A Study on Traceroute Potentiality in Revealing the Internet - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

A Study on Traceroute Potentiality in Revealing the Internet AS-level Topology V. Luconi A. Faggiani, E. Gregori, A. Improta, L. Lenzini , L. Sani IFIP Networking 2014 Conference - Trondheim - June 3rd, 2014

Outline ● The Internet AS-level topology discovery ● Methodology ● Traceroute infrastructures ● Results ● Conclusion

The Internet AS-level topology discovery

Introduction ● Knowing the Internet topology is important ✔ Planning business strategies ✔ Designing routing protocols ✔ Modelling its growth ● The AS-level captures the economic nature of the inter-domain routing of the Internet ● Measurement methods ✔ Passive: BGP ✔ Active: Traceroute

Problem: incompleteness ● The current knowledge of the Internet AS-level topology is highly incomplete ✔ Inferring properties from an incomplete topology could lead to biases ● Most works focused on BGP measurement infrastructures ✔ Monitors are not optimally placed ✔ Methodology for quantifying the effectiveness of a measurement infrastructure [1] What about traceroute infrastructures? [1] Gregori et al. On the Incompleteness of the AS-level graph: a Novel Methodology for BGP Route Collector Placement. IMC'12

Traceroute Traceroute discovers the IP path from a source to a destination. IP-to-AS mapping has to be done to discover the corresponding AS path.

Methodology

Economic relationships and export policies ● Provider-to-customer (p2c) ● Peer-to-peer (p2p) ● Stub ASes : ASes that do not provide connectivity to other ASes ● Internet core : All non stub ASes

p2c-distance metric (I) p2c-distance of AS X from AS Y Minumum number of consecutive p2c links that connect X to Y Gregori et al. IMC'12 . ● E from A: 1 ● E from C: 2 ● C from F: undefined

p2c-distance metric (I) p2c-distance of AS X from AS Y Minumum number of consecutive p2c links that connect X to Y Gregori et al. IMC'12 . ● E from A: 1 ● E from C: 2 ● C from F: undefined

p2c-distance metric (I) p2c-distance of AS X from AS Y Minumum number of consecutive p2c links that connect X to Y Gregori et al. IMC'12 . ● E from A: 1 ● E from C: 2 ● C from F: undefined

p2c-distance metric (I) p2c-distance of AS X from AS Y Minumum number of consecutive p2c links that connect X to Y Gregori et al. IMC'12 . ● E from A: 1 ● E from C: 2 ● C from F: undefined

p2c-distance metric (II) Key concept Only a customer in a p2c relationship is able to reveal the full connectivity of his provider A necessary (not sufficient) condition for a BGP or traceroute monitor to reveal the full connectivity of an AS X is that the p2c-distance of X from that monitor is defined It would be desirable to place monitors in the lower layers of the Internet

Traceroute infrastructures

Traceroute infrastructures We considered five infrastructures able to perform large-scale traceroute campaigns, found to be active in October 2013 # Probing # Non stubs # Stubs ASes 1,398 1,044 Aqualab Dasu/Ono 2,442 (57.25%) (42.75%) 60 16 CAIDA Ark 76 (78.95%) (21.05%) 145 106 DIMES 251 (57.77%) (42.23%) 246 114 Portolan 360 (68.33%) (31.67%) 1,310 825 RIPE NCC Atlas 2,135 (61.36%) (38.64%)

Traceroute infrastructures We considered five infrastructures able to perform large-scale traceroute campaigns, found to be active in October 2013 # Probing # Non stubs # Stubs Large number of ASes Probing ASes 1,398 1,044 Aqualab Dasu/Ono 2,442 (57.25%) (42.75%) 60 16 CAIDA Ark 76 (78.95%) (21.05%) 145 106 DIMES 251 (57.77%) (42.23%) 246 114 Portolan 360 (68.33%) (31.67%) 1,310 825 RIPE NCC Atlas 2,135 (61.36%) (38.64%)

Traceroute infrastructures We considered five infrastructures able to perform large-scale traceroute campaigns, found to be active in October 2013 # Probing # Non stubs # Stubs ASes 1,398 1,044 Pervasiveness Aqualab Dasu/Ono 2,442 (57.25%) (42.75%) in the lowest 60 16 layers of the CAIDA Ark 76 (78.95%) (21.05%) Internet 145 106 DIMES 251 (57.77%) (42.23%) 246 114 Portolan 360 (68.33%) (31.67%) 1,310 825 RIPE NCC Atlas 2,135 (61.36%) (38.64%)

Overlap ● Low overlapping between different infrastructures ● Every infrastructure introduces new points of view Ark Atlas Dasu/Ono DIMES Portolan Ark - 0.577 0.310 0.239 0.155 Atlas 0.019 - 0.296 0.049 0.088 Dasu/Ono 0.009 0.259 - 0.045 0.100 DIMES 0.068 0.414 0.438 - 0.243 Portolan 0.031 0.522 0.675 0.169 - Overlapcoefficient O ( A, B )=∣ A ∩ B ∣ ∣ A ∣

Overlap ● Low overlapping between different infrastructures ● Every infrastructure introduces new points of view B Ark Atlas Dasu/Ono DIMES Portolan 1.9% of Atlas Ark - 0.577 0.310 0.239 0.155 probing ASes are also found in Ark A Atlas 0.019 - 0.296 0.049 0.088 Dasu/Ono 0.009 0.259 - 0.045 0.100 DIMES 0.068 0.414 0.438 - 0.243 Portolan 0.031 0.522 0.675 0.169 - Overlapcoefficient O ( A, B )=∣ A ∩ B ∣ ∣ A ∣

Overlap ● Low overlapping between different infrastructures ● Every infrastructure introduces new points of view B Ark Atlas Dasu/Ono DIMES Portolan 57.7% of Ark A Ark - 0.577 0.310 0.239 0.155 probing ASes are also found in Atlas 0.019 - 0.296 0.049 0.088 Atlas Dasu/Ono 0.009 0.259 - 0.045 0.100 DIMES 0.068 0.414 0.438 - 0.243 Portolan 0.031 0.522 0.675 0.169 - Overlapcoefficient O ( A, B )=∣ A ∩ B ∣ ∣ A ∣

Overlap ● Low overlapping between different infrastructures ● Every infrastructure introduces new points of view Ark Atlas Dasu/Ono DIMES Portolan Ark - 0.577 0.310 0.239 0.155 Atlas 0.019 - 0.296 0.049 0.088 Dasu/Ono 0.009 0.259 - 0.045 0.100 DIMES 0.068 0.414 0.438 - 0.243 Portolan 0.031 0.522 0.675 0.169 - Overlapcoefficient O ( A, B )=∣ A ∩ B ∣ ∣ A ∣

Results

A deeper insight (I) Coverage of the Internet core (8,181 non stub ASes in October 2013) by each project d = 1 d = 2 d = 3 361 789 1,117 Ark (4.41%) (9.64%) (13.69%) 2,367 2,820 2,949 Atlas (28.93%) (34.47%) (36.05%) 2,465 2,867 2,981 Dasu/Ono (30.13%) (35.04%) (36.44%) 517 967 1,332 DIMES (6.32%) (12.06%) (16.28%) 700 1,158 1,458 Portolan (8.56%) (14.16%) (17.82%)

A deeper insight (I) Coverage of the Internet core (8,181 non stub ASes in October 2013) by each project d = 1 d = 2 d = 3 361 789 1,117 Ark (4.41%) (9.64%) (13.69%) 2,367 2,820 2,949 Atlas (28.93%) (34.47%) (36.05%) 2,465 2,867 2,981 Dasu/Ono (30.13%) (35.04%) (36.44%) Number of non stubs with 517 967 1,332 p2c-distance less than or DIMES (6.32%) (12.06%) (16.28%) equal to d from at least one measurement monitor 700 1,158 1,458 Portolan (8.56%) (14.16%) (17.82%)

A deeper insight (I) Coverage of the Internet core (8,181 non stub ASes in October 2013) by each project d = 1 d = 2 d = 3 361 789 1,117 Ark (4.41%) (9.64%) (13.69%) 2,367 2,820 2,949 Atlas (28.93%) (34.47%) (36.05%) 2,465 2,867 2,981 Dasu/Ono (30.13%) (35.04%) (36.44%) 517 967 1,332 DIMES (6.32%) (12.06%) (16.28%) 700 1,158 1,458 Portolan (8.56%) (14.16%) (17.82%)

A deeper insight (I) Coverage of the Internet core (8,181 non stub ASes in October 2013) by each project d = 1 d = 2 d = 3 361 789 1,117 Ark (4.41%) (9.64%) (13.69%) 2,367 2,820 2,949 Atlas (28.93%) (34.47%) (36.05%) 2,465 2,867 2,981 Dasu/Ono (30.13%) (35.04%) (36.44%) 517 967 1,332 DIMES (6.32%) (12.06%) (16.28%) 700 1,158 1,458 Portolan (8.56%) (14.16%) (17.82%)

A deeper insight (II) Several probing ASes share a common set of providers and provide only redundant information d = 2

A deeper insight (II) Several probing ASes share a common set of providers and provide only redundant information p2c-overlap coefficient Fraction of the non stubs covered by one probing AS at distance d that are also covered by the other probing ASes of the same infrastructure d = 2

A deeper insight (II) Several probing ASes share a common set of providers and provide only redundant information d = 2

BGP and Traceroute together Even putting all together the full coverage is still far from being achieved Scenarios # VPs d = 1 d = 2 d = 3 648 1,068 1,301 I. BGP only 166 (7.92%) (13.05%) (15.90%) II. BGP with Ark, 1,288 1,728 1,923 DIMES and 729 (15.74%) (21.12%) (23.50%) Portolan III. BGP with all 2,465 2,867 2,981 traceroute 4,222 (44.22%) (47.82%) (48.48%) infrastructures

BGP and Traceroute together Even putting all together the full coverage is still far from being achieved Scenarios # VPs d = 1 d = 2 d = 3 648 1,068 1,301 I. BGP only 166 (7.92%) (13.05%) (15.90%) II. BGP with Ark, 1,288 1,728 1,923 DIMES and 729 (15.74%) (21.12%) (23.50%) Portolan III. BGP with all 2,465 2,867 2,981 traceroute 4,222 (44.22%) (47.82%) (48.48%) infrastructures

BGP and Traceroute together Even putting all together the full coverage is still far from being achieved Scenarios # VPs d = 1 d = 2 d = 3 648 1,068 1,301 I. BGP only 166 (7.92%) (13.05%) (15.90%) II. BGP with Ark, 1,288 1,728 1,923 DIMES and 729 (15.74%) (21.12%) (23.50%) Portolan III. BGP with all 2,465 2,867 2,981 traceroute 4,222 (44.22%) (47.82%) (48.48%) infrastructures