skip to main content
research-article

Forwarding devices: From measurements to simulations

Published:18 February 2011Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Most popular simulation and emulation tools use high-level models of forwarding behavior in switches and routers, and give little guidance on setting model parameters such as buffer sizes. Thus, a myriad of papers report results that are highly sensitive to the forwarding model or buffer size used. Incorrect conclusions are often drawn from these results about transport or application protocol performance, service provisioning, or vulnerability to attacks. In this article, we argue that measurement-based models for routers and other forwarding devices are necessary. We devise such a model and validate it with measurements from three types of Cisco routers and one Juniper router, under varying traffic conditions. The structure of our model is device-independent, but the model uses device specific parameters. The compactness of the parameters and simplicity of the model make it versatile for high-fidelity simulations that preserve simulation scalability. We construct a profiler to infer the parameters within a few hours. Our results indicate that our model approximates different types of routers significantly better than the default ns-2 simulator models. The results also indicate that queue characteristics vary dramatically among the devices we measure, and that backplane contention can be a factor.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Agarwal, S., Sommers, J., and Barford, P. 2005. Scalable network path emulation. In Proceedings of the Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Modelings Analysis and Simulation on Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS). 219--228. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Baker, F. 2006. {e2e} extracting no. of packets or bytes in a router buffer. Message thread to “end2end” mailing list. http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2006-December.txtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J. 1999. Benchmarking methodology for network interconnect devices. RFC 2544. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2544.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Breslau, L., Estrin, D., Fall, K., Floyd, S., Heidemann, J., Helmy, A., Huang, P., McCanne, S., Varadhan, K., Xu, Y., and Yu, H. 2000. Advances in network simulation. IEEE Comput. 33, 5, 59--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cao, J., Cleveland, W., Gao, Y., Jeffay, K., Smith, F., and Weigle, M. 2004. Stochastic models for generating synthetic HTTP source traffic. In Proceedings of the IEEE Annual Joint Conference of the Computer and Communications Societies (InfoCom). 1547--1558.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chertov, R., Fahmy, S., and Shroff, N. B. 2007. A black-box router profiler. In Proceedings of Global Internet Conference. 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Chertov, R., Fahmy, S., and Shroff, N. B. 2008a. A device-independent router model. In Proceedings of the Joint Annual Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (InfoCom). 9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Chertov, R., Fahmy, S., and Shroff, N. B. 2008b. Fidelity of network simulation and emulation: A case study of TCP-targeted denial of service attacks. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 19, 1, 4:1--4:29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Cisco Systems. 2010a. Basic system management. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1835/ products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a008030c799.html#wp1009032Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Cisco Systems. 2010b. Cisco 12000 series internet router architecture: Packet switching. http://www.cisco. com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps167/products_tech_note09186a00801e1dc1.shtmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cisco Systems. 2010c. Cisco 3600 series router architecture. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ ps274/products_tech_note09186a00801e1155.shtmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Cisco Systems. 2010d. Cisco 7200 series router architecture. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ ps341/products_tech_note09186a0080094ea3.shtmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Cisco Systems. 2010e. How to choose the best router switching path for your network. http://www.cisco.com/ en/US/tech/tk827/tk831/technologies_white_paper09186a00800a62d9.shtmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Deri, L. 2004. Improving passive packet capture: Beyond device polling. In Proceedings of the SANE Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Endace. 2010. http://www.endace.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Fall, K. 1999. Network emulation in the vint/ns simulator. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Computer and Communication (ISCC). 244--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Floyd, S. and Kohler, E. 2002. Internet research needs better models. In Proceedings of ACM HotNets Conference. 29--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Hirabaru, M. 2006. Impact of bottleneck queue size on TCP protocols and its measurement. IEICE—Trans. Inf. Syst. E89-D, 1, 132--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hohn, N., Veitch, D., Papagiannaki, K., and Diot, C. 2004. Bridging router performance and queuing theory. In Proceedings of the ACM Joint International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (SIGMETRICS). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Juniper Networks. 2010. Juniper networks m-series multiservice edge routing portfolio. http://www.juniper. net/products_and_services/m_series_routing_portfolio%/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kohler, E., Morris, R., Chen, B., Jannotti, J., and Kaashoek, M. F. 2000. The click modular router. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 18, 3, 263--297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Mahrenholz, D. and Ivanov, S. 2004. Real-Time network emulation with ns-2. In Proceedings of the DS-RT Conference. 29--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Mandeville, R. and Perser, J. 2000. Benchmarking methodology for LAN switching devices. RFC 2889, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2889.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Mathis, M., Semke, J., and Mahdavi, J. 1997. The macroscopic behavior of the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm. SIGCOMM Comput. Comm. Rev. 27, 3, 67--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. McKeown, N. 1999. The iSLIP scheduling algorithm for input-queued switches. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 7, 2, 188--201. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mirkovic, J., Hussain, A., Wilson, B., Fahmy, S., Reiher, P., Thomas, R., Yao, W., and Schwab, S. 2007. Towards user-centric metrics for denial-of-service measurement. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Experimental Computer Science (part of ACM FCRC). 14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Nicol, D. M. 2003a. Scalability of network simulators revisited. In Proceedings of the Communications Networking and Distributed Systems Modeling and Simulation Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicol, D. M. 2003b. Utility analysis of network simulators. Int. J. Simul. Syst. Sci. Technol.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Papagiannaki, K., Veitch, D., and Hohn, N. 2004. Origins of microcongestion in an access router. In Proceedings of the IEEE Passive and Active Measurement Conference (PAM).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Rizzo, L. 2010. DummyNet. http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ip_dummynet/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaikh, A. and Greenberg, A. 2001. Experience in black-box OSPF measurement. In Proceedings of the SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop (IMW). ACM Press, 113--125. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Sommers, J. and Barford, P. 2004. Self-Configuring network traffic generation. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference (IMC). ACM Press, 68--81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Van den Broeck, B., Leys, P., Potemans, J., Theunis, J., Van Lil, E., and Van de Capelle, A. 2002. Validation of router models in OPNET. In Proceedings of the Conference (OPNETWORK).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Vishwanath, K. V. and Vahdat, A. 2006. Realistic and responsive network traffic generation. In Proceedings of the ACM Data Communications Festival (SIGCOMM). 111--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Weigle, M. C., Adurthi, P., Hernandez-Campos, F., Jeffay, K., and Smith, F. D. 2006. Tmix: A tool for generating realistic application workloads in ns-2. ACM Comput. Comm. Rev. 36, 67--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Forwarding devices: From measurements to simulations

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation
              ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation  Volume 21, Issue 2
              February 2011
              136 pages
              ISSN:1049-3301
              EISSN:1558-1195
              DOI:10.1145/1899396
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2011 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 18 February 2011
              • Revised: 1 April 2010
              • Accepted: 1 April 2010
              • Received: 1 August 2009
              Published in tomacs Volume 21, Issue 2

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader