Advertisement

Evaluation of a Large-Scale Topology Discovery Algorithm

  • Benoit Donnet
  • Bradley Huffaker
  • Timur Friedman
  • kc claffy
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4268)

Abstract

In the past few years, the network measurement community has been interested in the problem of internet topology discovery using a large number (hundreds or thousands) of measurement monitors. The standard way to obtain information about the internet topology is to use the traceroute tool from a small number of monitors. Recent papers have made the case that increasing the number of monitors will give a more accurate view of the topology. However, scaling up the number of monitors is not a trivial process. Duplication of effort close to the monitors wastes time by reexploring well-known parts of the network, and close to destinations might appear to be a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack as the probes converge from a set of sources towards a given destination. In prior work, authors of this paper proposed Doubletree, an algorithm for cooperative topology discovery, that reduces the load on the network, i.e., router IP interfaces and end-hosts, while discovering almost as many nodes and links as standard approaches based on traceroute. This paper presents our open-source and freely downloadable implementation of Doubletree in a tool we call traceroute@home. We evaluate the performance of our implementation on the PlanetLab testbed and discuss a large-scale monitoring infrastructure that could benefit of Doubletree.

Keywords

Monitoring Component IPv6 Network Internet Topology Measurement Infrastructure Topology Discovery 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Huffaker, B., Plummer, D., Moore, D., Claffy, K.: Topology discovery by active probing. In: Proc. Symposium on Applications and the Internet (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luckie, M.: IPv6 scamper WAND Network Research Group (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Georgatos, F., Gruber, F., Karrenberg, D., Santcroos, M., Susanj, A., Uijterwaal, H., Wilhelm, R.: Providing active measurements as a regular service for ISPs. In: Proc. Passive and Active Measurement (PAM) Workshop (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGregor, A., Braun, H.W., Brown, J.: The NLANR network analysis infrastructure. IEEE Communications Magazine 38 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lakhina, A., Byers, J., Crovella, M., Xie, P.: Sampling biases in IP topology measurements. In: Proc. IEEE INFOCOM (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clauset, A., Moore, C.: Traceroute sampling makes random graphs appear to have power law degree distributions. cond-mat 0312674, arXiv (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheswick, B., Burch, H., Branigan, S.: Mapping and visualizing the internet. In: Proc. USENIX Annual Technical Conference (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson, D.P., Cobb, J., Korpela, E., Lebofsky, M., Werthimer, D.: SETI@home: An experiment in public-resource computing. Communications of the ACM 45 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shavitt, Y., Shir, E.: DIMES: Let the internet measure itself. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 35 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donnet, B., Raoult, P., Friedman, T., Crovella, M.: Efficient algorithms for large-scale topology discovery. In: Proc. ACM SIGMETRICS (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donnet, B.: Traceroute@home 1.0 (2006), see: http://trhome.sourceforge.net
  12. 12.
    Donnet, B., Huffaker, B., Friedman, T.: Implementation and deployment of a distributed network topology discovery algorithm. cs.NI 0603062, arXiv (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    PlanetLab Consortium: PlanetLab project (2002), see: http://www.planet-lab.org
  14. 14.
    Donnet, B., Huffaker, B., Friedman, T., Claffy, K.: Increasing the coverage of a cooperative internet topology discovery algorithm (under review, 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Microsystems, J.S.: JDK 1.4.2 (1994), http://java.sun.com
  16. 16.
    JSocket Wrench: Release R04 (2004), see: http://jswrench.sourceforge.net/
  17. 17.
    Peterson, L., Pai, V., Spring, N., Bavier, A.: Using PlanetLab for network research: Myths, realities, and best practices. Design Note PDN–05–028, PlanetLab Consortium (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Donnet, B., Friedman, T., Crovella, M.: Improved algorithms for network topology discovery. In: Dovrolis, C. (ed.) PAM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3431, pp. 149–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Planet-Lab users mailing-list: Very high ping/traceroute latencies on planetlab nodes (2006), http://lists.planet-lab.org/pipermail/users/2006-March/001892.html
  20. 20.
    Claffy, K., Crovella, M., Friedman, T., Shannon, C., Spring, N.: Community-oriented network measurement infrastructure (CONMI), Workshop Report (2005), available from: http://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2005/conmi
  21. 21.
    OneLab consortium headed by Université Pierre & Marie Curie: The onelab project (2006), see: http://www.one-lab.org

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benoit Donnet
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bradley Huffaker
    • 2
  • Timur Friedman
    • 1
  • kc claffy
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire LiP6/CNRS, UMRUniversité Pierre & Marie CurieFrance
  2. 2.San Diego Supercomputer CenterCaidaUSA

Personalised recommendations