On The Marginal Utility of Network Topology Measurements

1
On The Marginal Utility of Network Topology
Measurements

• Mark Crovella
• with
• Paul Barford, Azer Bestavros, and John Byers

2
Discovering Internet Topology

• Typical goal discover the router-level Internet
  graph (nodes and edges)
• Typical approach merge a collection of node and
  edge lists

3
Using traceroute

• Traceroute reports the IP path from A to B
• Ie, how IP paths are overlaid on the router graph

4
Traceroute studies

• Yield overlays of projections from Ss to Ds
• Sources active, expensive
• Destinations passive, cheap

D
D
D
D
D
S
S
5
Motivating Questions

• How should we use traceroute and what can it
  discover?
• Physical topology (nodes, links)?
• IP routing topology?
• Whats a good way to organize a
  collection-of-traceroutes study?
• Many sources?
• Many destinations?
• How much is enough?

6
What might we expect?

• Clique each new Source (Dest) discovers a new
  path
• Star each new Source (Dest) discovers only a
  small neighborhood
• Marginal Utility sheds light on this distinction

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Clique
Star
7
Skitter to the Rescue

• Two datasets from CAIDA
• Small dataset May 2000
• 8 sources, 1277 destinations, 20K paths
• Sources in New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, San
  Jose (2), Ottawa, London, Washington
• All sources traced to all destinations
• Large dataset October 2000, 30 times bigger
• 12 sources, 313709 destinations, 600K paths
• No destination common to all sources, or vice
  versa

8
Interface Disambiguation

• Traceroutes report only on interfaces used
• Routers often have multiple interfaces
• But merging traceroutes requires matching routers
• Solution probe each interface from some site X
• Routers are supposed to respond on the interface
  used for routing to X
• Results in set of (probe interface, response
  interface) pairs
• Each connected component is taken to be a router

9
Classifying Nodes

• Core, border, stub, leaf
• Solely from traceroute information

Leaf
Border
Core
Stub
10
Classification depends on msmts
Core
Stub
Border
11
Limitations

• Interface disambiguation
• 13 of interfaces never responded
• Node classification
• Identifying a border node requires two paths to
  it
• Size
• Datasets may not be representative
• Unknown coverage of true network
• Diminishing returns may not signify good coverage

12
Diminishing Returns Nodes
13
Diminishing Returns Links
14
Large Dataset Interfaces
15
Large Dataset Links
16
Diminishing returns by Classification
Core
Stub
Border
17
What Does This Suggest?
D
D
S
D
D
S
D
D
18
Adding Destinations Nodes
Slope is about 3
19
Adding Destinations Links
Slope is about 4
20
Add Sources or Destinations?
Isolines represent constant node discovery,
varying Ss or Ds
21
Node Degree Distribution
1 Source
8 Sources
22
Node Degree Distribution Tail
8 Sources
1 Source
23
Degree distribution convergence RMSE
24
Related Work

• Pansiot Grad 98
• First multi-traceroute study
• Many similarities, incl. interface disambiguation
• Chuang Sirbu 98Phillips, Shenker
  Tangmunarunkit 99
• single-source case, found sublinear growth of
  multicast tree with added destinations
• Govindan Tangmunarunkit 00
• Extensive node discovery, overcoming limitations
  of traceroute
• Broido Claffy 01
• Larger datasets more detailed look at graph
  structure

25
Conclusions

• To discover all physical nodes, traceroute is
  inefficient
• Diminishing returns many Ss and Ds needed
• Trading off Ss and Ds
• Adding destinations seems more cost-effective
• To discover how typical routes pass through
  network, traceroute is informative
• Routing core and feeders
• Much of routing core is visible from few Ss
  (given enough Ds)