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