1 Towards a deployable IP Anycast service Hitesh Ballani, Paul Francis Cornell University {hitesh,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Internet Indirection Infrastructure (i3 ) Ion Stoica, Daniel Adkins, Shelley Zhuang, Scott Shenker, Sonesh Surana UC Berkeley SIGCOMM 2002 Presented by:
Advertisements

Pastry Peter Druschel, Rice University Antony Rowstron, Microsoft Research UK Some slides are borrowed from the original presentation by the authors.
Transitioning to IPv6 April 15,2005 Presented By: Richard Moore PBS Enterprise Technology.
IPv6 Multihoming Support in the Mobile Internet Presented by Paul Swenson CMSC 681, Fall 2007 Article by M. Bagnulo et. al. and published in the October.
June 2007APTLD Meeting/Dubai ANYCAST Alireza Saleh.ir ccTLD
Network Isolation Using Group Policy and IPSec Paula Kiernan Senior Consultant Ward Solutions.
1 Internet Networking Spring 2004 Tutorial 13 LSNAT - Load Sharing NAT (RFC 2391)
Web Caching Schemes1 A Survey of Web Caching Schemes for the Internet Jia Wang.
Internet Networking Spring 2006 Tutorial 12 Web Caching Protocols ICP, CARP.
10/31/2007cs6221 Internet Indirection Infrastructure ( i3 ) Paper By Ion Stoica, Daniel Adkins, Shelley Zhuang, Scott Shenker, Sonesh Sharma Sonesh Sharma.
Cis e-commerce -- lecture #6: Content Distribution Networks and P2P (based on notes from Dr Peter McBurney © )
Internet Indirection Infrastructure Ion Stoica UC Berkeley.
1 Spring Semester 2007, Dept. of Computer Science, Technion Internet Networking recitation #13 Web Caching Protocols ICP, CARP.
Overlay Networks EECS 122: Lecture 18 Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California Berkeley.
Anycast Jennifer Rexford Advanced Computer Networks Tuesdays/Thursdays 1:30pm-2:50pm.
Application-Layer Anycasting: A Server Selection Architecture and Use in a Replicated Web Service IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking Vol.8, No. 4, August.
Internet Networking Spring 2002 Tutorial 13 Web Caching Protocols ICP, CARP.
1 An Overlay Scheme for Streaming Media Distribution Using Minimum Spanning Tree Properties Journal of Internet Technology Volume 5(2004) No.4 Reporter.
Adaptive Web Caching Lixia Zhang, Sally Floyd, and Van Jacob-son. In the 2nd Web Caching Workshop, Boulder, Colorado, April 25, System Laboratory,
Topics in Reliable Distributed Systems Fall Dr. Idit Keidar.
Semester 4 - Chapter 3 – WAN Design Routers within WANs are connection points of a network. Routers determine the most appropriate route or path through.
Internet Indirection Infrastructure (i3) Ion Stoica, Daniel Adkins, Shelley Zhuang, Scott Shenker, Sonesh Surana UC Berkeley SIGCOMM 2002.
Peer-to-peer file-sharing over mobile ad hoc networks Gang Ding and Bharat Bhargava Department of Computer Sciences Purdue University Pervasive Computing.
1CS 6401 Peer-to-Peer Networks Outline Overview Gnutella Structured Overlays BitTorrent.
Multicast and Anycast Mike Freedman COS 461: Computer Networks
Communication Part IV Multicast Communication* *Referred to slides by Manhyung Han at Kyung Hee University and Hitesh Ballani at Cornell University.
Research on IP Anycast Secure Group Management Wang Yue Network & Distribution Lab, Peking University Network.
1 Content Distribution Networks. 2 Replication Issues Request distribution: how to transparently distribute requests for content among replication servers.
{ Content Distribution Networks ECE544 Dhananjay Makwana Principal Software Engineer, Semandex Networks 5/2/14ECE544.
Oasis: Anycast for Any Service Michael J. Freedman Karthik Lakshminarayanan David Mazières in NSDI 2006 Presented by: Sailesh Kumar.
© Janice Regan, CMPT 128, CMPT 371 Data Communications and Networking Multicast routing.
NECP: the Network Element Control Protocol IETF WREC Working Group November 11, 1999.
GeoGrid: A scalable Location Service Network Authors: J.Zhang, G.Zhang, L.Liu Georgia Institute of Technology presented by Olga Weiss Com S 587x, Fall.
Application-Layer Anycasting By Samarat Bhattacharjee et al. Presented by Matt Miller September 30, 2002.
Overcast: Reliable Multicasting with an Overlay Network CS294 Paul Burstein 9/15/2003.
Professor OKAMURA Laboratory. Othman Othman M.M. 1.
Information-Centric Networks07a-1 Week 7 / Paper 1 Internet Indirection Infrastructure –Ion Stoica, Daniel Adkins, Shelley Zhuang, Scott Shenker, Sonesh.
Module 3: Designing IP Addressing. Module Overview Designing an IPv4 Addressing Scheme Designing DHCP Implementation Designing DHCP Configuration Options.
1 Distributed Hash Tables (DHTs) Lars Jørgen Lillehovde Jo Grimstad Bang Distributed Hash Tables (DHTs)
Fast Handoff for Seamless wireless mesh Networks Yair Amir, Clauiu Danilov, Michael Hilsdale Mobisys’ Jeon, Seung-woo.
TOMA: A Viable Solution for Large- Scale Multicast Service Support Li Lao, Jun-Hong Cui, and Mario Gerla UCLA and University of Connecticut Networking.
Othman Othman M.M., Koji Okamura Kyushu University 1.
Adaptive Web Caching CS411 Dynamic Web-Based Systems Flying Pig Fei Teng/Long Zhao/Pallavi Shinde Computer Science Department.
© J. Liebeherr, All rights reserved 1 Multicast Routing.
An IP Address Based Caching Scheme for Peer-to-Peer Networks Ronaldo Alves Ferreira Joint work with Ananth Grama and Suresh Jagannathan Department of Computer.
Yallcast Architecture Overview Paul Francis NTT PF Labs
Multimedia & Mobile Communications Lab.
A Utility-based Approach to Scheduling Multimedia Streams in P2P Systems Fang Chen Computer Science Dept. University of California, Riverside
1 Secure Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Frans Kaashoek, David Karger, Robert Morris, Ion Stoica, Hari Balakrishnan MIT Laboratory.
W&L Page 1 CCNA CCNA Training 3.4 Describe the technological requirements for running IPv6 in conjunction with IPv4 Jose Luis Flores /
CS 6401 Overlay Networks Outline Overlay networks overview Routing overlays Resilient Overlay Networks Content Distribution Networks.
Algorithms and Techniques in Structured Scalable Peer-to-Peer Networks
LOOKING UP DATA IN P2P SYSTEMS Hari Balakrishnan M. Frans Kaashoek David Karger Robert Morris Ion Stoica MIT LCS.
PeerNet: Pushing Peer-to-Peer Down the Stack Jakob Eriksson, Michalis Faloutsos, Srikanth Krishnamurthy University of California, Riverside.
An overlay for latency gradated multicasting Anwitaman Datta SCE, NTU Singapore Ion Stoica, Mike Franklin EECS, UC Berkeley
intra-va-01.txt -01 Draft of: “FIB Suppression with Virtual Aggregation and Default Routes” Paul.
CIS679: Anycast r Review of Last lecture r Network-layer Anycast m Single-path routing for anycast messages r Application-layer anycast.
John S. Otto Mario A. Sánchez John P. Rula Fabián E. Bustamante Northwestern, EECS.
IPv6 Transition Mechanisms - 6DISS Workshop - 5 March 2006 IPv6 Transition Mechanisms, their Security and Management Georgios Koutepas National Technical.
Multicast in Information-Centric Networking March 2012.
Mobile IP THE 12 TH MEETING. Mobile IP  Incorporation of mobile users in the network.  Cellular system (e.g., GSM) started with mobility in mind. 
Internet Indirection Infrastructure (i3)
Mohammad Malli Chadi Barakat, Walid Dabbous Alcatel meeting
Internet Networking recitation #12
Overlay Networking Overview.
5.2 FLAT NAMING.
Edge computing (1) Content Distribution Networks
Content Distribution Networks
Content Delivery and Remote DNS services
EE 122: Lecture 22 (Overlay Networks)
Presentation transcript:

1 Towards a deployable IP Anycast service Hitesh Ballani, Paul Francis Cornell University {hitesh,

2 What is IP Anycast? A paradigm for communicating with any member of a group Offers a powerful set of tools for service discovery, routing services …  Ease configuration  Improve robustness and efficiency Limited wide-area usage : DNS root-servers,.ORG TLD nameservers What limits the use of such a powerful and promising technique? packets destined to the anycast address are delivered to the nearest such host MEMBER 1 MEMBER 2 CLIENT A CLIENT B Assign the same IP address to members of the group

3 Limitations of IP Anycast Incredibly wasteful of addresses  need a block of 256 addresses even though just one is used Scales poorly by the number of anycast groups  each group requires an entry in the global routing system Difficult to deploy  obtain an address prefix and an AS number  requires a certain level of technical expertise Subject to the limitations of IP routing  no notion of load or other application layer metrics, convergence time Application-layer anycast, typified by DNS-based load balancing, is what current applications such as content distribution make do with! So, why bother?

4 IP Anycast* has a lot to offer! Support for low level services  Eg. anycasting to reach a multicast tree or to a IPv6/v4 transition device Redresses many problems faced by P2P and overlay technologies  Bootstrapping support  Efficient querying of DHTs or services built on top of them  Efficient injection of packets into overlays Accessing web proxies without the need for a DNS query or HTTP redirect If a node could be a group member and a client  Nearby neighbor discovery for P2P Multicast, network games etc.

5 Proxy IP Anycast Service (PIAS) KEY IDEA : Native IP Anycast routing is not responsible for delivering anycast packets all the way to the anycast members  It delivers the packets to the Anycast Proxies (AP)  The proxies forward the packets to the appropriate member Anycast Proxy Member (group 1) Member (group2) Anycast Client IP Anycast IP Tunnel DESTINATION a.b.c.1 DESTINATION a.b.c.2 ADVERTISED PREFIX a.b.c.0/24 Anycast Group 1 Address a.b.c.1 Anycast Group 2 Address a.b.c.2 REGISTER – Group 2 a.b.c.10 Proxying allows us to offer high level features such as proximity and load balance

6 What have we solved? Efficient address space usage  A /24 can potentially support 256 anycast groups  Actually, we can do much better  Identify anycast groups using transport adresses ( )  Thousands of groups per IP address in the anycast block  Beneficial for scaling by the number of groups Pragmatic deployment model  Infrastructure operator obtains the address block/AS number  Deployment effort amortized across all supported groups  Group member perspective  Registration with a proxy to join an anycast group  Minimal changes at the server (group member)  No changes at the client

7 What have we solved? (Cont …) Scalability and addressing issues  Transferred them from routing to proxy infrastructure  Much easier to solve when isolated from IP routing! Solving these issues in the proxy infrastructure  We have designed the system to address them  For eg, scalability by the number of groups  every proxy node cannot keep state for every group  use consistent hashing to achieve this  Other issues  scalability by group size  scale to groups with high churn  efficiency of traversing the proxy infrastructure  Details in the paper

8 What about the connection affinity?  What happens if native IP anycast is not sticky?  What kind of affinity is offered by native IP anycast?  Measured the affinity offered by IP routing against anycasted DNS root-servers  Over 9 days, probed the 6 anycast groups from 40 sources at a probe/minute  Probability that a 2 minute connection breaks = 1 in  Perceived notion of lack of affinity in IP anycast seems to be overly pessimistic  Working on approaches that allow PIAS to:  bear some native IP anycast vagaries  provide E2E affinity AP Member 1 Member 2 AP AC Client pkts delivered to some other proxy The pkts might be delivered to a different member

9 Implementation and deployment status The basic PIAS system has been implemented and tested in the laboratory  Comprises of 2 components  User space - overlay management tasks  Kernel space - tunneling packets between proxies and NAT’ting packets forwarded to the server The implementation served as a sanity check for our ideas Deployment efforts are underway  Acquired a /22 and an AS number from ARIN  Looking at various deployment possibilities  Hopefully, we will soon be able to answer some of the questions that I am going to raise next!

10 Research issues Routing issues  Minimize routing changes  The AS-path for the anycast prefix should be stable  Achieve fast fail–over  BGP is notorious for high convergence times, in rare cases ~15 minutes Large scale anycast is not well studied!  How good is the proximity offered by native IP anycast?  Is the anycast node reached by a client closest node in terms of latency?

11 Conclusion A ‘practical’ proposal for IP anycast deployment  Solves the major problems afflicting native IP anycast  Combines the advantages of application layer and native IP anycast Next frontier : system deployment  Will help us answer the research issues  Looking for volunteers who would be interested in supporting the deployment effort and who have ideas for applications which might benefit from such a primitive Details :

12 THANKS!

13 Backup slides!!!

14 A few details …. Scale by the number of groups  All proxies cannot keep state for all groups  Each group’s membership is tracked by a few designated proxies – Rendezvous Anycast Proxy (RAP) for the group Scale by group size and group churn  Add a tier to the membership management hierarchy  Join Anycast Proxy – the proxy contacted by the target when it joins the group  Feeds approximate number of targets associated with it to the group RAPs Anycast Target (AT) AT Anycast Client (AC) IAP Anycast Proxy (AP) RAP Native IP Anycast IP Tunnel RAP JAP 1 JAP N AT

15 A few details …. (cont.) IAP RAP JAP Anycast Target (AT) AT Anycast Proxy (AP) Anycast Client (AC) IAP RAP JAP Anycast Target (AT) AT Anycast Proxy (AP) Anycast Client (AC) INITIAL PACKET PATH – 4 SEGMENTS LONG SUBSEQUENT PACKET PATH – 3 SEGMENTS LONG Selection at the RAP and JAP allows us to offer high level features such as proximity and load balance JAP Address