pathchar a tool to infer characteristics of Internet paths



Similar documents
Optimization of Communication Systems Lecture 6: Internet TCP Congestion Control

Operating Systems and Networks Sample Solution 1

Performance Measurement of Wireless LAN Using Open Source

Internet Infrastructure Measurement: Challenges and Tools

Question: 3 When using Application Intelligence, Server Time may be defined as.

EECS 489 Winter 2010 Midterm Exam

CHAPTER 1 PRINCIPLES OF NETWORK MONITORING

Assignment #3 Routing and Network Analysis. CIS3210 Computer Networks. University of Guelph

Final for ECE374 05/06/13 Solution!!

Outline. TCP connection setup/data transfer Computer Networking. TCP Reliability. Congestion sources and collapse. Congestion control basics

Active Measurements: traceroute

Technical Support Information Belkin internal use only

Network Layer: and Multicasting Copyright The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.

Troubleshooting Tools

Overview of Network Measurement Tools

Network Layer: Network Layer and IP Protocol

Lecture 8 Performance Measurements and Metrics. Performance Metrics. Outline. Performance Metrics. Performance Metrics Performance Measurements

Homework Assignment #1 Solutions

Avaya ExpertNet Lite Assessment Tool

Master s Thesis. A Study on Active Queue Management Mechanisms for. Internet Routers: Design, Performance Analysis, and.

Netest: A Tool to Measure the Maximum Burst Size, Available Bandwidth and Achievable Throughput

NETWORK LAYER/INTERNET PROTOCOLS

Unverified Fields - A Problem with Firewalls & Firewall Technology Today

Procedure: You can find the problem sheet on Drive D: of the lab PCs. 1. IP address for this host computer 2. Subnet mask 3. Default gateway address

IP - The Internet Protocol

Network Performance: Networks must be fast. What are the essential network performance metrics: bandwidth and latency

Internet Control Protocols Reading: Chapter 3

Subnetting,Supernetting, VLSM & CIDR

04 Internet Protocol (IP)

Exam 1 Review Questions

Chapter 4. VoIP Metric based Traffic Engineering to Support the Service Quality over the Internet (Inter-domain IP network)

Network Configuration Example

Delay, loss, layered architectures. packets queue in router buffers. packets queueing (delay)

The Ecosystem of Computer Networks. Ripe 46 Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Lecture 15: Congestion Control. CSE 123: Computer Networks Stefan Savage

Network Troubleshooting

Internet Management and Measurements Measurements

Defending against Flooding-Based Distributed Denial-of-Service Attacks: A Tutorial

IP addressing and forwarding Network layer

Lecture Computer Networks

A Multihoming solution for medium sized enterprises

Optimizing Converged Cisco Networks (ONT)

Computer Networks. Lecture 3: IP Protocol. Marcin Bieńkowski. Institute of Computer Science University of Wrocław

Iperf Tutorial. Jon Dugan Summer JointTechs 2010, Columbus, OH

Network Performance Monitoring for Applications Using EXPAND.

Computer Networks Homework 1

Lecture Objectives. Lecture 07 Mobile Networks: TCP in Wireless Networks. Agenda. TCP Flow Control. Flow Control Can Limit Throughput (1)

Quality of Service (QoS)) in IP networks

IP Routing Features. Contents

Debugging With Netalyzr

Improving the Performance of TCP Using Window Adjustment Procedure and Bandwidth Estimation

Internetworking. Problem: There is more than one network (heterogeneity & scale)

Internet structure: network of networks

QoS in IP networks. Computer Science Department University of Crete HY536 - Network Technology Lab II IETF Integrated Services (IntServ)

Robust Router Congestion Control Using Acceptance and Departure Rate Measures

8.2 The Internet Protocol

Introduction to Passive Network Traffic Monitoring

Using IPM to Measure Network Performance

Voice over IP. Overview. What is VoIP and how it works. Reduction of voice quality. Quality of Service for VoIP

CS551 End-to-End Internet Packet Dynamics [Paxson99b]

Acterna DSL Services Tester TPI 350+ Application Highlights

CSE3214 Computer Network Protocols and Applications. Chapter 1 Examples and Homework Problems

Network layer: Overview. Network layer functions IP Routing and forwarding

GATE CS Topic wise Questions Computer Network

TCP over Multi-hop Wireless Networks * Overview of Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) Internet Protocol (IP)

Layer Four Traceroute (and related tools) A modern, flexible path-discovery solution with advanced features for network (reverse) engineers

Requirements for Simulation and Modeling Tools. Sally Floyd NSF Workshop August 2005

ITL Lab 5 - Performance Measurements and SNMP Monitoring 1. Purpose

Firewalking. A Traceroute-Like Analysis of IP Packet Responses to Determine Gateway Access Control Lists

Network Layer IPv4. Dr. Sanjay P. Ahuja, Ph.D. Fidelity National Financial Distinguished Professor of CIS. School of Computing, UNF

Detection and Analysis of Routing Loops in Packet Traces

EVALUATING NETWORK BUFFER SIZE REQUIREMENTS

Introduction. Abusayeed Saifullah. CS 5600 Computer Networks. These slides are adapted from Kurose and Ross

Sage ERP Accpac Online

Chapter 3. TCP/IP Networks. 3.1 Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4)

Analysis of TCP Performance Over Asymmetric Wireless Links

Sage 300 ERP Online. Mac Resource Guide. (Formerly Sage ERP Accpac Online) Updated June 1, Page 1

Raj Jain. The Ohio State University Columbus, OH These slides are available on-line at:

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. TCP/IP Part I. Prof Indranil Sengupta Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology

Additional Information: A link to the conference website is available at:

Bandwidth Measurement in xdsl Networks

A Simulation Study of Effect of MPLS on Latency over a Wide Area Network (WAN)

ECE/CS 372 introduction to computer networks. Lecture 2. Midterm scheduled for Tuesday, May 7 th

Introduction to Network Traffic Monitoring. Evangelos Markatos. FORTH-ICS

TCP in Wireless Mobile Networks

Layered Architectures and Applications

IMPLEMENTING VOICE OVER IP

Using TrueSpeed VNF to Test TCP Throughput in a Call Center Environment

Network Performance Measurement and Analysis

Measure wireless network performance using testing tool iperf

Network Layer: Address Mapping, Error Reporting, and Multicasting

Transcription:

pathchar a tool to infer characteristics of Internet paths Van Jacobson (van@ee.lbl.gov) Network Research Group Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA 94720 MSRI April 21, 1997 c 1997 by Van Jacobson All rights reserved

Some history 1980 ping (Mills, et.al) measure source destination round-trip-time. 1985 tcp tuning (Karels & Jacobson) measure bottleneck bandwidth. 1987 snmp (Case) intra-domain router monitoring. 1988 traceroute (Jacobson) enumerate source destination path. 1991 first working version of pathchar. 1996 tcpanaly (Paxson) measure characteristics of selected paths. 1997 first pathchar release. 2

Bottleneck bandwidth estimation (and why it doesn t generalize) P r P b Sender Receiver A b A s A r 3

Path discovery - traceroute % traceroute ka9q.ampr.org 1 ir40gw.lbl.gov (131.243.1.1) 1.773 ms 1.371 ms 1.096 m 2 er1gw.lbl.gov (131.243.128.11) 2.355 ms 1.649 ms 1.503 3 lbl-lc1-1.es.net (198.128.16.11) 2.628 ms 2.501 ms 1.8 4 gac-atms.es.net (134.55.24.6) 151.258 ms 150.189 ms 14 5 CERFNETGWY.GAT.COM (192.73.7.163) 143.865 ms 147.481 ms 6 * sdsc-ga.cerf.net (134.24.20.15) 139.885 ms 173.316 ms 7 mobydick-fddi.cerf.net (134.24.252.3) 156.924 ms * 287. 8 qualcomm-sdsc-ds3.cerf.net (134.24.47.200) 136.821 ms * 9 * krypton-e2.qualcomm.com (192.35.156.2) 148.756 ms 131 10 ascend-max.qualcomm.com (129.46.54.31) 158.475 ms 143.4 11 karnp50.qualcomm.com (129.46.90.33) 3435.416 ms * 173.8 12 unix.ka9q.ampr.org (129.46.90.35) 196.909 ms 176.182 ms 4

How does traceroute work? IP packets contain a time-to-live field that is initialized by the original sender then decremented by one at each intermediate router. If the field is decremented to zero, the packet is discarded and an error indication packet (an ICMP time exceeded ) is sent back to the original sender. The source address of the ICMP time exceeded identifies the router that discarded the data packet. So if packets are sent to the final destination but with the ttl set to n, the router n hops along the path is forced to identify itself. 5

data packet A model for per-hop forwarding time distance d i d i+1 Hop i 1 Hop i Hop i+1 d i / c time s / b i f i data packet Forwarding time to hop n for packet of size s: [ s T (n,s)= + d ] i b i c +f i n i=1 6

A model for ICMP-time-exceeded d i Hop i 1 Hop i t i (s)= b s + d i i c +f i + s te b + d i i c + f i 1 d i / c and t i (s) s b i + s te b i +2[ di c + f i ] (if f i 1 f i ) t (s) i d i / c s te / b i data packet ICMP time exceeded s / b i f i f i 1 7

Raw measured data for one hop 140 120 100 time (ms) 80 60 40 20 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 size (bytes) 8

What went wrong? (we left out the queues) Forwarding Engine A router contains links, a forwarding engine and queues. Our model included the (deterministic) links and forwarding but not the random, unpredictable, queuing time due to competing traffic. But queuing can only add to the deterministic time. If we take a lot of samples at well spaced, random times, the ensemble min should approximate our forwarding model. 9

Min-filtered data for the same hop 26 25 24 time (ms) 23 22 21 20 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 size (bytes) 10

Note this works both ways the difference between the unfiltered data and the ensemble min is the queuing time distribution. So one set of raw measurements gives the per-hop bandwidth, prop delay, queue time and drop rate. Each time the ttl increases by one, we measure two new links, two new queues and one new forwarding engine: Hop i 1 Hop i FE FE (The gray shade marks the measurement path for hop n 1. The yellow is what s added for ttl n.) 11

Unfortunately, the queue and drop rate estimates are for the convolution of this hop s behavior with all the upstream queues on both the forward and reverse path. I.e., a drop rate of d% and/or queue of qms. at hop n will result in drop rates and queues of at least d and q for all hops m > n. Convolved estimates are useful but isolating each hop s behavior, as is done for the bandwidth and delay estimates, would be much nicer (see future work ). 12

pathchar example % pathchar ka9q.ampr.org 0 localhost 8.7 Mb/s, 292 us (1.97 ms) 1 ir40gw.lbl.gov (131.243.1.1) 29 Mb/s, 132 us (2.64 ms) 2 er1gw.lbl.gov (131.243.128.11) 91 Mb/s, 189 us (3.15 ms) 3 lbl-lc1-1.es.net (198.128.16.11) 25 Mb/s, 6.92 ms (17.5 ms) 4 gac-atms.es.net (134.55.24.6) 11 Mb/s, 424 us (19.4 ms) 5 CERFNETGWY.GAT.COM (192.73.7.163) 7.0 Mb/s, 1.20 ms (23.5 ms) 6 sdsc-ga.cerf.net (134.24.20.15) 13

pathchar example (cont.) 6 sdsc-ga.cerf.net (134.24.20.15)?? b/s, -263 us (22.8 ms) 7 mobydick-fddi.cerf.net (134.24.252.3) 46 Mb/s, -51 us (22.9 ms) 8 qualcomm-sdsc-ds3.cerf.net (134.24.47.200) 9.0 Mb/s, 17 us (24.3 ms) 9 krypton-e2.qualcomm.com (192.35.156.2) 5.5 Mb/s, 1.04 ms (28.6 ms) 10 ascend-max.qualcomm.com (129.46.54.31) 56.7 Kb/s, 6.19 ms (253 ms) 11 karnp50.qualcomm.com (129.46.90.33) 10 Mb/s, -50 us (253 ms), +q 3.32 ms (6.58 KB) *2 12 unix.ka9q.ampr.org (129.46.90.35) rtt 32 ms (253 ms), bottleneck 56.7 Kb/s, pipe 4706 bytes 14

Implementation Difficulties non-linearities 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 time (ms) 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 size (bytes) 15

Implementation Difficulties signal-to-noise Largest packet that can make it through the network without being fragmented is (usually) 1500 bytes. So the maximum change we can cause by varying packet size is: Ethernet (10 Mb/s) 1.2 ms T3 (45 Mb/s) 267 us FDDI (100 Mb/s) 120 us OC-3 (150 Mb/s) 80 us OC-12 (622 Mb/s) 19 us Typical round-trip prop times are tens or hundreds of ms so fit involves extracting O(100us) variation from measurements 1000 times larger. Queue fluctuations are generally on the order of the prop time so noise is at least 1000 times larger than signal. 16

Implementation Difficulties noise amplification The bandwidth and delay estimates at each hop involve a difference from the previous hop. There are at least three ways to calculate this: 1. Fit t i (s) to M i,s M i 1,s (where M i,s is a filtered measurement of a probe of size s sent to hop i). 2. Fit t i (s) to M i,s T (i 1,s) 3. Fit T (i,s) to M i,s then subtract T (i 1,s). Differencing amplifies noise so (1) makes the SNR problem worse. (2) propagates errors from one hop into all future hops so path end results are meaningless. Summing damps noise so (3) improves the SNR problem and only propagates errors forward one hop. 17

Problems Multiple Paths % pathchar bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk... 7 h9-1.t36-0.new-york2.t3.ans.net (140.223.37.21) 70 Mb/s, 672 us (79.9 ms), +q 1.94 ms 8 f0-0.c36-11.new-york2.t3.ans.net (140.223.36.222) -> 204.151.184.14 (6024) -> 204.151.184.38 (6798) -> 204.151.184.10 (9814) -> 204.151.184.18 (7361) -> 204.151.184.26 (5986) 1.0 Mb/s, 38.5 ms (169 ms), +q 17.7 ms, 4% dropped 9?Dante-UKERNA.t3.ans.net (204.151.184.22)?? b/s, -1.1 ms (164 ms) 10 atm-gw.ulcc.ja.net (193.63.94.83) 4.5 Mb/s, 0.98 ms (169 ms), +q 17.0 ms 11 ucl.lonman.ja.net (194.83.100.61)... 18

Problems Hidden Hops (e.g., bridges, ATM, V.42) % pathchar mbone.nsi.nasa.gov 0 localhost 8.7 Mb/s, 298 us (1.98 ms) 1 ir40gw.lbl.gov (131.243.1.1) 30 Mb/s, 127 us (2.64 ms) 2 er1gw.lbl.gov (131.243.128.11) 91 Mb/s, 189 us (3.15 ms) 3 lbl-lc1-1.es.net (198.128.16.11) 8.5 Mb/s, 2.16 ms (8.86 ms) 4 ames-lbl-atms.es.net (134.55.28.1) 83 Mb/s, -158 us (8.69 ms) 5 mbone.nsi.nasa.gov (192.203.230.241) 19

Current status Tool working on FreeBSD 2.2, Linux 2.x, Solaris and SunOS (some other ports in progress). Feedback from a few courageous alpha testers being incorporated in preparation for first public beta release. Hope to get out (source & binary) beta release sometime in next two weeks. 20

Future Work Get the release out. Automatically adapt number of probes based on quality of fit. De-convolve queue and loss-rate distributions. Better filtering and fit. Deal with hidden hops. 21