Incentive-compatible caching and peering in data-oriented networks

ABSTRACT

Several new, data-oriented internetworking architectures have been proposed recently. However, the practical deployability of such designs is an open question. In this paper, we consider data-oriented network designs in the light of the policy and incentive structures of the present internetworking economy. A main observation of our work is that none of the present proposals is both policy-compliant and incentive-compatible with the current internetworking market, which makes their deployment very challenging if not impossible. This difficulty stems from the unfounded implicit assumption that data-oriented routing policies directly reflect the underlying packet-level inter-domain policies. We find that to enable the more effective network utilization promised by data-oriented networking, essential caching incentives need to exist, and that data-oriented peering needs be considered separately from peering for packet forwarding.

REFERENCES

• 1: Matthew Caesar , Tyson Condie , Jayanthkumar Kannan , Karthik Lakshminarayanan , Ion Stoica, ROFL: routing on flat labels, Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, September 11-15, 2006, Pisa, Italy
• 2: H. Chang, S. Jamin, and W. Willinger. To peer or not to peer: Modeling the evolution of the internet's as-level topology. IEEE INFOCOM'06. Proceedings, pages 1--12, April 2006.
• 3: C. Corbett. Peering of Video. Presentation at NANOG 37, available online at http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/pdf/bill.norton.3.pdf, June 2006.
• 4: John Day, Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return to Fundamentals, 2008
• 5: C. Diot, B. Levine, B. Lyles, H. Kassem, and D. Balensiefen. Deployment issues for the IP multicast service and architecture. Network, IEEE, 14(1): 78--88, 2000.
• 6: P. Faratin, D. Clark, P. Gilmore, S. Bauer, A. Berger, and W. Lehr. Complexity of internet interconnections: Technology, incentives and implications for policy. In The 35th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC), 2007.
• 7: J. Feigenbaum, V. Ramachandran, and M. Schapira. Incentive-Compatible Interdomain Routing. Tech. Report 1342, Yale Univ., May 2006.
• 8: Prasanna Ganesan , Krishna Gummadi , Hector Garcia-Molina, Canon in G Major: Designing DHTs with Hierarchical Structure, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS'04), p.263-272, March 24-26, 2004
• 9: Lixin Gao, On inferring autonomous system relationships in the internet, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON), v.9 n.6, p.733-745, December 2001 [doi>10.1109/90.974527]
• 10: L. Gao and F. Wang. The extent of AS path inflation by routing policies. IEEE GLOBECOM'02. Proceedings, 3: 2180--2184, Nov. 2002.
• 11: Mark Gritter , David R. Cheriton, An architecture for content routing support in the internet, Proceedings of the 3rd conference on USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems, p.4-4, March 26-28, 2001, San Francisco, California
• 12: G. Huston. Interconnection, Peering, and Settlements. In Proc. Internet Global Summit (INET), Jun. 1999.
• 13: V. Jacobson. A New Way to look at Networking. Talk at Google, available online at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6972678839686672840, 2006.
• 14: Teemu Koponen , Mohit Chawla , Byung-Gon Chun , Andrey Ermolinskiy , Kye Hyun Kim , Scott Shenker , Ion Stoica, A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture, Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, August 27-31, 2007, Kyoto, Japan
• 15: J. Moy. Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) version 2. RFC 2328, The Internet Engineering Task Force, Apr. 1998.
• 16: W. B. Norton. Internet Service Providers and Peering. Technical report, Unpublished draft, 2001. http://www.scs.stanford.edu/nyu/04sp/sched/peering.pdf.
• 17: J. Parker, Recommendations for Interoperable IP Networks using Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS), RFC Editor, 2004
• 18: Sylvia Ratnasamy , Scott Shenker , Steven McCanne, Towards an evolvable internet architecture, Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, August 22-26, 2005, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
• 19: Y. Rekhter , T. Li, A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), RFC Editor, 1995
• 20: Stefan Savage , Thomas Anderson , Amit Aggarwal , David Becker , Neal Cardwell , Andy Collins , Eric Hoffman , John Snell , Amin Vahdat , Geoff Voelker , John Zahorjan, Detour: Informed Internet Routing and Transport, IEEE Micro, v.19 n.1, p.50-59, January 1999 [doi>10.1109/40.748796]
• 21: Alex C. Snoeren , Barath Raghavan, Decoupling policy from mechanism in Internet routing, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, v.34 n.1, January 2004 [doi>10.1145/972374.972389]
• 22: H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Shenker, and D. Estrin. The Impact of Routing Policy on Internet Paths. IEEE INFOCOM'01. Proceedings, 2: 736--742 vol. 2, 2001.
• 23: Xiaowei Yang , David Clark , Arthur W. Berger, NIRA: a new inter-domain routing architecture, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON), v.15 n.4, p.775-788, August 2007 [doi>10.1109/TNET.2007.893888]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  C. Computer Systems Organization
  C.2 COMPUTER-COMMUNICATION NETWORKS
      C.2.3 Network Operations

Additional Classification:
  C. Computer Systems Organization
  C.2 COMPUTER-COMMUNICATION NETWORKS
      C.2.0 General
          Subjects: Data communications
  C.4 PERFORMANCE OF SYSTEMS

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Measurement, Performance

Keywords:
data-oriented networking, inter-domain policy, internetworking, network architecture, peering