1 / 24

The Delta Routing Project Low-loss Routing for Hybrid Private Networks

The Delta Routing Project Low-loss Routing for Hybrid Private Networks. George Porter (UCB) Minwen Ji, Ph.D. (SRC - HP Labs). Outline. Motivation/overview of corporate networks Problem Statement Architecture Two layers: Physical and Overlay The Delta Protocol The Delta+TM Protocol

emilia
Télécharger la présentation

The Delta Routing Project Low-loss Routing for Hybrid Private Networks

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. The Delta Routing ProjectLow-loss Routing for Hybrid Private Networks George Porter (UCB) Minwen Ji, Ph.D. (SRC - HP Labs)

  2. Outline • Motivation/overview of corporate networks • Problem Statement • Architecture • Two layers: Physical and Overlay • The Delta Protocol • The Delta+TM Protocol • Evaluation • Conclusions

  3. Corporate Network ConstructionNetwork Layer • Distributed Locations connected by leased lines due to: • Need for predictable performance • Security • Management and control • Fixed initial cost, incremental additional cost due to traffic volume • Not necessarily overprovisioned • Reprovisioning on the timescale of days (or weeks) • Expensive (compared to ISP connectivity LON SEA OSPF NYC SF DC ALX LA DFW HOU

  4. Corporate Network ConstructionOverlay Layer ISP Connectivity • ISP Connectivity alreay at selected nodes to provide: • Web/Email access • VPN access to at-home or distance workers • Business services • Per-byte, ISP much cheaper than “Intranet” • But no QoS • Intranet corporate network with ISP links is called a ‘Hybrid Private Network’ LON SEA NYC SF DC ALX LA DFW HOU

  5. Problem of Congestion • Flash traffic (video, backup, data transfer) or steady corporate growth can lead to periodic congestion • Problem Statement: • Reduce congestion and packet loss on the Intranet by utilizing ISP connectivity while providing good end-to-end performance LON SEA NYC SF DC ALX LA DFW HOU

  6. Architecture

  7. Architecture • Overlay Layer: • Need to forward traffic around congested portions of the Intranet • Measurement-based path construction • Intermediate point may be better than “last hop” selection • Metric include measured latency and local queuing delay • Paths are selected on order of seconds or minutes • Physical (Intranet) Layer: • Single-domain routing protocol (OSPF) • Dijkstra • Forwarding decision: which packets go to Intranet and which go to the preselected overlay paths? (per packet)

  8. Physical Forwarding Algorithm • Ji, Minwen. Dial-controlled Hash: Reducing Path Oscillation in Multipath Networks. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN). Oct 2003. • Current Algorithm: • Prefer physical path, but if physical queue full send to overlay layer.

  9. Overlay Path Selection Algorithms • Static • Lasthop • Nexthop • Random • Dynamic • Delta • Minimize end-to-end delay • Delta+TM • Predict and avoid congestion by inferring global traffic matrix

  10. Delta Path Selection • Find path to minimize the sum of: • Local Queue delay + WAN delay + Intranet delay • Key feature is the use of locally obtained information

  11. Limitation of Delta Algorithm • Since Delta uses local information, it might send traffic to an overloaded link: congested • Can we avoid this?

  12. Delta+TM (Traffic Matrix) • Key idea: • Don’t choose paths that will subject the traffic to congestion • Use the original Delta algorithm (minimize end-to-end delay) but throw out paths that will subject packets to congestion • But how do we find out about remote congestion? • Given that message flooding will likely be inaccurate and might make the problem worse

  13. .3 .89 .6 1.2 1.3 .03 Traffic Matrix Estimation + = Topology Information • Each node measures flows that transit through it • Long-term averages are flooded to fill in the entries of the table that a node can’t directly measure

  14. Evaluation Simple Example Algorithm-antagonistic Topologies Large-scale Topology (PlanetLab-based)

  15. Linear Topology

  16. Congestion Event

  17. Congestion Event

  18. Evaluation Simple Example Algorithm-antagonistic Topologies Large-scale Topology (PlanetLab-based)

  19. Algorithm-antagonistic Topology • Simple topology with traffic flows that should expose a weakness to each topology

  20. Algorithm-antagonistic Topology

  21. Evaluation Simple Example Algorithm-antagonistic Topologies Large-scale Topology (PlanetLab-based)

  22. Planetlab as VPN-network source • Large, distributed testbed • We modelled the Overlay part of a fictional 43-node corporate network using traces taken over planetlab • The Intranet link topology was obtained from 2-level clustering and eyeballing • Traffic flows include a “measured flow” and a set of background and disruptive flows

  23. PlanetLab (UCLA->ac.uk) Packet Losses

  24. Conclusions • Utilizing ISP connectivity enables balancing packet loss rate –vs- end-to-end delays • Dynamic algorithms can adapt to a variety of wide-area conditions • Congestion prediction can help in certain environments, however local-only decision making works well • Certain “choke points” must be identified so that synchronization effects will not occur • Making better use of bandwidth can lower cost of deploying distributed corporate networks

More Related