RAIDER: Responsive Architecture for Inter-Domain Economics and Routing

Transcription

1 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 Manish Karir, Merit Networks National Science Foundation funded..

2 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

3 Goals of RAIDER An internetworking architecture Highly Flexible and Scalable Technically and Economically - Respond to future needs of Network Users and Providers

4 RAIDER Technical and Economic Components Floating Cloud Tiered Internetworking Model Contract Switching Inter-Domain Economics and Risk Management

5 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

6 FCT Internetworking Model Building Blocks Network Clouds s, POPs, Backbone routers Nested Clouds Tiers Global Level s, AS backbone, distribution, access Nested Tiers

7 FCT Applied Level

8 Nested Clouds, Tiers, Addresses 1.1 Backbone Inside a POP Tier 1 2.1:1 2.1:2 Distribution Distribution AS D Tier 2 C 3.1:1:1 3.1:1:2 Access Access Tier 3 Nested Address 1.1{3.1:1:2} Nested Tiers

9 Contract Switching

10 10 Inter-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 A B e2e circuits C Circuit-switching A B routable datagrams Packet-switching C Contract-switching A B C contracts overlaid on routable datagrams 11

12 Basic Building Block: Intradomain Dynamic Contracts Contract components performance component, e.g., capacity financial component, e.g., price time component, e.g., term Stations of the provider computing and advertising local prices for edge-toedge contracts. Customers Edge Router Edge Router Edge Router Edge Router Network Core accessed only by contracts Edge Router Edge Router 12

13 Contract Link An is abstracted as a set of contract links Contract link: an advertisable contract between peering/edge points i and j of an with flexibility of advertising different prices for edge-to-edge (g2g) intradomain paths capability of managing value flows at a finer granularity than point-toanywhere deals 13

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 involved in an e2e contract path is doing the job Punish the s not doing their job, e.g. as a moneyback guarantee to the others involved in the e2e contract path 14

15 Path-Vector Contract Routing: Micro-level, On-demand, Reactive [C-B-A, , 20Mb/s, 30mins, $7.3+$3] [C-B, 5-4-2, 20Mb/s, 45mins, $6+$5] User X path announcement 1 4 A path announcement 3 2 C B [C, 5-3, 10Mb/s, 30mins, $5] [C-A, 5-3-1, 5Mb/s, 15mins, $1.25+$1.2] 5 [C, 5-4, 30Mb/s, 45mins, $9] Provider initiates C wants to advertise availability of a short-term contract link 15

16 Path-Vector Contract Routing: Micro-level, On-demand, Reactive [5, 10-30Mb/s, 15-45mins, $10] User initiates User X wants to know if it can reach 5 with 10-30Mb/s for 15-45mins in a $10 budget [5, A, 1-2, 15-30Mb/s, 15-30mins, $8] User X [5, A, 1-3, 5-10Mb/s, 15-20mins, $7] path request reply 1 A 4 reply path request 3 2 path request C [A-C, 1-3-5, 10Mb/s, 15mins] B 5 [5, A-B, 1-2-4, 15-20Mb/s, 20-30mins, $4] [A-B-C, , 20Mb/s, 30mins] Paths to 5 are found and C sends replies to the user with two specific contractpath-vectors. 16

17 17 Contract Routing over FCT Model Contracting at tier- 1: long time- scale Tier 1 A B C D E Tier 2 Organization A Tier 3 Organization B Organization C Contract between two tier- 2 networks: medium time- scale Contract between two tier- 3 networks: short time- scale

18 18 Deployment Issues How to motivate s to participate? s 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 s 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.

19 Summary A Future Internet Architecture Technically responsive Tested on Emulab / ProtoGENI 21 node 3 tiers Economically responsive Presented some details Collaboration on Integration ongoing.

20 Questions