1 / 32

DiffProbe Detecting ISP Service Discrimination

Partha Kanuparthy, Constantine Dovrolis. DiffProbe Detecting ISP Service Discrimination. Net Neutrality. Recent FCC-ISP debates Comcast throttling dispute, etc. FCC broadband mapping framework Tools to estimate performance $350m stimulus funds. What is Service Discrimination?.

mladd
Download Presentation

DiffProbe Detecting ISP Service Discrimination

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. Partha Kanuparthy, Constantine Dovrolis DiffProbeDetecting ISP Service Discrimination

  2. Net Neutrality • Recent FCC-ISP debates • Comcast throttling dispute, etc. • FCC broadband mapping framework • Tools to estimate performance • $350m stimulus funds

  3. What is Service Discrimination? • ISPs can classify certain apps as low-priority: • and service them accordingly • Discrimination can manifest as (relatively): • high delays • high loss rates • ISP can also do shaping: leads to low throughput (=> both delay and loss) • ShaperProbe: first step

  4. Problem: Is an application's trafficbeing classified low-priority by an ISP? Is the ISP doing loss or delay discrimination or both? Can we identify scheduler type? Solution: Compare performance of normal and application traffic sent simultaneously Identifying discrimination is not easy: Congestion events can be short-lived (us-ms scales) Bad idea: compare delays/loss rates from different times Customer may see same performance if there is no cross-traffic Bad idea: call this as no-discrimination DiffProbe server Goals

  5. Delay Discrimination: Practice • Non-discriminatory schedulers (single queue): • First-Come-First-Serve (FCFS) • Discriminatory schedulers (multiple classes): • Strict Priority (SP) • Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ) WRR Delay discrimination creates difference in delay distributions

  6. Loss Discrimination: Practice • Non-discriminatory buffer managers: • DropTail (DT) • Random Early Detect (RED) • Discriminatory buffer managers: • Weighted RED (WRED) • Drop-from-Longest-Queue Drop-from-Longest Loss discrimination creates difference in loss rates

  7. Rest of the talk… • High level design • Detecting delay discrimination • Detecting loss discrimination • The DiffProbe tool • ShaperProbe

  8. High-level design • Send normal (P) and application (A) traffic simultaneously • Measure one-way delays (OWDs) and lost packets for each flow DiffProbe server Application traffic (A) Normal traffic (P)

  9. Avoiding Classification • A flow: , ... • P flow has to be: • sufficiently different from A to avoid classification • Ex: alter payload, ports, gaps • sufficient similar to A to observe same network performance as P when there is no discrimination • same packet size distribution between A and P • send a P packet at about same time as A

  10. A P A P Probing Patterns • Create two probing structures using A and P: • Balanced Load Period (BLP): send both flows at their normal rates • Load Increase Period (LIP): scale up P flow's rate • Why createLIP? To maximize chances of queuing in ISP network

  11. Discrimination Identifiability • The user does not always “see” discrimination • no high-priority backlog “=>” Low-priority gets link capacity • We use BLP to detect unidentifiableconditions for delay discrimination • P delays created during LIP are larger than BLP 90th percentile of P's delays during LIP median of P's delays during BLP >

  12. Overview • High level design • Detecting delay discrimination • Detecting loss discrimination • The DiffProbe tool

  13. Detecting Delay Discrimination • We observe empirical delay distributions of A and P flows during LIP: and • No delay discrimination: • Delay discrimination: FCFS(Comcast) WRR 1:3 (emulated)

  14. A P Detecting Delay Discrimination (2) • Pre-processing: • Pairing: Consider only those (A,P) sample pairs which were sent within an MTU-transmission time, τ • Discard delay values in τ-neighborhood of estimated propagation delay • such samples don't see queuing • Subtract propagation delay estimate from samples

  15. Detecting Delay Discrimination (3) • Hypothesis test for : • Null hypothesis: equal distributions • Compute Kullbeck-Leibler (KL) Divergence of pre-processed samples • Compute KL Divergences of uniform random partitions of • Is (2) > (3)? • Test for • Compare all higher percentiles (50th - 90th) of A and P delay distributions • Redo the test, swapping A and P as inputs • If this test fails, we state that delay discrimination is unknown

  16. Delay Discrimination: Accuracy Evaluate using simulations: • Discrimination using SP and WFQ • Skype iSAC packet trace as A flow • Cross-traffic: interactive TCP sessions (200 users) • Half of user traffic classified low-priority • BLP, LIP durations: 30s 90+% accuracy among detectable trials FCFS, SP, WFQ 1:1.5 is similar to FCFS WFQ weights 95% confidence, 2% error margin

  17. WFQ SP or WFQ? • SP-like or WFQ-like scheduling create diff. delays • Idea: some P packets serviced just after A would: • see only A's non-preemption delay (if any) in SP • but, see A's queuing delays in WFQ Low-priority SP WFQ 1:2 queuing non-preemption SP • Method: choose a subset of P samples: • receivedvery close but after an A packet Distribution of P subset

  18. Overview • High level design • Detecting delay discrimination • Detecting loss discrimination • The DiffProbe tool

  19. Detecting Loss Discrimination • Estimate loss rates of A and P flows during LIP as fraction of packets lost: and • No loss discrimination: • Loss discrimination: WRR 1:3 Drop-Longest-Queue (emulated)

  20. Detecting Loss Discrimination (2) • Pre-processing: to estimate and • Pairing: same as that for delay discrimination • ensure the A and P flows sample the same congestion events if DropTail/RED • Use the Two-Proportion Test on and • Unidentifiability: less than 10 dropped packets in each flow

  21. Loss Discrimination: Accuracy • Buffer sizes according to BW-Delay product • 90+% accuracy for discriminating configurations similar loss rates WRED accuracy f: Min queue threshold of normal flows: WFQ 1:1.5 is similar to DT Drop-Longest-Queue (WFQ) vs. DT

  22. Overview • High level design • Detecting delay discrimination • Detecting loss discrimination • The DiffProbe tool

  23. Implementing DiffProbe • DiffProbe runs as client-server (~7500 LoCs) • Classifier types: port, payload • A flow: Skype and Vonage voice traces • P flow: randomize payload, port of A flow • LIP, BLP durations: 30s each • Pre-probing: estimate path capacity using packet trains

  24. Experiments • Emulations: • discriminating link configured using tc • Pareto cross-traffic • SP, WRR, and Drop-Longest-Queue discriminators • No FPs, FNs • Real-world experiments (Skype and Vonage): • We do not have ground truth • A high p-value of KL-test is a good “indicator” of no-discrimination • One ISP showed multi-path routing, which created different delays KL-test p-values: Access ISP runs

  25. Validation • ISPs have so far not disclosed details of application discrimination practices (if any) • No ground truth! • Discrimination: significant difference in delays and/or losses of A and P • Why? : controlled environment trials! Validation ideas?

  26. Overview • High level design • Detecting delay discrimination • Detecting loss discrimination • The DiffProbe tool

  27. ShaperProbe • A pre-probing module of DiffProbe to answer: • Can we detect traffic shaping by ISPs? • What is the shaping configuration? • Key idea: probe and detect level shifts in rate • the token bucket signature Upload: 7Mbps -> 2Mbps in 8s

  28. ShaperProbe (contd.) • Deployed at Google M-Lab • 60,000+ runs so far • Who shapes traffic? ...among 700+ other ASes.

  29. Thank You!partha @ cc.gatech.edu

  30. Detecting Delay Discrimination (3) • Hypothesis test for : • Null hypothesis: equal distributions • Compute Kullbeck-Leibler (KL) Divergence of pre-processed samples • call it • Bootstrap: compute KL Divergences of uniform random partitions of • this gives us a KL distribution • Reject null hypothesis if p-value is < 0.05:

  31. Detecting Delay Discrimination (4) • Test for (if KL-test rejects null hypothesis) • Compare higher percentiles of A and P delay distributions • Redo the test, swapping A and P as inputs • If this test fails, we state that delay discrimination is unknown

  32. WFQ SP or WFQ? (2) • For the distribution of this subset of P samples: • SP if: 95th percentile P delay ≈ 5th percentile • WFQ-like, otherwise SP Distribution of P subset WFQ-SP accuracy

More Related