Network topology generators: degree-based vs. structural

Following the long-held belief that the Internet is hierarchical, the network topology generators most widely used by the Internet research community, Transit-Stub and Tiers, create networks with a deliberately hierarchical structure. However, in 1999 a seminal paper by Faloutsos et al. revealed that the Internet's degree distribution is a power-law. Because the degree distributions produced by the Transit-Stub and Tiers generators are not power-laws, the research community has largely dismissed them as inadequate and proposed new network generators that attempt to generate graphs with power-law degree distributions.Contrary to much of the current literature on network topology generators, this paper starts with the assumption that it is more important for network generators to accurately model the large-scale structure of the Internet (such as its hierarchical structure) than to faithfully imitate its local properties (such as the degree distribution). The purpose of this paper is to determine, using various topology metrics, which network generators better represent this large-scale structure. We find, much to our surprise, that network generators based on the degree distribution more accurately capture the large-scale structure of measured topologies. We then seek an explanation for this result by examining the nature of hierarchy in the Internet more closely; we find that degree-based generators produce a form of hierarchy that closely resembles the loosely hierarchical nature of the Internet.

[1]  Piet Van Mieghem,et al.  On the efficiency of multicast , 2001, TNET.

[2]  R. Solé,et al.  Optimization in Complex Networks , 2001, cond-mat/0111222.

[3]  Bill Cheswick,et al.  Mapping the Internet , 1999, Computer.

[4]  Mary Baker,et al.  Measuring link bandwidths using a deterministic model of packet delay , 2000, SIGCOMM 2000.

[5]  Kamesh Munagala,et al.  Extending Greedy Multicast Routing to Delay Sensitive Applications , 2002, Algorithmica.

[6]  Ramesh Govindan,et al.  Heuristics for Internet map discovery , 2000, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000. Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (Cat. No.00CH37064).

[7]  Walter Willinger,et al.  Does AS size determine degree in as topology? , 2001, CCRV.

[8]  BERNARD M. WAXMAN,et al.  Routing of multipoint connections , 1988, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[9]  Ibrahim Matta,et al.  On the origin of power laws in Internet topologies , 2000, CCRV.

[10]  Vipin Kumar,et al.  A Fast and High Quality Multilevel Scheme for Partitioning Irregular Graphs , 1998, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[11]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The Web as a Graph: Measurements, Models, and Methods , 1999, COCOON.

[12]  Donald F. Towsley,et al.  On distinguishing between Internet power law topology generators , 2002, Proceedings.Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.

[13]  Ibrahim Matta,et al.  BRITE: an approach to universal topology generation , 2001, MASCOTS 2001, Proceedings Ninth International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems.

[14]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Error and attack tolerance of complex networks , 2000, Nature.

[15]  Eli Upfal,et al.  Constructing disjoint paths on expander graphs , 1987, STOC '87.

[16]  Damien Magoni,et al.  Analysis of the autonomous system network topology , 2001, CCRV.

[17]  Gerard Hooghiemstra,et al.  A scaling law for the hopcount , 2000 .

[18]  T. Erlebach,et al.  A Spectral Analysis of the Internet Topology , 2001 .

[19]  Matthew Doar,et al.  A better model for generating test networks , 1996, Proceedings of GLOBECOM'96. 1996 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference.

[20]  Stefan Savage,et al.  The end-to-end effects of Internet path selection , 1999, SIGCOMM '99.

[21]  T. C. Hu.  Optimum Communication Spanning Trees , 1974, SIAM J. Comput..

[22]  Michalis Faloutsos,et al.  On power-law relationships of the Internet topology , 1999, SIGCOMM '99.

[23]  Kenneth L. Calvert,et al.  Modeling Internet topology , 1997, IEEE Commun. Mag..

[24]  Albert,et al.  Topology of evolving networks: local events and universality , 2000, Physical review letters.

[25]  Jean-Jacques Pansiot,et al.  On routes and multicast trees in the Internet , 1998, CCRV.

[26]  Randy H. Katz,et al.  An analysis of multicast forwarding state scalability , 2000, Proceedings 2000 International Conference on Network Protocols.

[27]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[28]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[29]  Lixin Gao.  On inferring autonomous system relationships in the internet , 2001, TNET.

[30]  Yair Bartal,et al.  Probabilistic approximation of metric spaces and its algorithmic applications , 1996, Proceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science.

[31]  Randy H. Katz,et al.  Characterizing the Internet hierarchy from multiple vantage points , 2002, Proceedings.Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.

[32]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs , 1985 .

[33]  Ellen W. Zegura,et al.  A quantitative comparison of graph-based models for Internet topology , 1997, TNET.

[34]  Kevin C. Almeroth,et al.  Modeling the branching characteristics and efficiency gains in global multicast trees , 2001, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2001. Conference on Computer Communications. Twentieth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Society (Cat. No.01CH37213).

[35]  Hongsuda Tangmunarunkit,et al.  Scaling of multicast trees: comments on the Chuang-Sirbu scaling law , 1999, SIGCOMM '99.

[36]  Fan Chung Graham,et al.  A random graph model for massive graphs , 2000, STOC '00.

[37]  Ramesh Govindan,et al.  Internet path inflation due to policy routing , 2001, SPIE ITCom.

[38]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Lecture notes on approximation algorithms: Volume I , 1993 .