Improving the Interaction between Overlay Routing and Traffic Engineering

  • Gene Moo Lee
  • Taehwan Choi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4982)


Overlay routing has been successful as an incremental method to improve Internet routing by allowing its own users to select their logical routing. In the meantime, traffic engineering (TE) are being used to reduce the whole network cost by adapting physical routing in response to varying traffic patterns. Previous studies [1,2] have shown that the interaction of the two network components can cause huge network cost increases and oscillations. In this paper, we improve the interaction between overlay routing and TE by modifying the objectives of both parties. For the overlay part, we propose TE-awareness which limits the selfishness by some bounds so that the action of overlay does not offensively affect TE’s optimization process. Then, we suggest COPE [3] as a strong candidate that achieves close-to-optimal performance for predicted traffic matrices and that handles unpredictable overlay traffic efficiently. With extensive simulation results, we show the proposed methods can significantly improve the interaction with lower network cost and smaller oscillation problems.


Nash Equilibrium Overlay Network General Algebraic Modeling System Overlay Node Extensive Simulation Result 
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.


  1. 1.
    Qiu, L., Yang, Y.R., Zhang, Y., Shenker, S.: On selfish routing in Internet-like environments. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Karlsruhe, Germany, August 2003, pp. 151–162 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu, Y., Zhang, H., Gong, W., Towsley, D.: On the interaction between overlay routing and traffic engineering. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang, H., Xie, H., Qiu, L., Yang, Y.R., Zhang, Y., Greenberg, A.: COPE: Traffic engineering in dynamic networks. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chu, Y., Rao, S.G., Seshan, S., Zhang, H.: Enabling conferencing applications on the Internet using an overlay multicast architecture. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 55–67 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jannotti, J., Gifford, D.K., Johnson, K.L., Kaashoek, M.F., O’Toole, J.: Overcast: Reliable multicasting with an overlay network. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), pp. 197–212 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Subramanian, L., Stoica, I., Balakrishnan, H., Katz, R.H.: OverQoS: An overlay based architecture for enhancing internet QoS. In: Proceedings of the First Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), pp. 71–84 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Andersen, D.G., Balakrishnan, H., Kaashoek, M.F., Morris, R.: Resilient overlay networks. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), pp. 131–145 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Savage, S., Anderson, T., Aggarwal, A., Becker, D., Cardwell, N., Collins, A., Hoffman, E., Snell, J., Vahdat, A., Voelker, G., Zahorjan, J.: Detour: a case for informed internet routing and transport. Technical Report TR-98-10-05 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chun, B.-G., Fonseca, R., Stoica, I., Kubiatowicz, J.: Characterizing selfishly constructed overlay routing networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fortz, B., Thorup, M.: Internet traffic engineering by optimizing OSPF weights. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 519–528 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruela, J., Ricardo, M.: MPLS - Multi-Protocol Label Switching. In: The Industrial Information Technology Handbook, pp. 1–9 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stewart, I.J.W.: BGP4: inter-domain routing in the Internet. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keralapura, R., Taft, N., Chuah, C.-N., Iannacco, G.: Can ISPs take the heat from overlay networks? In: Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (November 2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dutta, P.K.: Strategies and games: Theory and practice (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nash, J.: Non-cooperative games. The Annals of Mathematics, 286–295 (September 1951)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Applegate, D., Cohen, E.: Making intra-domain routing robust to changing and uncertain traffic demands: Understanding fundamental tradeoffs. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 313–324 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, G.M., Choi, T., Zhang, Y.: Improving the interaction between overlay routing and traffic engineering. Technical Report TR-06-61, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    GAMS: General Algebraic Modeling System:
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Medina, A., Taft, N., Salamatian, K., Bhattacharyya, S., Diot, C.: Traffic matrix estimation: existing techniques and new directions. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, pp. 161–174 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gene Moo Lee
    • 1
  • Taehwan Choi
    • 2
  1. 1.Samsung Advanced Institute of TechnologyYongin-siKorea
  2. 2.Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of Texas at AustinU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations