Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 571–584 | Cite as

Two-Type Information Fusion Based IP-to-AS Mapping Table Refining

  • Qing Jiang
  • Hang-Yu Hu
  • Guang-Min HuEmail author
Regular Paper


The Internet topology at the autonomous system (AS) level is of great importance, and traceroute has been known to be a potential tool to obtain a complete AS topology. The original IP-to-AS mapping table maps the IP addresses in traceroute paths to their origin ASes, which may cause false AS links. The existing methods refine the original mapping table based on traceroute-BGP path pairs or alias resolution data. However, the information extracted from either of them is inaccurate and incomplete. In this paper, we present a two-type information fusion based method to refine the original mapping table. We extract four kinds of information from path pair and alias resolution data. Based on these information, we build a candidate AS set for each router. Then we choose the AS that is consistent with the existing information to be the owner AS of each router and map all of the IP addresses on the router to it. We validate the result with the ground truth from PeeringDB and Looking Glass severs. Compared with the existing methods, our method produces a more accurate mapping table. In addition, we discuss the coverage of our method and show that our method is convergent and more robust against the reduction of information or the increase of incorrect information.


network topology Internet routers BGP traceroute 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11390_2017_1744_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (233 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 232 kb)


  1. [1]
    Boguna M, Papadopoulos F, Krioukov D. Sustaining the Internet with hyperbolic mapping. Nature Communications, 2010, 1(6): Article No. 62.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Papadopoulos F, Krioukov D, Bogua M, Vahdat A. Greedy forwarding in dynamic scale-free networks embedded in hyperbolic metric spaces. In Proc. the 29th IEEE INFOCOM, March 2010, pp.2973-2981.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Gao L. On inferring autonomous system relationships in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, 2001, 9(6): 733-745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Mao Z M, Rexford J, Wang J, Katz R H. Towards an accurate AS-level traceroute tool. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2003, 33(4): 365-378.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Mao Z M, Johnson D, Rexford J, Wang J, Katz R. Scalable and accurate identification of AS-level forwarding paths. In Proc. the 23rd IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 2004, pp.1605-1615.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Zhang B, Bi J, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Wu J. Refining IP-to-AS mappings for AS-level traceroute. In Proc. the 22nd IEEE Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), July 30-Aug. 2, 2013.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Zhang B, Bi J, Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Wu J. Revisiting IP-to-AS mapping for AS-level traceroute. In Proc. ACM CoNEXT Student Workshop, Dec. 2011, pp.900-902.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Huffaker B, Dhamdhere A, Fomenkov M, Claffy K. Toward topology dualism: Improving the accuracy of AS annotations for routers. In Proc. the 11th International Conference on Passive and Active Measurement (PAM), Apr. 2010, pp.101-110.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Pansiot J J, Merindol P, Donnet B, Bonaventure O. Extracting intra-domain topology from mrinfo probing. In Proc. the 11th International Conference on Passive and Active Measurement (PAM), Apr. 2010, pp.81-90.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    He Y, Siganos G, Faloutsos M, Krishnamurthy S. Lord of the links: A framework for discovering missing links in the Internet topology. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, 2009, 17(2): 391-404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Shavitt Y, Shir E. DIMES: Let the Internet measure itself. ACM Computer Communication Review (CCR), 2005, 35(5): 71-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Giotsas V, Smaragdakis G, Huffaker B et al. Mapping peering interconnections to a facility. In Proc. ACM International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (CoNEXT), Dec. 2015, pp.37:1-37:13.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Zhang Y, Oliveira R, Wang Y, Su S, Zhang B, Bi J, Zhang H, Zhang L. A framework to quantify the pitfalls of using traceroute in AS-level topology measurement. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 2011, 29(9): 1822-1836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Chen K, Choffnes D R, Potharaju R, Chen Y, Bustamante F E, Pei D, Zhao Y. Where the sidewalk ends: Extending the Internet as graph using traceroutes from P2P users. In Proc. the 5th International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, Dec. 2009, pp.217-228.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Amini L, Shaikh A, Schulzrinne H. Issues with inferring Internet topological attributes. Computer Communication, 2004, 27(6): 557-567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Luckie M, Claffy K. A second look at detecting third-party addresses in traceroute traces with the IP timestamp option. In Proc. the 15th PAM, Mar. 2014, pp.46-55.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Keys K, Hyun Y, Luckie M, Claffy K. Internet-scale IPv4 alias resolution with MIDAR. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, 2013, 21(2): 383-399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Pansiot J J, Grad D. On routes and multicast trees in the Internet. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 1998, 28(1): 41-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Keys K. Internet-scale IP alias resolution techniques. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2010, 40(1): 50-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Durairajan R, Sommers J, Barford P. Layer 1-informed Internet topology measurement. In Proc. ACM IMC, Nov. 2014, pp.381-394.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC & Science Press, China 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Communication and Information EngineeringUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina

Personalised recommendations