* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download ppt file
Survey
Document related concepts
Backpressure routing wikipedia , lookup
Distributed operating system wikipedia , lookup
Wake-on-LAN wikipedia , lookup
Network tap wikipedia , lookup
Deep packet inspection wikipedia , lookup
Computer network wikipedia , lookup
Cracking of wireless networks wikipedia , lookup
Zero-configuration networking wikipedia , lookup
Airborne Networking wikipedia , lookup
IEEE 802.1aq wikipedia , lookup
Internet protocol suite wikipedia , lookup
UniPro protocol stack wikipedia , lookup
Routing in delay-tolerant networking wikipedia , lookup
Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
On the Cost of Supporting Mobility and Multihoming Vatche Ishakian, Ibrahim Matta, Joseph Akinwumi Computer Science Boston University I. Matta 1 Mobility = Dynamic Multihoming Hosts / ASes became increasingly multihomed Multihoming is a special case of mobility RINA (Recursive InterNetwork Architecture) is a clean-slate design – http://csr.bu.edu/rina RINA routing is based on node addresses Late binding of node address to point-of-attachment Compare to LISP (early binding) and Mobile-IP Average-case communication cost analysis Simulation over Internet-like topologies I. Matta What’s wrong today? one big, flat, open net Applications Transport Web, email, ftp, … TCP, UDP, … Network Applications IP protocol Transport Network Network Data Link DL DL Data Link Physical PHY PHY Physical 128.10.0.0 128.197.0.0 www.cs.bu.edu 128.197.15.10 There’s no building block We named and addressed the wrong things (i.e. interfaces) We exposed addresses to applications RINA offers better scoping Applications Web, email, ftp, … Transport TCP, UDP, … Network IP Data Link Physical IPC Layer Applications IPC Layer Transport Network Network DL PHY DL PHY Data Link IPC Layer Physical The IPC Layer is the building block and can be composed An IPC Layer has all what is needed to manage a “private” network, i.e. it integrates routing, transport and management E2E (end-to-end principle) is not relevant Each IPC Layer provides (transport) service / QoS over its scope IPv6 is/was a waste of time! We can have many layers without too many addresses per layer RINA: Good Addressing – private mgmt Bob want to send message to “Bob” A “Bob”B B IPC Layer I1 To: B I2 IPC Layer Destination application is identified by “name” Each IPC Layer is privately managed It assigns private node addresses to IPC processes It internally maps app/service name to node address 5 RINA: Good Addressing - late binding Bob want to send message to “Bob” A B IPC Layer To: B I1 BI2 IPC Layer I2 B, I1 , I2 are IPC processes on same machine Addressing is relative: node address is name for lower IPC Layer, and point-of-attachment (PoA) for higher IPC Layer Late binding of node name to a PoA address A machine subscribes to different IPC Layers 6 RINA: Good Routing source destination Back to naming-addressing basics [Saltzer ’82] Service name (location-independent) node name (location-dependent) PoA address (path-dependent) path We clearly distinguish the last 2 mappings Route: sequence of node names (addresses) Late binding: map next-hop’s node name to PoA at lower IPC level I. Matta 7 Mobility is Inherent MH CH Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones Local movement results in local routing updates 8 Mobility is Inherent CH Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones Local movement results in local routing updates 9 Mobility is Inherent CH Mobile joins new IPC Layers and leaves old ones Local movement results in local routing updates 10 Compare to loc/id split (1) Basis of solutions to the multihoming issue Claim: the IP address semantics are overloaded as both location and identifier LISP (Location ID Separation Protocol) ’06 EIDx EIDy EIDx -> EIDy RLOC1x RLOC2y EIDx EIDy Mapping: EIDy RLOC2y I. Matta 11 Compare to loc/id split (2) Ingress Border Router maps ID to loc, which is the location of destination Egress BR Problem: loc is path-dependent, does not name the ultimate destination EIDx -> EIDy RLOC1x RLOC2y EIDx EIDy Mapping: EIDy RLOC2y 12 LISP vs. RINA vs. … Total Cost per loc / interface change = Cost of Loc / Routing Update + r [ Pcons*DeliveryCost + (1-Pcons)*InconsistencyCost ] r: expected packets per loc change Pcons: probability of no loc change since last pkt delivery RINA’s routing modeled over a binary tree of IPC Layers: update at top level involves route propagation over the whole network diameter D; update at leaf involves route propagation over D/2h, h is tree height I. Matta 13 LISP I. Matta 14 LISP I. Matta 15 RINA I. Matta 16 RINA I. Matta 17 RINA I. Matta 18 MobileIP I. Matta 19 LISP vs. RINA vs. … 8x8 Grid Topology RINA uses 5 IPC levels; on average, 3 levels get affected per move LISP RINA I. Matta 20 Simulation: Packet Delivery Ratio BRITE generated 2level topology Average path length 14 hops Random walk mobility model Download BRITE from RINA LISP www.cs.bu.edu/brite I. Matta 21 Simulation: Packet Delay LISP RINA I. Matta 22 Bottom Line: RINA is less costly RINA inherently limits the scope of location update & inconsistency RINA uses “direct” routing to destination node More work: prototyping I. Matta 23 RINA papers @ http://csr.bu.edu/rina Thank You Questions? I. Matta 24