TurfNet: An Architecture for Dynamically Composable Networks

  • Stefan Schmid
  • Lars Eggert
  • Marcus Brunner
  • Jürgen Quittek
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3457)


The Internet architecture is based on design principles such as end-to-end addressing and global routeability. It suits relatively static, well-managed and flat network hierarchies. Recent years have shown, however, that the Internet is evolving beyond what the current architecture can support. The Internet architecture struggles to support increasingly conflicting requirements from groups with competing interests, such as network, content and application service providers, or end-users of fixed, mobile and ad hoc access networks. This paper describes a new internetworking architecture, called TurfNet. It provides autonomy for individual network domains, or Turfs, through a novel inter-domain communication mechanism that does not require global network addressing or a common network protocol. By minimizing inter-domain dependencies, TurfNet provides a high degree of independence, which in turn facilitates autonomic communications. Allowing network domains to fully operate in isolation maximizes the scope of autonomic management functions. To accomplish this, TurfNet integrates the emerging concept of dynamic network composition with other recent architectural concepts such as decoupling locators from identifiers and establishing end-to-end communication across heterogeneous domains.


Mobile Node Address Space Distribute Hash Table Correspondent Node Gateway Node 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Clark, D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K.R., Braden, R.: Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 2002, Pittsburgh, August 2002, pp. 347–356 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark, D., Braden, R., Falk, A., Pingali, V.: FARA: Reorganizing the Addressing Architecture. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Future Directions in Network Architecture, Germany, August 2003, pp. 313–321 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crowcroft, J., Hand, S., Mortier, R., Roscoe, T., Warfield, A.: Plutarch: An Argument for Network Pluralism. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Future Directions in Network Architecture, Germany, August 2003, pp. 258–266 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheriton, D.R., Gritter, M.: TRIAD: A Scalable Deployable NAT-based Internet Architecture. Stanford Computer Science Technical Report (January 2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Francis, P., Gummadi, R.: IPNL: A NAT-Extended Internet Architecture. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, San Diego, CA, USA, August 2001, pp. 69–80 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sollins, K.R.: Designing for Scale and Differentiation. In: Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Future Directions in Network Architecture, Germany, August 2003, pp. 267–276 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mockapetris, P.: Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities. RFC 1034 (November 1987)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P.: Host Identity Protocol Architecture. Work in Progress (draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-06.txt)(June 2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balakrishnan, H., Lakshminarayanan, K., Ratnasamy, S., Shenker, S., Stoica, I., Walfish, M.: A Layered Naming Architecture for the Internet. In: To appear Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Portland, OR, USA (August 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braden, R., Clark, D., Shenker, S., Wroclawski, J.: Developing a Next-Generation Internet Architecture. Whitepaper (2000), Available at,
  11. 11.
    Niebert, N., Schieder, A., Abramowicz, H., Malmgren, G., Sachs, J., Horn, U., Prehofer, C., Karl, H.: Ambient Networks - An Architecture for Communication Networks Beyond 3G. IEEE Wireless Communications 11(2), 14–22 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kappler, C., Mendes, P., Prehofer, C., Pöyhönen, P., Zhou, D.: A Framework for Self-organized Network Composition. In: Smirnov, M. (ed.) WAC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3457, pp. 139–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Droms, R.: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. RFC 2131 (March 1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deering, S., Hinden, R.: Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. RFC 2460 (December 1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Srisuresh, P., Holdrege, M.: IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations. RFC 2663 (August 1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Frans Kaashoek, M., Balakrishnan, H.: Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 11(1), 17–32 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dubnicki, C., Ungureanu, C., Kilian, W.: FPN: A Distributed Hash Table for Commercial Applications. In: Proc. HPDC-13, Honolulu, HI, USA (June 2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaashoek, M.F., Karger, D.R.: Koorde: A simple degree-optimal distributed hash table. In: Proc. 2nd Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, Berkeley, CA, February 2003, pp. 98–107 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turanyi, Z., Valko, A., Campbell, A.: 4+4: An Architecture for Evolving the Internet Address Space Back Towards Transparency. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review. 33(5), 43–54 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ng, T.S.E., Stoica, I., Zhang, H.: A Waypoint Service Approach to Connect Heterogeneous Internet Address Spaces. In: Proc. USENIX Annual Technical Conference, Boston, MA, USA, June 2001, pp. 319–332 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tschudin, C., Gold, R.: Network Pointers. In: Proc. 1st Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-I), October 2002. Princeton, New Jersey (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Schmid
    • 1
  • Lars Eggert
    • 1
  • Marcus Brunner
    • 1
  • Jürgen Quittek
    • 1
  1. 1.Network LaboratoriesNEC Europe Ltd.HeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations