Traffic Engineering for ISP Networks Jennifer Rexford Computer Science Department Princeton University http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex

Overview of Internet routing Outline Overview of Internet routing IP addressing and forwarding Interdomain and intradomain routing Optimization: Tuning routing to the traffic Optimizing routing given a topology and traffic matrix Local search to select the integer link weights Tomography: Inferring the traffic matrix Estimating traffic matrix from routing and link loads Conclusion and ongoing work

IP Service Model: Best-Effort Packet Delivery Packet switching Send data in packets Header with source and destination address Best-effort delivery Packets may be lost Packets may be corrupted Packets may be delivered out of order source destination IP network

Packet Delivery Based on Destination IP Address 32-bit number in dotted-quad notation (12.34.158.5) Divided into network & host portions (left and right) 12.34.158.0/24 is a 24-bit prefix with 28 addresses 12 34 158 5 00001100 00100010 10011110 00000101 Network (24 bits) Host (8 bits)

Longest-Prefix Match Forwarding Forwarding tables in IP routers Maps each IP prefix to next-hop link(s) Destination-based forwarding Packet has a destination address Router identifies longest-matching prefix forwarding table 4.0.0.0/8 4.83.128.0/17 12.0.0.0/8 12.34.158.0/24 126.255.103.0/24 destination 12.34.158.5 outgoing link Serial0/0.1

Where do Forwarding Tables Come From? Routers have forwarding tables Map prefix to outgoing link(s) Entries can be statically configured E.g., “map 12.34.158.0/24 to Serial0/0.1” But, this doesn’t adapt To failures To new equipment To the need to balance load That is where routing protocols come in…

Two-Tiered Internet Routing Architecture Goal: distributed management of resources Internetworking of multiple networks Networks under separate administrative control Solution: two-tiered routing architecture Intradomain: inside a region of control Okay for routers to share topology information Routers configured to achieve a common goal Interdomain: between regions of control Not okay to share complete information Networks may have different/conflicting goals

Autonomous Systems (ASes) Distinct regions of administrative control Routers and links managed by an institution Service provider, company, university, … AS hierarchy Tier-1 provider with national or global backbone Regional provider with smaller backbone Campus or corporate network Interaction between ASes Internal topology is not shared between ASes … but, neighboring ASes interact to coordinate routing

AS Numbers (ASNs) Currently around 25,000 in use. Level 3: 1 MIT: 3 Harvard: 11 Yale: 29 Princeton: 88 AT&T: 7018, 6341, 5074, … UUNET: 701, 702, 284, 12199, … Sprint: 1239, 1240, 6211, 6242, … … ASNs represent units of routing policy

Traffic Traverses Multiple ASes Path: 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 4 3 5 2 7 6 1 Web server Client

Interdomain Routing: Border Gateway Protocol ASes exchange info about who they can reach IP prefix: block of destination IP addresses AS path: sequence of ASes along the path Policies configured by the AS’s network operator Path selection: which of the paths to use? Path export: which neighbors to tell? “I can reach 12.34.158.0/24 via AS 1” “I can reach 12.34.158.0/24” 1 2 3 data traffic data traffic 12.34.158.5

Interior Gateway Protocol (Within an AS) Routers flood information to learn the topology Routers determine “next hop” to reach other routers… By computing shortest paths based on the link weights Link weights configured by the network operator 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 5 12.34.158.0/24 Serial0/0.1 4 3

Constructing the Forwarding Table Two routing protocols BGP: learn the external route at some border router IGP: learn outgoing link on path to other router Router joins the data Prefix 12.34.158.0/24 reached through red router Red router reached via link Serial0/0.1 Forwarding entry: 12.34.158.0/24  Serial0/0.1 Router forwards packets Lookup destination 12.34.158.5 in table Forward packet out link Serial0/0.1

Two Kinds of Routing Protocols Link State Vectoring Topology information is flooded within the routing domain Best end-to-end paths are computed locally at each router. Best end-to-end paths determine next-hops. Based on minimizing some notion of distance Works only if policy is shared and uniform Examples: OSPF, IS-IS Each router knows little about network topology Only best next-hops are chosen by each router for each destination. Best end-to-end paths result from composition of all next-hop choices Does not require any notion of distance Does not require uniform policies at all routers Examples: RIP, BGP

Optimization: Tuning Routing to the Traffic

Link Weights Control the Flow of Traffic Routers compute paths Shortest paths as sum of link weights Operators set the link weights To control where the traffic goes 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 3 5 4 3

Heuristics for Setting the Link Weights Proportional to physical distance Cross-country links have higher weights than local ones Minimizes end-to-end propagation delay Inversely proportional to link capacity Smaller weights for higher-bandwidth links Attracts more traffic to links with more capacity Tuned based on the offered traffic Network-wide optimization of weights based on traffic Directly minimizes key metrics like max link utilization

Why Are the Link Weights Static? Strawman alternative: load-sensitive routing Link metrics based on traffic load Flood dynamic metrics as they change Adapt automatically to changes in offered load Reasons why this is typically not done Delay-based routing unsuccessful in the early days Oscillation as routers adapt to out-of-date information Most Internet transfers are very short-lived Research and standards work continues… … but operators have to do what they can today

Big Picture: Measure, Model, and Control Network-wide “what if” model Topology/ Configuration Offered traffic Changes to the network measure control Operational network

Traffic Engineering in an ISP Backbone Topology Connectivity and capacity of routers and links Traffic matrix Offered load between points in the network Link weights Configurable parameters for Interior Gateway Protocol Performance objective Balanced load, low latency, service level agreements … Question: Given the topology and traffic matrix in an IP network, which link weights should be used?

Key Ingredients of Our Approach Measurement Topology: monitoring of the routing protocols Traffic matrix: widely deployed traffic measurement Network-wide models Representations of topology and traffic “What-if” models of shortest-path routing Network optimization Efficient algorithms to find good configurations Operational experience to identify key constraints

Formalizing the Optimization Problem Input: graph G(R,L) R is the set of routers L is the set of unidirectional links cl is the capacity of link l Input: traffic matrix Mi,j is traffic load from router i to j Output: setting of the link weights wl is weight on unidirectional link l Pi,j,l is fraction of traffic from i to j traversing link l

Multiple Shortest Paths With Even Splitting 0.5 0.25 1.0 Values of Pi,j,l

Defining the Objective Function Computing the link utilization Link load: ul = Si,j Mi,j Pi,j,l Utilization: ul/cl Objective functions min(maxl(ul/cl)) minl(S f(ul/cl)) f(x) 1 x

Complexity of the Optimization Problem NP-hard optimization problem No efficient algorithm to find the link weights Even for the simple convex objective functions Why can’t we just do multi-commodity flow? E.g., solve the multi-commodity flow problem… … and the link weights pop out as the dual Because IP routers cannot split arbitrarily over ties What are the implications? Have to resort to searching through weight settings

Optimization Based on Local Search Start with an initial setting of the link weights E.g., same integer weight on every link E.g., weights inversely proportional to link capacity E.g., existing weights in the operational network Compute the objective function Compute the all-pairs shortest paths to get Pi,j,l Apply the traffic matrix Mi,j to get link loads ul Evaluate the objective function from the ul/cl Generate a new setting of the link weights repeat

Making the Search Efficient Avoid repeating the same weight setting Keep track of past values of the weight setting … or keep a small signature (e.g., a hash) of past values Do not evaluate a weight setting if signatures match Avoid computing the shortest paths from scratch Explore weight settings that changes just one weight Apply fast incremental shortest-path algorithms Limit the number of unique values of link weights Do not explore all 216 possible values for each weight Stop early, before exploring the whole search space

Incorporating Operational Realities Minimize number of changes to the network Changing just 1 or 2 link weights is often enough Tolerate failure of network equipment Weights settings usually remain good after failure … or can be fixed by changing one or two weights Limit dependence on measurement accuracy Good weights remain good, despite random noise Limit frequency of changes to the weights Joint optimization for day and night traffic matrices

Application to AT&T’s Backbone Network Performance of the optimized weights Search finds a good solution within a few minutes Much better than link capacity or physical distance Competitive with multi-commodity flow solution How AT&T changes the link weights Maintenance done every night from midnight to 6am Predict effects of removing link(s) from the network Reoptimize the link weights to avoid congestion Configure new weights before disabling equipment

Example from My Visit to AT&T’s Operations Center Amtrak repairing/moving part of the train track Need to move some of the fiber optic cables Or, heightened risk of the cables being cut Amtrak notifies us of the time the work will be done AT&T engineers model the effects Determine which IP links go over the affected fiber Pretend the network no longer has these links Evaluate the new shortest paths and traffic flow Identify whether link loads will be too high

Same process applied to other cases Example Continued If load will be too high Reoptimize the weights on the remaining links Schedule the time for the new weights to be configured Roll back to the old weight setting after Amtrak is done Same process applied to other cases Assessing the network’s risk to possible failures Planning for maintenance of existing equipment Adapting the link weights to installation of new links Adapting the link weights in response to traffic shifts

Conclusions on Traffic Engineering IP networks do not adapt on their own Routers compute shortest paths based on static weights Service providers need to adapt the weights Due to failures, congestion, or planned maintenance Leads to an interesting optimization problems Optimize link weights based on topology and traffic Optimization problem is computationally difficult Forces the use of efficient local-search techniques Results of the local search are good Near-optimal solutions that minimize disruptions

Robust link-weight assignments Ongoing Work Robust link-weight assignments Link/node failures Range of traffic matrices More complex routing models Hot-potato routing BGP routing policies Interaction between ASes Inter-AS negotiation for joint optimization Grappling with scalability and trust issues

Tomography: Inferring the Traffic Matrix

Computing the Traffic Matrix Mi,j Hard to measure the traffic matrix IP networks transmit data as individual packets Routers do not keep traffic statistics, except link utilization on (say) a five-minute time scale Need to infer the traffic matrix Mi,j from Current topology G(R,L) Current routing Pi,j,l Current link load ul Link capacity cl

Inference: Network Tomography From link counts to the traffic matrix Sources 5Mbps 3Mbps 4Mbps 4Mbps Destinations

Tomography: Formalizing the Problem Ingress-egress pairs p is a ingress-egress pair of nodes (i,j) xp is the (unknown) traffic volume for this pair Mi,j Routing Plp is proportion of p’s traffic that traverses l Links in the network l is a unidirectional edge ul is the observed traffic volume on this link Relationship: u = Px (work backwards to get x)

Tomography: One Observation Not Enough Linear system of n nodes is underdetermined Number of links e is around O(n) Number of ingress-egress pairs c is O(n2) Dimension of solution sub-space at least c - e Multiple observations are needed k independent observations (over time) Stochastic model with Poisson iid counts Maximum likelihood estimation to infer matrix Doesn’t work all that well in practice…

Approach Used at AT&T: Tomo-gravity Gravitational assumption Ingress point a has traffic via Egress point b has traffic veb Pair (a,b) has traffic proportional to via * veb 9 6 3 20 10

Approach Used at AT&T: Tomo-gravity Problem with gravity model Gravity model ignores the load on the inside links Gravity assumption isn’t always 100% correct Resulting traffic matrix might not satisfy the link loads Combining the two techniques Gravity: find a traffic matrix using the gravity model Tomography: find the family of traffic matrices consistent with all link load statistics Tomo-gravity: find the tomography solution that is closest to the output of the gravity model Works extremely well (and fast) in practice

Managing IP networks is challenging Conclusions Managing IP networks is challenging Routers don’t adapt on their own to congestion Routers don’t reveal much information about traffic Measurement provides a network-wide view Topology Traffic matrix Optimization enables the network to adapt Inferring the traffic matrix from the link loads Optimizing the link weights based on the traffic matrix

New Research Direction: Design for Manage-ability Two main parts of network management Control: optimization Measurement: tomography Two research approaches Bottom up: do the best with what you have Top down: design systems that are easier to manage Design for manage-ability “If you are both the professor and the student, you create exam questions that are easy to answer.” – Mung Chiang