The Challenges of Merging Two Similar Structured Overlays: A Tale of Two Networks

Structured overlay networks is an important and interesting primitive that can be used by diverse peer-to-peer applications. Multiple overlays can result either because of network partitioning or (more likely) because different groups of peers build such overlays separately before coming in contact with each other and wishing to coalesce the overlays together. This paper is a first look into how multiple such overlays (all using the same protocols) can be merged – which is critical for usability and adoption of such an internet-scale distributed system. We elaborate how two networks using the same protocols can be merged, looking specifically into two different overlay design principles: (i) maintaining the ring invariant and (ii) structural replications, either of which are used in various overlay networks to guarantee functional correctness in a highly dynamic (membership changes) environment. Particularly, we show that ring based networks can not operate until the merger operation completes. In contrast, from the perspective of individual peers in structurally replicated overlays there is no disruption of service, and they can continue to discover and access resources that they could originally do before the beginning of the merger process, even though resources from the other network become visible only gradually with the progress of the merger process.

[1]  Michael B. Jones,et al.  SkipNet: A Scalable Overlay Network with Practical Locality Properties , 2003, USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems.

[2]  Srinivasan Seshan,et al.  Mercury: supporting scalable multi-attribute range queries , 2004, SIGCOMM 2004.

[3]  Brighten Godfrey,et al.  OpenDHT: a public DHT service and its uses , 2005, SIGCOMM '05.

[4]  Ben Y. Zhao,et al.  An Infrastructure for Fault-tolerant Wide-area Location and Routing , 2001 .

[5]  David R. Karger,et al.  Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications , 2001, SIGCOMM '01.

[6]  Miguel Castro,et al.  One ring to rule them all: service discovery and binding in structured peer-to-peer overlay networks , 2002, EW 10.

[7]  David Mazières,et al.  Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric , 2002, IPTPS.

[8]  Gurmeet Singh Manku,et al.  Symphony: Distributed Hashing in a Small World , 2003, USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems.

[9]  Ben Y. Zhao,et al.  Towards a Common API for Structured Peer-to-Peer Overlays , 2003, IPTPS.

[10]  Srinivasan Seshan,et al.  Mercury: supporting scalable multi-attribute range queries , 2004, SIGCOMM '04.

[11]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  The impact of DHT routing geometry on resilience and proximity , 2003, SIGCOMM '03.

[12]  Karl Aberer,et al.  Efficient, self-contained handling of identity in peer-to-peer systems , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[13]  Antony I. T. Rowstron,et al.  Pastry: Scalable, Decentralized Object Location, and Routing for Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems , 2001, Middleware.

[14]  Mark Handley,et al.  A scalable content-addressable network , 2001, SIGCOMM '01.

[15]  Karl Aberer,et al.  Indexing Data-oriented Overlay Networks , 2005, VLDB.

[16]  Karl Aberer,et al.  The essence of P2P: a reference architecture for overlay networks , 2005, Fifth IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P'05).

[17]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Canon in G major: designing DHTs with hierarchical structure , 2004, 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2004. Proceedings..

[18]  Peter Druschel,et al.  Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to- , 2001 .

[19]  Ben Y. Zhao,et al.  Tapestry: An Infrastructure for Fault-tolerant Wide-area Location and , 2001 .

[20]  Rajmohan Rajaraman,et al.  Accessing Nearby Copies of Replicated Objects in a Distributed Environment , 1999, Theory of Computing Systems.

[21]  David R. Karger,et al.  Chord: a scalable peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications , 2003, TNET.

[22]  David R. Karger,et al.  Analysis of the evolution of peer-to-peer systems , 2002, PODC '02.