Global Vs. Per-domain monitoring of multi-domain networks

Mutli-domain monitoring aims at guaranteeing QoS for services crossing several domains. It is often desirable to perform global monitoring to guarantee end-to-end QoS for services across domains and to reduce the monitoring cost. However, global monitoring might be infeasible due to confidentiality constraints. The alternative solution is to perform per-domain monitoring. In this work, we propose to evaluate global and per-domain monitoring techniques. For this end, we study the properties of multi-domain networks and the requirements of multi-domain monitoring. We formulate the problem as an Integer Linear Program (ILP). We show that it is a Nondeterministic Polynomial Time Hard (NP-Hard) problem, and therefore, we devise a heuristic that meets multi-domain properties. We show that confidentiality is far from being the only constraint to global multi-domain monitoring. In our evaluation, the confidentiality constraint has been relaxed, in order to investigate other performance metrics; namely, the monitoring cost, the quality of monitored paths, the anomaly detection delays, and the fairness of monitoring load distribution among domains. Simulation results on random topologies show that per-domain monitoring outperforms global monitoring for all these metrics, except the monitoring cost that is slightly lower for global monitoring.

[1]  TowsleyDon,et al.  Locating network monitors , 2006 .

[2]  Yao Zhao,et al.  Towards Efficient Large-Scale VPN Monitoring and Diagnosis under Operational Constraints , 2009, IEEE INFOCOM 2009.

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

[4]  Theoni Pitoura,et al.  Distribution fairness in Internet-scale networks , 2009, TOIT.

[5]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[6]  Ratul Mahajan,et al.  Measuring ISP topologies with rocketfuel , 2002, TNET.

[7]  Debmalya Panigrahi,et al.  Detecting Anomalies Using End-to-End Path Measurements , 2008, IEEE INFOCOM 2008 - The 27th Conference on Computer Communications.

[8]  Donald F. Towsley,et al.  Locating network monitors: complexity, heuristics, and coverage , 2005, INFOCOM.

[9]  Rajeev Rastogi,et al.  Diagnosing Link-Level Anomalies Using Passive Probes , 2007, IEEE INFOCOM 2007 - 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[10]  Bernard A. Cousin,et al.  Heuristics for Joint Optimization of Monitor Location and Network Anomaly Detection , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).

[11]  Donald F. Towsley,et al.  Locating network monitors: complexity, heuristics, and coverage , 2005, Proceedings IEEE 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies..

[12]  Jürgen Quittek,et al.  Architecture for IP Flow Information Export , 2009, RFC.

[13]  Paul Barford,et al.  Network Performance Anomaly Detection and Localization , 2009, IEEE INFOCOM 2009.

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

[15]  Bernard Cousin,et al.  Joint optimization of monitor location and network anomaly detection , 2010, IEEE Local Computer Network Conference.