Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Path diversification for future internet end-to-end resilience and survivability

  • Published:
Telecommunication Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Path Diversification is a new mechanism that can be used to select multiple paths between a given ingress and egress node pair using a quantified diversity measure to achieve maximum flow reliability. The path diversification mechanism is targeted at the end-to-end layer, but can be applied at any level for which a path discovery service is available. Path diversification also takes into account service requirements for low-latency or maximal reliability in selecting appropriate paths. Using this mechanism will allow future internetworking architectures to exploit naturally rich physical topologies to a far greater extent than is possible with shortest-path routing or equal-cost load balancing. We describe the path diversity metric and its application at various aggregation levels, and apply the path diversification process to 13 real-world network graphs as well as 4 synthetic topologies to asses the gain in flow reliability. Based on the analysis of flow reliability across a range of networks, we then extend our path diversity metric to create a composite compensated total graph diversity metric that is representative of a particular topology’s survivability with respect to distributed simultaneous link and node failures. We tune the accuracy of this metric having simulated the performance of each topology under a range of failure severities, and present the results. The topologies used are from national-scale backbone networks with a variety of characteristics, which we characterize using standard graph-theoretic metrics. The end result is a compensated total graph diversity metric that accurately predicts the survivability of a given network topology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Results presented in this paper are not to serve as a recommendation of one network over another for business purposes. Due to common business practices the Internet service providers listed (with the exception of GÉANT2) do not make their network topology data publicly available, and the data sets used are inferred by third parties.

  2. In order to keep the number of figures manageable we show plots from a few representative topologies. The plots for the entire set of topologies may be downloaded in our online appendix at http://www.ittc.ku.edu/resilinets/papers/pd_appendix_2012.pdf.

References

  1. Bassiri, B., & Heydari, S. S. (2009). Network survivability in large-scale regional failure scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2nd Canadian conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (C3S2E) (pp. 83–87). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/1557626.1557639.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Begen, A., Altunbasak, Y., & Ergun, O. (2003). Multi-path selection for multiple description encoded video streaming. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’03) (Vol. 3, pp. 1583–1589).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bhandari, R. (1998). Survivable networks: algorithms for diverse routing. Norwell: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bhattacharjee, B., Calvert, K., Griffioen, J., Spring, N., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2006). Postmodern internetwork architecture (Technical Report ITTC-FY2006-TR-45030-01). Information and Telecommunication Center, 2335 Irving Hill Road, Lawrence, KS 66045-7612.

  5. Carter, M. R., Howard, M. P., Owens, N., Register, D., Kennedy, J., Pecheux, K., & Newton, A. (2002). Effects of catastrophic events on transportation system management and operations, Howard Street tunnel fire, Baltimore City, Maryland, July 18, 2001. (Technical Report). U.S. Department of Transportation, ITS Joint Program Office, Washington DC.

  6. Çetinkaya, E. K., Broyles, D., Dandekar, A., Srinivasan, S., & Sterbenz, J. P. (2011). Modelling communication network challenges for future Internet resilience, survivability, and disruption tolerance: a simulation-based approach. Berlin: Springer. (Online Dec. 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Çetinkaya, E. K., Broyles, D., Dandekar, A., Srinivasan, S., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2010). A comprehensive framework to simulate network attacks and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE/IFIP international workshop on Reliable Networks Design and Modeling (RNDM), Moscow, Russia (pp. 538–544).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cetinkaya, C., & Knightly, E. (2004). Opportunistic traffic scheduling over multiple network paths. Proceedings—IEEE INFOCOM, 3, 1928–1937.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clark, D. D. (1988). The design philosophy of the DARPA Internet protocols. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM symposium on communications architectures and protocols (pp. 106–114). New York: ACM.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Corporation, K. M. I. (1999). North American fiberoptic long-haul routes planned and in place.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dijkstra, E. W. (1959). A note on two problems in connection with graphs. Numerische Mathematik, 1, 269–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ellison, R., Fisher, D., Linger, R., Lipson, H., Longstaff, T., & Mead, N. (1997). Survivable network systems: An emerging discipline (Technical Report, CMU/SEI-97-TR-013). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

  13. ENISA Virtual Working Group on Network Providers Resilience Measures (2009). Network resilience and security: Challenges and measures (Technical Report WP 2009—WPK 1.2 VWG 1). ENISA—European Network and Information Security Agency.

  14. Floyd, R. W. (1962). Algorithm 97: shortest path. ACM Communications, 5(6), 345. doi:10.1145/367766.368168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ford, L. (1956). Network flow theory.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gomes, T., Simoes, C., & Fernandes, L. (2011). Resilient routing in optical networks using SRLG-disjoint path pairs of min-sum cost. Telecommunication Systems.

  18. Grover, W. D. (2003). Mesh-based survivable transport networks: options and strategies for optical, MPLS, SONET and ATM networking. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grover, W. D., & Stamatelakis, D. (1998). Cycle-oriented distributed preconfiguration: ring-like speed with mesh-like capacity for self-planning network restoration. In Proceeding of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’98) (Vol. 1, pp. 537–543).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jabbar, A. (2010). A framework to quantify network resilience and survivability. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

  21. Jabbar, A., Narra, H., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2011). An approach to quantifying resilience in mobile ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE international workshop on the Design of Reliable Communication Networks (DRCN), Krakow, Poland (pp. 140–147).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jen, E. (2005). Robust design: a repertoire of biological, ecological, and engineering case studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kvalbein, A., Hansen, A. F., Cicic, T., Gjessing, S., & Lysne, O. (2008). Multiple routing configurations for fast IP network recovery. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 17(2), 473–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lewis, T. G. (2009). Network science (1st ed., p. 24). New York: Wiley. Chap. 2.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. MacGregor, M., & Grover, W. (1994). Optimized k-shortest-paths algorithm for facility restoration. Software: Practice and Experience, 24(9).

  26. Mahadevan, P., Krioukov, D., Fomenkov, M., Dimitropoulos, X., Claffy, K., & Vahdat, A. (2006). The Internet AS-level topology: three data sources and one definitive metric. Computer Communication Review, 36(1), 17–26. doi:10.1145/1111322.1111328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mahmood, R. A. (2009). Simulating challenges to communication networks for evaluation of resilience. Master’s thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

  28. Mohammad, A. J., Hutchison, D., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2006). Towards quantifying metrics for resilient and survivable networks. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP) (pp. 17–18).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Moore, E. F. (1959). The shortest path through a maze. London: Bell.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Motiwala, M., Elmore, M., Feamster, N., & Vempala, S. (2008). Path splicing. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM conference on data communication (pp. 27–38). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: an introduction (1st ed., p. 199). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chap. 7.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: an introduction (1st ed., p. 181). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chap. 7.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Rajagopalan, B., & Saha, D. (2000). Link bundling in optical networks. Internet draft, work in progress draft-rs-optical-bundling-00.txt, IETF.

  34. Resilinets topology map viewer (2011). http://www.ittc.ku.edu/resilinets/maps/.

  35. Rocketfuel (2008). An ISP topology mapping engine.

  36. Rohrer, J. P., Jabbar, A., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2009). Path diversification: a multipath resilience mechanism. In Proceedings of the IEEE 7th international workshop on the Design of Reliable Communication Networks (DRCN), Washington, DC, USA (pp. 343–351).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rohrer, J. P., Naidu, R., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2009). Multipath at the transport layer: an end-to-end resilience mechanism. In Proceedings of the IEEE/IFIP international workshop on Reliable Networks Design and Modeling (RNDM), St. Petersburg, Russia (pp. 1–7).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rohrer, J. P., & Sterbenz, J. P. G. (2011). Predicting topology survivability using path diversity. In Proceedings of the IEEE/IFIP international workshop on Reliable Networks Design and Modeling (RNDM), Budapest, Hungary (pp. 95–101).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Shillingford, N., Salyers, D., Poellabauer, C., & Striegel, A. (2007). DETOUR: delay- and energy-aware multi-path routing in wireless ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the fourth annual international conference on mobile and ubiquitous systems: networking & services (MobiQuitous) (pp. 1–8).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sterbenz, J. P., Çetinkaya, E. K., Hameed, M. A., Jabbar, A., & Rohrer, J. P. (2011). Modelling and analysis of network resilience. In Proceedings of the third IEEE international conference on Communication Systems and Networks (COMSNETS), Bangalore, India (Vol. 52, (pp. 705–736).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sterbenz, J. P., Çetinkaya, E. K., Hameed, M. A., Jabbar, A., Shi, Q., & Rohrer, J. P. (2011, invited paper). Evaluation of network resilience, survivability, and disruption tolerance: analysis, topology generation, simulation, and experimentation. Berlin: Springer (online Dec. 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sterbenz, J. P. G., Hutchison, D., & Resilinets (2006). Multilevel resilient and survivable networking initiative wiki. http://wiki.ittc.ku.edu/resilinets.

  43. Sterbenz, J. P. G., Hutchison, D., Çetinkaya, E. K., Jabbar, A., Rohrer, J. P., Schöller, M., & Smith, P. (2010). Resilience and survivability in communication networks: strategies, principles, and survey of disciplines. Computer Networks, 54(8), 1245–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sterbenz, J. P. G., Krishnan, R., Hain, R. R., Jackson, A. W., Levin, D., Ramanathan, R., & Zao, J. (2002). Survivable mobile wireless networks: issues, challenges, and research directions. In WiSE’02: proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on wireless security (pp. 31–40). New York: ACM.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Styron, H. C. (2001). CSX tunnel fire: Baltimore, MD (US Fire Administration Technical Report USFA-TR-140). Federal Emergency Management Administration, Emmitsburg, MD.

  46. Suurballe, J. W. (1974). Disjoint paths in a network. Networks, 4(2).

  47. Suurballe, J. W., & Tarjan, R. E. (1984). A quick method for finding shortest pairs of disjoint paths. Networks, 14(2).

  48. Sydney, A., Scoglio, C., Youssef, M., & Schumm, P. (2010). Characterising the robustness of complex networks. International Journal of Internet Technology and Secured Transactions, 2(3/4), 291–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. T1A1.2 Working Group (2001). ATIS telecom glossary 2000. American National Standard for Telecommunications T1.523-2001, Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS).

  50. Teixeira, R., Marzullo, K., Savage, S., & Voelker, G. M. (2003). In search of path diversity in ISP networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement (IMC’03) (pp. 313–318). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wang, Y., Panwar, S., Lin, S., & Mao, S. (2002). Wireless video transport using path diversity: multiple description vs layered coding. In Proceedings of the international conference on image processing (Vol. 1, pp. 21–24).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Warshall, S. (1962). A theorem on boolean matrices. Journall of the ACM, 9(1), 11–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. West, D. B. (1996). Introduction to graph theory (1st ed., pp. 25–26). New York: Prentice Hall. Chap. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wikipedia: Clustering coefficient (2011). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_coefficient.

  55. Yang, X., & Wetherall, D. (2006). Source selectable path diversity via routing deflections. Computer Communication Review, 36(4), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This is an extended version and substantial revision of papers that appeared in IEEE RNDM 2009 [37], IEEE DRCN 2009 [36], and IEEE/IFIP RNDM 2011 [38]. The authors would like to thank the members of the ResiliNets group for discussions which led to this work. This research was supported in part by NSF FIND (Future Internet Design) Program under grant CNS-0626918 (Postmodern Internet Architecture), by NSF grant CNS-1050226 (Multilayer Network Resilience Analysis and Experimentation on GENI), and by the EU FP7 FIRE programme ResumeNet project (grant agreement No. 224619).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA

    Justin P. Rohrer

  2. Advanced Communication Systems Lab, GE Global Research, Niskayuna, NY, USA

    Abdul Jabbar

  3. Information and Telecommunication Technology Center, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    James P. G. Sterbenz

  4. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    James P. G. Sterbenz

Authors
  1. Justin P. Rohrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdul Jabbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James P. G. Sterbenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin P. Rohrer.

Additional information

Work performed while Justin P. Rohrer and Abdul Jabbar were at University of Kansas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rohrer, J.P., Jabbar, A. & Sterbenz, J.P.G. Path diversification for future internet end-to-end resilience and survivability. Telecommun Syst 56, 49–67 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-013-9818-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-013-9818-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation