relative network positioning via cdn redirections
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Relative Network Positioning via CDN Redirections

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 17

Relative Network Positioning via CDN Redirections - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 83 Views
  • Uploaded on

Relative Network Positioning via CDN Redirections. A. Su, D. Choffnes , F. Bustamante, A. Kuzmanovic ICDCS 2008 Presented by: Imranul Hoque. Relative Network Positioning. Replica 2. Replica 1. Replica 3. How to calculate RTT?. Which one to choose?. Relative Position. 1. Replica 2

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Relative Network Positioning via CDN Redirections' - chogan


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
relative network positioning via cdn redirections

Relative Network Positioning via CDN Redirections

A. Su, D. Choffnes, F. Bustamante, A. Kuzmanovic

ICDCS 2008

Presented by: ImranulHoque

relative network positioning
Relative Network Positioning

Replica 2

Replica 1

Replica 3

How to calculate RTT?

Which one to choose?

Relative Position

1. Replica 2

2. Replica 1

3. Replica 3

Client

RTT(C, R2) < RTT(C, R1) < RTT(C, R3)

relative network positioning 2
Relative Network Positioning (2)

Replica 2

Replica 1

Replica 3

PING

PING

PING

Client

Problems?

relative network positioning 3
Relative Network Positioning (3)

N 1

N 8

x8, y8

x1, y1

PING

N 2

N 7

x2, y2

x7, y7

PING

N 3

PING

N 6

x3, y3

x6, y6

N 4

N 5

x5, y5

x4, y4

relative network positioning 4
Relative Network Positioning (4)
  • Network Coordinates
    • Scalable but error prone
    • Error minimization requires frequent probing
    • Frequent probing incurs extra overhead
  • Relative order is more important than absolute distances

Leverage CDN to deduce relative position

content delivery network
Content Delivery Network

GET yahoo.com

GET yahoo.com

R3

R5

R1

R4

Client 1

Client 2

R2

GET yahoo.com

CDN performs extensive measurement to redirect clients to closest replicas

Client 3

network positioning via cdn
Network Positioning via CDN

R3

R5

R1

R4

N1

N4

R2

0, 0, 10, 20, 70

70, 30, 0, 0 , 0

N3

N2

0, 0, 0, 80, 20

Clusters

50, 50, 0, 0 , 0

evaluation
Evaluation
  • Closest node selection
  • Clustering
  • PlanetLab experiment
closest node selection
Closest Node Selection

foxnews.comyahoo.com

foxnews.comyahoo.com

AKAMAI

Who is the closest of the 240 nodes?

Server: 240 PlanetLab nodes

Client: 1000 DNS Servers from King data

November 2006 & January 2007

closest node selection 2
Closest Node Selection (2)
  • Compare the performance of CDN based approach (CRP) to:
    • Active measurement
    • Meridian
  • Metrics
    • Latency to the closest server (Meridian vs. CRP)
    • Relative error (Meridian vs. CRP)
closest node selection 3
Closest Node Selection (3)

How can they be similar?

closest node selection 4
Closest Node Selection (4)

CRP outperforms Meridian 25% of the time

65% nodes differ < 7 ms

clustering
Clustering

foxnews.comyahoo.com

AKAMAI

177 broadly distributed DNS servers

clustering 2
Clustering (2)
  • Compare CRP based clustering to:
    • ASN-based clustering
  • Metrics
    • Quality of cluster

Inter-cluster

latency

Intra-cluster

latency

clustering 3
Clustering (3)

Plot is very misleading!

clustering 4
Clustering (4)

Total Clusters: 16 (ASN), 36 (CRP)

conclusion
Conclusion
  • CDN based relative network positioning
    • Avoids direct probing
    • Lightweight
    • Highly scalable
  • If two nodes are not redirected to common set of servers, then no way to know about their proximity
  • Experimental plots hide lots of details
ad