Commit 90c3c69ba8adcca64162dc913082bca9e8dc8f4f
1 parent
eb5fe864
fix typos from dimitrios's comments
Showing
5 changed files
with
32 additions
and
30 deletions
challenges.tex
| ... | ... | @@ -7,13 +7,13 @@ cooperative \wifi{} access and brings new challenges. |
| 7 | 7 | As discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:sharing}, user's privacy and security can be |
| 8 | 8 | preserved through isolating either at network level (virtual networks) or client |
| 9 | 9 | level (white list vs. authenticated clients). However, it is still an open |
| 10 | -question that whether or to what extent the user is liable to the illegal | |
| 10 | +question whether or to what extent the user is liable to the illegal | |
| 11 | 11 | actions, most notably copyright infringement, of the peers who share the |
| 12 | 12 | network. |
| 13 | 13 | |
| 14 | 14 | Another challenge in establishing reciprocal \wifi{} sharing is the bootstrap |
| 15 | 15 | process. It is expected that during early stages of deployment, the sharing |
| 16 | -opportunity will be sparse. Therefore, It is important to provide additional | |
| 16 | +opportunity will be sparse. Therefore, it is important to provide additional | |
| 17 | 17 | incentives other than the benefit of \wifi{} sharing to increase the penetration |
| 18 | 18 | of system. One possible feature that can be added to the \wisefi{} app is to |
| 19 | 19 | help the user find better \wifi{} channels for their own APs. Uses who are | ... | ... |
design.tex
| ... | ... | @@ -25,12 +25,12 @@ shows the overall work flow of the \wisefi{} system. |
| 25 | 25 | To detect reciprocal sharing opportunities, two pieces of information are |
| 26 | 26 | required: the home AP of the device, and neighbor APs' signal strength during |
| 27 | 27 | \wifi{} sessions with the home AP. A smartphone application can be deployed |
| 28 | -through app market to collect these information. In particular, the home AP | |
| 28 | +through app market to collect this information. In particular, the home AP | |
| 29 | 29 | information can be learned over a period of time using the heuristics developed |
| 30 | 30 | in Section~\ref{subsec:homeap}, or be inputted directly by user. Once the home |
| 31 | 31 | AP information is identified, \wifi{} scan results during sessions with home APs |
| 32 | 32 | can then be logged to identify the neighbor APs that can potentially provide |
| 33 | -better network performance. Finally, these information are uploaded and fused in | |
| 33 | +better network performance. Finally, this information is uploaded and fused in | |
| 34 | 34 | \wisefi{} server to identify reciprocal sharing opportunities using the methods |
| 35 | 35 | described in Section~\ref{subsec:reciprocal}. |
| 36 | 36 | |
| ... | ... | @@ -38,8 +38,8 @@ described in Section~\ref{subsec:reciprocal}. |
| 38 | 38 | \label{subsec:sharing} |
| 39 | 39 | |
| 40 | 40 | Once the reciprocal sharing opportunities are discovered, the \wisefi{} server |
| 41 | -distributes such information to the \wisefi{} application on smartphone, which | |
| 42 | -prompts user to establish \wifi{} sharing. The sharing mechanism must meet two | |
| 41 | +distributes such information to the \wisefi{} application on the smartphone, which | |
| 42 | +prompts the user to establish \wifi{} sharing. The sharing mechanism must meet two | |
| 43 | 43 | goals: \textit{control} and \textit{protection}. First, the system should be |
| 44 | 44 | able to control the sharing, including granting the access of home AP to other |
| 45 | 45 | \wisefi{} users, and more importantly, revoking the access when needed. Second, |
| ... | ... | @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ temporal visitors yet isolate them from home clients. For home APs with such |
| 56 | 56 | feature, \wifi{} sharing can be achieved by only distributing the credential of |
| 57 | 57 | guest network to other \wisefi{} users. Access and bandwidth policies can then |
| 58 | 58 | be enforced on the guest network to achieve control and protection. |
| 59 | -Additionally, such isolation and enforcements are mostly likely already enabled | |
| 59 | +Additionally, such isolation and enforcements are most likely already enabled | |
| 60 | 60 | by default for guest networks, so that even inexperienced user can configure the |
| 61 | 61 | \wifi{} sharing through guest network. |
| 62 | 62 | |
| ... | ... | @@ -65,14 +65,14 @@ be required by user, such as MAC black or white list, routing table |
| 65 | 65 | modification, etc. Such configurations are most likely too complicated for |
| 66 | 66 | average users to perform. However, simply sharing the \wifi{} credential of user's |
| 67 | 67 | home AP to other \wisefi{} users is not only dangerous, but also making it |
| 68 | -difficult to revoke the access in the future. In worst case scenario, a user may | |
| 68 | +difficult to revoke the access in the future. In the worst case scenario, a user may | |
| 69 | 69 | be forced to change the home AP password and reconfigure the \wifi{} credential |
| 70 | 70 | on all his/her devices just to revoke the access of the other \wisefi{} user. |
| 71 | 71 | Although most commodity APs support client MAC black or white list feature, |
| 72 | 72 | configuring them properly is difficult for average users. Furthermore, the |
| 73 | 73 | sharing relationship should be built between users instead of devices: once the |
| 74 | 74 | sharing is established, one user should be able to connect any of his/her |
| 75 | -devices, not only the smartphone, to the other user's home AP. Even the system | |
| 75 | +devices, not only the smartphone, to the other user's home AP. Even if the system | |
| 76 | 76 | can directly share each other's \wifi{} credential, manually configuring it on |
| 77 | 77 | all devices is still tedious. |
| 78 | 78 | |
| ... | ... | @@ -80,8 +80,8 @@ To overcome this challenge, we propose a dynamic \wifi{} AP configuration API |
| 80 | 80 | with two simple interfaces: \texttt{getAuthClients} and \texttt{setWhiteList}. |
| 81 | 81 | The semantics of the interfaces are as follows. \texttt{getAuthClients} |
| 82 | 82 | returns all the MAC addresses of clients that are currently associated with the |
| 83 | -AP through normal authentication. In home \wifi{} network scenario, this | |
| 84 | -interface shall return only the MAC addresses of user's own \wifi{} devices. On | |
| 83 | +AP through normal authentication. In the home \wifi{} network scenario, this | |
| 84 | +interface shall return only the MAC addresses of the user's own \wifi{} devices. On | |
| 85 | 85 | other hand, \texttt{setWhiteList} sets a list of white list MAC addresses that |
| 86 | 86 | the AP should accept their association requests regardless of possible |
| 87 | 87 | authentication errors (e.g., due to incorrect \wifi{} password). Finally, these |
| ... | ... | @@ -92,7 +92,8 @@ API through the HTTP server that is already integrated in most commodity APs. |
| 92 | 92 | |
| 93 | 93 | With the help of these configuration APIs, the \wifi{} sharing process can work |
| 94 | 94 | as follows. Suppose the \wisefi{} system has discovered the reciprocal sharing |
| 95 | -opportunity between Alice and Bob, here are the steps to grant Bob's device to | |
| 95 | +opportunity between Alice and Bob, here are the steps to grant Bob's device | |
| 96 | +access to | |
| 96 | 97 | Alice's home AP. First, the \wisefi{} app on Bob's smartphone (which is |
| 97 | 98 | associated with Bob's home AP through proper authentication) sends a |
| 98 | 99 | \texttt{getAuthClients} request to Bob's home AP, retrieving the MAC addresses |
| ... | ... | @@ -115,12 +116,13 @@ Second, revoking access of other \wisefi{} users simply requires a |
| 115 | 116 | \texttt{setWhiteList} request, without needing to change the user's home AP |
| 116 | 117 | password. Furthermore, the \wisefi{} app can list other \wisefi{} |
| 117 | 118 | users who are in a reciprocal sharing relationship and provide interfaces to let |
| 119 | +the | |
| 118 | 120 | user manually revoke access of other users if needed. Finally, this mechanism |
| 119 | 121 | does not require modifications of \wifi{} clients (except for installation of |
| 120 | -\wisefi{} app) and only requires software updates at AP side, making it easy to | |
| 122 | +the \wisefi{} app) and only requires software updates at AP side, making it easy to | |
| 121 | 123 | deploy. Once the sharing is established, protection and isolation can be |
| 122 | 124 | enforced at the AP side by differentiating two type of clients: authenticated |
| 123 | -clients (user's own devices) and while list clients (\wisefi{} devices). | |
| 125 | +clients (user's own devices) and white list clients (\wisefi{} devices). | |
| 124 | 126 | Therefore, such sharing mechanism meets both the control and protection goals. |
| 125 | 127 | |
| 126 | 128 | |
| ... | ... | @@ -138,17 +140,17 @@ For instance, suppose after the system has established reciprocal \wifi{} sharin |
| 138 | 140 | between Alice and Bob, and Bob decides to deploy an extra AP at his home which |
| 139 | 141 | makes him no longer benefit from sharing Alice's home AP. The system should |
| 140 | 142 | monitor Bob's \wifi{} usage to detect the termination of the reciprocal |
| 141 | -relationship and revoke Alice's access of Bob's home AP accordingly. | |
| 143 | +relationship and revoke Alice's access to Bob's home AP accordingly. | |
| 142 | 144 | |
| 143 | 145 | Second, the not so obvious reason is that, as mentioned in |
| 144 | 146 | Section~\ref{subsec:better}, \wifi{} signal strength is used as a hint to |
| 145 | 147 | identify potentially better APs. And it is well known that signal strength does |
| 146 | 148 | not directly translate to \wifi{} performance. Other factors, such as AP load, |
| 147 | -modulation, interference, or \wifi{} generation, also affect the link quality | |
| 149 | +PHY data rate, interference, or \wifi{} generation (e.g., 802.11/g/n/ac), also affect the link quality | |
| 148 | 150 | yet can not be easily detected by the smartphone. Furthermore, last hop \wifi{} |
| 149 | -link quality does not necessarily determines clients' overall end-to-end network | |
| 151 | +link quality does not necessarily determine the clients' overall end-to-end network | |
| 150 | 152 | performance. In fact, there is no way to predict whether the neighbor AP can |
| 151 | -indeed provide better network performance than user's home AP until the sharing is | |
| 153 | +indeed provide better network performance than the user's home AP until the sharing is | |
| 152 | 154 | actually established. |
| 153 | 155 | |
| 154 | 156 | To measure the reciprocity in terms of network performance, standard performance |
| ... | ... | @@ -156,7 +158,7 @@ benchmarks, such as download/upload throughput, \texttt{ping} latency, or DNS |
| 156 | 158 | lookup, can be performed periodically by the \wisefi{} client. However, it is |
| 157 | 159 | not trivial to monitor the network usage aspect of reciprocity from the vantage |
| 158 | 160 | point of a single client: the smartphone's association time may not be |
| 159 | -representative of user's other wireless devices. For this purpose, we argument | |
| 161 | +representative of user's other wireless devices. For this purpose, we augment | |
| 160 | 162 | the AP configuration API proposed in Section~\ref{subsec:sharing} with one new |
| 161 | 163 | interface, \texttt{getWhiteListClents}, which returns the MAC addresses of |
| 162 | 164 | clients that associated with the AP through white list mechanism. These are the | ... | ... |
introduction.tex
| ... | ... | @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ a city has a population density an order of magnitude lower than |
| 70 | 70 | densely-populated areas like Manhattan, we still find that many users would |
| 71 | 71 | benefit from being able to connect to neighboring private networks. Even more |
| 72 | 72 | surprisingly, despite monitoring only several hundred users we were still |
| 73 | -able to identify several reciprocal \wifi{} sharing opportunities in our tiny | |
| 73 | +able to observe reciprocal \wifi{} sharing opportunities in our tiny | |
| 74 | 74 | sample. Motivated by these results Section~\ref{sec:design} presents the |
| 75 | 75 | design of \wisefi{}, a system addressing the practical challenges of |
| 76 | 76 | establishing and monitoring reciprocal \wifi{} sharing agreements. We | ... | ... |
investigation.tex
| ... | ... | @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ identify the AP which has the largest day count as the device's home AP, |
| 60 | 60 | provided that the day count is larger than a threshold (30 days) to further |
| 61 | 61 | filter out false positives. |
| 62 | 62 | |
| 63 | -After applying the above heuristics, the home AP information of 107 devices are | |
| 63 | +After applying the above heuristics, the home AP information of 107 devices is | |
| 64 | 64 | identified, including 101 unique BSSIDs. There are 6 BSSIDs that are identified |
| 65 | 65 | as home APs for two devices. After further investigation and clarification with |
| 66 | 66 | \PhoneLab{} administrators, we found this is because some participants are family |
| ... | ... | @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ end, we look at all the scan results in the sub-optimal category, and count the |
| 123 | 123 | number of times that each neighbor AP appears as $AP_{best}$. For each device, |
| 124 | 124 | we calculate the fraction of the top $n (1 \le n \le 3)$ dominant neighbor APs. |
| 125 | 125 | Figure~\ref{fig:dominantap} shows the CDF of dominant AP fraction. By sharing 1, |
| 126 | -2 or 3 neighbor APs, half the device's sub-optimal connection time can be | |
| 126 | +2 or 3 neighbor APs, the suboptimal connection time for 50\% of the devices can be | |
| 127 | 127 | reduced by 55\%, 82\% and 90\% respectively. |
| 128 | 128 | |
| 129 | 129 | \begin{figure}[t] |
| ... | ... | @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ purpose, we build a reciprocal sharing graph $G_r=(V, E)$, where $V$ is the set |
| 143 | 143 | of APs, and $\langle AP_i \rightarrow AP_j \rangle \in E$ if $AP_i$'s clients |
| 144 | 144 | receive better signal from $AP_j$, that is, $AP_j$ appears as $AP_{best}$ in the |
| 145 | 145 | scan results of $AP_i$'s clients. Note that according to the definition, $AP_i$ |
| 146 | -is one of the identified home APs, while $AP_j$ could be other arbitrary APs. | |
| 146 | +is one of the identified home APs, while $AP_j$ could be any other arbitrary AP. | |
| 147 | 147 | Loops in $G_r$ represent reciprocal sharing opportunities. |
| 148 | 148 | |
| 149 | 149 | To capture the reciprocal sharing relationships among \PhoneLab{} participants, |
| ... | ... | @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ APs, node 0 and 7, which exhibit reciprocal sharing relationships. |
| 174 | 174 | |
| 175 | 175 | We must point out that \PhoneLab{} participants reside sparsely among the vast |
| 176 | 176 | Buffalo area, and the above analysis is further restricted to those participants |
| 177 | -that we can detect their home APs using heuristics described | |
| 177 | +whose home AP can be detected using heuristics described | |
| 178 | 178 | Section~\ref{subsec:homeap}. The consequence of such sparsity is that most of |
| 179 | 179 | the neighbor APs which can provide better signal are not one of the identified |
| 180 | 180 | home APs, thus are not shown in Figure~\ref{fig:reciprocal}. To quantify the | ... | ... |
related.tex
| ... | ... | @@ -10,22 +10,22 @@ share access to the open \wifi{} network. On other hand, FON~\cite{fon} is a |
| 10 | 10 | commercial Wifi sharing network, where registered users can roam over |
| 11 | 11 | FON-supported Wifi networks. WLAN owners share their Wifi network either for |
| 12 | 12 | small money compensation, or to get Wifi access to other users when they are way |
| 13 | -from home (roaming). FON aims at providing global Wifi sharing community where | |
| 14 | -users want to connect to others' Wifi network because they are way from home and | |
| 13 | +from home (roaming). FON aims at providing a global Wifi sharing community where | |
| 14 | +users want to connect to others' Wifi network because they are away from home and | |
| 15 | 15 | have no WLAN access. |
| 16 | 16 | |
| 17 | 17 | Both OpenWireless and FON aim at sharing \wifi{} access between strangers either |
| 18 | -through volunteering or financial incentives. Whereas in our proposal, users share | |
| 18 | +through volunteering or financial incentives. In contrast, in our proposal, users share | |
| 19 | 19 | Wifi network locally (within neighbors) for better network performance, and the |
| 20 | 20 | sharing relationship is immediate (between two parties) and stable (physical |
| 21 | 21 | neighbor relationship). |
| 22 | 22 | |
| 23 | -There are also rich literature on cooperative \wifi{} sharing. Dimopoulos | |
| 23 | +There are also several works on cooperative \wifi{} sharing. Dimopoulos | |
| 24 | 24 | \textit{et al.}~\cite{efstathiou2010controlled} propose a reciprocal Wifi |
| 25 | 25 | sharing mechanism and later extend it to a large scale peer-to-peer Wifi |
| 26 | 26 | roaming framework~\cite{dimopoulos2010exploiting}. They mostly focus on the |
| 27 | -reciprocal manner of sharing: each user who share his/her WLAN will obtain | |
| 28 | -digital proof service (\textit{receipts}), which represent a ``I-owe-you'' | |
| 27 | +reciprocal manner of sharing: each user who shares his/her WLAN will obtain | |
| 28 | +digital proof of service (\textit{receipts}), which represents a ``I-owe-you'' | |
| 29 | 29 | relationship. These receipts can later on be consumed to get reciprocal Wifi |
| 30 | 30 | access from other users. Such reputation mechanisms can also be applied to |
| 31 | 31 | \wisefi{}, although they can be simplified since the sharing is between two | ... | ... |