Scalpel: Scalable Preferential Link Tomography Based on Graph Trimming

Inferring per-link metrics through aggregated path measurements, known as network tomography, is an effective way to facilitate various network operations, such as network monitoring, load balancing, and fault diagnosis. We study the problem of identifying additive link metrics of a set of interesting links from end-to-end cycle-free path measurements among selected monitors, i.e., preferential link tomography. Since assigning a node as a monitor usually requires non-negligible operational cost, we focus on assigning the minimum number of monitors (i.e., optimal monitor assignment) to identify all interesting links. By modeling the network as a connected graph, we propose Scalpel, a scalable preferential link tomography approach. Scalpel trims the original graph by a two-stage graph trimming algorithm and reuses an existing method to assign monitors in the trimmed graph. We theoretically prove Scalpel has several key properties: 1) the graph trimming algorithm in Scalpel is minimal in the sense that further trimming the graph does not reduce the number of monitors; 2) the obtained assignment is able to identify all interesting links in the original graph; and 3) an optimal monitor assignment in the graph after trimming is also an optimal monitor assignment in the original graph. We implement Scalpel and evaluate it based on both synthetic topologies and real network topologies. Compared with state-of-the-art, Scalpel reduces the number of monitors by 39.0% to 98.6% when 50% to 1% of all links are interesting links.

[1]  Yin Zhang,et al.  NetQuest: A Flexible Framework for Large-Scale Network Measurement , 2009, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[2]  Antony I. T. Rowstron,et al.  Symbiotic routing in future data centers , 2010, SIGCOMM '10.

[3]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[4]  Kin K. Leung,et al.  Monitor placement for maximal identifiability in network tomography , 2014, IEEE INFOCOM 2014 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications.

[5]  George Yang,et al.  Network Characterization Service (NCS) , 2001, Proceedings 10th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing.

[6]  Randy H. Katz,et al.  An algebraic approach to practical and scalable overlay network monitoring , 2004, SIGCOMM '04.

[7]  Moshe Sidi,et al.  Estimating one-way delays from cyclic-path delay measurements , 2001, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2001. Conference on Computer Communications. Twentieth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Society (Cat. No.01CH37213).

[8]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Dividing a Graph into Triconnected Components , 1973, SIAM J. Comput..

[9]  Yunhao Liu,et al.  Measurement and Analysis on the Packet Delivery Performance in a Large-Scale Sensor Network , 2014, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[10]  Kin K. Leung,et al.  Efficient Identification of Additive Link Metrics via Network Tomography , 2013, 2013 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems.

[11]  Kin K. Leung,et al.  Inferring Link Metrics From End-To-End Path Measurements: Identifiability and Monitor Placement , 2014, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[12]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Depth-First Search and Linear Graph Algorithms , 1972, SIAM J. Comput..

[13]  Rajeev Rastogi,et al.  Robust Monitoring of Link Delays and Faults in IP Networks , 2003, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[14]  Santosh S. Vempala,et al.  Path splicing , 2008, SIGCOMM '08.

[15]  Marwan Krunz,et al.  SRLG Failure Localization in All-Optical Networks Using Monitoring Cycles and Paths , 2008, IEEE INFOCOM 2008 - The 27th Conference on Computer Communications.

[16]  R. Rastogi,et al.  Robust Monitoring of Link Delays and Faults , 2006 .

[17]  Ioannis Lambadaris,et al.  Source routed forwarding with software defined control, considerations and implications , 2012, CoNEXT Student '12.

[18]  Y. Vardi,et al.  Network Tomography: Estimating Source-Destination Traffic Intensities from Link Data , 1996 .

[19]  Yunhao Liu,et al.  CitySee: Urban CO2 monitoring with sensors , 2012, 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM.

[20]  J. Dall,et al.  Random geometric graphs. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  Wei Dong,et al.  Preferential Link Tomography: Monitor Assignment for Inferring Interesting Link Metrics , 2014, 2014 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Network Protocols.

[22]  Ratul Mahajan,et al.  Measuring ISP topologies with Rocketfuel , 2004, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[23]  R. Kumar,et al.  Practical Beacon Placement for Link Monitoring Using Network Tomography , 2006, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[24]  Thomas F. La Porta,et al.  Robust Network Tomography in the Presence of Failures , 2014, 2014 IEEE 34th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems.

[25]  Alejandro López-Ortiz,et al.  On the number of distributed measurement points for network tomography , 2003, IMC '03.

[26]  Hari Balakrishnan,et al.  Resilient overlay networks , 2001, SOSP.

[27]  Vijayan N. Nair,et al.  Network tomography: A review and recent developments , 2006 .

[28]  Xiaowei Yang,et al.  Source selectable path diversity via routing deflections , 2006, SIGCOMM.

[29]  Priya Mahadevan,et al.  Orbis: rescaling degree correlations to generate annotated internet topologies , 2007, SIGCOMM '07.

[30]  Shaojie Tang,et al.  Canopy closure estimates with GreenOrbs: sustainable sensing in the forest , 2009, SenSys '09.

[31]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  Random graphs , 2006, SODA '06.

[32]  Abishek Gopalan,et al.  On Identifying Additive Link Metrics Using Linearly Independent Cycles and Paths , 2012, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.