1 / 15

On the Stability of Network Distance Monitoring

On the Stability of Network Distance Monitoring. Yan Chen, Chris Karlof, Yaping Li and Randy Katz {yanchen, ckarlof, yaping, randy}@CS.Berkeley.EDU EECS Department UC Berkeley. Introduction. Lots of applications/services may benefit from end-to-end distance monitoring/estimation

oihane
Download Presentation

On the Stability of Network Distance Monitoring

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 the Stability of Network Distance Monitoring Yan Chen, Chris Karlof, Yaping Li and Randy Katz {yanchen, ckarlof, yaping, randy}@CS.Berkeley.EDU EECS Department UC Berkeley

  2. Introduction • Lots of applications/services may benefit from end-to-end distance monitoring/estimation • Mirror Selection - VPN management/provisioning • Overlay Routing/Location - Peer-to-peer file system • Cache-infrastructure Configuration • Service Redirection/Placement • Problem formulation: Given N end hosts that may belong to different administrative domains, how to select a subset of them to be probes and build an overlay distance monitoring service without knowing the underlying topology? • Solution: Internet Iso-bar • Cluster of hosts that perceive similar performance to Internet • For each cluster, select a monitor for active and continuous probing • The first one for monitoring site selection and stability evaluation with real Internet measurement data • Compare with other distance estimation services: ID Maps, GNP

  3. Related Work • Existing Internet E2E distance estimation systems fall in two categories: • Clustering based (service-centric): IDMaps, Network Distance Map, Internet Iso-bar • Coordinate based (end host-centric): Triangulated schemes, GNP • Pioneering work: IDMaps • Clustering with IP address prefix (not very accurate) • Based on triangulation inequality • Number of hops only - No dynamics nor stability addressed • Network Distance Map • Clustering based on network proximity rather than similarity • Fixed monitors, no monitor placement/selection • GNP: • Each client maintains its own coordinate • Distance estimated through certain distance function over the coordinates

  4. Framework of Internet Iso-bar • Define correlation distance between each pair of hosts • Apply generic clustering methods below • Limit the diameter (max distance between any two hosts in the cluster) of a cluster, and minimize number of clusters • Limit the number of clusters, then minimize the max diameter of all clusters • Choose the center of each cluster as monitor • Periodically monitors measure distance among each other as well as the distance to the hosts in its cluster • Inter-cluster distance estimation dist(i,j) = dist(monitori, monitorj) • Intra-cluster distance estimation (i,j has same monitor m) dist(i,j) = (dist(i, m) + dist(j, m) ) / 2 • Inter-cluster estimation dominates • Given K evenly distributed clusters, ratio of inter- vs. intra- estimation is K-1

  5. Correlation Distance • Network distance based • Using proximity: dij = measured network distance(pij) • Using Euclidean distance ofnetwork distance vector: Vi = [pi1, pi2, …, pin]T • Using cosine vector similarity ofnetwork distance vector: • Geographical distance based • Using proximity

  6. Properties Comparison N: # of hosts; K: # of monitors: AP: # of address prefix; D: # of dimensions I: # of iterations for optimization, proportional to # of variables, could be very large

  7. Evaluation Methodology • Experiments with NLANR AMP data set • 119 sites on US (106 after filtering out most off sites) • Traceroute between every pair of hosts every minute • Clustering uses daily geometric mean of round-trip time (RTT) • Evaluation uses daily 1440 measurement of RTT • Raw data: • 6/24/00 – • 12/3/01

  8. Performance & Stability Evaluation • Compare 6 distance estimation schemes (denotations) • Clustering with proximity of network distance (net_p) • Clustering with Euclidean dist of network dist vector (net_ed) • Clustering with vector similarity of network dist vector (net_vs) • Clustering with proximity of geographical distance (geo_p) • GNP - All schemes above have 15 clusters/landmarks • Omniscient: using the original pij to predict future pij (omni) • Stability analysis • Clustering / coordinates calculation with day1 (birth date) measurement • Compute relative predict error (rpe) using day2 (estimation date) measurement

  9. Stability CDF of relative errors for 1-month (left) & 6-month (right) Summary of 80th (left) & 90th (right) percentile relative error

  10. Conclusion • Omniscient always works the best • RTT time overall is quite stable for the experimental sites and period, but need further verification • It can not report timely congestion • It requires full n * n IP distance matrix, inapplicable to scalability tricks, e.g. hierarchy • GNP has better performance and stability than clustering-based schemes • Has much more computation & communication cost when update • Using similarity of network distance forclustering works much better than using proximity • Geographical proximity based clustering works better than network proximity based clustering • Requires no measurement for clustering & monitor selection • Provides reasonably good performance & stability • But may biased with the dataset used

  11. Current Work • Congestion/Failure Correlation of Clustered Hosts • Can Monitors report timely congestion/path outage? False-alarms? • Evaluation with Keynote Web Site Perspective Benchmarking (Collaboration with Dr. Chris Overton@Keynote) • Measure Web site performance from more than 100 agents on the Internet • Heterogeneouscore network: various ISPs • Heterogeneousaccess network: • Dial up 56K, DSL and high-bandwidth business connections • Choose 40 most popular Web servers for benchmarking • Problem: how to reduce the number of agents and/or servers, but still represent the majority of end-user performance for reasonably stable period?

  12. Keynote Agent Locations • America (including Canada, Mexico): 67 agents • 29 cities: Houston, Toronto, LA, Minneapolis, DC, Boston, Miami, Dallas, NY, SF, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cincinnati, Portland, Vancouver, Seattle, Phoneix, San Diego, Denver, Sunnyvale, McLean, Atlanta, Tampa, St. Louis, Mexico, Kansas City, Pleasonton • 14 ISPs: PSI, Verio, UUNET, C&W, Sprint, Qwest, Genuity, AT&T, XO, Exodus, Level3, Intermedia, Avantel, SBC • Europe: 25 agents • 12 cities: London, Paris, Frankfurt, Munich, Oslo, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Helsinki, Milan, Stockholm, Madrid, Brussels • 16 ISPs: PSI, Cerbernet, Oleane, Level3, ECRC, Nextra, UUNET, TeleDanmark, KPNQwest, Inet, DPN, Xlink, Telia, Retevision, BT, Telephonica • Asia: 8 agents • 6 cities: Seoul, Singapore, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hongkong, Taipei • 8 ISPs: BORANet, SingTel, IIJ, ChinaTel, HKT, Kornet, NTTCOM, HiNet, • Australia: 3 agents • 3 cities: Sydney, Wellington, Melbourne • 3 ISPs: OzeMail, Telstra-Saturn, Optus

  13. Evaluation of Generic Clustering Algorithms • Limit-number clustering and limit-diameter clustering gives similar results with Limit-number a bit better • Net_ed and Net_vs gives similar results with Net_vs a bit better • Use Limit-number clustering for the rest comparison

  14. Performance Evaluation • Static and stability analysis in daily, tri-daily, weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, six-monthly intervals

More Related