10 fn s04

645 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
645
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

10 fn s04

  1. 1. On the Cost of Supporting Multihoming and Mobility Ibrahim Matta Computer Science Boston University Joint work with Vatche Ishakian, Joseph Akinwumi, John Day I. Matta 1
  2. 2. Mobility = Dynamic Multihoming  Hosts / ASes became increasingly multihomed  Multihoming is a special case of mobility  RINA (Recursive InterNetwork Architecture) is a clean-slate design  RINA routing is based on node addresses µ Late binding of node address to point-of-attachment  Compare to LISP (early binding) and Mobile-IP  Average-case communication cost analysis  Simulation over Internet-like topologies I. Matta
  3. 3. Whatʼs wrong today? Applications Web, email, ftp, … Applications Transport Transport Network Network Network 12 7.2 8. Data Link DL DL Data Link 19 .12 7. 5 8.10 15 Physical PHY PHY Physical .1 12 128.197.0.0 www.cs.bu.edu 128.10.0.0 128.197.15.10  We exposed addresses to applications  We named and addressed the wrong things
  4. 4. RINA offers better scoping Applications Web, email, ftp, … Applications Transport TCP, UDP, … Transport IPC Network IP Network Network Data Link DL DL Data Link IPC IPC Physical PHY PHY Physical  E2E (end-to-end principle) is not relevant µ Each IPC layer provides service / QoS over its scope  IPv6 is/was a waste of time! µ We donʼt need too many addresses within an IPC layer
  5. 5. RINA: Good Addressing Bob want to send message to “Bob” A “Bob”B B To: B I1 I2  Destination application is identified by “name”  App name mapped to node name (address)  Node addresses are private within IPC layer µ Need a global namespace, but not address space µ Destination application process is assigned a port number dynamically 5
  6. 6. RINA: Good Addressing Bob want to send message to “Bob” A B To: B IPC processes I1 I2 on same machine BI2  Late binding of node name to a PoA address  PoA address is “name” at the lower IPC level  Node subscribes to different IPC layers 6
  7. 7. RINA: Good Routing source destination  Back to naming-addressing basics [Saltzer ʼ82] µ Service name (location-independent)  node name (location-dependent)  PoA address (path-dependent)  path  We clearly distinguish the last 2 mappings  Route: sequence of node names (addresses)  Map next-hopʼs node name to PoA at lower IPC level I. Matta 7
  8. 8. Mobility is Inherent MH CH  Mobile joins new IPC layers and leaves old ones  Local movement results in local routing updates 8
  9. 9. Mobility is Inherent CH  Mobile joins new IPC layers and leaves old ones  Local movement results in local routing updates 9
  10. 10. Mobility is Inherent CH  Mobile joins new IPC layers and leaves old ones  Local movement results in local routing updates 10
  11. 11. Compare to loc/id split (1)  Basis of any solution to the multihoming issue  Claim: the IP address semantics are overloaded as both location and identifier  LISP (Location ID Separation Protocol) ʻ06 EIDx -> EIDy EIDx  EIDy RLOC1x  RLOC2y EIDx  EIDy Mapping: EIDy  RLOC2y I. Matta
  12. 12. Compare to loc/id split (2)  Ingress Border Router maps ID to loc, which is the location of destination BR  Problem: loc is path-dependent, does not name the ultimate destination EIDx -> EIDy RLOC1x RLOC2y EIDx  EIDy Mapping: EIDy  RLOC2y
  13. 13. LISP vs. RINA vs. …  Total Cost per loc / interface change = Cost of Loc / Routing Update + ρ [Pcons*DeliveryCost + (1-Pcons)*InconsistencyCost] ρ: expected packets per loc change Pcons: probability of no loc change since last pkt delivery  RINAʼs routing modeled over a binary tree of IPC layers: update at top level involves route propagation over the whole network diameter D; update at leaf involves route propagation over D/2h, h is tree height I. Matta
  14. 14. LISP I. Matta
  15. 15. LISP I. Matta
  16. 16. RINA   I. Matta
  17. 17. RINA   I. Matta
  18. 18. RINA   I. Matta
  19. 19. MobileIP I. Matta
  20. 20. LISP vs. RINA vs. … 8x8 Grid Topology RINA uses 5 IPC levels; on average, 3 levels get affected per move LISP RINA I. Matta
  21. 21. Simulation: Packet Delivery Ratio RINA  BRITE generated 2- level topology  Average path length 14 hops  Random walk LISP mobility model I. Matta 21
  22. 22. Simulation: Packet Delay LISP RINA I. Matta 22
  23. 23. Bottom Line: RINA is less costly  RINA inherently limits the scope of location update & inconsistency  RINA uses “direct” routing to destination node  More work: prototyping I. Matta
  24. 24. Thank You Questions? I. Matta

×