Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Moving bits with a fleet of shared virtual routers

794 views

Published on

This is my presentation at IFIP Networking 2018 in Zurich.

In this paper, we propose a cloud-assisted network as an alternative connectivity provider.

More details: https://kkpradeeban.blogspot.com/2018/05/moving-bits-with-fleet-of-shared.html

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Moving bits with a fleet of shared virtual routers

  1. 1. Pradeeban Kathiravelu∗† Marco Chiesa‡ Pedro Marcos§ Marco Canini¶ Luís Veiga∗ ∗ INESC-ID Lisboa / Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa † Université catholique de Louvain ‡ KTH § UFRGS/FURG ¶ KAUST IFIP Networking 2018. Zurich, Switzerland. 15th May, 2018. 1 Moving Bits with a Fleet of Shared Virtual Routers
  2. 2. Introduction 2/20 ● Increasing demand for bandwidth. ● Decreasing bandwidth prices. ● Pricing Disparity. E.g. IP Transit Price, 2014 (per Mbps) ○ USA: 0.94 $ ○ Kazakhstan: 15 $ ○ Uzbekistan: 347 $ ● What about latency? ○ Online gaming. ○ High-frequency trading. ○ Remote surgery.
  3. 3. Motivation ● Cloud providers have a dedicated connectivity. ○ Well-provisioned and maintained network. ○ Increasing number of regions and points of presence. ● Can a network overlay over cloud instances be used as an alternative connectivity provider? ○ Cost-effectiveness. ○ High-performance. ○ Optional network services. 3/20
  4. 4. Cloud-Assisted Networks Virtual/overlay networks over cloud environments 4/20
  5. 5. Our Proposal: NetUber ● A third-party virtual connectivity provider with no fixed infrastructure. ○ An overlay network, leveraging multi-cloud infrastructures. 5/20
  6. 6. NetUber Application Scenarios 1. Cheaper transfers between two endpoints. 2. Higher throughput or reduced latency. 3. Better alternative to SaaS replication. 4. Network services (compression, encryption, ..). 6/20
  7. 7. ● Feasibility Study: Platform Cost of NetUber 7/20 A. Cost of Cloud Instances. ○ Charged per second. ○ Very high. B. Cost of Bandwidth. ○ Charged per data transferred. ○ Also very high. C. Cost to connect to the cloud provider. Scenario (1 of 4): Cheaper Transfers
  8. 8. A) Cost of Cloud Instances: Observations ● 10 Gbps R4 instance (r4.8xlarge) pairs offered only maximum of 1.2 Gbps of data transfer inter-region. ○ 10 Gbps only inside a placement group. ● We need more pairs of instances! 8/20 Scenario (1 of 4): Cheaper Transfers
  9. 9. Spot Instances! ● Cheaper (up to 90% savings), but volatile, instances. ● Price Fluctuations - Future price unpredictable (for EC2). ● Differing prices among availability zones of a region. ○ Buy from the cheapest availability zones at the moment. ○ Maintain instances in the cheap availability zones. 9/22 Scenario (1 of 4): Cheaper Transfers
  10. 10. B) Cost of Bandwidth: Price disparity is real! 10/20 ● Regions 1 - 9 (US, Canada, and EU) remain much cheaper than the others. Scenario (1 of 4): Cheaper Transfers
  11. 11. C) Cost to connect to the cloud provider 11/20 ● Connect the end-user to the cloud servers. ● Often provided by the cloud provider. ○ Example: Amazon Direct Connect. ○ Charged per port-hour (e.g. how many hours a 10 GbE port is used). Scenario (1 of 4): Cheaper Transfers
  12. 12. Cloud-Assisted Point-to-Point Connectivity 12/20 ● Also cheaper than MPLS networks or transit providers. ○ Thanks to spot instances. Scenario (2 of 4): Higher throughput or reduced latency ● Better control over the path, compared to the Internet paths.
  13. 13. 13/20 Scenario (3 of 4): Better Alternative to SaaS Replication ● Deploy Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) applications in just one region. ○ Use NetUber to access them from another region. ■ Instead of replicating them across multiple cloud regions. ● Access to more regions by leveraging multiple cloud providers.
  14. 14. 14/20 Scenario (4 of 4): Network Services ● NetUber uses memory-optimized R4 spot instances. ○ Each instance with 244 GB memory, 32 vCPU, and 10 GbE interface. ● Possibility to deploy network services at the instances. ● Network services. ○ Value-added services for the customer. ■ Encryption, WAN-Optimizer, load balancer, .. ○ Services for cost-efficiency. ■ Compression.
  15. 15. Evaluation ● Cheaper point-to-point connectivity. ○ AWS as the overlay cloud provider. ○ Compared against a transit provider and another connectivity provider with a large global backbone network. ● Improve latency with cloud routes. ○ Compared to ISPs. ○ Traffic sent from: RIPE Atlas Probes and distributed servers. ○ Destination: AWS distributed servers from the AWS regions. ○ ISPs vs. ISP to the nearest AWS region and then NetUber overlay. 15/20
  16. 16. 1) Cheaper point-to-point connectivity 16/20 ● Expense for 10 Gbps flat connectivity ○ Measured for transfers from EU and USA. ○ Cheaper for data transfers <50 TB.
  17. 17. 2) Improve latency with cloud routes 17/20 ● Instead of sending traffic A -> Z, can we send A -> B -> Z? ○ B is closer to A. B and Z are servers in cloud regions. ○ B and Z are connected by NetUber overlay.
  18. 18. Ping times: ISP vs. NetUber (via region, % improvement) 18/20 ● NetUber cuts Internet latencies up to a factor of 30%. ● The use of Direct Connect would make this even better.
  19. 19. Related Work ● Industrial efforts on infrastructure to offer connectivity. ○ Teridion - Internet fast lanes for SaaS providers. ○ Voxility - Large scale globally distributed infrastructure as an alternative to transit providers. ● Previous research focus on technical side. ○ Not economical aspects - More expensive. ○ NetUber as a cheaper alternative, with spot instances. 19/20
  20. 20. Conclusion ● A connectivity provider that does not own the infrastructure. ● “Internet Fast-routes” through cloud-assisted networks. ○ Better than ISPs (~50 - 75 Mbps, often with a cap) for end-users. ● Cheaper point-to-point connectivity. ○ Cheaper than transit providers and similar offerings (for < 50 TB/month). ● Future work: ○ Evaluate NetUber for more parameters (loss rate, jitter, ..) ○ Evaluate the cost with more cloud providers and pairs of regions. 20/20
  21. 21. Conclusion 21/21 Thank you! ● A connectivity provider that does not own the infrastructure. ● “Internet Fast-routes” through cloud-assisted networks. ○ Better than ISPs (~50 - 75 Mbps, often with a cap) for end-users. ● Cheaper point-to-point connectivity. ○ Cheaper than transit providers and similar offerings (for < 50 TB/month). ● Future work: ○ Evaluate NetUber for more parameters (loss rate, jitter, ..) ○ Evaluate the cost with more cloud providers and pairs of regions.

×