ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A comparison of overlay routing and multihoming route control
Full text PdfPdf (1.07 MB)
Source Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication archive
Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications table of contents
Portland, Oregon, USA
SESSION: Multihoming and overlays table of contents
Pages: 93 - 106  
Year of Publication: 2004
ISBN:1-58113-862-8
Also published in ...
Authors
Aditya Akella  Carnegie Mellon University
Jeffrey Pang  Carnegie Mellon University
Bruce Maggs  Carnegie Mellon University
Srinivasan Seshan  Carnegie Mellon University
Anees Shaikh  IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGCOMM: ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 6,   Downloads (12 Months): 84,   Citation Count: 20
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1015467.1015479
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The limitations of BGP routing in the Internet are often blamed for poor end-to-end performance and prolonged connectivity interruptions. Recent work advocates using overlays to effectively bypass BGP's path selection in order to improve performance and fault tolerance. In this paper, we explore the possibility that intelligent control of BGP routes, coupled with ISP multihoming, can provide competitive end-to-end performance and reliability. Using extensive measurements of paths between nodes in a large content distribution network, we compare the relative benefits of overlay routing and multihoming route control in terms of round-trip latency, TCP connection throughput, and path availability. We observe that the performance achieved by route control together with multihoming to three ISPs (3-multihoming), is within 5-15% of overlay routing employed in conjunction 3-multihoming, in terms of both end-to-end RTT and throughput. We also show that while multihoming cannot offer the nearly perfect resilience of overlays, it can eliminate almost all failures experienced by a singly-homed end-network. Our results demonstrate that, by leveraging the capability of multihoming route control, it is not necessary to circumvent BGP routing to extract good wide-area performance and availability from the existing routing system.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Akamai Technologies. Akarouting (SureRoute). http://www.akamai.com, June 2001.
 
2
Akamai Technologies. Edgescape. http://www.akamai.com/en/html/services/edgescape.html, 2004.
3
 
4
A. Akella, S. Seshan, and A. Shaikh. Multihoming Performance Benefits: An Experimental Evaluation of Practical Enterprise Strategies. In Proc. of the USENIX 2004 Annual Technical Conference, Boston, MA, June 2004.
 
5
L. Amini, A. Shaikh, and H. Schulzrinne. Issues with Inferring Internet Topological Attributes. In Proceedings of SPIE ITCOM, August 2002.
6
 
7
N. Cardwell, S. Savage, and T. Anderson. Modeling TCP Latency. In Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM 2000, Tel Aviv, Israel, March 2000.
 
8
F5 Networks. BIG-IP link controller. http://www.f5.com/f5products/bigip/LinkController/.
9
10
 
11
 
12
L. Gao and F. Wang. The Extent of AS Path Inflation by Routing Policies. In Proc. of IEEE GLOBECOM 2002, pages 2180--2184, 2002.
 
13
F. Guo, J. Chen, W. Li, and T. Chiueh. Experiences in Building a Multihoming Load Balancing System. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, Hong Kong, March 2004. to appear.
 
14
Y. Hyun, A. Broido, and k claffy. Traceroute and BGP AS Path Incongruities. Technical report, CAIDA, University of California, San Diego, 2003. http://www.caida.org/outreach/papers/2003/ASP/.
 
15
IETF Traffic Engineering Working Group. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/tewg-charter.html, 2000.
 
16
17
18
 
19
Nortel Networks. Alteon link optimizer. http://www.nortelnetworks.com/products/01/alteon/optimizer/.
 
20
W. B. Norton. Internet Service Providers and Peering. In Proceedings of NANOG 19, Albuquerque, NM, June 2000.
 
21
radware. Peer Director. http://www.radware.com/content/products/pd/.
 
22
Y. Rekhter and T. Li. A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4). Internet Request for Comments (RFC 1771), March 1995.
23
 
24
RouteScience Technologies, Inc. Routescience PathControl. http://www.routescience.com/products.
25
 
26
27
 
28
N. Spring, R. Mahajan, and T. Anderson. Quantifying the Causes of Internet Path Inflation. In Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM '03, August 2003.
29
 
30
 
31
L. Subramanian, S. Agarwal, J. Rexford, and R. H. Katz. Characterizing the Internet Hierarchy from Multiple Vantage Points. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, June 2002.
 
32
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, and S. Shenker. Internet Path Inflation Due to Policy Routing. In SPIE ITCOM, August 2001.
33
34

CITED BY  20

Collaborative Colleagues:
Aditya Akella: colleagues
Jeffrey Pang: colleagues
Bruce Maggs: colleagues
Srinivasan Seshan: colleagues
Anees Shaikh: colleagues