* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download slides - Network and Systems Laboratory
Multiprotocol Label Switching wikipedia , lookup
Network tap wikipedia , lookup
IEEE 802.1aq wikipedia , lookup
Deep packet inspection wikipedia , lookup
Airborne Networking wikipedia , lookup
Computer network wikipedia , lookup
UniPro protocol stack wikipedia , lookup
Internet protocol suite wikipedia , lookup
Routing in delay-tolerant networking wikipedia , lookup
Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) wikipedia , lookup
On the Interaction between Dynamic Routing in the Native and Overlay Layers Infocom2006 Srinivasan Seetharaman and Mostafa Ammar College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Presenter: Elaine 1 Roadmap • Introduction • The model adopted for analysis • The characteristics of Dual Rerouting • Layer aware rerouting algorithms • Simulation result • Tuning the native layer routing protocol and novel approach • Conclusion 2 Introduction(1/3) • Overlay network • Interaction between two routing layers – Dynamic routings both on overlay and native IP network cause problems – Focus on the specific problem of rerouting around failed native link 3 Introduction (2/3) • Mix dynamic routing environment can be avoided? – Not using dynamic routing in the overlay network and always counts on the native networks to re-configure the route? Overlay dynamic routing can significantly enhance the overlay network’s survivability 4 Introduction (3/3) • Three contributions – Provide the understanding of Dual Rerouting – Three approaches to mitigate the rerouting problems – Motivate the need for an overlay-aware native network 5 Rerouting Model(1/5) A. Framework – Two scenarios • Single-Domain Overlay over Single Domain native • Single-Domain Overlay over Multiple-Domain Native 6 Rerouting Model(2/5) – Generic parameters of each routing protocols • Cost • Assume the two ends of each link (native & overlay) use a keepAlive protocol for link verification. – 3 keepAlive messages lost Failure • A keepAlive time: Time between two keepAlive messages • A hold time: Time window to declare link as down 7 Rerouting Model(3/5) B. Rerouting schemes – No awareness • Dual Rerouting • The benchmark for performance comparison – Awareness of lower layer’s existence – Awareness of lower layer’s parameters 8 Rerouting Model(4/5) C. Performance metrics 1. Hit-time: Time taken for traffic to be recovered. 2. Success rate of recovery 3. Number of route flaps 4. Peak & Stabilized inflation (before repair) = Detection time + (depends on timers) Success rate of a layer = Average route flaps = Path cost inflation = Convergence time (protocol specific) + Device time (Negligible) Number of paths recovered Number of failed overlay paths Number of route flaps Number of failed overlay paths Path cost after rerouting Path cost before failure 9 Rerouting Model(5/5) 10 Characteristics of Dual Rerouting • Each layer operates completely independent of the other – lead to a large number of route flaps and increase the path cost inflation • To mitigate this problem – Vary Hold-time & KeepAlive-time at overlay layer to determine at which layer detection is likely to happen first • Best Hit time – According to the definition of Detection • Using layer-aware scheme to trade off improvement in other metrics with longer hit-times. 11 Layer Aware Overlay Rerouting(1/2) • These schemes require knowledge of the native layer’s routing protocol existence or some minimal knowledge • Probabilistically Suppressed Overlay Rerouting – suppression operation is done with probability p on each overlay rerouting attempt – P=0, dual rerouting – P=1, native rerouting – Decrease the number of flaps and achieve better path cost – Longer hit time • Deferred Overlay Rerouting – Delay overlay recovery by a constant value – After that time has elapsed, if the native network has not yet recovered, overlay recovery is performed – fewer route flaps relative to Dual Rerouting – Longer hit time 12 Layer Aware Overlay Rerouting(2/2) • Follow-on Suppressed Overlay Rerouting – The overlay layer keeps track of the native layer’s timer values – Follow-on time • If follow-on time < threshold , then suppress overlay rerouting • Similar to DOR, but has a relatively smaller hit-time 13 Result A. Simulation Setup – – – – – 5 overlay topologies over 5 native topologies =>25 combinations Native layer • Intra-domain • Inter-domain – keepAlive time(1s)/ KeeAlive message(3)/ Hold-time(3s) – keepAlive time(5s)/ KeeAlive message(3)/ Hold-time(15s) Overlay layer • 2 or 3 keepAlive message • • Intra-domain(10 overlay nodes/100 native nodes) Inter-domain(10 overlay nodes/500 native nodes) • stateless all-link failure approach Network topology Link Failure Modeling 14 Dual Rerouting • Ovelay hold time↑ Hit time ↑ 15 • Ovelay hold time↑ Avg Route flaps ↓ • Show trade off between Hit time & avg route flaps↓ 16 • Overlay hold time↑ Peak inflation ↓ • Peak inflation, native-only is the best • Stable inflation, irrespective to hold time 17 Performance Comparison – Hold time : 3.0s – The delay and follow-on threshold were set to 0.375 (2 secs) – the suppression probability was set to 0.5 1. Native-only rerouting must attain steady state faster than the other 2. Dual Rerouting, which has no suppressed overlay rerouting 18 operations, must attain the peak earliest 19 Summary of performance of layer-aware schemes • None of the three layer-aware schemes are the best – Based on what the system is sensitive to , different scheme can be chosen • In most situations, packet loss has a more serious effect on the performance of the overlay traffic – Reducing the hit-time should be given a high precedence 20 TUNING NATIVE LAYER PARAMETERS • Motivation – overlay applications proliferate, the native layer should gradually evolve to suit the overlay network requirements – Improve the performance by adjust parameters of the native layer routing protocol • Tuning the keepAlive-time – Native layer rerouting was shown to be the optimal one in terms of path cost inflation and number of route flaps – In Dual Rerouting, insuring that recovery will take place at the native layer first can be achieved by setting the native layer’s keepAlive-time to a value much smaller than that at the overlay layer 21 • We define the routing protocol overhead as the number of keepAlive packets sent per second on the link under consideration 22 23 • Summary of performance gain with native layer tuning – Help Dual Rerouting improve the performance – Maintains the overall routing overhead the same – Reducing the keepAlive-time at the native layer also benefits the non-overlay applications sharing it 24 Conclusion – Provide the understanding of Dual Rerouting – Three approaches to mitigate the rerouting problems – Motivate the need of tuning the keepAlivetime of the native layer to achieve the best possible rerouting performance 25 26