On Selfish Routing In On Selfish Routing In Internet-like Internet-like
EnvironmentsEnvironmentsLili Qiu Lili Qiu
Microsoft ResearchMicrosoft Research
Feb. 13, 2004Feb. 13, 2004
Johns Hopkins UniversityJohns Hopkins University
Today’s Internet RoutingToday’s Internet Routing
• Network in charge of routing
• Route selection affects user performance
• IP routing yields sub-optimal user performance
JHU
MSNBC
Deficiency in IP RoutingDeficiency in IP Routing
• IP routing is sub-optimal for user performance– Routing hierarchy – Policy routing– Equipment failure and transient instability– Slow reaction (if any) to network
congestion
Selfish RoutingSelfish Routing
• Selfish routing: users pick their own routes– Source routing (e.g., Nimrod)– Overlay routing (e.g., Detour, RON)
Source RoutingSource Routing
JHU
MSNBC
Overlay RoutingOverlay Routing
MSNBC
St. Louis
JHU
Salt Lake
Boston
Phoenix
Selfish RoutingSelfish Routing
• Selfish nature– End hosts or routing overlays greedily
select routes– Optimize their own performance goals– Not considering system-wide criteria
• Studies based on small scale deployment show it improves performance
• How well selfish routing performs if everyone uses it?
Bad NewsBad News
• Selfish routing can seriously degrade performance [Roughgarden & Tardos]
S D
L0(x) = xn
L1(y) = 1
Total load: x + y = 1Mean latency: x L0(x) + y L1(y)
Worst-case ratio is unbounded - Selfish source routing
• All traffic through lower link Mean latency = 1
– Latency optimal routing• To minimize mean latency,
set x = [1/(n+1)] 1/n
Mean latency 0 as n
QuestionsQuestions
• Selfish source routing– How does selfish source routing perform?– Are Internet environments among the worst
cases?
• Selfish overlay routing– How does selfish overlay routing perform? – Does the reduced flexibility avoid the bad cases?
• Horizontal interactions– Does selfish traffic coexist well with other traffic?– Do selfish overlays coexist well with each other?
• Vertical interactions– Does selfish routing interact well with network
traffic engineering?
Our ApproachOur Approach
• Game-theoretic approach with simulations– Equilibrium behavior
• Apply game theory to compute traffic equilibria• Compare with global optima and default IP routing
– Intra-domain environments• Compare against theoretical worst-case results• Realistic topologies, traffic demands, and latency
functions
• Disclaimers– Lots of simplifications & assumptions
• Necessary to limit the parameter space
– Raise more questions than what we answer• Lots of ongoing and future work
Routing SchemesRouting Schemes
• Routing on the physical network– Source routing– Latency optimal routing
• Routing on an overlay (less flexible!)– Overlay source routing– Overlay latency optimal routing
• Compliant (i.e. default) routing: OSPF– Hop count, i.e. unit weight– Optimized weights, i.e. [FRT02]– Random weights
Internet-like EnvironmentsInternet-like Environments
• Network topologies– Real tier-1 ISP, Rocketfuel, random power-law
graphs
• Logical overlay topology– Fully connected mesh (i.e. clique)
• Traffic demands– Real and synthetic traffic demands
• Link latency functions– Queuing: M/M/1, M/D/1, P/M/1, P/D/1, and BPR– Propagation: fiber length or geographical distance
• Performance metrics– User: Average latency– System: Max link utilization, network cost [FRT02]
Source Routing: Average LatencySource Routing: Average Latency
Good news: Internet-like environments are far from the worst cases for selfish source
routing
0.0E+00
5.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.5E+04
2.0E+04
2.5E+04
Ab
ove
ne
t
AT
T
EB
ON
E
Exo
du
s
Le
ve
l3
Sp
rin
t
Te
lstr
a
Tis
ca
li
Ve
rio
Po
we
rD2
Po
we
rD5
Po
we
rD1
0
Load scale factor=1
Avera
ge l
ate
ncy (
us)
selfish source routing
latency optimal routing
compliant routing (minimum network cost)
Bad NewsBad News
• Selfish routing can seriously degrade performance [Roughgarden & Tardos]
S D
L0(x) = xn
L1(y) = 1
Total load: x + y = 1Mean latency: x L0(x) + y L1(y)
Worst-case ratio is unbounded - Selfish source routing
• All traffic through lower link Mean latency = 1
– Latency optimal routing• To minimize mean latency,
set x = [1/(n+1)] 1/n
Mean latency 0 as n
1
10
100
1000
10000
Ab
ove
ne
t
AT
T
EB
ON
E
Exo
du
s
Le
ve
l3
Sp
rin
t
Te
lstr
a
Tis
ca
li
Ve
rio
Po
we
rD2
Po
we
rD5
Po
we
rD1
0
Load scale factor=1
Ne
two
rk c
os
t
selfish source routing
latency optimal routing
compliant routing (minimum network cost)
Source Routing: Network CostSource Routing: Network Cost
Bad news: Low latency comes at much higher network cost
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Load scale factor
Av
era
ge
late
nc
y (
us
)
source routing overlay-src: opt-weight
overlay-src: hop-count overlay-src: rand-weight
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Load scale factorM
ax li
nk
util
izat
ion
source routing overlay-src: opt-weight
overlay-src: hop-count overlay-src: rand-weight
Selfish Overlay Routing: Selfish Overlay Routing:
Full Overlay CoverageFull Overlay Coverage
Overlay source routing perform similarly as source routing (except for very bad weight settings)
7600
7800
8000
8200
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
9400
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Load scale factor
Ave
rag
e la
ten
cy (
us)
all partial
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Load scale factor
Max
lin
k u
tiliz
atio
n (
%)
all partial
Selfish Overlay Routing:Selfish Overlay Routing: Partial Overlay Coverage (only edge Partial Overlay Coverage (only edge
nodes)nodes)
The effects of partial overlay coverage is insignificant in backbone topologies.
Hop-count (load scale factor = 1)
7.6E+03
7.8E+03
8.0E+03
8.2E+03
8.4E+03
8.6E+03
8.8E+03
9.0E+03
bothcompl.
bothselfish
both latopt
selfish /compl.
selfish /latopt
latopt /compl.
Ave
rag
e la
ten
cy (
us)
overlay 1 overlay 2
Horizontal InteractionsHorizontal Interactions(Two Overlays)(Two Overlays)
Different routing schemes coexist well without hurting each other.
random weights (load scale factor = 1)
0.0E+00
8.0E+03
1.6E+04
2.4E+04
3.2E+04
4.0E+04
bothcompl.
bothselfish
both latopt selfish /compl.
selfish /latopt
latopt /compl.
Ave
rag
e la
ten
cy (
us)
overlay 1 overlay 2
Horizontal Interactions Horizontal Interactions (Two Overlays) (Cont.)(Two Overlays) (Cont.)
With bad weights, selfish overlay improves the performance of compliant traffic as well as its own.
Horizontal Interactions Horizontal Interactions (Many Overlays)(Many Overlays)
0100020003000400050006000700080009000
10000
0.2 0.7 1.2 1.7
Load scale factor
Ave
rag
e la
ten
cy (u
s)
one overlay per src per src-dest infinite
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.2 0.7 1.2 1.7
Load scale factor
Ma
xim
um
lin
k u
tiliz
ati
on
(%
)
one overlay per src per src-dest infinite
Performance degradation due to competition among overlays is
insignificant.
• An iterative process between two players– Traffic engineering: minimize network cost
• current traffic pattern new routing matrix
– Selfish overlays: minimize user latency • current routing matrix new traffic pattern
• Question: – Does system reach a state with both low
latency and low network cost?
• Short answer:– Depends on how much control the network
has
Vertical InteractionsVertical Interactions
OSPF optimizer interacts poorly with selfish overlays because it only has very coarse-grained
control.
0.0E+00
5.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.5E+04
2.0E+04
2.5E+04
0 10 20 30 40 50
Round
Ave
rag
e la
ten
cy (
us)
selfish alone TE alone
selfish + TE (OSPF)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 10 20 30 40 50
RoundM
ax li
nk
uti
lizat
ion
(%
)
selfish alone TE alone
selfish + TE (OSPF)
Selfish Overlays vs. OSPF Selfish Overlays vs. OSPF OptimizerOptimizer
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 10 20 30 40 50
Round
Max
lin
k u
tili
zati
on
(%
)
selfish alone TE alone selfish + TE (MPLS)
0.0E+00
2.0E+03
4.0E+03
6.0E+03
8.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.2E+04
1.4E+04
0 10 20 30 40 50
Round
Av
era
ge
late
nc
y (
us
)
selfish alone TE alone selfish + TE (MPLS)
Selfish Overlays vs. MPLS Selfish Overlays vs. MPLS OptimizerOptimizer
MPLS optimizer interacts with selfish overlays much more
effectively.
SummarySummary• Contributions
– Important questions on selfish routing – Simulations that partially answer questions
• Main findings on selfish routing– Near-optimal latency in Internet-like environments
• In sharp contrast with the theoretical worst cases
– Coexists well with other overlays & regular IP traffic• Background traffic may even benefit in some cases
– Big interactions with network traffic engineering • Tension between optimizing user latency vs. network load
Other WorkOther Work
• Internet– Web performance– Network measurement/tomography– Congestion control– IP telephony
• Wireless networks– Model the impact of wireless interference– Provision wireless networks– Manage wireless networks
Model the Impact of Model the Impact of Wireless InterferenceWireless Interference
• Impact of Interference on Multihop Wireless Network Performance. ACM MOBICOM 2003. (Joint work with K. Jain, J. Padhye, and V. N. Padmanabhan)
MotivationMotivation• Multihop wireless networks
– Community networks, sensor networks, military applications
• Important to compute wireless network capacity– Capacity planning – Evaluating the efficiency of routing protocols
• A lot of research on capacity of multi-hop wireless networks
• Much of previous work studies asymptotic performance bounds– Gupta and Kumar 2000: O(1/sqrt(N))
• We present a framework to answer questions about capacity of specific topologies with specific traffic patterns
Community Networking ScenarioCommunity Networking Scenario
Asymptotic analysis is not useful in this case
What is the maximum possible throughput?
ChallengesChallenges
• Model the impact of wireless interference
1 Mbps 1 Mbps
1 Mbps 1 Mbps
Throughput = 1 Mbps
Throughput = 0.5 Mbps
A B
BA
C
C
Overview of Our FrameworkOverview of Our Framework1. Model the problem as a standard network flow
problem2. Represent interference among wireless links
using a conflict graph3. Derive constraints on utilization of wireless links
using cliques in the conflict graph• Augment the linear program to obtain upper bound on
optimal throughput
4. Derive constraints on utilization of wireless links using independent sets in the conflict graph • Augment the linear program to obtain lower bound on
optimal throughput
Advantages of Our ApproachAdvantages of Our Approach• “Real” numbers instead of asymptotic bounds
• Optimal bound, may not be achieved in practice
• Useful for “what if” analysis • Permits several generalizations:
• Different routing• single path or multi-path routing
• Different wireless interference models• Different antennas/radios
• directional or unidirectional, different ranges, data rates, multiple radios/channels
• Different senders• senders with limited (but constant) demand
• Different topologies• Different performance metrics
• throughput, fairness, revenue
Sample Results Using Our FrameworkSample Results Using Our Framework
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Iterations
Nor
mal
ized
Thr
ough
put
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Houses talk to immediate neighbors, all links are capacity 1, 802.11-like MAC, Multipath routing
Sample Results Using Our Sample Results Using Our Framework (Cont.)Framework (Cont.)
Scenario Aggregate Throughput
Baseline 0.5
Double range
0.5
Two ITAPs 1
Two Radios 1
Houses talk to immediate neighbors, all links are capacity 1, 802.11-like MAC, Multipath routing
Future WorkFuture Work
• Trends– Networks become larger and more
heterogeneous
• Research problems– Internet management
• End-user based approach in fault diagnosis
– Wireless network management• Error-prone physical medium• Dynamic and unpredictable networks• Accessible physical medium, vulnerable to
attacks
Future Work (Cont.)Future Work (Cont.)
• Trends– Network protocols become more
complicated, e.g., various optimizations are proposed for different network layers
– Network users and providers have different and sometimes conflicting goals
• Research problems– How to optimize network performance?
• Cross different network layers• Satisfy the need of different users and network
providers
Thank you!Thank you!
Computing Traffic Equilibrium Computing Traffic Equilibrium of Selfish Routingof Selfish Routing
• Computing traffic equilibrium of source routing traffic– Use the linear approximation algorithm
• A variant of the Frank-Wolfe algorithm, which is a gradient-based line search algorithm
• Computing traffic equilibrium of overlay routing– Construct a logical overlay network– Use Jacob's relaxation algorithm on top of Sheffi's
diagonalization method for asymmetric logical networks– Use modified linear approximation algo. in symmetric case
• Computing traffic equilibrium of multiple overlays– Use a relaxation framework
• Each overlay computes its best response by fixing the other overlays’ traffic
• Merge the best response and the previous state using decreasing relaxation factors.
Selfish Overlay RoutingSelfish Overlay Routing
• Similar results apply– Selfish overlay routing achieves close to
optimal average latency– Low latency comes at higher network cost
• The results apply when the overlay only covers a fraction of nodes– Scenarios tested:
• Random coverage: 20-100% nodes• Edge coverage: edge nodes only
Top Related