Acyclic Type-of-Relationship Problems on the Internet

  • Sven Kosub
  • Moritz G. Maaß
  • Hanjo Täubig
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4235)

Abstract

We contribute to the study of inferring commercial relationships between autonomous systems (AS relationships) from observable BGP routes. We deduce several forbidden patterns of AS relationships that impose a certain type of acyclicity on the AS graph. We investigate algorithms for solving the acyclic all-paths type-of-relationship problem, i.e., given a set of AS paths, find an orientation of the edges according to some types of AS relationships such that the oriented AS graph is acyclic (with respect to the forbidden patterns) and all AS paths are valley-free. As possible AS relationships we include customer-to-provider, peer-to-peer, and sibling-to-sibling. Moreover, we examine a number of problem versions parameterized by sets K and U where K is the set of edge types available for describing explicit pre-knowledge and U is the set of edge types available for completion of partial orientations. A complete complexity classification of all 56 cases (8 type sets for pre-knowledge and 7 type sets for completion) is given. The most relevant practical result is a linear-time algorithm for finding an acyclic and valley-free completion using customer-to-provider relations given any kind of pre-knowledge. Interestingly, if we allow sibling-to-sibling relations for completions then most of the non-trivial inference problems become NP-hard.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chang, H., Govindan, R., Jamin, S., Shenker, S.J., Willinger, W.: Towards capturing representative AS-level Internet topologies. Comput. Netw. 44(6), 737–755 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Di Battista, G., Erlebach, T., Hall, A., Patrignani, M., Pizzonia, M., Schank, T.: Computing the types of the relationships between autonomous systems. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking (to appear)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dimitropoulos, X.A., Krioukov, D.V., Huffaker, B., claffy, k., Riley, G.F.: Inferring AS relationships: Dead end or lively beginning? In: Nikoletseas, S.E. (ed.) WEA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3503, pp. 113–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gao, L.: On inferring autonomous system relationships in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 9(6), 733–745 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gao, L., Rexford, J.: Stable Internet routing without global coordination. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 9(6), 681–692 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Govindan, R., Reddy, A.: An analysis of Internet inter-domain topology and route stability. In: Proc. 16th Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM 1997), pp. 850–857. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griffin, T.G., Wilfong, G.T.: An analysis of BGP convergence properties. Comput. Commun. Rev. 29(4), 277–288 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kosub, S., Maaß, M.G., Täubig, H.: Acyclic type-of-relationship problems on the Internet. Technical Report TUM-I0605, Fakultät für Informatik, Technische Universität München (March 2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Labovitz, C., Ahuja, A., Wattenhofer, R., Venkatachary, S.: The impact of Internet policy and topology on delayed routing convergence. In: Proc. 20th Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM 2001), pp. 537–546. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norton, W.B.: Internet Service Providers and peering. Equinix White Paper, Equinix, Inc. (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siganos, G., Faloutsos, M.: Analyzing BGP policies: Methodology and tool. In: Proc. 23rd Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM 2004), pp. 1640–1651. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Subramanian, L., Agarwal, S., Rexford, J., Katz, R.H.: Characterizing the Internet hierarchy from multiple vantage points. In: Proc. 21st Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM 2002), pp. 618–627. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tangmunarunkit, H., Doyle, J., Govindan, R., Jamin, S., Shenker, S.J., Willinger, W.: Does AS size determine degree in AS topology? Comput. Commun. Rev. 31(5), 7–10 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tangmunarunkit, H., Govindan, R., Shenker, S., Estrin, D.: The impact of routing policy on Internet paths. In: Proc. 20th Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM 2001), pp. 736–742. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Beijnum, I.: BGP. O’Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xia, J., Gao, L.: On the evaluation of AS relationship inferences. In: Proc. 47th IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (Globecom 2004), vol. 3, pp. 1373–1377. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Kosub
    • 1
  • Moritz G. Maaß
    • 1
  • Hanjo Täubig
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultät für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations