1 / 53

Analyzing Cross-layer Interaction in Overlay Networks

Analyzing Cross-layer Interaction in Overlay Networks. Srinivasan Seetharaman September 2007. Overlay Networks. Overlay networking helps overcome functionality limitations of the Internet by forming a virtual network over the native IP network that is: Independent Customizable.

Download Presentation

Analyzing Cross-layer Interaction in Overlay Networks

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Analyzing Cross-layer Interactionin Overlay Networks Srinivasan Seetharaman September 2007

  2. Overlay Networks • Overlay networking helpsovercome functionalitylimitations of the Internetby forming a virtual networkover the native IP networkthat is: • Independent • Customizable

  3. Service Overlay Networks Offer enhanced or new services by deploying intelligent routing schemes. Overlay link Relaying

  4. Service Overlay Networks (contd.) • Characteristics: • Nodes and links are persistent • Perform overlay routing independent of native layer routing • Each Overlay path comprises one or more Overlay links, based on a certain selfish objective • Many types of services can be offered • Multicast (e.g. ESM, Overcast) • QoS (e.g. OverQoS, SON) • Security (e.g. DynaBone, SOS) • Better routes (e.g. RON, Detour, X-Bone) … and much more

  5. Cross-Layer Interaction Performing dynamic routing at both overlay and native IP layers leads to: • Conflict due to mismatch or misalignment of routing objectives • Contention for limited physical resources • Functionality overlap (Both overlay layer and IP layer perform similar set of functions)

  6. Cross-Layer Interaction (contd.) These issues are amplified in the presence of • Selfish motives and aggressive behavior • Lack of information about other layer • Increasing impact ( #overlays  |Traffic| )

  7. Context • Native network topology • Intra-domain • Inter-domain • Attitude of native network • Restrictive • Oblivious • Cooperative

  8. Thesis Organization

  9. INTERACTION BETWEEN FAILURE RECOVERY IN THE NATIVEAND OVERLAY LAYERS Chapter III

  10. Dual Rerouting • Each layer performs rerouting, with no knowledge of which layer leads to optimal restoration Overlay rerouting C OVERLAY1 LAYER F E H A G D A B A C E F H X Failure B NATIVE IP LAYER D G Native rerouting

  11. Downside to Dual Rerouting • Overlap of functionality between layers causing • Unnecessary route changes (esp when connectivity in native network is very dynamic) • Increased probing overhead • Unawareness of other layer’s decisions leading to • Multiple simultaneous failures • Lack of flexibility and control

  12. Tuning Dual Rerouting • Intra-domain (keepAlive-time = 1 sec, hold-time = 3 secs)

  13. Further Improving Recovery Adjust the functioning of native layer: • Tuning the native layer keepAlive-time: keepAlive-time keepAlive-time This produces the best tradeoff between # of route changes, stabilization time and recovery time Tuning

  14. INTERACTION BETWEEN OVERLAY ROUTING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Chapter V

  15. Repeated Non-Cooperative Game Player1: Overlay Routing - Latency-optimized paths between nodes Player2: Traffic Engineering - Optimal load-balanced routes Overlay Routing Overlay Link Latencies Overlay routes Overlay layer traffic  Native link delays  Traffic on each overlay link Traffic Engineering Native routes Background traffic  TM

  16. Simulation Results TEobjective Overlayobjective Overallstability Round

  17. Our goal .. is to propose strategies that • obtain the best possible performance for a particular layer • while steering the system towards a stable state.

  18. Resolving Conflict – Our Approach • Assume: Each layer has a general notion of the other layer’s selfish objective • Designate leader / follower • Operate leader such that • Follower has no desire to change  Friendly • Follower has no alternative to pick  Hostile • Use history to learn desired action gradually.

  19. Performance of Preemptive Strategies • We proposed four strategies that improve performance for one layer and achieve a stable operating point • Inflation factor = Steady state obj value with strategy Best obj value achieved Inflation

  20. CROSS-LAYER INTERACTION OF PERFORMANCE-AWARE OVERLAYAPPLICATIONS Chapter VI

  21. BitTorrent File-Sharing • Popular file-sharing application that generates a large volume of Internet traffic • Characteristics: • Service capacity increases with demand • Centralized tracker regulating neighborhood • Dynamically change active peers by choke/unchoke protocol

  22. Comparison to Overlay Routing Data2 Data1 B1 B2 A3 A2 A1 AX BY

  23. BitTorrent Protocol • Tit-for-tat based incentive for uploading decisions • Leecher: Unchoke the fastest uploaders • Seed: Unchoke the fastest downloaders • Popular strategy to improve performance • Optimistic unchoke: periodically look for faster peers

  24. BitTorrent Dynamics B D A E Choke Choke C When bottlenecked on link L1 L2 Unchoke Request Unchoke L1 X Load distribution across links is balanced BitTorrent apps use all available b/w

  25. BitTorrent Dynamics B D A E Choke Choke C When NOT bottlenecked on link L1 L2 Unchoke L1 X Load distribution across links is unbalanced

  26. Cross-Layer Interaction • Operating BitTorrent disrupts load balance and can result in high max util: • This can be a problem for background traffic • Objective of native layer: • Minimize ( Max Util.) • Objective of BitTorrent: • Minimize (Overall finish time)

  27. Simulation Setup Pick 100 ASes with 60% of them being non-stub ASes

  28. Simulation Setup L1 D F F B C A E L2 Generate 1-50 peers. Each associating with 1-3 torrents

  29. Simulation Performance Metrics • Max util across access links= MaxaE ( Xa/Ca ), E is set of all links X is the load, C is the capacity • Average finish time inflation of leechers= 1/Nl ( ’i / i ) Nl is # of leechers ’ is finish time after strategy Nli=1

  30. Reducing Impact – Traffic Engg • TE can be performed across inter-domain access links, in order to minimize (Max util) • Two flavors: Ingress / Egress • Determines which access link to pick for a certain destination or source IP address

  31. Reducing Impact – Traffic Engg (contd.) • Performance of a random AS (Focus AS) Applying TE does not make much difference

  32. Reducing Impact – Tuning BitTorrent • Alter certain BitTorrent protocol components or tune the associated parameters • Minimal reduction of the max util • Significant inflation of finish time • Specifically, we tried each of the following: • Make peer selection random • Make piece selection random • Reduce duration of optimistic unchoking • Freeze list of unchoked peers after 10 mins • Tune the unchoking timers

  33. Reducing Impact – Locality-awareness Locality-based traffic management • Give priority to peers within AS • No change to BitTorrent clients • Also try caching of requests sent outside AS

  34. Reducing Impact – Bandwidth Throttling Limit bandwidth consumed by BT traffic • Popular strategy among most ASes • Involves lesser infrastructure cost

  35. Cross-layer Conflict • Native layer and BitTorrent layer constantly retaliate to other layer’s disruptive behavior • Peers deploy BitTorrent Protocol Encryption to avoid detection by native layer • We develop two “friendly” BitTorrent strategies that achieve a mutually agreeable point by reducing peak load

  36. A. Limit # of parallel downloads • The unchoking protocol and their timeline is uncoordinated across neighbors Average

  37. A. Limit # of parallel downloads (contd.) • Reduces peak load from 0.94 to 0.852Finish time inflation is 1.1501

  38. B. Avoiding common neighbors • Problem is that two peers in same AS often contact same peer outside AS • Algorithm • Perform bilateral info exchange where each peer A finds out if its neighbor B has a neighbor C inside its own AS • If yes, toss a coin to determine if we can download from this peer B (Randomization acts as a load balancing strategy)

  39. B. Avoiding common neighbors (contd.) • Reduces max util from 0.94 to 0.85Finish time inflation is 1.187

  40. ANALYZING INTER-DOMAIN POLICY VIOLATIONS IN OVERLAYROUTES Chapter IV

  41. Inter-Domain Policy Violations Two types of violations exist Provider 2 Provider 1 Peer Client 1 Legitimate native route $$ $ Client3 A Client 2 Overlay route B C Transitviolation Exit violation

  42. Measurement Results • Each transit violation has a corresponding exit violation upstream • Extent of exit policy violations in multihop paths

  43. Policy Enforcement by Native Layer • As ISPs become aware of the negative impact of overlays and commence filtering, this leads to • drastic deterioration in overlay route performance • commensurate with the number of ASes enforcing policy

  44. Resolving Conflict • Overlay Service Provider (OSP) adopts a combination of the following strategies for achieving good legitimate paths: • Obtain transit permit from certain AS for $T • Add new node to certain provider AS for $N • Obtain exit permit from certain AS for $E

  45. Illustration of Mitigation Strategy • With no filtering, 11 13 Tier-1 provider Tier-2 provider Stub customer AS hosting overlay node Cust-Prov relation 23 21 Peering relation 22 32 31 33 Transitviolation

  46. Illustration of Mitigation Strategy (contd.) • With filtering, we have no multi-hop paths 11 13 Tier-1 provider Tier-2 provider Stub customer AS hosting overlay node Cust-Prov relation 23 21 Peering relation 22 32 31 33

  47. Illustration of Mitigation Strategy (contd.) Option 1: Add new overlay node to provider AS 22 Option 2: Obtain transit permit from stub AS 32 11 13 Tier-1 provider Tier-2 provider Stub customer AS hosting overlay node Cust-Prov relation 23 21 Peering relation 22 22 32 31 33

  48. Objective of Mitigation Strategy For a certain budget, determine which ASes • to obtain transit permit from • to add new node to • to obtain exit permit from … so as to achieve the best possible gain Gain = Native route latency – Overlay path latency Native route latency

  49. Mitigation Results • When all permit fee = P, new node fee = N Permit Add new node

  50. Summary of Cross-Layer Interaction • Overlays offer valuable services needed by end-systems. But, lead to complex cross-layer interaction with potentially detrimental effects • Layer awareness is essential to reduce negative effects and to improve performance of both layers. We propose simple strategies that achieve this goal in an effective manner.

More Related