The Challenges of Merging Two Similar Structured Overlays: A Tale of Two Networks

  • Anwitaman Datta
  • Karl Aberer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4124)


Structured overlay networks is an important and interesting primitive that can be used by diverse peer-to-peer applications. Multiple overlays can result either because of network partitioning or (more likely) because different groups of peers build such overlays separately before coming in contact with each other and wishing to coalesce the overlays together. This paper is a first look into how multiple such overlays (all using the same protocols) can be merged – which is critical for usability and adoption of such an internet-scale distributed system. We elaborate how two networks using the same protocols can be merged, looking specifically into two different overlay design principles: (i) maintaining the ring invariant and (ii) structural replications, either of which are used in various overlay networks to guarantee functional correctness in a highly dynamic (membership changes) environment.

Particularly, we show that ring based networks can not operate until the merger operation completes. In contrast, from the perspective of individual peers in structurally replicated overlays there is no disruption of service, and they can continue to discover and access resources that they could originally do before the beginning of the merger process, even though resources from the other network become visible only gradually with the progress of the merger process.


Overlay Network Ring Topology Ring Network Functional Correctness Structure Overlay 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aberer, K., Alima, L.O., Ghodsi, A., Girdzijauskas, S., Hauswirth, M., Haridi, S.: The essence of P2P: A reference architecture for overlay networks. In: P2P 2005, The 5th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aberer, K., Datta, A., Hauswirth, M.: Efficient, self-contained handling of identity in peer-to-peer systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 16(7) (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aberer, K., Datta, A., Hauswirth, M., Schmidt, R.: Indexing data-oriented overlay networks. In: 31st International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB) (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bharambe, A., Agrawal, M., Seshan, S.: Mercury: Supporting scalable multi-attribute range queries. In: SIGCOMM (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castro, M., Druschel, P., Kermarrec, A.-M., Rowstron, A.: One Ring to Rule Them All: Service Discovery and Binding in Structured Peer-to-Peer Overlay Networks. In: ACM SIGOPS European Workshop (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dabek, F., Zhao, B., Druschel, P., Stoica, I.: Towards a common API for structured peer-to-peer overlays. In: Druschel, P., Kaashoek, M.F., Rowstron, A. (eds.) IPTPS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2429. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganesan, P., Gummadi, P.K., Garcia-Molina, H.: Canon in G Major: Designing DHTs with Hierarchical Structure. In: ICDCS (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gummadi, K., Gummadi, R., Ratnasamy, S., Shenker, S., Stoica, I.: The Impact of DHT Routing Geometry on Resilience and Proximity. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harvey, N., Jones, M.B., Saroiu, S., Theimer, M., Wolman, A.: Skipnet: A scalable overlay network with practical locality properties. In: USITS 2003. Seattle, WA (March 2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liben-Nowell, D., Balakrishnan, H., Karger, D.: Analysis of the Evolution of Peer-to-Peer Systems (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manku, G.S., Bawa, M., Raghavan, P.: Symphony: Distributed Hashing in a Small World. In: USITS (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maymounkov, P., Mazières, D.: Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric. In: Druschel, P., Kaashoek, M.F., Rowstron, A. (eds.) IPTPS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2429, p. 53. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plaxton, C.G., Rajaraman, R., Richa, A.W.: Accessing Nearby Copies of Replicated Objects in a Distribute d Environment. In: SPAA (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ratnasamy, S., Francis, P., Handley, M., Karp, R., Shenker, S.: A Scalable Content-Addressable Network. In: ACM SIGCOMM (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rhea, S., Godfrey, B., Karp, B., Kubiatowicz, J., Ratnasamy, S., Shenker, S., Stoica, I., Yu, H.: OpenDHT: A Public DHT Service and Its Uses. In: SIGCOMM (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rowstron, A., Druschel, P.: Pastry: Scalable, decentralized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: Guerraoui, R. (ed.) Middleware 2001. LNCS, vol. 2218, p. 329. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashoek, F., Balakrishnan, H.: Chord: A Scalable Peer-To-Peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications. In: ACM SIGCOMM (2001), Technical report version:
  18. 18.
    Zhao, B.Y., Kubiatowicz, J.D., Joseph, A.D.: Tapestry: An infrastructure for fault-tolerant wide-are location and routing. Technical Report UCB/CSD-01-1141, UC Berkeley (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anwitaman Datta
    • 1
  • Karl Aberer
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations