Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Path diversification for future internet end-to-end resilience and survivability

Abstract

Path Diversification is a new mechanism that can be used to select multiple paths between a given ingress and egress node pair using a quantified diversity measure to achieve maximum flow reliability. The path diversification mechanism is targeted at the end-to-end layer, but can be applied at any level for which a path discovery service is available. Path diversification also takes into account service requirements for low-latency or maximal reliability in selecting appropriate paths. Using this mechanism will allow future internetworking architectures to exploit naturally rich physical topologies to a far greater extent than is possible with shortest-path routing or equal-cost load balancing. We describe the path diversity metric and its application at various aggregation levels, and apply the path diversification process to 13 real-world network graphs as well as 4 synthetic topologies to asses the gain in flow reliability. Based on the analysis of flow reliability across a range of networks, we then extend our path diversity metric to create a composite compensated total graph diversity metric that is representative of a particular topology’s survivability with respect to distributed simultaneous link and node failures. We tune the accuracy of this metric having simulated the performance of each topology under a range of failure severities, and present the results. The topologies used are from national-scale backbone networks with a variety of characteristics, which we characterize using standard graph-theoretic metrics. The end result is a compensated total graph diversity metric that accurately predicts the survivability of a given network topology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31

Notes

  1. 1.

    Results presented in this paper are not to serve as a recommendation of one network over another for business purposes. Due to common business practices the Internet service providers listed (with the exception of GÉANT2) do not make their network topology data publicly available, and the data sets used are inferred by third parties.

  2. 2.

    In order to keep the number of figures manageable we show plots from a few representative topologies. The plots for the entire set of topologies may be downloaded in our online appendix at http://www.ittc.ku.edu/resilinets/papers/pd_appendix_2012.pdf.

References

  1. 1.

    Bassiri, B., & Heydari, S. S. (2009). Network survivability in large-scale regional failure scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2nd Canadian conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (C3S2E) (pp. 83–87). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/1557626.1557639.

  2. 2.

    Begen, A., Altunbasak, Y., & Ergun, O. (2003). Multi-path selection for multiple description encoded video streaming. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’03) (Vol. 3, pp. 1583–1589).

  3. 3.

    Bhandari, R. (1998). Survivable networks: algorithms for diverse routing. Norwell: Kluwer Academic.

  4. 4.

    Bhattacharjee, B., Calvert, K., Griffioen, J., Spring, N., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2006). Postmodern internetwork architecture (Technical Report ITTC-FY2006-TR-45030-01). Information and Telecommunication Center, 2335 Irving Hill Road, Lawrence, KS 66045-7612.

  5. 5.

    Carter, M. R., Howard, M. P., Owens, N., Register, D., Kennedy, J., Pecheux, K., & Newton, A. (2002). Effects of catastrophic events on transportation system management and operations, Howard Street tunnel fire, Baltimore City, Maryland, July 18, 2001. (Technical Report). U.S. Department of Transportation, ITS Joint Program Office, Washington DC.

  6. 6.

    Çetinkaya, E. K., Broyles, D., Dandekar, A., Srinivasan, S., & Sterbenz, J. P. (2011). Modelling communication network challenges for future Internet resilience, survivability, and disruption tolerance: a simulation-based approach. Berlin: Springer. (Online Dec. 2011).

  7. 7.

    Çetinkaya, E. K., Broyles, D., Dandekar, A., Srinivasan, S., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2010). A comprehensive framework to simulate network attacks and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE/IFIP international workshop on Reliable Networks Design and Modeling (RNDM), Moscow, Russia (pp. 538–544).

  8. 8.

    Cetinkaya, C., & Knightly, E. (2004). Opportunistic traffic scheduling over multiple network paths. Proceedings—IEEE INFOCOM, 3, 1928–1937.

  9. 9.

    Clark, D. D. (1988). The design philosophy of the DARPA Internet protocols. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM symposium on communications architectures and protocols (pp. 106–114). New York: ACM.

  10. 10.

    Corporation, K. M. I. (1999). North American fiberoptic long-haul routes planned and in place.

  11. 11.

    Dijkstra, E. W. (1959). A note on two problems in connection with graphs. Numerische Mathematik, 1, 269–271.

  12. 12.

    Ellison, R., Fisher, D., Linger, R., Lipson, H., Longstaff, T., & Mead, N. (1997). Survivable network systems: An emerging discipline (Technical Report, CMU/SEI-97-TR-013). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

  13. 13.

    ENISA Virtual Working Group on Network Providers Resilience Measures (2009). Network resilience and security: Challenges and measures (Technical Report WP 2009—WPK 1.2 VWG 1). ENISA—European Network and Information Security Agency.

  14. 14.

    Floyd, R. W. (1962). Algorithm 97: shortest path. ACM Communications, 5(6), 345. doi:10.1145/367766.368168.

  15. 15.

    Ford, L. (1956). Network flow theory.

  16. 16.

    Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.

  17. 17.

    Gomes, T., Simoes, C., & Fernandes, L. (2011). Resilient routing in optical networks using SRLG-disjoint path pairs of min-sum cost. Telecommunication Systems.

  18. 18.

    Grover, W. D. (2003). Mesh-based survivable transport networks: options and strategies for optical, MPLS, SONET and ATM networking. New York: Prentice Hall.

  19. 19.

    Grover, W. D., & Stamatelakis, D. (1998). Cycle-oriented distributed preconfiguration: ring-like speed with mesh-like capacity for self-planning network restoration. In Proceeding of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’98) (Vol. 1, pp. 537–543).

  20. 20.

    Jabbar, A. (2010). A framework to quantify network resilience and survivability. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

  21. 21.

    Jabbar, A., Narra, H., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2011). An approach to quantifying resilience in mobile ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE international workshop on the Design of Reliable Communication Networks (DRCN), Krakow, Poland (pp. 140–147).

  22. 22.

    Jen, E. (2005). Robust design: a repertoire of biological, ecological, and engineering case studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  23. 23.

    Kvalbein, A., Hansen, A. F., Cicic, T., Gjessing, S., & Lysne, O. (2008). Multiple routing configurations for fast IP network recovery. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 17(2), 473–486.

  24. 24.

    Lewis, T. G. (2009). Network science (1st ed., p. 24). New York: Wiley. Chap. 2.

  25. 25.

    MacGregor, M., & Grover, W. (1994). Optimized k-shortest-paths algorithm for facility restoration. Software: Practice and Experience, 24(9).

  26. 26.

    Mahadevan, P., Krioukov, D., Fomenkov, M., Dimitropoulos, X., Claffy, K., & Vahdat, A. (2006). The Internet AS-level topology: three data sources and one definitive metric. Computer Communication Review, 36(1), 17–26. doi:10.1145/1111322.1111328.

  27. 27.

    Mahmood, R. A. (2009). Simulating challenges to communication networks for evaluation of resilience. Master’s thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

  28. 28.

    Mohammad, A. J., Hutchison, D., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2006). Towards quantifying metrics for resilient and survivable networks. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP) (pp. 17–18).

  29. 29.

    Moore, E. F. (1959). The shortest path through a maze. London: Bell.

  30. 30.

    Motiwala, M., Elmore, M., Feamster, N., & Vempala, S. (2008). Path splicing. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM conference on data communication (pp. 27–38). New York: ACM.

  31. 31.

    Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: an introduction (1st ed., p. 199). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chap. 7.

  32. 32.

    Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: an introduction (1st ed., p. 181). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chap. 7.

  33. 33.

    Rajagopalan, B., & Saha, D. (2000). Link bundling in optical networks. Internet draft, work in progress draft-rs-optical-bundling-00.txt, IETF.

  34. 34.

    Resilinets topology map viewer (2011). http://www.ittc.ku.edu/resilinets/maps/.

  35. 35.

    Rocketfuel (2008). An ISP topology mapping engine.

  36. 36.

    Rohrer, J. P., Jabbar, A., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2009). Path diversification: a multipath resilience mechanism. In Proceedings of the IEEE 7th international workshop on the Design of Reliable Communication Networks (DRCN), Washington, DC, USA (pp. 343–351).

  37. 37.

    Rohrer, J. P., Naidu, R., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2009). Multipath at the transport layer: an end-to-end resilience mechanism. In Proceedings of the IEEE/IFIP international workshop on Reliable Networks Design and Modeling (RNDM), St. Petersburg, Russia (pp. 1–7).

  38. 38.

    Rohrer, J. P., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2011). Predicting topology survivability using path diversity. In Proceedings of the IEEE/IFIP international workshop on Reliable Networks Design and Modeling (RNDM), Budapest, Hungary (pp. 95–101).

  39. 39.

    Shillingford, N., Salyers, D., Poellabauer, C., & Striegel, A. (2007). DETOUR: delay- and energy-aware multi-path routing in wireless ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the fourth annual international conference on mobile and ubiquitous systems: networking & services (MobiQuitous) (pp. 1–8).

  40. 40.

    Sterbenz, J. P., Çetinkaya, E. K., Hameed, M. A., Jabbar, A., & Rohrer, J. P. (2011). Modelling and analysis of network resilience. In Proceedings of the third IEEE international conference on Communication Systems and Networks (COMSNETS), Bangalore, India (Vol. 52, (pp. 705–736).

  41. 41.

    Sterbenz, J. P., Çetinkaya, E. K., Hameed, M. A., Jabbar, A., Shi, Q., & Rohrer, J. P. (2011, invited paper). Evaluation of network resilience, survivability, and disruption tolerance: analysis, topology generation, simulation, and experimentation. Berlin: Springer (online Dec. 2011).

  42. 42.

    Sterbenz, J. P. G., Hutchison, D., & Resilinets (2006). Multilevel resilient and survivable networking initiative wiki. http://wiki.ittc.ku.edu/resilinets.

  43. 43.

    Sterbenz, J. P. G., Hutchison, D., Çetinkaya, E. K., Jabbar, A., Rohrer, J. P., Schöller, M., & Smith, P. (2010). Resilience and survivability in communication networks: strategies, principles, and survey of disciplines. Computer Networks, 54(8), 1245–1265.

  44. 44.

    Sterbenz, J. P. G., Krishnan, R., Hain, R. R., Jackson, A. W., Levin, D., Ramanathan, R., & Zao, J. (2002). Survivable mobile wireless networks: issues, challenges, and research directions. In WiSE’02: proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on wireless security (pp. 31–40). New York: ACM.

  45. 45.

    Styron, H. C. (2001). CSX tunnel fire: Baltimore, MD (US Fire Administration Technical Report USFA-TR-140). Federal Emergency Management Administration, Emmitsburg, MD.

  46. 46.

    Suurballe, J. W. (1974). Disjoint paths in a network. Networks, 4(2).

  47. 47.

    Suurballe, J. W., & Tarjan, R. E. (1984). A quick method for finding shortest pairs of disjoint paths. Networks, 14(2).

  48. 48.

    Sydney, A., Scoglio, C., Youssef, M., & Schumm, P. (2010). Characterising the robustness of complex networks. International Journal of Internet Technology and Secured Transactions, 2(3/4), 291–320.

  49. 49.

    T1A1.2 Working Group (2001). ATIS telecom glossary 2000. American National Standard for Telecommunications T1.523-2001, Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS).

  50. 50.

    Teixeira, R., Marzullo, K., Savage, S., & Voelker, G. M. (2003). In search of path diversity in ISP networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement (IMC’03) (pp. 313–318). New York: ACM.

  51. 51.

    Wang, Y., Panwar, S., Lin, S., & Mao, S. (2002). Wireless video transport using path diversity: multiple description vs layered coding. In Proceedings of the international conference on image processing (Vol. 1, pp. 21–24).

  52. 52.

    Warshall, S. (1962). A theorem on boolean matrices. Journall of the ACM, 9(1), 11–12.

  53. 53.

    West, D. B. (1996). Introduction to graph theory (1st ed., pp. 25–26). New York: Prentice Hall. Chap. 1.

  54. 54.

    Wikipedia: Clustering coefficient (2011). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_coefficient.

  55. 55.

    Yang, X., & Wetherall, D. (2006). Source selectable path diversity via routing deflections. Computer Communication Review, 36(4), 159–170.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This is an extended version and substantial revision of papers that appeared in IEEE RNDM 2009 [37], IEEE DRCN 2009 [36], and IEEE/IFIP RNDM 2011 [38]. The authors would like to thank the members of the ResiliNets group for discussions which led to this work. This research was supported in part by NSF FIND (Future Internet Design) Program under grant CNS-0626918 (Postmodern Internet Architecture), by NSF grant CNS-1050226 (Multilayer Network Resilience Analysis and Experimentation on GENI), and by the EU FP7 FIRE programme ResumeNet project (grant agreement No. 224619).

Author information

Correspondence to Justin P. Rohrer.

Additional information

Work performed while Justin P. Rohrer and Abdul Jabbar were at University of Kansas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rohrer, J.P., Jabbar, A. & Sterbenz, J.P.G. Path diversification for future internet end-to-end resilience and survivability. Telecommun Syst 56, 49–67 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-013-9818-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Path diversification
  • Geographic diversity
  • Multi-path routing
  • Multi-path transport protocols
  • Network resilience
  • Survivability
  • Disruption tolerance
  • Dependability
  • Reliability
  • Availability
  • Performability
  • Topology
  • Measurement