.) DSOM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4269, pp. 258–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strassner, J., Agoulmine, N., Lehtihet, E.: FOCALE—A Novel Autonomic Computing Architecture, LAACS (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Curran, K., Mulvenna, M., Galis, A., Nugent, C.: Challenges and Research Directions in Autonomic Communications. International Journal of Internet Protocol Technology (IJIPT) 2(1), 3–17 (2007); SSN (Online): 1743-8217- ISSN (Print):CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schilit, B., Theimer, M.: Disseaminating Active Map Information to Mobile Hosts. IEEE Network 8(5), 22–32 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brown, M.: Supporting User Mobility. International Federation for Information Processing (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schilit, B., Adams, N., Want, R.: Context-Aware Computing Applications. In: The IEEE Computer Society Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, pp. 85–90. IEEE, Santa Cruz (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pascoe, J.: Adding Generic Contextual Capabilities to Wearable Computers. In: The 2nd International Symposium on Wearable Computers, pp. 92–99 (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dey, A., Salber, D., Abowd, G.: The Context Toolkit: Aiding the Development of Context-Enabled Applications. In: The 1999 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems (CHI 1999), pp. 434–441. ACM Press, PA (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Galis, A., De Meer, H., Todd, C.: Flow Context Tags: Concepts and Applications. In: NetCon 2005 Conference, Lannion, France, November 14-18 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cheng, L., Jean, K., Ocampo, R., Galis, A., Kersch, P., Szabo, R.: Secure Bootstrapping of Distributed Hash Tables in Dynamic Wireless Networks. In: The IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Glasgow, UK (June 2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cai, M., Frank, M.: RDFPeers: A Scalable Distributed RDF Repository based on a Structured Peer-to-Peer Network. In: 13th Intl. Conf. on World Wide Web, NY, USA, May 17-20 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kleis, M., Lua, E., Zhou, X.: Hierarchical Peer-to-Peer Networks using Lightweight SuperPeer Topologies, In: The 10th IEEE Symposium Computers and Communications (ISCC), Cartagena, Spain, pp. 143–148 (June 2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jesi, G., Montresor, A., Babaoglu, O.: Proximity-Aware SuperPeer Overlay Topologies. In: The 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Self-Managed Networks, Systems & Services (SelfMan), Dublin, Ireland (June 2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mizrak, A., Cheung, Y., Kumar, V., Savage, S.: Structured SuperPeers: Leveraging Heterogeneity to Provide Constant-Time Lookup. In: The IEEE Workshop on Internet Applications (WIAPP), San Jose, USA (June 2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Adler, M., Kumar, R., Ross, K., Rubenstein, D., Suel, T., Yao, D.: Optimal Peer Selection for P2P Downloading and Streaming. In: The IEEE Infocom, Miami, FL (March 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence Cheng
    • 1
  • Alex Galis
    • 1
  • Bertrand Mathieu
    • 2
  • Kerry Jean
    • 1
  • Roel Ocampo
    • 1
    • 3
  • Lefteris Mamatas
    • 1
  • Javier Rubio-Loyola
    • 4
  • Joan Serrat
    • 4
  • Andreas Berl
    • 5
  • Hermann de Meer
    • 5
  • Steven Davy
    • 6
  • Zeinab Movahedi
    • 7
  • Laurent Lefevre
    • 8
  1. 1.University College LondonUK
  2. 2.France TelecomFrance
  3. 3.University of the PhilippinesPhilippines
  4. 4.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaSpain
  5. 5.University of PassauGermany
  6. 6.Waterford Institute of TechnologyIreland
  7. 7.Université Pierre et Marie CurieFrance
  8. 8.INRIA RESOUniversity of LyonFrance

Personalised recommendations