On Issues of Multi-path Routing in Overlay - Networks Using Optimization Algorithms

  • Sameer Qazi
  • Tim Moors
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 156)


Routing policies used in the Internet can be restrictive, limiting communication between source-destination pairs to one path, when often better alternatives exist. To avoid route flapping, recovery mechanisms may be dampened, making adaptation slow. Overlays have been widely proposed to mitigate the issues of path and performance failures in the Internet by routing through an indirect-path via overlay peer(s). Choosing alternate-paths in overlay networks is a challenging issue. Guaranteeing both availability and performance guarantees on alternate paths requires aggressive active probing of all overlay paths, which limits scalability when the number of overlay-paths becomes large. If path correlations could be determined, multi-media applications can benefit greatly if their traffic could be sent over multiple uncorrelated paths. Statistical approaches have been previously proposed for establishing path correlation for multi-path routing; In this paper we test the efficacy of such approaches in Internet scale overlay networks using real-world datasets.


Direct Path Overlay Network Alternate Path Border Gateway Protocol Performance Failure 
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.
    Savage, S., et al.: The end-to-end effects of Internet path selection. In: SIGCOMM 1999: Proceedings of the Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication, pp. 289–299 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen, D., et al.: Resilient Overlay Networks. In: Proc. ACM Symp. on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Active Measurement Project (Amp),
  4. 4.
    Bailey, R.: Economics of Financial Markets (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nocedal, J., Wright, S.: Numerical Optimization. Springer; ISBN: 0-387-98793-2Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nakao, A., et al.: Scalable routing overlay networks. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 40(1), 49–61 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fei, T., et al.: How To Select A Good Alternate Path In Large Peer-To-Peer Systems? In: IEEE INFOCOM 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gummadi, K., et al.: Improving the Reliability of Internet Paths with One-hop Source Routing. In: USENIX Symp. Operating System Design and Implementation (OSDI), pp. 183–198 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chua, D.B., et al.: Network Kriging. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 24, 2263–2272 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keralapura, R., Chuah, C.-N., Taft, N., Iannaccone, G., et al.: Race Conditions in Coexisting Overlay Networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 16(1) (February 2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andersen, D.G., Snoeren, A.C., Balakrishnan, H.: Best-Path vs. Multi-Path Overlay Routing. In: IMC 2003, Miami Beach, Florida, USA, October 27-29 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Antonova, D., Krishnamurthy, A., Ma, Z., Sundaram, R.: Managing a portfolio of overlay paths. In: NOSSDAV 2004, Ireland (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of Sciences and TechnologyKarachiPakistan
  2. 2.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations