1 / 20

Placing Relay Nodes for Intra-Domain Path Diversity

Placing Relay Nodes for Intra-Domain Path Diversity. Meeyoung Cha Sue Moon Chong-Dae Park Aman Shaikh Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM 2006. Speaker 游鎮鴻. Outline. Introduction and Motivation Related Work Penalty Quantification Placement Algorithms Evaluation Conclusions and Comments.

dewitt
Télécharger la présentation

Placing Relay Nodes for Intra-Domain Path Diversity

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. Placing Relay Nodes forIntra-Domain Path Diversity Meeyoung Cha Sue Moon Chong-Dae Park Aman Shaikh Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM 2006 Speaker 游鎮鴻

  2. Outline • Introduction and Motivation • Related Work • Penalty Quantification • Placement Algorithms • Evaluation • Conclusions and Comments

  3. Routing Instability in the Internet • Link and router failures are frequent. • Routing protocols are used to detect such failures and route around them. • Convergence time is in the order of seconds or minutes. • End-to-end connections experience long outages. • How to increase reliability and robustness of mission-critical services against temporary end-to-end path outages?

  4. Path Diversity and Overlay Networks • Take advantage of path diversity provided by the network topology. • Overlay path– use a node inside the network to relay packets over an alternate path that is different from the default routing path. ex) RON [Anderson et al., SOSP 2001] Detour [Savage et al., IEEE Micro 1999] • Idea: use disjoint overlay paths along with the default routing path to route around failures.

  5. Objective • Previous work has focused on selecting good relay nodes assuming relay nodes are already deployed • As an ISP, we consider the problem of placing relay nodes well • Assumptions: ·Intra-domain setting [Shortest Path First Routing] · Relays are simply routers with relaying capability ·Overlay paths use single relay node

  6. Path Diversity – Disjoint Overlay Path Path Diversity – Disjoint Overlay Path ISP Network Destination (egress router) relays default path Origin (ingress router) disjoint overlay path Disjoint overlay path gives maximum robustness against single link failures!

  7. AR Inter-PoP AR BR BR BR BR AR AR Intra-PoP Impact of ECMP on Overlay PathSelection • Completely disjoint overlay paths are often not possible. - Existing path diversity:Equal Cost Multi-Paths (ECMP) (PoP: Point of Presences, AR: Access Router, BR: Backbone Router)

  8. Partially Disjoint Overlay Path We may need to allow partially disjoint paths. r overlay path o d default path Such overlap makes networks less resilient to failures. We introduce the notion of penalty to quantify the quality degradation of overlay paths when paths overlap.

  9. 0.25 0.125 0.125 0.5 1.0 o 0.125 d 0.25 0.5 0.875 0.5 0.75 Penalty for Overlapped Links • Impact of a single link failure on a path - Prob. of a packet routed from o to dencounters a failed linkl = P[ path od fails | link l fails ]

  10. r o d Penalty for Overlapped Links (cont.) • Consider overlay path (ord) is used with default one (od). Penalty–the fraction of traffic carried on the overlapped link

  11. Penalty of relay and relay set • Penalty of a relay r for OD pair (o,d) Po,d(r)= P[ both ord and od fail | single link failure ] • Penalty of a relay set Rof size k • sum of minimum penalty of all OD pairs using relays ∑o,d min( Po,d(r) | r ∈R )

  12. Placement Algorithms • How to find a relay set R of size k with minimum penalty • Optimal solution • exhaustive search, 0-1 integer programming (IP) • Greedy selection heuristic • start with 0 relays • iteratively make greedy choice (minimal penalty) • repeat until k relays are selected • Local search heuristic • start with k set of random relays • repeat single-swaps if penalty is reduced

  13. Evaluation Overview • Performance evaluation • Number of relays vs. penalty reduction • Comparison with other heuristics (random, degree) • Sensitivity to network dynamics • Based on topology snapshot data, do relays selected remain effective as topology changes? • Based on network event logs, what is the fraction of traffic protected from failures by using relays?

  14. Performance Evaluation

  15. Relay Node Properties • Node degree, Hop count, Path weight

  16. Sensitivity to Network Dynamics 5% of nodes are selected as relays 10% of nodes are selected as relays Relays are relatively insensitive to network dynamics.

  17. Hypothetical Traffic Loss from Failure Event Logs less than 1% of traffic lost for 92.8% failures (failure events) complete protection for 75.3% failures

  18. Conclusions • This is the first work to consider relay placement for path diversity in intra-domain routing. • Theyquantify the penalty of using partially disjoint overlay paths; and propose two heuristics for relay placement. • Theyevaluate their methods on diverse dataset. • Their heuristics perform consistently well (near-optimal). • A small number of relay nodes (≤10%) is good enough. • Relays are relatively insensitive to network dynamics.

  19. Comments • Evaluations are abundant. • The comparison to Degree method is not a good example.

  20. Reference • http://an.kaist.ac.kr/~mycha/

More Related