Upload
kylee-patterson
View
55
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Anycast by DNS over pure IPv6 network. Minghua Chen & Wei Mao EECS, UC, Berkeley {minghua, maowei}@eecs. Outline. Introduction Anycast Anycast by modifying DNS service over pure IPv6 Network WTRT server selection Model Conclusions Acknowledgement. Introduction. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Anycast by DNS over pure IPv6 network
Minghua Chen & Wei MaoEECS, UC, Berkeley
{minghua, maowei}@eecs
Outline Introduction Anycast Anycast by modifying DNS service
over pure IPv6 Network WTRT server selection Model Conclusions Acknowledgement
Introduction Internet grows dramatically
Exponential growth In 1999, every 10 seconds, a new pc
connects to Internet Distributed information services face a
number of problems of scale excessive server load wasted bandwidth excessive latency
The growth of Internet
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
hosts
460 Million users
Source: Cerf, based on www.nw.com, Jan 2000Source: Cerf, based on www.nw.com, Jan 2000
Server replication & caching Relatively straightforward method to
potentially improve client performance and reduce network load
A key issue in realizing such techniques is how to find the best provider of that service What is difference between the
performance of the best case and the worst case scenario?
Performance variance
What is the relation to our topic? We believe that anycast service is
the right way to do “best” server selection.
Combining anycast service and server replication, the scale problems of distributed information services can be resolved
Outline Introduction Anycast Anycast by modifying DNS service
over pure IPv6 Network WTRT server selection Model Conclusions Acknowledgement
Concept Of Anycast Original definition:a stateless best
effort delivery of an anycast datagram to at least one host, and preferably only one host, which serves the anycast address.
Here, anycast is a communication paradigm service, which connect the client to the “nearest” node in a set of nodes that have some same properties
Anycast Illustration
Typically, client chooses a nearby server.
Anycast realization Network-layer anycast
Routing to the nearest server using routing distance metric
Comments Straightforward idea, hard to
implement Need to modified router Lack of flexibility in selection criteria
Anycast realization (cont.) Application layer anycast
Query with a name and a client address. Returns the unicast address of the “best” server
Comments Does not involve modifying router Flexible selection criteria Need periodically collect information
Why we choose application layer implementation? Implementation Simplicity Flexible selection criteria
e.g. Server load More appropriate selection criteria
Network layer: Hop count only is not a good metric for node selection
Application layer: can use other significant information than hop count as metric
Hop count is a poor predictor of performance
Hop counts
RTT
Problem translation In application-layer anycast
providing anycast service selecting the “best” server given necessary information
These information may include Server load Latency Available bandwidth Client preference
Current server selection schemes Assign server to a client using
round-robin method Balancing server load NSCA WWW servers use it
Geographically server assignment Predicted transfer time (PTT)
model or similar model
available21 BW
sizedocument k RTTk TimeTransfer Predicted
These schemes are not good enough Server load
Server load has impact on response latency
Retransmission cost e.g. Congestion
Traffic segregation according to network topology Keep traffic “local” – principle of scaling
Outline Introduction Anycast Anycast by modifying DNS service
over pure IPv6 Network WTRT server selection Model Conclusions Acknowledgement
Why by modifying DNS One concern of application-layer
anycasting Require bootstrap mechanism
DNS query is almost an essential step to access Internet services By quiz By experience
Is one time query enough for an Internet connection?
Optimal selection changes fairly slowly
The probability of the server’s rank
change > 4 is 0.15
Why over pure IPv6 network We believe that IPv6 will be an
important competitor of the next generation IP protocol
IPv6 adopts anycast IPv6 provides strictly aggregated
address space What will happen in this case?
Outline Introduction Anycast Anycast by modifying DNS service
over pure IPv6 Network WTRT server selection Model Conclusions Acknowledgement
Our work: Propose the server selection criteria
Goal is to select the “nearest” server. Possible distance measures:
lantency, server load, available bandwidth, etc. propose Weighted Total Response Time
(WTRT) TRT is measured from the time the IP request
is sent to the time the whole document is received
The less WTRT, the better Why? Keen to user’s perspective of QoS
Formulation of WTRT Express WTRT as the following:
Key elements: w: segregation weight Latency: time elapsed from request to start of
receiving document E[packets]: expected total number of packets
considering loss and retransmission P_size: average size of TCP packet BW: available bandwidth of the link path K1 and k2: constant coefficients to be
determined
)]_)(
([ 21 BW
sizePpacketsEklatencykwWTRT
Segregation Weight (SW)
?
SW (cont.) Weight the server within the same
subnet less in order to avoid traffic through backbone
Key issue: how to know c/s are in the same subnet???
SW (cont.) In IPv6 addresses are strictly
aggregated Do longest prefix matching using
c/s IP addresses, similar to the algorithm used in CIDR routing
the longer matched prefix, the more “local” the server is to the client
Details of SW
W3 W2
W1W4
W1<W2<W3<W4
Details of SW (cont.) Value of SW should be the same for
the same level of aggregation Who determine the SW?
SW could be determined at the authorized DNS server for a particular domain name
SW could be applied by local DNS server on the query results, in order to realize policy flow balance control
Encourage/discourage outgoing flow
Latency How it affect the TRT
Small latency lead to fast response from server.
When document size is small, this dominates the document retrieve time
What determine latency Current server load Current link load and link characteristics
How to estimate latency? Fei et al proposed a hybrid server
push/probe scheme to estimate the latency from a client to a server
Their simulation results show that the scheme works fairly well
Available Bandwidth How it affect the TRT:
Higher bandwidth leads to faster document transfer
What determines the available bandwidth: The capacity of the c/s path Present traffic on the path
Available Bandwidth (cont.) How to estimate it:
R. L Carter proposed bandwidth probing (BPROBE) algorithm to estimate the total capacity
Also proposed CPROBE algorithm to estimate the current traffic
Their results provide a reasonable ground for other existing researches
Packet Loss & Retransmission Assume:
K original packets need to be transmitted p is the steady-state packet loss rate. Packets lost are retransmitted only once.
Binomial model of the # of retrans. Packets leads to E[packets]=K(1+p).
The total size of the document transmitted becomes E[packets]*P_size.
Average size of TCP packet is 403 bytes.
K1 And K2 Why K1 and K2?
Linear model How to determine K1 and K2
By client preference small document size larger ratio of K1 /
K2 large document size smaller ratio of K1 /
K2 By regression method
Comparison to PTT model WTRT is derived from PTT but
more extensive WTRT
PTT
)]_)(
([ 21 BW
sizePpacketsEklatencykwWTRT
)_
(21 BW
sizedocumentkRTTkPTT
An example
PTT
WTRT
Heavy server load
Modified DNS query procedure
Modified DNS query procedure (cont.) Client IP address and preference are
sent between DNS servers DNS server may return several IP
addresses to client for further selection SW can be determined at authorized
DNS server or local DNS server Periodically, the authorized DNS server
gather information from server and probes to update its database
Outline Introduction Anycast Anycast by modifying DNS service
over pure IPv6 Network WTRT server selection Model Conclusions Acknowledgement
Conclusions Server selection + anycast service =
solution to the problems of scaling of distributed information services
Application layer anycasting has more advantage over network layer anycasting
In application layer anycasting providing anycast service selecting the
“best” server given server and link characteristics
Conclusions (cont.) Anycast by modifying DNS service
provide an easy bootstrap mechanism
In IPv6, strictly aggregated address space can facilitate segregating traffic according to network topology
WTRT model is more reasonable and extensive than PTT model
Acknowledgement Jim Guyton @ Apple Co. for some
discussion on traffic segregation F. Yu and L. Yin for the
development of the initial idea
Thank you very much for your attention !