1 / 51

Network Protocols: Design and Analysis

Network Protocols: Design and Analysis. Polly Huang EE NTU http://cc.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~phuang phuang@cc.ee.ntu.edu.tw. Multicast Routing. [Deering88b]. Key ideas. lays foundation for IP multicast defines IP service model ex. best effort, packet based, anon group

Download Presentation

Network Protocols: Design and Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Network Protocols: Design and Analysis Polly Huang EE NTU http://cc.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~phuang phuang@cc.ee.ntu.edu.tw

  2. Multicast Routing [Deering88b]

  3. Key ideas • lays foundation for IP multicast • defines IP service model • ex. best effort, packet based, anon group • compare to ISIS with explicit group membership, guaranteed ordering (partial or total ordering) • several algorithms • extended/bridged LANs • distance-vector extensions • link-state extensions • cost analysis

  4. Why Multicast • save bandwidth • anonymous addressing

  5. Characterizing Groups • pervasive or dense • most LANs have a receiver • sparse • few LANs have receivers • local • inside a single adminstrative domain

  6. Service Model • same delivery characteristics as unicast • best effort packet delivery • open-loop (no built-in congestion/flow control) • scoping as control mechanism • groups identified by a single IP address • group membership is open • anyone can join or leave • do security at higher levels

  7. Routing Algorithms • single spanning tree • for bridged LANs • distance-vector based • link-state based

  8. Distance-vector Mcast Rtg • Basic idea: flood and prune • flood: send info about new sources everywhere • prune: routers will tell us if they don’t have receivers • routing info is soft state; periodically re-flood (and prune) to refresh this info • if no refresh, then the info goes away => easy fault recovery

  9. Example Topology g g s g

  10. Phase 1: Flood using Truncated Broadcast g g truncated broadcast: this router knows it has no gropus on its LAN, so it doesn’t broadcast s g

  11. Phase 2: Prune g g prune (s,g) prune (s,g) s g

  12. Phase 3: Graft g g g report (g) graft (s,g) graft (s,g) s g

  13. Phase 4: Steady State g g g s g

  14. Sending Data in DVMRP • Data packets are sent on all branches of the tree • send on all interfaces except the one they came in on • RPF (Reverse Path Forwarding) Check: • drop packets that arrive on incorrect interfaces (i.e., not from the unicast direction to the sending host) • why? suppress errant packets

  15. DVMPR Pros and Cons • Pros: • simple • works well with many receivers. why? overhead is per-sender, receivers are passive • Cons: • works poorly with many groups (why? every sender in every group floods the nets) • works poorly with sparse groups (why? flood data everywhere and then prune back, expensive if only needed some places)

  16. Link-state Multicast Routing • Basic idea: treat group members (receivers) as new links • flood info about them to everyone in LSA msg (just like LSA rtg) • Compute next-hop for mcast routes on-demand (lazily) • unlike for LSA unicast where all are computed as soon as LSA arrives • realized as MOSPF

  17. S1 Z X R1 Y R2 Link state: Each router floods link state advertisement Multicast: add membership information to “link state” Each router computes multicast tree for each active source, builds forwarding entry with outgoing interface list.

  18. Z has network map, including membership at X and Y Z computes shortest path tree from S1 to X and Y (when it gets a data packet on G), puts in rtg table W, Q, R, each do same thing as data arrives at them S1 Z W Q X R R1 Y R2

  19. Link state advertisement with new topology may require re-computation of tree and forwarding entry (only Z and W send new LSA messages, but all on path recompute) S1 Z W Q X R R1 Y R2

  20. Link state advertisement (T) with new membership (R3) may require incremental computation and addition of interface to outgoing interface list (Z) S1 Z R3 W T Q X R R1 Y R2

  21. MOSPF Pros and Cons • Pros: • simple add on to OSFP • works well with many senders. why? no per-sender state • Cons: • works poorly with many receivers (why? per-receiver costs) • works poorly with sparse groups (why? lots of info goes places that don’t want it) • works poorly with large domains (why? link-state scales wrt number of links—many links causes frequent changes)

  22. PIM [Deering96a]

  23. Key ideas • want a mcast routing protocol that works well with sparse users • use a single shared tree; fix one host as rendezvous point

  24. Why not just DVMRP or MOSPF? • With sparse groups, both are expensive • DVMRP problem with many senders • MOSPF problem with many receivers • neither works well with sparse groups • Solution: PIM-SM • use rendezvous point as a place to meet • but dowside: • single point of failure • don’t necessarily get shortest path • also concerned about “concentration” of all data going through rendezvous point

  25. New Design Questions • Where to place RP? • How to make the RP robust? • don’t want a single point of failure • How to build the tree given an RP? • How to send data with a shared tree? • What is the overhead of going through RP (a shared tree)? • How to switch from shared tree to SPT?

  26. Where to place RP? • RP is a node to which people send join messages • place it in the core • at the edge is more expensive since tfc must go through it • optimal placement is NP-hard

  27. Robustness • single RP is single point of failure, so must have backup plan • approach: • start with a set of cores • hash the group name to form an ordered list • basic idea: order RPs, hash(G) selects one, use it • if it fails, hash(G) to find the next one • if everyone uses the same hash function, people find the same RPs

  28. Building the Shared Tree • Simply send a message towards the RP • use the unicast routing table to get there • Add links to the tree as you go • Stop if you get to a rtr that’s already in the tree • Gets reverse shortest path to RP

  29. Shared tree after R1,R2,R3 join Join messagetoward RP (*, G) (*, G) (*, G) (*, G) RP (*, G) (*, G) (*, G) (*, G) R1 R4 R2 R3 PIM Example: build Shared tree

  30. PIM: Sending Data • If you are on the tree, you just send it as with other mcast protocols • it follows the tree • If you are not on the tree (say, you’re a sender but not a group member), the pkt is tunneled to the RP that sends it • why central placement of RP is important

  31. PIM Example: sending data on the tree (*, G) (*, G) (*, G) (*, G) RP (*, G) (*, G) (*, G) (*, G) R1 R4 R4 sends data R2 R3

  32. Sending data if not on the tree S1 unicast encapsulated data packet to RP inRegister RP decapsulates, forwards downshared tree RP (*, G) R1 R4 R2 R3

  33. What is the cost of the shared tree? • Some data goes further than it should • but latency is bounded to 2x SPT • All data goes on one tree, rather than on many trees • but no guarantee you get multiple paths with source-specific trees • But to optimize things, PIM-SM supports source-specific trees

  34. S1 RP distribution tree Build source-specific tree for high data rate source (S1, G) Join messagestoward S1 (S1, G) (S1, G) (*,G) (*, G) (S1, G), (*,G) (S1, G) (*,G) RP R1 R4 R2 R3 Build source-specific tree

  35. Forward packets on “longest-match” entry Source (S1)-specific distribution tree S1 Source-specific entry is “longer match” for source S1 than is Shared tree entry that can be used by any source (*,G) (S1, G) Shared tree (S1, G) (*,G) R5 (S1, G) (*,G) (S1, G) (*,G) (*, G) (S1, G), (*,G) RP R1 R4 R2 R3

  36. SPT and Shared Trees • Many more details to be careful about • need to handle switchover from shared-tree to SPT gracefully • need to support pruning for both SPT and shared-tree • and have to worry about LANs with multiple routers, multiple senders, etc. • Uses similar protocols (soft-state, refresh, etc.), but lots of details

  37. PIM-SM observations • does a good job at intra-domain mcast routing that scales to • many senders • many receivers • many groups • large bandwidth • preserves original (simple) service model • but quite complex • but actually implemented today

  38. Multi-AS Mcast Routing • Fine, PIM-SM (or DVMRP or MOSPF) work inside an AS, what about between ASes? • lots of policy questions • and have to show ISPs why they should deploy (how they can make money :-) • and convince them the world won’t end • multicast, that’s for high-bandwidth video, right? • multicast can flood all my links with data, right? • what apps, again?

  39. MSDP • Support for inter-domain PIM-SM • Temporary solution • Basic approach: • send all sources to all ASes (like original flood-and-prune) • AS border routers are PIM-SM RPs for their domain

  40. But does this seem complicated? • some people thought so • and commercial deployment has been slow • if we change the service model, maybe we can greatly simplify things • and make it easier for ISPs to understand how to change/manage mcast • EXPRESS

  41. Express [Holbrook99a]

  42. Key ideas • use channels: a single sender, many subscribes • makes mcast tree easier to config • easier to tell who can send • add mechanism to let you count subscribers • easier to think about billing • goal: define a simpler model

  43. Multicast Problems • need billing mechanism • need to know number of subscribers • need access control • need to limit who can send and subscribe • ISPs concerned about mcast • IPv4 mcast addresses too limited • current protocols too complex • single source multicast

  44. Express vs. Multicast Problems • need billing mechanism • record sources • count receivers • need access control • only subscriber can send • IPv4 mcast addresses too limited • address on source and group

  45. Express Approach • all addresses are source specific (S,E) • 224 channels per source, (232 sources) • access control • only source can send • channels optionally protected by “key” (really just a secret) • sub-cast support (encapsulate pkt to any router on the tree [if you know who they are]) • best-effort counting service

  46. Express Components • ECMP: Express Count Mgt Protocol • like IGMP, but also adds count support • counts used to determine receivers or for other things like voting • not clear how general • session relays • service at source that can relay data on to tree (similar to PIM tunneling)

  47. Observations • Simpler? yes • Enough to justify mcast to ISPS? not clear

  48. Another Alternative: Application-level Multicast • if the ISPs won’t give us multicast, we’ll take it :-) • just do it all at the app • results in some duplicated data on links • and app doesn’t have direct access to unicast routing • but can work… (ex. Yoid project at ISI)

  49. Src Src Src Application-level Multicast Example

  50. App-level Multicast • Simplest approach: • send data to central site that forwards • Better approaches: • try to balance load on any one link • try to topologically cluster relays

More Related