Why we dont need ANTS and active networks

Why we don’t need ANTS (and active networks)… Johnny Ngan

By employing ANTS… • Increase overhead and latency • Reduce at least 74% throughput • Consume many more CPU cycles Won’t use it anyway

Overview • Why active network is a dumb idea • Why ANTS sucks

Santa’s view • If active network is so great, why not to have the whole network stack written in Java and running in user mode?

Security issues • Running mobile code is dangerous – Java: the way to go? – New security attacks • Timing issues (e. g. SSH vulnerability)

Won’t be useful • Routers won’t be “active” – Complicated, large overhead • Only implemented by end systems – And you used multicast as an example? • Why not just use IP/UDP?

Overview • Why active network is a dumb idea • Why ANTS sucks

Poor choices of language • Java is slow • Reduce at least 76% throughput – “the system is usable for experimenting with distributed application” • CPU overhead not discussed

Freedom: Always the more the better? • Encourage nonstandard protocol – Emerging of TCP-unfriendly protocols – More congestion problems • DDo. S is easier than ever! • Also easy to steal CPU cycles…

Resource limiting is nontrivial • Adds to overhead • Can be done but hard to avoid overuse