Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Network Tomography from Multiple Senders Rob Nowak Thursday, January 15, 2004 In collaboration with Mark Coates and Michael Rabbat
2
Brain Tomography unknown object statistical model measurements Maximum likelihood estimate maximize likelihood physics data prior knowledge counting & projection Poisson
3
unknown object statistical model measurements Maximum likelihood estimate maximize likelihood physics data prior knowledge Network Tomography queuing behavior routing & counting binomial / multinomial Why ? network optimizing, alias resolution, peeking on peering
4
y = packet losses or delays measured at the edge A = routing matrix (graph) = packet loss probabilities or queuing delays for each link = randomness inherent traffic measurements likelihood function Network Tomography (Y. Vardi, D. Towsley, N. Duffield)
5
Probe packets experience similar queuing effects and may interact with each other Probing the Network probe = packet stripe cross-traffic delay
6
Network Tomography: The Basic Idea sender receivers
7
Network Tomography: The Basic Idea sender receivers
8
Logical Topology Measure end-to-end (from sender to receiver) losses/delays Infer logical topology & link-level loss/delay characteristics receivers sender receivers
9
Single Sender Active Probing Tree-Structured Logical Topology A 123
10
Two Receiver Sub-problems Components 11 22 44 55 33 77 66 44 55 1 © 21 © 2 Pairs of receivers Spatial Independence Eg. = loss, delay A 12
11
Decompose In To Components 11 22 44 55 33 77 66 © 11 © Eg. = loss, delay
12
Decompose In To Components 11 22 44 55 33 77 66 © © 11 Eg. = loss, delay And so on…
13
Back-to-Back Packet Probes A 12 Similar experience Independent experiences (Keshav, ’91) (Carter & Crovella, ’96) Repeat and average 44 55 1 © 21 © 2 Independence of behavior on unshared links allows us to separate performance effects (e.g., loss, delay) on shared and unshared portions of paths Duffield et al., ’99, Coates & Nowak, ’00, Byers et al., ’00
14
Link-Level Parameter Estimation Ex. Delay variance make repeated packet pair delay measurements
15
Topology Identification “Correlation” in packet-pairs measurements reveals topology Stronger correlation more shared links Group pairs of most correlated nodes first, building tree from bottom (receivers) to top (sender) A 123 Ratnasamy & McCanne, ’99, Duffield et al., ’02, Coates et al., ‘02
16
Topology Identification A 123 2.01.5 0.5
17
Reconstruct The Larger Network 1.5 0.5 1.02.5 1.0 2.0 1.02.51.5 1.03.01.0 1.5 Link-level characteristics (loss, delay) estimation Network topology identification Tightly coupled problems
18
Measure From Multiple Senders A 123… …B
19
Multiple Sender Tomography More topological information Mutual information, Improved estimates (Bu et al., 2002) (Rabbat et al., 2002)
20
Multiple Sender Decomposition 1-by-2 Component ? ii jj kk
21
Branching & Joining Points 1-by-2 Component 2-by-1 Component and ii jj kk aa bb cc
22
Example Decomposition 1.0 0.25 2.0 0.75 1.0 1.25 2.25 1.5 1.25 2.02.5 2.25 3.02.75 1.03.0 2.25 3.5 1.5
23
Canonical Subproblem: Two Senders & Two Receivers two sender, two receiver problem characterizes network tomography problem in general
24
Two Sender, One Receiver Probing ?? ? A 1 B Similar experiences? Independent experiences … not analogous to single sender probing Identifying joining points from probe data is very difficult
25
Shared and Non-Shared Topologies 5 Links 2 Internal Nodes 8 Links 4 Internal Nodes 11 22 33 44 55 11 44 66 22 77 88 55 33 11 44 66 22 77 88 55 33 11 44 66 22 77 88 55 33 Natural dichotomy according to “model order” Shared topologyNon-Shared topology most relevant for purposes of performance characterization easily discernable from end-to-end probes
26
Mutual Information SharedNon-Shared
27
Mutual Information Same branching point Shared component links Different branching points No shared component links Average Estimates! SharedNon-Shared
28
Arrival Order and Model Order Selection 1 1 Intuition: Arrival order fixed at joining point Assume: Unique routes between end-hosts Routes are stationary (5-10min) (Zhang, Paxson, Shenker, ’00) No reordering (Bellardo & Savage, ’02) Packets from each sender to receiver 1
29
Shared vs. Non-Shared 1 2 1 2 u 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Packet pair probes from both senders with randomized offset u 1 1 2 2 1 21 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 u
30
Shared vs. Non-Shared Arrival order always same 1 1 2 2 1 u 1 1 2 2 u Order depends on delays, offset
31
Detection of Shared Topology utut Shared: vs. Non-Shared: Repeated probing: Test: Random offset:
32
1.1 B.2 1.1 1.2 A.1 1.2 A.2 B.1 u Transmit many probes to receiver 1 Probability of different arrival order because of cross-traffic, Repeat to other receiver, Original measurements give Detection in Presence of Cross-Traffic Shared: vs. Non-Shared: Delays are variable: cross-traffic processing delays
33
Arrival Order Based Topology ID Rice LAN
34
Joint Performance & Topology Estimation 1 2 u Performance Assessment Link-level parameters 1, 2, … Packet-pair measurements 1 2 1 2 1 2 Topology Characterization Different arrival order probabilities , 1, 2 Arrival order measurements
35
Decision-Theoretic Framework HS:HS: HN:HN: Two branching, joining points unrestricted N 2 unrestricted N 2 [0,1] 3 Unique joining point 2 5 3 6 S 2 1 = 2 = S 2 [0,1] 1 11 22 33 44 55 66 11 22 33 44
36
Characterize Topology & Performance Generalized Likelihood Ratio Test:
37
Wilks Saves The Day Generalized Likelihood Ratio Test: Wilks’ Theorem (’38): Under H S : (N ! 1)
38
Asymptotic Results 100 probes1000 probes
39
ROC Curve 1000 probes Loss Only Arrival Order Only Arrival Order and Loss
40
Number of Probes Used 1000 500 200 100
41
Concluding Remarks What will make network tomography a useful tool ? www.ece.wisc.edu/~nowak
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.