layer-1 informed internet topology measurement · [email protected] informed internet...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement
1
Ram Durairajan*, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford*
*University of Wisconsin - Madison ^Colgate University
![Page 2: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction
• Understanding Internet topology is important – Informs performance, security, risk, etc.
• Internet topology mapping is fraught with challenges – Huge size and distributed ownership – Always in a state of flux
2
![Page 3: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Existing Approaches
• TTL-limited layer 3 traceroute-like probes – Rely on location hints in domain names – E.g., CAIDA’s Ark, Rocketfuel
Network-layer maps
3
![Page 4: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Existing Approaches (cont.)
• Search based – Maps available at ISP’s website – E.g., Internet Atlas, Internet Topology Zoo
Physical maps
4
![Page 5: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Topology measurement challenges
• Problems with TTL-based approaches – Management policies/Objectives of providers – Lack of visibility of lower layers
• Problems with Search-based approaches – ISP acquisition/merge – May not be up to date or complete
5
![Page 6: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Research questions
• How do physical maps compare to and contrast with network-layer maps? – Atlas vs. Ark comparison study
• How can probe methods be improved to reveal a larger portion of physical infrastructure? – POPsicle probing heuristic
6
Can physical maps be used to guide and reinforce the process of collecting network-layer data?
![Page 8: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Targets for comparison
• We consider 50 networks with footprint in North America
• Atlas – 7 Tier-1 and 43 regional ISPs – 2507 POPs and 3477 links
• Ark – Use DNS data and traceroute data – PathAudit (Chabarek et al., HotPlanet ‘13) to decode
location hints • E.g., for A.B.C.LAX2.D.NET, location code is LAX
8
![Page 9: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Physical vs. network maps – results I
More nodes and links in physical maps. 9
32%
42%
26% IP not seen
IP seen, no loca@on hints
IP seen, loca@on hints seen
![Page 10: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Physical vs. network maps – results 2
• Sampling bias in network topology measurements (Shavitt et. al., IEEE Infocom 2009)
10
1 10 100 1000
10000 100000 1000000 10000000
100000000 1E+09
Level3
Tine
t NTT
Cogent
AT&T
Tata
Sprin
t Ab
iline
HE
BT
NorthAm
erica
BellSou
th
Band
con
Iris
Integra
BellCanada
USSignal
Peer1
HostwayIntl.
Xeex
Syrin
ga
Highwinds
NSFne
t Digex
Ans
Noe
l Visio
nNet
NetworkU
SA
BBNPlanet
Layer42
RedB
estel
Ntelos
Istar
Navigata
Palm
eZo
ATMne
t Co
mpu
Serve
DarkStrand
Da
taXchange
Epoch
Getnet
Glob
alcenter
Gridne
t Hibe
rniaCanada
Hibe
rniaUS
Intellifib
er
Napne
t Netrail
Oxford
PacketExchange
Xspe
dius
Num
ber o
f Probe
s
Internet Service Providers
Number of probes sent across Internet Service Providers
![Page 11: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Physical vs. network maps – results 3
• Network map utility – 448 distinct networks in North America
• Greater than physical maps in (worldwide) Atlas repository!
– Dynamic properties
Results from network-layer maps can be used as guidance for searching physical maps
11
![Page 12: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Implications
• Differences suggest opportunities for reinforcement – Networks in network-layer data
• Clues for searching new maps • Engineering problem
– Networks in physical data • Targets for additional probing
• Calls for a coordinated topology mapping approach
12
![Page 13: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
How can layer 3 probe campaigns be designed to reveal a larger portion of physical infrastructure?
13
![Page 14: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Considerations for targeted probes
• Source-destination selection – Vantage point (probing source or VP) and
destination selection • Internal to an ISP or external to an ISP?
• Scalability – Exploit IXPs to aid in node identification
– Vantage points for multiple networks? • Due to layer 2 connectivity
14
![Page 15: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Source-destination selection
• Leverage publicly available vantage points – Planetlab, looking glass and traceroute servers
• Three modalities – VPout to tin
– VPin to tout – VPin to tin
• Source-destination selection based on geographical proximity
• 25 ISPs containing 596 target POPs
15
ISP tout VPin
tin VPout
![Page 16: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Effects of source-destination selection
• Effects of routing – VPin to tin
• Greater diversity, more info. on paths, flexible routing – VPin to tout and VPout to tin
• Interdomain routing
Sources and destinations within the same AS based on geographic proximity
16
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Frac7o
n of POPs
discovered
rela7v
e to In
ternet Atla
s
Internet Service Providers
VP_in to t_in VP_in to t_out VP_out to t_in
![Page 17: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Scaling perspective with IXPs
• Enormous amount peering at IXPs • VPs co-located with IXPs – 14 out of 65 have co-located VPs – Unique ISPs that peer at 14 IXPs is 625 (from
PeeringDB) – So, 625 ISPs from these 14 IXPs alone
IXPs could be the starting point for comprehensive mapping of physical infrastructure
17
![Page 18: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Pulling it all together • Goal: use physical maps to enhance network-layer
node identification • Sources: – VP located within a target AS – VP co-located with IXPs offers broader perspective
• Destinations – Send probes toward a target with a known geographic
location based on physical map
POPsicle: Probing heuris@c based on these insights
18
![Page 19: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Source VP Des@na@on VP Target POPs
Service Provider Network
Links Probe path
POPsicle details
![Page 20: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
POPsicle - results • 30 looking glass servers from Atlas – server co-located with an IXP – ground truth available
20
POPs Datacenters DNS NTP IXPs Total
POPsicle-‐based probing 149 487 9 627 37 1309
General probing 143 315 1 55 25 539
Ground truth 244 641 13 827 65 1790
Improvement 1.04x 1.54x 9x 11.4x 1.48x 2.42x
![Page 22: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Multiplexing VPs at IXPs
22
ISP POPsicle Ground Truth
BTN 29 29
HE 24 24
Internet2 10 10
Steadfast.net 3 3
Nexicom 9 9
HopOne 3 3
Indiana Gigapop 2 2
MOREnet 4 4
Atlan@c Metro 9 12
PaeTec 54 61
![Page 23: Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement · rkrish@cs.wisc.edu-Layer-1 Informed Internet Topology Measurement! 1! Ram Durairajan *, Joel Sommers^, Paul Barford ! *University](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042105/5e8439106dc0416d0f448f5c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Summary
• First-of-its-kind comparison of physical vs. network-layer maps
• Source-destination pairs within the same AS reveals most physical infrastructure
• POPsicle-based probing identifies 2.4x additional nodes
• IXPs can aid in broadening perspective • Deployed and demonstrated POPsicle in a real
IXP setting
23