RAIDER: Responsive Architecture for Inter-Domain Economics and Routing

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


RAIDER: Responsive Architecture for Inter-Domain Economics and Routing. Nirmala Shenoy, Rochester Institute of Technology Murat Yuksel, University of Nevada Reno Aparna Gupta, Koushik Kar, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst Victor Perotti, Rochester Institute of Technology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


RAIDER: Responsive Architecture for Inter-Domain Economics and Routing

RAIDER: Responsive Architecture for Inter-Domain Economics and RoutingNirmala Shenoy, Rochester Institute of TechnologyMurat Yuksel, University of Nevada RenoAparna Gupta, Koushik Kar, Rensselaer Polytechnic InstVictor Perotti, Rochester Institute of TechnologyManish Karir, Merit Networks

National Science Foundation funded..

7Outline Goals of RAIDER > Future InternetComponents of RAIDERNetworking Component Floating Cloud Tiered Internetworking ModelService Provisioning ComponentContract-Based Inter Domain RoutingEconomic Component Inter-Domain Economics and Risk ManagementSummary Position paper Individual results

Goals of RAIDERAn internetworking architectureHighly Flexible and Scalable Technically and Economically -Respond to future needs of Network Users and ProvidersRAIDER Technical and Economic ComponentsFloating Cloud Tiered Internetworking Model

Contract Switching Inter-Domain Economics and Risk Management

Floating Cloud Tiered (FCT) Internetworking ModelTechnically Responsive ArchitectureModularityGranularityStructure to leverage High InterconnectionsAddress mechanism> Implement structure, avoid logical address based routingFCT Internetworking ModelBuilding BlocksNetwork Clouds ISPs, POPs, Backbone routersNested CloudsTiers Global Level ISPs, AS backbone, distribution, accessNested Tiers

FCT Applied ISP Level

Nested Clouds, Tiers, AddressesTier 1ISP CAccess AS D Access Tier 2Tier 3DistributionDistributionBackbone1.12.1:12.1:23.1:1:13.1:1:2Inside a POP Nested Address 1.1{3.1:1:2}Nested TiersContract Switching 710Inter-domain StrugglesWhen crossing domains, all bets are off..End-to-end reliability or performance-criticality requiresassurance of single-domain performance, i.e., contractsefficient concatenation of single-domain contractsInter-domain routing needs to be aware of economic semanticscontract routing + risk managementWe address translation of these struggles to architectural problems11Contract-switching: A Paradigm ShiftCircuit-switchingPacket-switchingContract-switching

ISPAISPCISPBe2e circuits

ISPAISPCISPBroutable datagrams

ISPAISPCISPBcontracts overlaid on routable datagrams12Basic Building Block: Intra-domain Dynamic ContractsContract componentsperformance component, e.g., capacityfinancial component, e.g., pricetime component, e.g., term

Network Coreaccessed onlyby contractsCustomersEdgeRouterEdgeRouterEdgeRouterEdgeRouterEdgeRouterEdgeRouterStations of the provider computing and advertising local prices for edge-to-edge contracts.Stations of the provider computing and advertising local prices for edge-to-edge contracts.13

Contract LinkAn ISP is abstracted as a set of contract linksContract link: an advertisable contractbetween peering/edge points i and j of an ISPwith flexibility of advertising different prices for edge-to-edge (g2g) intra-domain pathscapability of managing value flows at a finer granularity than point-to-anywhere deals14How to Achieve e2e QoS?Contract Routing:Compose e2e inter-domain contract paths over available contract links satisfying the QoS requirementsCalculate the contract paths by shortest-path algos with metrics customized w.r.t. contract QoS metricsTwo ways:link-state contract routing at macro time-scalespath-vector contract routing at micro time-scalesMonitor and verify that each ISP involved in an e2e contract path is doing the jobPunish the ISPs not doing their job, e.g. as a money-back guarantee to the others involved in the e2e contract path15Path-Vector Contract Routing: Micro-level, On-demand, ReactiveProvider initiatesISP C wants to advertise availability of a short-term contract link

User X235ISPAISPCISPB14[C, 5-4, 30Mb/s, 45mins, $9][C-B, 5-4-2, 20Mb/s, 45mins, $6+$5][C-B-A, 5-4-2-1, 20Mb/s, 30mins, $7.3+$3][C, 5-3, 10Mb/s, 30mins, $5][C-A, 5-3-1, 5Mb/s, 15mins, $1.25+$1.2]pathannouncementpathannouncementpathannouncement16Path-Vector Contract Routing: Micro-level, On-demand, ReactiveUser initiatesUser X wants to know if it can reach 5 with 10-30Mb/s for 15-45mins in a $10 budget

User X235ISP AISPCISPB14[5, A-B, 1-2-4, 15-20Mb/s, 20-30mins, $4][5, A, 1-2, 15-30Mb/s, 15-30mins, $8][5, 10-30Mb/s, 15-45mins, $10][5, A, 1-3, 5-10Mb/s, 15-20mins, $7]Paths to 5 are found and ISP C sends replies to the user with two specific contract-path-vectors.path requestpath requestpath request[A-B-C, 1-2-4-5, 20Mb/s, 30mins][A-C, 1-3-5, 10Mb/s, 15mins]Paths to 5 are found and ISP C sends replies to the user with two specific contract-path-vectors.replyreplyreply17Contract Routing over FCT Model Organization AOrganization B


ISP D ISP EOrganization C


Contracting at tier-1: long time-scaleContract between two tier-2 networks: medium time-scaleContract between two tier-3 networks: short time-scaleISP B

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

18Deployment IssuesHow to motivate ISPs to participate?ISPs are very protective of their contracting terms due to competition.But, BGP has similar risks too..Observation of opportunity costsPVCR can be done at will..Not much to loose if ISPs participate with their leftover bandwidth.Monitoring and verification of contractsWho is breaking the e2e performance?Active measurements can be OK for LSCR, but PVCR needs lightweight techniques.SummaryA Future Internet ArchitectureTechnically responsiveTested on Emulab / ProtoGENI21 node 3 tiersEconomically responsivePresented some detailsCollaboration on Integration ongoing.


Tier 1ISP CISP EAS D ISP D Tier 2Tier 3ISP CISP DISP B ISP A1.21.12.1:12.2:12.2:23.1:1:13.1:1:2