1 / 33

On Selfish Routing in Internet-like Environments

This paper explores the concept of selfish routing in Internet-like environments, examining the models, methodology, and performance analysis of selfish source routing and selfish overlay routing. It compares selfish routing to traffic engineering and evaluates its impact on average latency, maximum link utilization, and network cost.

krex
Download Presentation

On Selfish Routing in Internet-like Environments

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. On Selfish Routing in Internet-like Environments paper by Lili Qiu, Yang Richard Yang, Yin Zhang, Scott Shenker presentation by Ed Spitznagel

  2. Selfish Routing • Selfish routing: allowing hosts to choose routes themselves (e.g. source routing) or use overlay routing networks (e.g. Detour, RON) • routing decisions designed to optimize host-based or overlay-based metrics, rather than system-wide metrics

  3. Selfish Routing • Theoretical results have shown that selfish routing can result in “suboptimal system behaviour” • “price of anarchy” (latency of selfish routing vs. globally optimal) can be unbounded for general latency functions [Roughgardern and Tardos] • Does this happen in Internet-like environments?

  4. Outline • Models and Methodology • Selfish Source Routing • Selfish Overlay Routing • Selfish Routing vs. Traffic Engineering • Conclusion

  5. Network Model • Physical network: directed graph G = (V, E) where latency of each link is a function of its load • Demands: Network traffic is partitioned into traffic demands • Overlays: an overlay consists of overlay nodes, directed overlay links, and a set of demands originated from the overlay nodes. • paper considers the fully connected overlay topology only • Users: originators of traffic. Their objective is to minimize latency.

  6. Network Model • Route Controller: controls the network-level routing. • OSPF routing: three methods for weight assignment are used: • Hop-count • Random-weight • Optimized-compliant: weights are set to minimize network cost, assuming all traffic is compliant. • MPLS routing: uses multi-commodity flow routing

  7. Routing and Traffic Equilibria • Evaluate each selfish routing scheme by computing its performance at traffic equilibria • Game-theoretic approach: equilibrium is a state where no user can improve his traffic’s latency • Computed directly by algorithms in the appendix (faster than using simulation techniques)

  8. Routing • Routing on the physical network • Source Routing: results in selfish routing of the type most often studied • Optimal Routing: routing that achieves minimal average latency over all traffic demands • Overlay routing • Overlay Source Routing: selfish routing through overlay nodes • Overlay Optimal Routing: routing through the overlay that achieves minimal average latency • Compliant routing: follow the routes determined by the network-level routing protocol

  9. Network Topologies • A real tier-1 ISP (referred to as ISPTopo) with ~100 backbone routers connected via OC48 and OC192 links • Other ISP topologies as mapped by Rocketfuel: • Random power-law topologies generated using BRITE

  10. Traffic demands • Real traffic demands: measured on ISPTopo for three randomly chosen hours in November 2002 • Synthetic traffic demands: randomly map POPs in ISPTopo to non-leaf nodes in the Rocketfuel topology. • Load scale factor: scale up demands so that, when all traffic is compliant and routed based on shortest hop-count, the max link utilization is 100·F%, where F is the load scale factor

  11. Link Latency Functions • Several link latency functions are used: • “To avoid the discontinuity when the load approaches capacity, we approximate the M/M/1 or M/D/1 function with a linear function beyond 99% utilization” • (not sure if this makes sense)

  12. Performance Metrics • Average latency • Maximum link utilization • “Network cost” metric: • cost for a link with load x and capacity c is: • cost of a network is the sum of its links’ costs

  13. Outline • Models and Methodology • Selfish Source Routing • Selfish Overlay Routing • Selfish Routing vs. Traffic Engineering • Conclusion

  14. Selfish Source Routing • Are Internet-like environments among the worst cases?

  15. Selfish Source Routing • Effect of network loadon average latency:

  16. Selfish Source Routing • User latency for all topologies, using M/M/1 latency function

  17. Selfish Source Routing • User latency for ISPTopo, varying the latency function

  18. System-wide cost for selfish source routing • Effect of network loadon max link utilization:

  19. System-wide cost for selfish source routing • Effects of network topologies: • selfish routing: highest max link utilization, highest network cost • selfish routing may make a network more prone to overload, especially when failures occur

  20. System-wide cost for selfish source routing • Effects of latency functions: • results for different latency functions are qualitatively the same

  21. Outline • Models and Methodology • Selfish Source Routing • Selfish Overlay Routing • Selfish Routing vs. Traffic Engineering • Conclusion

  22. When every node is in the overlay • ISPTopo, using OSPF for network-level routing • three choices of OSPF weight assignments • 3 of the 4 curves overlap

  23. When every node is in the overlay • Again, but with other topologies • Selfish routing achieves latency close to optimal (and usually better than compliant routing) • ...but at the cost of higher maximum link utilization

  24. When not every node is in the overlay • ISPTopo, overlay covers edge nodes only • curves almost completely overlap • Internet backbone is fairly well-connected and well-provisioned

  25. When not every node is in the overlay • Random partial coverage: latency similar to full coverage; full coverage has higher max link utilization

  26. Interactions Among Competing Overlays • Competing demands at the same nodes, using same underlying network • Foreground and background traffic at 50% each Different methods for computing OSPF weights Different topologies

  27. Can Many Overlays Coexist Well? • Results for ISPTopo, with various multiple-overlay configurations:

  28. Outline • Models and Methodology • Selfish Source Routing • Selfish Overlay Routing • Selfish Routing vs. Traffic Engineering • Conclusion

  29. Selfish Routing vs. Traffic Engineering • Traffic engineering: adjust physical routing based on network traffic patterns (traffic matrix) • Selfish routing will then adjust the traffic matrix in response to that… • … which causes the traffic engineering to produce a new routing matrix • And the process repeats…

  30. Selfish Routing and OSPF optimizer • Optimizer chooses link weights for OSPF • Selfish routing + traffic engineering: considerably worse performance than either one alone

  31. Selfish Routing and MPLS optimizer • Better, perhaps due to MPLS’s finer-grained control (can adjust routing matrix without reducing available resources, unlike OSPF) • Almost as good as using only selfish routing or only TE • MPLS TE requires solving very large linear programming problem

  32. Conclusion • Unlike the worst-case scenarios, selfish routing in Internet-like environments achieves close to optimal • often at the cost of overloading certain links • can become worse due to interaction with traffic engineering • Future work • investigate how the multi-AS nature of Internet affects routing performance • dynamics of selfish routing (how equilibria are reached) • better understanding of interactions between traffic engineering and selfish routing • study of selfish routing with other metrics (loss, throughput)

  33. End of Presentation • Questions?

More Related