skip to main content
10.1145/1921168.1921170acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesconextConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Verifiable network-performance measurements

Published:30 November 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

In the current Internet, there is no clean way for affected parties to react to poor forwarding performance: to detect and assess Service Level Agreement (SLA) violations by a contractual partner, a domain must resort to ad-hoc monitoring using probes. Instead, we propose Network Confessional, a new, systematic approach to the problem of forwarding-performance verification. Our system relies on voluntary reporting, allowing each network domain to disclose its loss and delay performance to its customers and peers and, potentially, a regulator. Most importantly, it enables verifiable performance measurements, i.e., domains cannot abuse it to significantly exaggerate their performance. Finally, our system is tunable, allowing each participating domain to determine how many resources to devote to it independently (i.e., without any inter-domain coordination), exposing a controllable trade-off between performance-verification quality and resource consumption. Our system comes at the cost of deploying modest functionality at the participating domains' border routers; we show that it requires reasonable resources, well within modern network capabilities.

References

  1. Gilbert-Elliot Loss Model. http://www.eecs.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg112/Papers/tkn_report02.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. USNO GPS Time Transfer. http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpstt.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. BGP Table Data. http://bgp.potaroo.net/as6447, October 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ofcom Reveals UK Real Broadband Speeds. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/features/broadbandspeedsjy, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Office of Communications, Traffic Management and Net Neutrality. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/net-neutrality/summary/, June 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. K. Argyraki, P. Maniatis, D. R. Cheriton, and S. Shenker. Providing Packet Obituaries. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networking (HotNets), November 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. K. Argyraki, P. Maniatis, O. Irzak, S. Ashish, and S. Shenker. Loss and Delay Accountability for the Internet. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), October 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. K. Argyraki, P. Maniatis, and A. Singla. Verifiable Network-Performance Measurements. Technical report, EPFL, Switzerland, November 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Burbank, W. Kasch, J. Martin, and D. Mills. Network Time Protocol Version 4 Protocol and Algorithms Specification. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-06, May 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M. Dobrescu, N. Egi, K. Argyraki, B.-G. Chun, K. Fall, G. Iannaccone, A. Knies, M. Manesh, and S. Ratnasamy. RouteBricks: Exploiting Parallelism to Scale Software Routers. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), October 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. N. Duffield and M. Grossglauser. Trajectory Sampling for Direct Traffic Observation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 9(3):280--292, June 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. L. Gharai, C. Perkins, and T. Lehman. Packet reordering, high speed networks and transport protocol performance. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), October 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. S. Goldberg, D. Xiao, B. Barak, and J. Rexford. A Cryptographic Study of Secure Internet Measurement. Technical Report TR-783-07, Princeton University, May 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Goldberg, D. Xiao, E. Tromer, B. Barak, and J. Rexford. Path-Quality Monitoring in the Presence of Adversaries. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference, June 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. E. Katz-Bassett, H. V. Madhyastha, V. K. Adhikari, C. Scott, J. Sherry, P. van Wesep, T. Anderson, and A. Krishnamurthy. Reverse Traceroute. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), April 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. E. Katz-Bassett, H. V. Madhyastha, J. P. John, A. Krishnamurthy, D. Wetherall, and T. Anderson. Studying Black Holes in the Internet with Hubble. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), April 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. R. R. Kompella, K. Levchenko, A. C. Snoeren, and G. Varghese. Every Microsecond Counts: Tracking Fine-Grain Latencies with a Lossy Difference Aggregator. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Conference, August 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. P. Laskowski and J. Chuang. Network Monitors and Contracting Systems. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Conference, September 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. N. McKeown, T. Anderson, H. Balakrishnan, G. Parulkar, L. Peterson, J. Rexford, S. Shenker, and J. Turn. OpenFlow: Enabling Innovation in Campus Networks. ACM Computer Communications Review, 38(2), April 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Molina, S. Niccolini, and N. G. Duffield. A Comparative Experimental Study of Hash Functions Applied to Packet Sampling. In Proceedings of International Teletraffic Congress (ITC), September 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. P. Phaal and S. Panchen. Sampling Basics. http://www.sflow.org/packetSamplingBasics/index.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Sommers, P. Barford, N. Duffied, and A. Ron. Accurate and Efficient SLA Compliance Monitoring. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Conference, August 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. X. Zhang, A. Jain, and A. Perrig. Packet-dropping Adversary Identification for Data Plane Security. In Proceedings of the ACM CoNext Conference, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Verifiable network-performance measurements

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            Co-NEXT '10: Proceedings of the 6th International COnference
            November 2010
            349 pages
            ISBN:9781450304481
            DOI:10.1145/1921168

            Copyright © 2010 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 30 November 2010

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader