system & network reading group on selfish routing in internet-like evironments lili qiu...

System & Network Reading Group

On Selfish Routing In Internet-Like Evironments

Lili Qiu (Microsoft Research)Yang Richard Yang (Yale University)

Yin Zhang (AT&T Research)Scott Shenker (ICSI)


Motivation• Practical front

– Recent studies (e.g., Detour/RON) showed that default routing path is often sub-optimal

– Possible causes of routing inefficiency• Routing hierarchy• Routing policy• Different routing objectives used by ISPs• Stability problem in routing protocols, such as BGP …

– A recent trend: end hosts choose routes• Source routing (e.g., Nimrod)• Overlay routing (e.g., Detour or RON)

– Characteristics of routing by end hosts• Improve over today’s IP routing (e.g., delay, loss rate)• Selfish by nature (i.e., optimize user-centric performance

without considering system-wide criteria)


Motivation (Cont.)• Theory front

– Roughgarden et al. showed selfish routing can result in serious performance degradation due to lack of cooperation


Example: Selfish Routing May Yield Sub-Optimal Performance

• Selfish routing– All traffic go through the lower link– Total latency = 1

• Optimal routing (i.e., minimize total latency)– Traffic split equally between the two links– Total latency = ¾

• The performance degradation can be unbounded for non-linear latency functions

src dest

L(x)=1

L(x)=x


Open Issues• How does selfish routing perform in Internet-like

environments?– Realistic network topologies– Realistic traffic demands– Realistic network delay functions

• How does selfish overlay routing perform?• How does selfish traffic co-exist with the

remaining traffic that uses traditional routing protocols?

• How does users’ selfish routing interact with underlying network control process (e.g., traffic engineering)


Outline• Overview• Network model• Evaluation Methodology• Performance results

– Physical routing– Overlay routing– Multiple overlays– Interaction with traffic engineering

• Summary and future work


Overview• Approach

– Use a game-theoretic approach to answer the above open issues

– Focus on intra-domain scenarios•Recent advances in topology mapping and

traffic estimation •Compare with theoretical results

– Focus on equilibrium behavior•Compare the performance of traffic equilibria

with the global optima and default IP routing•Based on realistic topologies, traffic

demands, latency functions


Network Model• Physical network

– Directed graph G=(V,E)– Latency of each edge is a function of its load (e.g., M/M/1)

• Demands– demand(i,j): the amount of traffic from a source i to a

destination j• Overlays

– A set of overlay nodes, overlay links, and a set of demands– The physical route corresponding to an overlay link is

dictated by network-level routing– Consider mesh-like overlay topologies

• Users– Each user decides how its traffic should be routed– Objective: min latency


Network Model (Cont.)Route controller

– Uses network-level routing• OSPF: shortest-path with equal-weight splitting, with

the following weight settings– Hop-count– Random-weight– Optimized-compliant weight: minimize network

cost when assuming all traffic is compliant (i.e., following the routes determined by the network) [FRT02]

» Network cost: a piece-wise linear convex function of network load over all links

• MPLS: general multi-commodity flow routing


Evaluation Methodology• Network topology

– A large tier-1 ISP topology, referred as ISPTopo– Rocketfuel topologies– Random power-law topologies

• Traffic demands– Real traffic demands from the ISPTopo– Synthetic traffic demands

• Link latency functions– M/M/1, M/D/1, P/M/1, P/D/1, BPR

• Performance metrics– Average latency– Maximum link utilization– Network costs: piece-wise linear, increasing, convex

function [FRT02]


Different Routing Schemes• Physical routing

– Source routing (i.e., selfish routing studied in previous theoretical work)

– Optimal routing• Overlay routing

– Overlay source routing (i.e., selfish routing with routing constraints)

– Overlay optimal routing• Compliant routing (i.e., normal Internet

routing)


Approach to Computing the Traffic Equilibria

• General approach– Simulation-based: too expensive– We use a game-theoretic approach to compute the traffic

equilibria directly• Computing the equilibria of physical routing

– linear-approximation algorithm, a variant of Frank-Wolfe algorithm

• Computing the equilibria of overlay routing– Symmetric: Modified linear approximation algorithm – Asymmetric: Jacob’s relaxation algorithm

• Computing the equilibria of multiple overlays– Use the relaxation algorithm to guarantee the

convergence


Outline• Overview• Network model• Evaluation Methodology• Performance Evaluation

– Source routing– Overlay routing– Multiple overlays– Interaction with traffic engineering

• Summary and future work


Selfish Source Routing• Questions

– Are Internet-like environments among the worst-case?

– What is the system-wide cost for selfish source routing?

• Dimensions – Performance metrics: latency & network load– Effects of network topologies– Effects of network load– Effects of latency functions


Selfish Source Routing: Latency• Effects of network topologies (M/M/1, load

scale factor=1, OC3 bandwidth)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Abo

vene

t

ATT

EB

ON

E

Exo

dus

Leve

l3

Spr

int

Tels

tra

Tisc

ali

Ver

io

Pow

erD

2

Pow

erD

5

Pow

erD

10

Load scale factor=1

Ave

rage

late

ncy

(us)

source optimal compliant

Selfish routing yields close to optimal latency, much better than compliant routing


Selfish Source Routing: Network Load

• Effects of network topologies

1

10

100

1000

10000

Abo

vene

t

ATT

EB

ON

E

Exo

dus

Leve

l3

Spr

int

Tels

tra

Tisc

ali

Ver

io

Pow

erD

2

Pow

erD

5

Pow

erD

10

Load scale factor=1Ne

twor

k co

st


020406080

100120140160

Abo

vene

t

ATT

EB

ON

E

Exo

dus

Leve

l3

Spr

int

Tels

tra

Tisc

ali

Ver

io

Pow

erD

2

Pow

erD

5

Pow

erD

10

Load scale factor=1

Max

imum

link

util

izat

ion

(%)


Selfish routing tends to overload links.


Summary: Selfish Source Routing• The performance is qualitatively the same

as we vary latency functions and network load

• Unlike the theoretical worst cases, selfish source routing yields close to optimal latency

• Selfish routing tends to overload links on the shortest paths


Outline• Overview• Network model• Evaluation Methodology • Performance results


• Conclusion and future work


Selfish Overlay Routing• Questions

– Does selfish overlay routing perform well?

– How does the coverage of overlay network affect the performance?

• Dimensions– Effects of network topologies– Effects of amount of overlay coverage– Effects of how overlay nodes are

selected (e.g., random or edge nodes)


Difference between Source Routing and Overlay Routing

• Even if the overlay includes all network nodes, routing on an overlay is still different – Network-level routing can prevent overlay traffic

from using a link by setting the corresponding entry in routing matrix to 0 (in OSPF this is achieved by assigning a large weight)

– Certain physical routes cannot be implemented by any overlay routing

• Routing flexibility is further reduced when only a fraction of nodes belong to an overlay


Selfish Overlay Routing (Full Overlay Coverage)

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Load scale factor

Max

link

util

izat

ion

source routing overlay-src: opt-weight

overlay-src: hop-count overlay-src: rand-weight

02000400060008000

1000012000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Load scale factor

Aver

age

late

ncy

(us)

source routing overlay-src: opt-weight

overlay-src: hopt-count overlay-src: rand-weight

1) overlay-src with opt-weight and hop-count performsimilarly as source routing

2) overlay-src with random-weight performs much worse.


Selfish Overlay Routing (Full Overlay Coverage)

• Direct Link Shortest [DLS]– For any physically adjacent nodes A and B, all the

traffic from A to B is routed through the direct link AB without involving any other links. (e.g., hop-count-based OSPF)

• For an overlay that covers all network nodes and satisfies DLS– routing on the overlay = routing on the underlay

• Hop-count-based OSPF and optimized OSPF weights satisfy DLS they perform similarly as source routing

• Random OSPF weights violate DLS some links are pruned, and performance degrades


Selfish Overlay Routing (Partial Overlay Coverage)

• Overlay is formed from all edge nodes in ISPTopo

ISPTopo

7500

8000

8500

9000

9500

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Load scale factor

Ave

rage

late

ncy

(us)

all partial

ISPTopo

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Load scale factorM

ax li

nk u

tiliz

atio

n (%

)

all partial

The effects of partial overlay coverage is smallin backbone topologies.


Summary: Selfish Overlay Routing

• For full overlay coverage– Overlay has full routing control when the

underlay satisfies DLS– The only way in which OSPF affects

overlay routing is by violating DLS, which could reduce available network resources

– Overlay source routing reduces latency at the expense of higher network cost

• The effects of partial overlay coverage are small in backbone topologies


Interactions among Competing Overlays

• Question– Can multiple overlays share network

resources fairly and effectively?• Dimensions

– Effects of network topologies– Effects of network-level routing

schemes– Effects of network load and traffic

distribution among overlays– Effects of the number of competing

overlays


Interactions among Competing Overlays (Cont.)

• Effects of network-level routing load scale factor = 1

05000

100001500020000250003000035000

com

/com

opt/c

omop

t/opt

src/

com

src/

opt

src/

src

com

/com

opt/c

omop

t/opt

src/

com

src/

opt

src/

src

com

/com

opt/c

omop

t/opt

src/

com

src/

opt

src/

src

opt-comp hop-count random

Ave

rage

late

ncy

(us)

foreground background


Summary: Interactions among Competing Overlays

• With reasonable OSPF weights (e.g., hop-count)– Different routing schemes co-exist

without hurting each other• With bad OSPF weights

– Selfish overlay improves both for themselves and for compliant traffic



– Source routing– Overlay routing– Multiple overlays– Interactions with traffic engineering



Selfish Routing vs. Traffic Engineering

• So far we assume network is dumb (i.e., static underlay routing)

• In practice, the network is smart due to traffic engineering (i.e., underlay routing adapts to varying traffic)

• Question– Will the system reach a state with both low

latency and low network cost, as selfish routing and traffic engineering each tries to optimize their objective by adapting to the other process?


Specification of Vertical Interactions

• Interactive process between two players– Traffic engineering

• Given traffic matrix Tt, where Tt(s,d) denotes traffic from source s to destination d in time slot t

• Compute routing matrix Rt for the underlay• Objective: avoid overloading network

– Selfish routing• Given routing matrix Rt for the underlay• Produce new traffic matrix Tt

• Objective: minimize latency


One Round during Vertical Interaction

T(t) = Traffic matrix when routing matrix is R(t-1)

R(t) = OptimizedRoutingMatrix(T(t))Traffic engineering installs R(t) to

networkSelfish routing redistributes traffic to

form T(t+1)


Vertical Interaction with OSPF Optimizations

0.0E+00

5.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.5E+04

2.0E+04

2.5E+04

0 10 20 30 40 50

Round

Aver

age

late

ncy

(us)

overlay src: TE OSPF overlay src: hop-count compliant

020406080

100120140160180200

0 10 20 30 40 50

Round

Max

imum

link

util

izat

ion

(%)


OSPF route optimization interacts poorly with selfish routing


Vertical Interaction with MPLS Optimization

0.0E+002.0E+034.0E+036.0E+038.0E+031.0E+041.2E+041.4E+04

0 10 20 30 40 50

Round

Ave

rage

late

ncy

(us)

overlay src: TE MPLS overlay src: hop-count compliant

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 10 20 30 40 50

Round

Max

link

util

izat

ion

(%)


MPLS optimization interacts with selfish routing more effectively


Summary: Selfish Routing vs. Traffic Engineering

• OSPF route optimization interacts poorly with selfish routing

• MPLS interacts with selfish routing more effectively

• Despite the encouraging results from MPLS, several challenges exist– How to estimate traffic matrices accurately in

presence of adaptive selfish traffic?– Large optimization problems


Conclusion• Formulate and evaluate selfish overlay routing• Unlike the theoretical worst cases, selfish routing

in Internet-like environments yields close to optimal latency– The above result is true for both source

routing and overlay routing– Selfish routing can achieve good performance

without hurting the traffic that is using default routing


Conclusion• Mismatch between selfish routing and traffic

engineering– Different objectives

• Selfish routing: minimize e2e delay• Traffic engineering: aim to balance load

– Selfish routing reduces latency at the cost of increased congestion

– The adaptive nature of selfish routing makes traffic demands less predictable and reduces the effectiveness of traffic engineering


Future Work• Study impacts of multi-AS nature of the

Internet• Study dynamics of selfish routing (i.e.,

how traffic equilibria are reached?)• Improve the interactions between selfish

routing and traffic engineering• Study other selfish routing objectives

(e.g., loss and throughput)

system & network reading group on selfish routing in internet-like evironments lili qiu...

Documents