Upload
bing
View
57
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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
Citation preview
7
RAIDER: Responsive Architecture for Inter-Domain Economics and Routing
Nirmala 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..
Outline Goals of RAIDER –> Future Internet Components of RAIDER Networking Component
Floating Cloud Tiered Internetworking Model
Service Provisioning Component Contract-Based Inter Domain Routing
Economic Component Inter-Domain Economics and Risk Management
Summary Position paper – Individual results
Goals of RAIDER
An internetworking architecture Highly Flexible and Scalable Technically and Economically - Respond to future needs of
Network Users and Providers
RAIDER – Technical and Economic Components
Floating Cloud Tiered Internetworking Model
Contract Switching
Inte
r-D
omai
n Ec
onom
ics
and
Risk
M
anag
emen
t
Floating Cloud Tiered (FCT) Internetworking Model Technically Responsive Architecture
Modularity Granularity Structure to leverage
High Interconnections Address mechanism
> Implement structure, avoid logical address based routing
FCT Internetworking ModelBuilding BlocksNetwork Clouds – ISPs, POPs,
Backbone routers…… Nested Clouds
Tiers – Global Level – ISPs, AS – backbone, distribution, access… Nested Tiers
FCT – Applied – ISP Level
Tier 1
ISP C
ISP E
AS D
ISP D
Tier 2
Tier 3
ISP C ISP D
ISP B ISP A 1.2 1.1
2.1:1 2.2:1 2.2:2
3.1:1:1 3.1:1:2
Nested Clouds, Tiers, Addresses
Tier 1
ISP C
Access
AS D
Access
Tier 2
Tier 3
Distribution Distribution
Backbone1.1
2.1:1 2.1:2
3.1:1:1 3.1:1:2
Inside a POP
Nested Address 1.1{3.1:1:2}
Nested Tiers
7Contract Switching
10Inter-domain Struggles… When crossing domains, all bets are off.. End-to-end reliability or performance-criticality
requires assurance of single-domain performance, i.e.,
“contract”s efficient concatenation of single-domain contracts
Inter-domain routing needs to be aware of economic semantics contract routing + risk management
We address translation of these struggles to architectural problems
11
Contract-switching: A Paradigm Shift…
Circuit-switching
Packet-switching
Contract-switching
ISPA
ISPC
ISPB
e2e circuits
ISPA
ISPC
ISPB routable
datagrams
ISPA
ISPC
ISPB contracts
overlaid on routable datagrams
12
Basic Building Block: Intra-domain Dynamic Contracts
Contract components performance component, e.g., capacity financial component, e.g., price time component, e.g., term
Network Coreaccessed onlyby contracts
Custom
ers
EdgeRouter
EdgeRouter
EdgeRouter
EdgeRouter
EdgeRouter
EdgeRouter
Stations 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 Link An ISP is abstracted
as a set of “contract links”
Contract link: an advertisable contract between peering/edge
points i and j of an ISP with flexibility of
advertising different prices for edge-to-edge (g2g) intra-domain paths
capability of managing value flows at a finer granularity
than point-to-anywhere deals
14
How to Achieve e2e QoS?
Contract Routing: Compose e2e inter-domain “contract paths” over
available contract links satisfying the QoS requirements
Calculate the contract paths by shortest-path algos with metrics customized w.r.t. contract QoS metrics
Two ways: link-state contract routing at macro time-scales path-vector contract routing at micro time-scales
Monitor and verify that each ISP involved in an e2e contract path is doing the job
Punish the ISPs not doing their job, e.g. as a money-back guarantee to the others involved in the e2e contract path
15
Path-Vector Contract Routing: Micro-level, On-demand, Reactive
Provider initiates… ISP C wants
to advertise availability of a short-term contract link
User X
2
3
5
ISPA
ISPC
ISPB
1 4
[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]
pathannouncement
path
announcement pathannouncement
16
Path-Vector Contract Routing: Micro-level, On-demand, Reactive User initiates…
User X wants to know if it can reach 5 with 10-30Mb/s for 15-45mins in a $10 budget
User X
2
3
5
ISP A
ISPC
ISPB
1 4
[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 request path request
path 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.
replyreplyreply
17Contract Routing over FCT Model
Organization A Organization B
ISP C ISP D ISP E
Organization C
ISP A
Contracting at tier-1: long time-scale
Contract between two tier-2 networks: medium time-scale
Contract between two tier-3 networks: short time-scale
ISP B
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
18
Deployment Issues How 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 costs
PVCR can be done at will.. Not much to loose if ISPs participate with their
leftover bandwidth. Monitoring and verification of contracts
Who is breaking the e2e performance? Active measurements can be OK for LSCR,
but PVCR needs lightweight techniques.
Summary A Future Internet Architecture Technically responsive
Tested on Emulab / ProtoGENI 21 node 3 tiers
Economically responsive Presented some details Collaboration on Integration
ongoing.
Questions