1 / 11

Geographic Locality of IP Prefixes

Geographic Locality of IP Prefixes. Mythili Vutukuru Joint work with Michael Freedman, Nick Feamster and Hari Balakrishnan. Autonomous Systems (ASes) IP Prefixes in BGP messages “Routing handles”

brinda
Download Presentation

Geographic Locality of IP Prefixes

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. Geographic Locality of IP Prefixes Mythili Vutukuru Joint work with Michael Freedman, Nick Feamster and Hari Balakrishnan

  2. Autonomous Systems (ASes) IP Prefixes in BGP messages “Routing handles” Granularity of routing handle – tradeoff between routing table size and ability to control traffic Is prefix the right granularity? C B A Motivation 10.0.0.0/16

  3. 10.1/16 10.3/16 10.5/16 10.1.0.0/16 10.3.0.0/16 10.5.0.0/16 Too fine-grained? X X B X A X • Discontiguous prefixes from same location • Likely to share fate • Multiple routing table entries to be updates • Close in geography, far in IP space →fine-grained

  4. Too coarse-grained? 10.0/16 10.0/16 10.0/15 C B A 10.1/16 10.0/15 10.1/16 B does not aggregate B aggregates • Contiguous prefixes from different locations • Aggregate → less control over traffic • Close in IP space, far geographically → coarse-grained

  5. Questions we investigate IP space Geography Granularity Far Close Fine-grained Close Far Coarse-grained How often do ASes announce discontiguous prefixes from same location? How often do ASes announce contiguous prefixes from different locations? Correlation - locality in IP space & geographic locality

  6. Uses naming conventions of routers – city names embedded in DNS names Method GOAL: Associate an IP prefix with a set of locations (cities) X X Location(city) CoralCDN[1] Web clients Content servers DNS names undns[2] IPs IP Prefix Random IPs Routeviews[3] Traceroute [1] http://www.coralcdn.org [2] http://www.scriptroute.org [3] http://www.routeviews.org

  7. Prefixes too fine-grained 70% of discontiguous prefixes have same location 65% due to fragmented allocation • Analyzed top 20 <AS, location> pairs • 23% of them allocated on the same day

  8. 10.1/16 10.3/16 10.5/16 Implications • Renumber? • Change granularity of routing?? • Eg: PoP level <A,location> <A,location> B A 10.1.0.0/16 10.3.0.0/16 10.5.0.0/16

  9. Prefix AS Path Prefix AS Path Location Prefixes too coarse grained • 25% of contiguous prefixes - different location • CIDR Report[4] • Same AS path + close geographically 64% reduction 10.0/16 A B C D 10.0/15 A B C D 10.1/16 A B C D 20% reduction 10.0/15 A B C D L1 10.0/16 A B C D L1 Do not aggregate 10.1/16 A B C D L2 10.1/16 A B C D L1 [4] http://www.cidr-report.org

  10. Implications • Potential for aggregation over-stated • Aggregate too coarse grained – poor traffic control

  11. Take-home lessons • Is prefix the right granularity for routing? • Prefix too fine-grained • Discontiguous prefixes from same location • Causes many routing table updates • Change routing granularity: group by shared fate? • Prefix too coarse-grained • Contiguous prefixes from different locations • Aggregate prefix unfit for traffic control • Potential for aggregation is overstated • Design principle for the future Internet? Questions?

More Related