Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Implementation and efficiency analysis of composite DNS-metric for dynamic server selection

  • Published:
Telecommunication Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

User requirements for a high availability and fast response time of network services require placing more than one server for accessing particular network service, often using multiple communication links and locations. Dynamic Server Selection (DSS) is a new DNS method for the optimal server selection of a multiple available network service that allows dynamic selection of a server on the client side based on the information of the server load and its network topological distance from the client. The server selection is based on the calculations of a composite DNS-metric in which servers, whose IP addresses are sent in a DNS response, are ranked from the optimal to the least suitable. Calculation parameters are server response time, which the client measures for each server independently, and the server load, which is specified by the server administrator and is forwarded to the client together with the rules for calculating the composite DNS-metric. The DSS method has the lowest overall network service response time in comparison with the other four observed methods (Geographical, Hops, Random and RTT) which, in measurements done in a real time environment for two servers accessible by two independent internet links each, have a longer response time from 8.5 to 26.8% compared to DSS. Results of the proposed analytical model for calculating the efficiency index of the DSS method are compared with results of the practical measurements confirming the relevance of the analytical model. In measurements, the DSS method achieved a high average efficiency index of 1.23.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Sonderegger, J., Blomberg, O., Milne, K., & Palislamovic, S. (2009). JUNOS high availability. Newton: O’Reilly Media Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hewlett-Packard (2005). ProCurve Networking by HP–WAN Design Guide: The Lower Layers. Hewlett-Packard Development Company, 4AA0-0717ENW, 8/2005.

  3. Cisco Systems. (1999). Computer networks, domain name system, network servers (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Cisco Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cisco Systems (2013). CCNA routing and switching curriculum. Cisco Networking Academy Program. http://www.netacad.com.

  5. Wen, Y. (2001). Enterprise IP LAN/WAN Design version 1.1. 2001 TAOS - The Sys Admin Company. http://www.taos.com.

  6. Cahn, R. S. (1998). Wide area network design: Concepts and tools for optimization. Burlington: Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mockapetris, P. (1987). Domain names: Concepts and facilities. STD 13, RFC 1034. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC1034.

  8. Mockapetris, P. (1987). Domain names: Implementation and specification. STD 13, RFC 1035. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC1035.

  9. Crovella, M. E., & Carter, R. L. (1995). Dynamic server selection in the internet. Technical Report, Boston University.

  10. Carter, R. L., Crovella, M. E.(1997). Server selection using dynamic path characterization in wide-area networks. In INFOCOM 1997 sixteenth annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and communications societies. Proceedings (Vol. 3, pp. 1014–1021). IEEE.

  11. Fei, Z., Bhattacharjee, S., Zegura, E. W., & Ammar, M. H. (1998). A novel server selection technique for improving the response time of a replicated service. In INFOCOM 1998 seventeenth annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and communications societies. Proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 783–791). IEEE.

  12. Carter, R. L., & Crovella, M. E. (1999). On the network impact of dynamic server selection. Computer Networks, 31, 2529–2558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shimokawa, T., Yoshida, N., & Ushijima, K. (2000). Flexible server selection using DNS. In ICDCS workshop on internet 2000 (pp. A76–A81).

  14. Shimokawa, T., Yoshida, N., Ushijima, K. (2000). DNS-based mechanism for policy-added server selection. In International conference on advances in infrastructure for electronic business, science, and education on the internet, SSGRR 2000.

  15. Shaikh, A., Tewari, R., & Agrawal, M. (2001). On the effectiveness of DNS-based server selection. In INFOCOM 2001 twentieth annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and communications societies, Proceedings (Vol. 3). IEEE.

  16. Shimokawa, T., Yoshida, N., Ushijima, K. (2001). Server selection mechanism with pluggable selection policies. In 2006 Electronics and communications in Japan, Part 3 (Vol. 89, No. 8) (translated from Denshi Joho Tsushin Gakkai Ronbunshi, Vol. J84-D-I, No. 9, September 2001, pp. 1396–1403).

  17. Pan, J., Hou, Y. T., & Li, B. (2003). An overview of DNS-based server selections in content distribution networks. Computer Networks, 43(2003), 695–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mase, K., Kuribayashi, T., & Tsuno, A. (2004). A dynamic server selection method using QoS statistics. In Electronics and communications in Japan, Part 1, Vol. 87, No. 7 (translated from Denshi Joho Tsushin Gakkai Ronbunshi, Vol. J86-B, No. 3, 2003, pp. 499–510).

  19. Cai, L., Ye, J., Pan, J., Shen, X. S., & Mark, J. W. (2006). Dynamic server selection using fuzzy inference in content distribution networks. Computer Communications, 29(8), 1026–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Alzoubi, H. A., Rabinovich, M., & Spatscheck, O. (2007). MyXDNS: A request routing DNS server with decoupled server selection, In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 351–360).

  21. Mendonc, N. C., Silva, J. A. F., & Anido, R. O. (2008). Client-side selection of replicated web services: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Systems and Software, 81, 1346–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bhardwaj, S. K., & Malhotra, J. S. (2011). Simulation and comparison of hashing techniques in CDN DNS. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 3(4), 3039–3044.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nicholes, M. O., Chuah, C., Wub, S. F., & Mukherjee, B. (2011). Inter-domain collaborative routing (IDCR): Server selection for optimal client performance. Computer Communications, 34, 1798–1809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jin, Y., Yamai, N., Okayama, K., & Nakamura, M. (2012). An adaptive route selection mechanism per connection based on multipath DNS round trip time on multihomed networks. Journal of Information Processing, 20(2), 386–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Poese, I., Frank, B., Ager, B., Smaragdakis, G., Uhlig, S., & Feldmann, A. (2012). Improving content delivery with PaDIS. IEEE Internet Computing, 16(3), 46–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mackus, T., Simonaitis, T., & Tamulioniene, D. (2012). Adaptive TTL based approach to balance DNS server load. Electronics and Electrical Engineering, 117, 81–84.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pope, M. B., Warkentin, M., Mutchler, L. A., Luo, X. R. (2012). The domain name system—Past, present, and future. In 2012 Communications of the Association for Information Systems (Vol. 30, Article 21, pp. 329–346).

  28. Kamilaris, A., & Pitsillides, A. (2012). Using DNS for global discovery of environmental services. In 8th International conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST) (pp. 280–284).

  29. Otto, J. S., Sánchez, M. A., Rula, J. P., Stein, T., & Bustamante, F. E. (2012). namehelp: Intelligent client-side DNS resolution. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 42(4), 287–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Frank, B. (2014). Dynamic content delivery infrastructure deployment using network cloud resources. Technische Universität Berlin, Fakultät IV: Elektrotechnik und Informatik, Doctoral Thesis.

  31. Liu, L., Zhou, C., Zhang, X., Guo, Z., & Li, C. (2014). Probabilistic chunk scheduling approach in parallel multiple-server dash. In 2014 IEEE visual communications and image processing conference (pp. 5–8).

  32. Zhang, S., Li, B., Li, B. (2015). Presto: Towards fair and efficient http adaptive streaming from multiple servers. In 2015 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC) (pp. 6849–6854).

  33. Goel, U., Wittie, M. P., & Steiner, M. (2015) Faster web through client-assisted CDN server selection. In 2015 24th International conference on computer communication and networks (ICCCN), August 2015.

  34. Bouten, N., Claeys, M., Van Poecke, B., Latrey, S., & De Turck, F. (2016). Dynamic server selection strategy for multi-server HTTP adaptive streaming services. In 12th International conference on network and service management, 2016 (pp. 201–209).

  35. Ookla. (2017). How does the test itself work? Retrieved December 20, 2017 from https://support.speedtest.net/hc/en-us/articles/203845400-How-does-the-test-itself-work-How-is-the-result-calculated-.

  36. Sundaresan, S., Lee, D., Deng, X., Feng, Y., & Dhamdhere, A. (2017). Challenges in inferring internet congestion using throughput measurements. In Proceedings of IMC 2017, London, United Kingdom, November 1–3, 2017.

  37. Padhye, J., Firoiu, V., Towsley, D. F., & Kurose, J. F. (2000). Modeling TCP reno performance: A simple model and its empirical validation. In IEEE/ACM transactions on networking.

  38. Sundaresan, S., Dhamdhere, A., Allman, M., & Claffy, K. (2017). TCP congestion signatures. In Proceedings of IMC 2017, London, United Kingdom, November 1–3, 2017.

  39. Mathis, M., Semke, J., Mahdavi, J., & Ott, T. (1977). The macroscopic behavior of the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 27(3), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Giustiniano, D., Goma, E., Toledo, A. L., & Athanasiou, G. (2013). Optimizing TCP performance in multi-AP residential broadband connections via Minislot access. Journal of Computer Networks and Communications, 2013, Article ID 752363. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/752363.

  41. Padhye, J., Firoiu, V., Towsley, D., & Kurose, J. (1998). Modeling TCP throughput: A simple model and its empirical validation. In 1998 ACM SIGCOMM applications, technologies, architectures and protocols for computer communication (pp. 303–314).

  42. Padhye, J. (2000). Model based approach to TCP friendly congestion control. Doctoral Dissertation.

  43. Cardwell, N., Savage, S., & Anderson, T. (2000). Modeling TCP latency. In INFOCOM 2000 nineteenth annual joint conference of the IEEE computer and communications societies (pp. 1724–1751).

  44. Kazmi, M., Shamim, A., Wahab, N., & Anwar, F. (2014). Comparison of TCP tahoe, reno, new reno, sack and vegas in IP and MPLS networks under constant bit rate traffic. In International conference on advanced computational technologies & creative media, August 2014.

  45. Arunakumariand, B., & Chennareddy, P. (2015). TCP reno, sack and vegas performance analysis. International Journal on Cybernetics and Informatics, 4(2), 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yu, Y., Wessels, D., Larson, M., & Zhang, L. (2012). Authority server selection in DNS caching resolvers. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 42(2), 80–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wang, Z., Wang, X., & Lee, X. (2010). Analyzing BIND DNS server selection algorithm. International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control, 6(11), 5131–5142.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Vixie, P. (Ed.), Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., & Bound, J. (1997). Dynamic updates in the domain name system (DNS UPDATE). RFC 2136. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC2136.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Information Technology in Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Kneza Trpimira 2b, Osijek, Croatia

    Drazen Tomic, Drago Zagar & Goran Martinovic

Authors
  1. Drazen Tomic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Drago Zagar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Goran Martinovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drazen Tomic.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Appendix A: Example of DSS method implementation

Appendix A: Example of DSS method implementation

An example of implementation of the DSS RRs in the authoritative server is shown in Fig. 11. Explanation of the DNS RRs of the authoritative DNS server.

Fig. 11
figure 11

Example of DSS method implementation

Full size image

The domain name “server.example.com” has 4 defined IPv4 addresses of network servers. For the domain name “server.example.com” 4 DSS RRs are defined, 3 to TCP port 80 (HTTP service) and 1 for TCP port 25 (SMTP service). In the first DSS RR, all the DSS fields are defined. There is no defined DSS RRs for the IP address 198.51.100.20, but as this IP is in the A RRs of the domain name “server”, the last defined DSS RR is used for it. DSS RRs for the IP addresses 203.0.113.30 and 203.0.113.40 do not have all DSS parameters defined, thereby the parameters of the first DSS RRs are used, respectively of the values “0 4 5 TCP HTTP 2000 5 5000 0” for the IP address 203.0.113.30 and the values “4 5 TCP HTTP 2000 5 5000 0” for the IP 203.0.113.40.

The total size of the DNS response to the A RR request for “server.example.com.”, where the response has four A RRs and 4 DSS RRs, is: 12 (the message header) + 24 (the DNS question) + 64 (the DNS answer) + 128 (the DNS additional section with 4 DSS RRs) = 228 bytes. This is significantly less than the recommended maximum size of DNS UDP datagram of 512 bytes. When the A/AAAA field would use a 32-bit IP address instead of a 16-bit pointer, the overall size of the DNS response from the example would be 228 + 4 × 2 = 236 bytes. The DSS method in its basic design supports the IPv6 protocol as information about an IP address, regardless it is IPv4 or IPv6 address, is delivered as a pointer to the appropriate A/AAAA RR in the response section. The size of the UDP datagram containing the DSS’s DNS response to the AAAA query is increased by 12 bytes per AAAA RR, what is the difference in size between the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. When the total size of DNS response is calculated, the size of all DNS RRs included in the response must be added in the calculation, such as Name Server RRs in Authority Section and their A or AAAA RRs in Additional Section. IF DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions) is used, DNS messages will be larger than DNS messages without DNSSEC and can exceed 512 bytes. DNS message with DNSSEC may approach 4096 bytes and more often use TCP than DNS message without DNSSEC.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tomic, D., Zagar, D. & Martinovic, G. Implementation and efficiency analysis of composite DNS-metric for dynamic server selection. Telecommun Syst 71, 1–18 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-018-0516-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-018-0516-3

Keywords