Merging logical topologies using end to end measurements
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 13

Merging Logical Topologies Using End-to-end Measurements PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 58 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Merging Logical Topologies Using End-to-end Measurements. Michael Rabbat Mark Coates Robert Nowak. Internet Measurement Conference 2003 Tuesday October 28, 2003. A. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Topology Identification via Active Probing. Motivation: BGP data gives the big picture

Download Presentation

Merging Logical Topologies Using End-to-end Measurements

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


Merging logical topologies using end to end measurements

Merging Logical Topologies UsingEnd-to-end Measurements

Michael Rabbat Mark Coates Robert Nowak

Internet Measurement Conference 2003

Tuesday October 28, 2003


Topology identification via active probing

A

1

2

3

4

5

Topology Identification via Active Probing

Motivation:

  • BGP data gives the big picture

  • ICMP-based techniques (i.e. traceroute) don’t work everywhere

    Existing end-to-end techniques:

  • Single active source, many receivers

  • Assume tree structured logical topology

  • Exploit:

    • Correlated events on upstream links

    • Additive, non-decreasing nature of performance parameters

      [Ratnasamy & McCanne], [Duffield et al.], [Bestavros et al.], [Coates et al.]


Extending to multiple sources

A

1

2

3

4

5

B

1

2

3

4

5

Extending to Multiple Sources

  • Marginal Utility [Barford et al., ‘01]

    • Can gain by using a few more sources

  • Net. Tomo. on General Topologies [Bu et al., ’02]

    • Evaluate various algorithms for inferring internal characteristics

    • Sources make measurements separately

    • Identifiability conditions given the general topology

No labels on internal nodes  Merging is non-trivial


Merging strategy

A

B

A

1

2

3

4

5

B

1

2

3

4

5

3

2

4

5

1

Merging Strategy

  • Identify joining nodes merge topologies

    • Placement is logical, relative

  • Non-shared joining node

    • Merging node for routes to a single receiver

  • Shared joining node

    • Routes to multiple receivers merge at one node


Goal identify shared joining nodes

A

A

B

B

A

B

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

Goal: Identify Shared Joining Nodes

  • Two sources, two receivers

  • Is there a shared joining node?

  • Locate joining node relative to branching node

  • All other cases have more than one non-shared joining node

  • Make measurements and form a binary hypothesis test:

    H0 : One joining node

    H1 : More than one joining node


Packet arrival order measurements

A

B

t(n) + t

t

t(n)

v(n)

1

2

Packet Arrival Order Measurements

  • Procedure:

  • At t(n), send packets to Rcv1

  • After t, send packets to Rcv2t > O(1/bmin)

  • Compare arrival orders

  • Repeat, varying send time at Bv(n) ~ Unif orm(-D, D)|D| ¼O(RTTmax) À t

  • Assumptions:

  • Sources synchronized (for now)

  • Arrival order determined at first shared queue

t


Analysis packet arrival order and timing

A

B

1

Analysis: Packet Arrival Order and Timing


Conditions for a different arrival order

A

B

Contours of p(d1, d2)

d2

1

d1

2

Prob. different arrival order | v(n)

Conditions for a Different Arrival Order


For non shared topologies

Contours of p(d1, d2)

d2

A

B

d1

1

2

Prob. different arrival order | v(n)

For Non-Shared Topologies

  • On packet reordering [Bellardo & Savage, ’02]

    • Pr{In-network reordering} / 1/(time-spacing)

  • Sources of measurement noise

    • Packet reordering for a few values of v(n)

    • Spacing t distorted by queueing (also, for few values of v)


Measure the noise

A

B

t

t(n)

v(n)

1

2

Measure the Noise

  • Similar procedure:

  • At t(n), send packets to Rcv1

  • After t, send to Rcv1 againt¼O(1/bmin)

  • Compare arrival orders

  • Repeat, varying send time at Bv(n) ~ Unif orm(-D, D)|D| ¼O(RTTmax)

Send all packets to one receiver

 Force one joining node

2

2

t

1

1

Must be noise

1

2

1

2


Making a decision

A

A

B

B

1

1

2

2

Making A Decision


Some experiments

Rice ECE LAN

18 Unix/Linux hosts

Spread across two buildings, two VLANs

Mostly layer-2, two routers

Validated with help from IT

Internet “Test bed”

11 academic hosts

Mostly N. American, few in Europe

Validated using traceroute

Extremely successful

Some Experiments


Summary

Summary

  • Merge logical topologies by identifying joining nodes

    • Shared joining nodes located relative to branching node

  • Novel multiple source active probing scheme

    • Uniform random offset

    • Look for packet arrival order differences

  • A few concluding remarks

    • Unicast or multicast

    • O(NS2 R2) measurements, reduce to O(NS2 R) using “stripes”

    • Infrastructure independent (layer-3 or layer-2)

Signal Processing In Networking

http://spin.rice.edu

[email protected]


  • Login