added motivation
This commit is contained in:
194
Chapters/Introduction.tex
Executable file → Normal file
194
Chapters/Introduction.tex
Executable file → Normal file
@@ -1,165 +1,51 @@
|
||||
% Chapter Template
|
||||
|
||||
\chapter{Introduction} % Main chapter title
|
||||
|
||||
\label{Introduction} % Change X to a consecutive number; for
|
||||
% referencing this chapter elsewhere, use \ref{ChapterX}
|
||||
\label{Introduction}
|
||||
|
||||
%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
% SECTION 1
|
||||
%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
This chapter introduces the Clan project, articulates its fundamental
|
||||
objectives, outlines the key components, and examines the driving
|
||||
factors motivating its development.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Methodology}
|
||||
\section{Motivation}
|
||||
|
||||
This chapter outlines the methodology employed in the present
|
||||
research to evaluate and analyze the Clan framework. A visual
|
||||
representation of the argumentation flow central to the Clan Thesis
|
||||
is provided in Figure \ref{fig:clan_thesis_argumentation_tree}.
|
||||
Peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies and decentralization have undergone
|
||||
significant growth and evolution in recent years. These technologies
|
||||
form the backbone of various systems, including P2P Edge
|
||||
Computing—particularly in the context of the Internet of Things
|
||||
(IoT)—Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), and Blockchain platforms such
|
||||
as Ethereum. P2P architectures enable more democratic,
|
||||
censorship-resistant, and fault-tolerant systems by reducing reliance
|
||||
on single points of failure \cite{shukla_towards_2021}.
|
||||
|
||||
However, to fully realize these benefits, a P2P system must deploy
|
||||
its nodes across a diverse set of entities. Greater diversity in
|
||||
hosting increases the network’s resilience to censorship and systemic failures.
|
||||
|
||||
Despite this, recent trends in Ethereum node hosting reveal a
|
||||
significant reliance on centralized cloud providers. Notably, Amazon,
|
||||
Hetzner, and OVH collectively host 70\% of all Ethereum nodes, as
|
||||
illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:ethernodes_hosting}.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}[H]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\includesvg[width=1\textwidth,
|
||||
keepaspectratio]{Figures/clan_thesis_argumentation_tree.drawio.svg}
|
||||
\caption{Argumentation Tree for the Clan Thesis}
|
||||
\label{fig:clan_thesis_argumentation_tree}
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/ethernodes_hosting.png}
|
||||
\caption{Distribution of Ethereum nodes hosted by various providers
|
||||
\cite{noauthor_isps_nodate}}
|
||||
\label{fig:ethernodes_hosting}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
The structure of this thesis adopts a multi-problem-oriented approach
|
||||
rather than focusing on a single isolated problem. Specifically, it
|
||||
addresses a set of interrelated challenges within the context of
|
||||
enhancing the reliability and manageability of \ac{P2P}
|
||||
networks. The primary objective of this research is to investigate
|
||||
how the Clan framework provides effective solutions to these challenges.
|
||||
|
||||
To achieve this goal, the research is divided into two main components:
|
||||
\begin{enumerate}
|
||||
\item \textbf{Development of a Theoretical Model} \\
|
||||
A theoretical model of the Clan framework will be constructed. This
|
||||
model will consist of a formal specification of the foundational
|
||||
axioms of the system, including the properties and principles that
|
||||
govern its design. From these base axioms, the research will derive
|
||||
key theorems and explore their corresponding boundary conditions. The
|
||||
theoretical analysis will aim to elucidate the underlying mechanisms
|
||||
of the framework and provide a concrete foundation for its evaluation.
|
||||
|
||||
\item \textbf{Empirical Verification of the Theoretical Model} \\
|
||||
To validate the theoretical model, a series of experiments will be
|
||||
conducted on various components of the Clan framework. These
|
||||
experiments will assess how the theoretical predictions align with
|
||||
practical observations. This step is essential to determine the
|
||||
extent to which the theoretical model holds under real-world
|
||||
conditions and to identify its limitations, if any.
|
||||
\end{enumerate}
|
||||
|
||||
TODO
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Related Work}
|
||||
|
||||
The Clan framework operates within the realm of software deployment
|
||||
and peer-to-peer networking,
|
||||
necessitating a deep understanding of existing methodologies in these
|
||||
areas to tackle contemporary challenges.
|
||||
This section will discuss related works encompassing system
|
||||
deployment, peer data management,
|
||||
and low maintenance structured peer-to-peer overlays, which inform
|
||||
the development and positioning of the Clan framework.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Nix: A Safe and Policy-Free System for Software Deployment}
|
||||
|
||||
Nix addresses significant issues in software deployment by utilizing
|
||||
a technique that employs cryptographic
|
||||
hashes to ensure unique paths for component instances \cite{dolstra_nix_2004}.
|
||||
The system is distinguished by its features, such as concurrent
|
||||
installation of multiple versions and variants,
|
||||
atomic upgrades, and safe garbage collection.
|
||||
These capabilities lead to a flexible deployment system that
|
||||
harmonizes source and binary deployments.
|
||||
Nix conceptualizes deployment without imposing rigid policies,
|
||||
thereby offering adaptable strategies for component management.
|
||||
This contrasts with many prevailing systems that are constrained by
|
||||
policy-specific designs,
|
||||
making Nix an easily extensible, safe and versatile deployment solution
|
||||
for configuration files and software.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{NixOS: A Purely Functional Linux Distribution}
|
||||
|
||||
NixOS is an extension of the principles established by Nix,
|
||||
presenting a Linux distribution that manages system configurations
|
||||
using purely functional methods . This model ensures that system
|
||||
configurations are reproducible and isolated
|
||||
from stateful interactions typical in imperative models of package management.
|
||||
Because NixOS configurations are built by pure functions, they can overcome the
|
||||
challenges of easily rolling back changes, deploying multiple package versions
|
||||
side-by-side, and achieving deterministic configuration reproduction .
|
||||
The solution is particularly compelling in environments necessitating rigorous
|
||||
reproducibility and minimal configuration drift—a valuable feature
|
||||
for distributed networks .
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Disnix: A Toolset for Distributed Deployment}
|
||||
|
||||
The Disnix toolset extends the deployment capabilities of Nix into
|
||||
distributed systems,
|
||||
focusing on automating the deployment process across different network nodes .
|
||||
By leveraging the modular approach of Nix, Disnix enables the
|
||||
consistent deployment of
|
||||
software environments, reducing the incidence of configuration errors
|
||||
across heterogeneous systems.
|
||||
This approach aligns with the needs of distributed systems like those
|
||||
utilized in peer-to-peer networks,
|
||||
where maintaining consistency across nodes is crucial for operational
|
||||
integrity .
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{The Piazza Peer Data Management Project}
|
||||
|
||||
The peer data management landscape is further enriched by the Piazza
|
||||
project, which offers a
|
||||
flexible integration framework for heterogeneous data sources[5].
|
||||
Piazza's approach to routing and
|
||||
indexing extends beyond traditional network boundaries, showcasing a
|
||||
scalable method for handling
|
||||
vast data spaces in peer-to-peer systems. By addressing challenges
|
||||
related to schema mediation and
|
||||
decentralized data queries, Piazza provides a foundational structure
|
||||
from which Clan can envisage
|
||||
robust peer data management underpinned by strong consistency and reach.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Software-Defined Networking and Low Maintenance Overlays}
|
||||
|
||||
The transition towards software-defined networking (SDN) is
|
||||
represented by systems that decouple
|
||||
the control plane from the data plane, enabling flexible network
|
||||
configurations[6]. In particular,
|
||||
SDN introduces novel paradigms in managing network resources
|
||||
dynamically, facilitating more adaptive
|
||||
and responsive network overlays. The Clan framework can draw on SDN
|
||||
principles to facilitate
|
||||
low-maintenance structured overlays, ensuring robust connectivity and
|
||||
efficient resource allocation
|
||||
in peer-to-peer environments. These systems reduce the overhead
|
||||
associated with managing network state,
|
||||
thus aligning with the inherent value propositions of decentralized networks.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Charon: Declarative Provisioning and Deployment}
|
||||
|
||||
Charon adds another dimension to deployment via its declarative
|
||||
provisioning capabilities[7].
|
||||
By emphasizing a policy-driven approach, Charon aligns closely with
|
||||
the principles of
|
||||
infrastructure-as-code, where deployment processes are consistently
|
||||
repeatable and auditable.
|
||||
Such characteristics are beneficial for frameworks like Clan,
|
||||
ensuring transparency and accuracy
|
||||
in deployment processes across peer-to-peer nodes[8].
|
||||
|
||||
In summation, the evolution of deployment systems and peer data
|
||||
management frameworks underscores
|
||||
the steps necessary for developing robust decentralized systems like
|
||||
the Clan framework.
|
||||
By integrating features from Nix, NixOS, Disnix, and leveraging
|
||||
insights from SDN and Charon,
|
||||
the Clan framework can offer a high degree of reliability,
|
||||
flexibility, and efficiency across
|
||||
distributed networks. This related work provides a foundational
|
||||
understanding that supports the
|
||||
enhancement of the Clan framework towards achieving these objectives.
|
||||
The centralized nature of these providers and their domicile within the
|
||||
same regulatory jurisdiction—the United States—introduces vulnerability.
|
||||
Such a configuration allows for possible governmental intervention,
|
||||
which could lead to network shutdowns or manipulation by leveraging
|
||||
control over these cloud services.
|
||||
|
||||
The reliance on cloud-based solutions is driven by their ease of use,
|
||||
reliability, and the significant technical barriers associated with
|
||||
self-hosting solutions. These barriers include the need for technical
|
||||
expertise and the often unreliable nature of personally managed
|
||||
hosting. Recognizing this gap, the Clan project is proposed to
|
||||
alleviate these barriers, making the process of self-hosting as
|
||||
straightforward and reliable as using a cloud provider. The goal is
|
||||
to democratize the hosting of P2P nodes, enhancing the overall
|
||||
robustness and autonomy of decentralized networks.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user