P4P : Provider Portal for (P2P) Applications Laboratory of Networked Systems Yale University.
P4P: Towards Cooperation between P2P and ISPs Haiyong Xie (Yale) Arvind Krishnamurthy (U....
-
Upload
baldric-crawford -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
1
description
Transcript of P4P: Towards Cooperation between P2P and ISPs Haiyong Xie (Yale) Arvind Krishnamurthy (U....
P4P: Towards Cooperation between P2P and ISPs
Haiyong Xie (Yale)
Arvind Krishnamurthy (U. Washington)
Avi Silberschatz (Yale)
Y. Richard Yang (Yale)
2007-7-25
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 2
P2P Content Distribution Traffic volume: up to 60-70%
of Internet traffic is contributed by P2P applications [cachelogic]
Traffic pattern: random peering (e.g., BitTorrents) causes traffic spread across PoPs and domains
Problems Increased network resource usage
(e.g., using bandwidth of more links) Increased network operational costs Degraded performance to other applications
http://www.cachelogic.com
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 3
Bandwidth Battle between ISPs and P2P
The battle results in a lose-lose situation
ISPs try to “manage” P2P traffic
Upgrade network infrastructure Deploy P2P caching devices Terminate connectivity Rate limit P2P traffic
P2P tries to evade from being captured
Uses random ports Encrypts traffic
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 4
Where is the Fundamental Problem? Traditional ISP application feedback/control:
Routing/traffic engineering (TE) Rate control through congestion feedback (packet drops)
Ineffective for P2P due to highly dynamic, scattered traffic pattern caused
by dynamic, unguided (network-oblivious) peer selection
Objective: design a framework to enable better ISP and P2P cooperation
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 5
Design Rationale Performance improvement
for both ISPs and P2P Scalability
support a large number of P2P users and networks in dynamic settings
Privacy preservation Extensibility
Application-specific requirements Tracker-based vs. trackerless P2P systems Gossip among peers
Incremental deploymentability ISP contribution for P2P acceleration
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 6
The P4P Framework P4P: proactive provider participation for P2P; P2P for
providers; provider portal for P2P, … Two components
Control plane iTrackers: an ISP portal for P2P and content providers Three levels:
Network status: e.g., network topology ISP policy and guideline: e.g., traffic balance ratio for inter-AS peering
links, time of day preference ISP capabilities: e.g., QoS, CoS, ISP servers participation in content
distributions
Data plane [optional] Routers on data paths provide fine-grained, ISP policy-based feedbacks,
e.g., utilize TCP ECN bit or feedback fields in an overlay packet header
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 7
P4P Control Path: Obtain Network Status/Policy
An iTracker for each ISP.
1: Peer queries iTracker of local ISP to obtain network status/policy
2,3: Tracker-based: peer reports status/policy to appTracker; appTracker selects peering set considering both ISP status/policy and application requirements[4]: Trackerless: peers exchange information and make peering decisions
ISP BISP A
appTracker
a
iTracker BiTracker A
b
2
3
11[4]
2
3
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 8
P4P Control Path : Request Capability
ISP B
5: appTracker [content provider] requests ISP B’s participation in content distribution6: ISP B allocates servers to accelerate content distribution7: appTracker includes ISP B’s servers in returned peering sets to peers
ISP A
appTracker
a
iTracker BiTracker A
b
6
7
5Note: this can be extended to handle trackerless systems, as we did in the previous slide
appTracker/content provider requests ISP capabilities to accelerate content distribution.
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 9
P4P Framework: Data Path [optional]
Routers mark packets to provide faster, fine-grained feedbacks, e.g., virtual capacity to optimize multihoming cost and performance
ISP BISP A
a
b
Peers adjust traffic rates according to feedbacks
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 10
Test Plan for P4P Measurement study with Pando (in progress)
Evaluate P2P self-adaptation schemes (in progress) Generate best practices for P2P design Serve as comparison basis
iTracker (in progress) Network information (roughly completed) ISP policy and guideline (in progress) ISP capability (in progress)
Data path (in progress)
Evaluate P4P design with Pando and Verizon (in progress)
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 11
Preliminary Results Simulations
Discrete-event simulation a module for modeling BitTorrent protocol a module for modeling underlying network topology and data
transfer dynamics using TCP rate equation Network topology: PoP-level AT&T and Abilene
topologies Network routing: OSPF routing
Internet experiments 53 Internet2 nodes on PlanetLab iTracker for Abilene network Use OSPF routing to re-construct traffic load on Abilene
links
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 12
Evaluation – BitTorrent on Abilene Compared to P4P, native
P2P can result in 2x download completion
time 2x higher link utilization
Native P2P can result in some peers experiencing very long download completion time
Native P2P can result in much larger variance in link utilization
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 13
Evaluation – BitTorrent on AT&T Compared to P4P, native
P2P can result in 1.6x download completion
time 3x higher link utilization
Some peers can experience very long download completion time with native P2P
Link utilization variance can be larger for native P2P
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 14
Evaluation – Liveswarms on PlanetLab Liveswarms* is a P2P-based video streaming application,
which adapts BitTorrent protocol to video streaming context Run liveswarms on 53 PlanetLab nodes for 900 seconds
P4P and native liveswarms achieve roughly the same amount of throughput
P4P reduces link load Average link load saving is
34MB Maximum average link load
saving is 60% Native liveswarms:1Mbps P4P liveswarms: 432Kbps
*Michael Piatek, Colin Dixon, Arvind Krishnamurthy, Tom Anderson. LiveSwarms: Adapting BitTorrent for end host multicast. Technical report: UW-CSE-06-11-01
2007-7-25 P4PWG July Meeting 15
Contact and Acknowledgement For further details, please refer to our technical report Yale/DCS TR-
1377 It is still a work-in-progress and changes rapidly
Questions/comments are highly welcome: Haiyong Xie ([email protected]) Y. Richard Yang ([email protected])
AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Charles Kalmanek (AT&T Labs), Marty Lafferty
(DCIA), Doug Pasko (Verizon), Laird Popkin (Pando), Keith Ross (Polytechnic), Ke Xu (Tsinghua Univ.) for suggestions, discussions and feedback.