Post on 21-Jun-2015
transcript
1
thesis proposal
Meeyoung Cha
Resilient Design Architecturefor Realtime Network Services
2
• Goal Analytic foundation and resilient design architecture for realtime network services
• OutlineChallenges for realtime servicesPoint-to-point network servicesPoint-to-multipoint network servicesSummary and future work
Overview
3
Part 1:Challenges for realtime services
4
• MotivationFailures are frequent and routing protocols converge not fast enough for realtime network services.
• How to provide resiliency against temporary outages? Exploit path diversity!
What’s the problem?
5
Exploiting Path Diversity
Destination
Multiple disjoint paths
ISP Network
Using multiple disjoint paths gives maximumrobustness against single point of failures!
Source
6
Scope of Work
Intra-domain
Algorithms
Modeling
Application
ISP backbone network
Point-to-pointPoint-to-multipoint
Heuristic, optimal
Identify new problems,practical considerations
7
Part 2:Point-to-point Network Services
8
• How to find multiple disjoint paths? Use a node inside the network to relay packets
• Problem is:Where to place relay nodes and how many?
Idea: Placing Relays
overlay path
Destination
default path
relays
ISP Network
Origin
9
• Idea: use disjoint overlay paths along with the default routing path to route around temporary failures.
• Previous work has focused on selecting good relay nodes assuming relay nodes are already deployed.– E.g., RON [Anderson SOSP 01], Detour [Savage Micro 99]
• As an ISP, we consider the problem of placing relay nodes well. – Find a fixed set of relay nodes that offer as
much path diversity as possible to all OD pairs.
Problem Definition
10
• Equal Cost Multi Paths (ECMP)
• Completely disjoint paths not possible due to ECMP.
Impact of ECMP on Overlay Path Selection
Intra-PoP
AR
AR BR
BR
BR
BR AR
AR
Inter-PoP
(Access router) (Backbone router)
11
Partially Disjoint Overlay Path
We allow partially disjoint overlay paths.
Overlap decreases resiliency. Introduce penalty to quantify the quality degradation.
o d
r
default path
overlay path
12
Penalty for Overlapped Links
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.5 0.75
0.125
0.125
0.875
0.125
1.0o d
• Impact of a single link failure on a path- prob. a packet routed encounters a link failure P[ path od fails | link l fails ]
13
Penalty –fraction of traffic carried on “overlapped” link
Penalty Measures
o d
r
• Penalty of a relay r for OD pair (o,d) Po,d(r) = P[ both ord and od fail | single link failure ]
• Penalty of a relay set R of size k – sum of minimum penalty of all OD pairs using relays
∑o,d min( Po,d(r) | r ∈ R )
14
• Goal: 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 random relays– repeat single-swaps if penalty is reduced
Placement Algorithms
15
• 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?
Evaluation Overview
16
• We use an operational tier-1 ISP backbone and 3-month topology snapshots and 6-month event
logs. Topology - 100 routers, 200 links Assume hypothetical traffic matrix
- equal amount of traffic between OD pairs
• Also evaluated with 1 real, 3 inferred, 6 synthetic topologies.
Dataset
17
Sensitivity to Network Dynamics
Relays are relatively insensitive to network dynamics.
5% of nodes are selected as relays
10% of nodes are selected as relays
18
Hypothetical Traffic Loss from Failure Event Logs
complete protectionfor 75.3% failures
less than 1% of trafficlost for 92.8% failures
(failu
re e
vents
)
19
• This is the first work to consider relay placement for path diversity in intra-domain routing.
• We quantify the penalty of using partially disjoint overlay paths; and propose two heuristics for relay placement.
• We evaluate our methods on diverse dataset. – Our heuristics perform consistently well (near-optimal).– A small number of relay nodes (≤10%) is good enough.– Relays are relatively insensitive to network dynamics.– Proven also effective against real (multiple) failures.
Summary
20
• PublicationsMeeyoung Cha, Sue Moon, Chong-Dae Park, Aman Shaikh“Placing Relay Nodes for Intra-domain Path Diversity”Proc. IEEE INFOCOM poster, Mar 2005 Proc. IEEE INFOCOM conference paper, Apr 2006
• TalksIEEE INFOCOM 2005, 2006DIMACS mixer series, Sep 2005 Princeton systems group lunch talk, Dec 2005
• Action itemsIn preparation of a journal versionExtended idea to inter-domain setting
Meeyoung Cha, Aman Shaikh, Sharad Agarwal, Sue Moon
“On AS Level Path Diversity”, submitted to IMC 06
Accomplishments
21
Part 3:Point-to-multipoint Network Services
22
• IPTV (Internet Protocol TV) distribution of broadcast TV traffic using IP technology
• Growing need for efficient and resilient IPTV design– 4 million IPTV subscribers in 2005 [1]
• What is the best architecture for supporting IPTV?– technology (IP, optical) – hierarchy (hub-and-spoke, meshed)– multicast routing (cost)– failure restoration (high availability)
Motivation
[1] http://www.cisco.com/global/DK/docs/presentations/partnere/IPTV-Copenhagen-291105.pdf
23
SHE
Regional Network
Regional Network
Video Hub Office (VHO)
2 SHEs and 40 VHOs across the US
customers
Regional Network
Regional Network
Backbone Distribution Network
Super Head Ends (SHE)
VHO
VHO
Service Architecture of IPTV
Broadcast TV
Regional Network
Regional Network
How to design backbone part of IPTV services(e.g., inter-connecting SHEs and VHOs)?
24
Service Requirements of IPTV
• Cost-effective design– Each link associated with port / transport cost – Find minimum cost multicast trees
• Reliable service– High availability– Resiliency against single node or link failures– Two physically disjoint paths from SHEs to VHOs
(Multilayer problem)
25
SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group)
• Layered architecture
Single link failure → multiple failures in the upper layer
Two disjoint links may belong to a common SRLG
26
Path Protection Routing
How to create two trees such that the total cost is minimized and each VHO has physically disjoint paths connecting SHEs?
• 1+1 protection: resources dedicated, data simultaneously sent on two paths (guarding against each other)
SHESHE
VHO
VHO VHO
SRLG-diversepaths
VHO
27
Link-diverse versus SRLG-diverse
D1 and D3 may be disconnected due to a single fiber cut.
28
Problem Definition
• ProblemGiven sources S and destinations D, inter-connect S and D such that each destination is connected to at least one of the sources under any single source, link, and SRLG failures.
s
d
i
j
=1, if link (i,j) is used from s to d
=1, if link (i,j) is ever used by s
=1, if SRLG b is used from s to d
b
29
Minimize total cost
SRLGdiversity
Flowconservation
Integer Programming (IP) Formulation
30
Evaluation Setup
• IP modeling– GAMS tool http://www.gams.com/– ILOG CPLEX IP solver
http://www.ilog.com/
• Dataset2 SHE / 40 VHO locations in the US
• IP formulation amenable to realistic topologies!
31
Compared Designs
• Optimal versus heuristic– Active Path First (APF) heuristic
• Find multicast tree from one SHE• Remove all the SRLGs used in the first tree• Find second multicast tree from remaining SHE
• Reduced reliability– Link diverse (Link-Div)
• Find link diverse paths connecting 2 SHEs 40 VHOs
– Source diverse (Src-Div) • Find two multicast trees
32
More economical than heuristic.Cost for increased reliability affordable.
Cost Comparison Across Designs
Most reliable Most Reliablecost
Reduced reliability Reduced reliability
33
Summary
• The first work to consider IPTV backbone design.• 1+1 path protection routing problem modeled.• Compact Integer Programming formulation
proposed.• IP formulation evaluated using realistic topologies.
– Real topologies amenable to our method– Cost gain against heuristics– SRLG diversity shown affordable
34
• PublicationsMeeyoung Cha, Gagan Choudhury, Jennifer yates, Aman Shaikh, Sue Moon, “Case Study: Resilient Backbone Design for IPTV Services”Proc. WWW IPTV workshop, May 2006
Meeyoung Cha, W. Art Chaovalitwongse, Zihui Ge, Jennifer Yates, Sue Moon, “Path Protection Routing with SRLG Constraints to Support IPTV in WDM Mesh Networks”, Proc. IEEE Global Internet Symposium, Apr 2006
• TalksAT&T research labs, Feb 2006 IEEE Global Internet, Apr 2006WWW IPTV workshop, May 2006
• Action itemsIn preparation of a journal versionIncorporate practical considerations and develop new algorithms
Accomplishments
35
Part 4:Summary and Future Work
36
• Point-to-point communication– VoIP, online-gaming, VPN applications– Disjoint overlay paths for robustness– Relay placement algorithms– Extensive analyses
• Point-to-multipoint communication– IPTV application– Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) consideration– New Integer Programming (IP) model– Extensive analyses
Summary: Resilient Design Architecture
What I have done:
37
• Relay architecture– Implementation issues
• Protocol design• Router support• Billing issues
• Relay placement in inter-domain setting– Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) path
• Inference • Asymmetries
• Lower layer path diversity – Incorporate Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)
Future Work: Point-to-point
What I am going to do:
38
• Network design: source placement– Given fixed destinations, where to place
sources? – New IP formulation, new algorithms,…
• Guaranteed path performance– Can we guarantee latency bounds on paths?
• Plasticity and scalability – Adding more sources and destinations
Future Work: Point-to-multipoint
What I am going to do:
39
• Dynamic change of service requirements – Change of topology, demand, service expansions– How to incorporate changes?
• Optimal solutions may be too expensive or infeasible
• What are good heuristics? – Fast convergence, easy to parallelize
Real-world Service Considerations
sub-optimal from here
Example of immediate work:
40
• Step1: Pool of feasible solutionsUse fast heuristicwith random parameters
• Step2: Sort solutions (1st generation)Use cost functionsto evaluate solutions
Improvement of Existing Algorithm 1
Feasible solutions
S1 S2 Sn…
Best(20%)
S1
S2
Sn
…
Mid(75%)
Worst(5%)
Genetic Algorithm (GA) based heuristic:
41
• Step3: Mutate parametersMix best with mid or worst
• Step4: Sort solutions (2st generation)
• Step5: Repeat steps 3 and 4Until no improvement found
Best(20%)
Mid(75%)
Worst(5%)
S1
S2
Sn
…
Best(20%)
Mid(75%)
Worst(5%)
S1’
S3’
Sn’
…
S2
Sn’
S1’
new feasible solutions
mutateparameters
Improvement of Existing Algorithm 2
Genetic Algorithm (GA) based heuristic:
42
Thank you very much!