skip to main content
research-article

Latency Imbalance Among Internet Load-Balanced Paths: A Cloud-Centric View

Authors Info & Claims
Published:12 June 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Load balancers choose among load-balanced paths to distribute traffic as if it makes no difference using one path or another. This work shows that the latency difference between load-balanced paths (called latency imbalance ), previously deemed insignificant, is now prevalent from the perspective of the cloud and affects various latency-sensitive applications. In this work, we present the first large-scale measurement study of latency imbalance from a cloud-centric view. Using public cloud around the globe, we measure latency imbalance both between data centers (DCs) in the cloud and from the cloud to the public Internet. Our key findings include that 1) Amazon's and Alibaba's clouds together have latency difference between load-balanced paths larger than 20ms to 21% of public IPv4 addresses; 2) Google's secret in having lower latency imbalance than other clouds is to use its own well-balanced private WANs to transit traffic close to the destinations and that 3) latency imbalance is also prevalent between DCs in the cloud, where 8 pairs of DCs are found to have load-balanced paths with latency difference larger than 40ms. We further evaluate the impact of latency imbalance on three applications (i.e., NTP, delay-based geolocation and VoIP) and propose potential solutions to improve application performance. Our experiments show that all three applications can benefit from considering latency imbalance, where the accuracy of delay-based geolocation can be greatly improved by simply changing how \textttping measures the minimum path latency.

References

  1. Brice Augustin, Timur Friedman, and Renata Teixeira. Measuring load-balanced paths in the Internet. In IMC, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Sandeep Kumar Singh, Tamal Das, and Admela Jukan. A survey on Internet multipath routing and provisioning. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 17(4):2157--2175, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Brice Augustin, Xavier Cuvellier, Benjamin Orgogozo, Fabien Viger, Timur Friedman, Matthieu Latapy, Clémence Magnien, and Renata Teixeira. Avoiding traceroute anomalies with Paris Traceroute. In IMC, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Kevin Vermeulen, Stephen D. Strowes, Olivier Fourmaux, and Timur Friedman. Multilevel MDA-Lite Paris Traceroute. In IMC, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Imtiaz Parvez, Ali Rahmati, Ismail Guvenc, Arif I. Sarwat, and Huaiyu Dai. A survey on low latency towards 5G: RAN, core network and caching solutions. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 20(4):3098--3130, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Rupa Krishnan, Harsha V. Madhyastha, Sridhar Srinivasan, Sushant Jain, Arvind Krishnamurthy, Thomas Anderson, and Jie Gao. Moving beyond end-to-end path information to optimize CDN performance. In IMC, pages 190--201, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Zachary Weinberg, Shinyoung Cho, Nicolas Christin, Vyas Sekar, and Phillipa Gill. How to catch when proxies lie: Verifying the physical locations of network proxies with active geolocation. In IMC, pages 203--217, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Frank Dabek, Russ Cox, Frans Kaashoek, and Robert Morris. Vivaldi: A decentralized network coordinate system. In SIGCOMM CCR, pages 15--26, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Sathiya Kumaran Mani, Ramakrishnan Durairajan, Paul Barford, and Joel Sommers. MNTP: Enhancing time synchronization for mobile devices. In IMC, 2016. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vol. 4, No. 2, Article 32. Publication date: June 2020. 32:24 Yibo Pi et al.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Cristina D. Murta, Pedro R. Torres Jr, and Prasant Mohapatra. Qrpp1--4: Characterizing quality of time and topology in a time synchronization network. In Globecom, pages 1--5, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cristel Pelsser, Luca Cittadini, Stefano Vissicchio, and Randy Bush. From Paris to Tokyo: On the suitability of ping to measure latency. In IMC, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mark Gondree and Zachary NJ Peterson. Geolocation of data in the cloud. In Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Data and application security and privacy, pages 25--36, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Junchen Jiang et al. Via: Improving Internet telephony call quality using predictive relay selection. In SIGCOMM, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Our tool and dataset. https://github.com/yibopi/latency-imbalance.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Yuval Shavitt and Noa Zilberman. A geolocation databases study. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 29(10):2044--2056, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. David L. Mills. Simple network time protocol (SNTP) version 4 for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4330, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jonathan Ledlie, Paul Gardner, and Margo I. Seltzer. Network coordinates in the wild. In NSDI, volume 7, pages 299--311, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Zhiruo Cao, Zheng Wang, and Ellen Zegura. Performance of hashing-based schemes for Internet load balancing. In INFOCOM, pages 332--341, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Darryl Veitch, Brice Augustin, Renata Teixeira, and Timur Friedman. Failure control in multipath route tracing. In INFOCOM, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Rafael Almeida, Osvaldo Fonseca, Elverton Fazzion, Dorgival Guedes, Wagner Meira, and Ítalo Cunha. A characterization of load balancing on the IPv6 Internet. In PAM, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Yves Vanaubel, Pascal Mérindol, Jean-Jacques Pansiot, and Benoit Donnet. MPLS under the microscope: Revealing actual transit path diversity. In IMC, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Eric Elena, Jean-Louis Rougier, and Stefano Secci. Characterisation of AS-level path deviations and multipath in Internet routing. In 6th EURO-NGI Conference on Next Generation Internet, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Matthew Luckie, Young Hyun, and Bradley Huffaker. Traceroute probe method and forward IP path inference. In IMC, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Zhe Wu, Curtis Yu, and Harsha V. Madhyastha. CosTLO: Cost-effective redundancy for lower latency variance on cloud storage services. In NSDI, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Bamba Gueye, Artur Ziviani, Mark Crovella, and Serge Fdida. Constraint-based geolocation of Internet hosts. TON, 14(6):1219--1232, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Fangfei Chen, Ramesh K. Sitaraman, and Marcelo Torres. End-user mapping: Next generation request routing for content delivery. In CCR, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Yibo Pi, Sugih Jamin, Peter Danzig, and Jacob Shaha. AP-Atoms: A high-accuracy data-driven client aggregation for global load balancing. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 26(6):2748--2761, December 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Mohammed S. Elbamby, Cristina Perfecto, Mehdi Bennis, and Klaus Doppler. Toward low-latency and ultra-reliable virtual reality. IEEE Network, 32(2):78--84, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Roy D. Yates, Mehrnaz Tavan, Yi Hu, and Dipankar Raychaudhuri. Timely cloud gaming. In INFOCOM, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Zhiruo Cao, Zheng Wang, and Ellen Zegura. Performance of hashing-based schemes for Internet load balancing. In INFOCOM, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Yilong Geng, Shiyu Liu, Zi Yin, Ashish Naik, Balaji Prabhakar, Mendel Rosenblum, and Amin Vahdat. Exploiting a natural network effect for scalable, fine-grained clock synchronization. In NSDI, pages 81--94, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Ethan Katz-Bassett, Harsha V. Madhyastha, Vijay Kumar Adhikari, Colin Scott, Justine Sherry, Peter Van Wesep, Thomas E. Anderson, and Arvind Krishnamurthy. Reverse traceroute. In NSDI, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. MDA-Lite Gitlab repository. https://gitlab.planet-lab.eu/cartography/multilevel-mda-lite, Sep 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Abhinav Pathak, Himabindu Pucha, Ying Zhang, Y. Charlie Hu, and Z. Morley Mao. A measurement study of Internet delay asymmetry. In PAM, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Robert Beverly. Yarrp'ing the Internet: Randomized high-speed active topology discovery. In IMC, pages 413--420, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Perry R. Hinton. Statistics explained. Routledge, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Christophe Leys, Christophe Ley, Olivier Klein, Philippe Bernard, and Laurent Licata. Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4):764--766, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Youndo Lee and Neil Spring. Identifying and aggregating homogeneous IPv4 /24 blocks with Hobbit. In IMC, pages 151--165, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Ki Suh Lee, Han Wang, Vishal Shrivastav, and Hakim Weatherspoon. Globally synchronized time via datacenter networks. In SIGCOMM, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. IP latency statistics. https://enterprise.verizon.com/terms/latency/, July 2019. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vol. 4, No. 2, Article 32. Publication date: June 2020. Latency Imbalance Among Internet Load-Balanced Paths: A Cloud-Centric View 32:25Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Sadjad Fouladi, John Emmons, Emre Orbay, Catherine Wu, Riad S. Wahby, and Keith Winstein. Salsify: low-latency network video through tighter integration between a video codec and a transport protocol. In NSDI, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. CAIDA. Routeviews prefix to AS mappings dataset for IPv4 and IPv6. https://www.caida.org/data/routing/routeviewsprefix2as. xml, Sep 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Timothy Wood, Prashant J. Shenoy, Alexandre Gerber, Jacobus E. van der Merwe, and Kadangode K. Ramakrishnan. The case for enterprise-ready virtual private clouds. In HotCloud, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Sathiya Kumaran Mani, Ramakrishnan Durairajan, Paul Barford, and Joel Sommers. An architecture for IoT clock synchronization. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Internet of Things, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Alexander Marder, Matthew Luckie, Amogh Dhamdhere, Bradley Huffaker, kc claffy, and Jonathan M. Smith. Pushing the boundaries with bdrmapit: Mapping router ownership at Internet scale. In IMC, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. CAIDA. The CAIDA Internet Topology Data Kit. https://www.caida.org/data/internet-topology-data-kit, August 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. AFRINIC Extended Allocation and Assignment Reports. ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. RIPE Extended Allocation and Assignment Reports. ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/ripencc/, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. LACNIC Extended Allocation and Assignment Reports. ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/lacnic/, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. APNIC Extended Allocation and Assignment Reports. ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/apnic/, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. ARIN Extended Allocation and Assignment Reports. ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/arin/, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Euro-IX IXP Directory. https://www.euro-ix.net/tools/ixp-directory, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. PeeringDB. https://peeringdb.com/api, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Packet Clearing House: Internet Exchange Directory. https://www.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/menu_download.php, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. CAIDA. The CAIDA AS Relationships Dataset. https://www.caida.org/data/as-relationships/, Feb 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Google cloud network service tiers. https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers#tab1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Matthew Luckie, Amogh Dhamdhere, kc Claffy, and David Murrell. Measured impact of crooked traceroute. In CCR, pages 14--21, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Ramesh Govindan and Vern Paxson. Estimating router ICMP generation delays. In PAM, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Yves Vanaubel, Pascal Mérindol, Jean-Jacques Pansiot, and Benoit Donnet. Through the wormhole: Tracking invisible MPLS tunnels. In IMC, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Joel Sommers, Paul Barford, and Brian Eriksson. On the prevalence and characteristics of MPLS deployments in the open Internet. In IMC, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Benoit Donnet, Matthew Luckie, Pascal Mérindol, and Jean-Jacques Pansiot. Revealing MPLS tunnels obscured from traceroute. In SIGCOMM CCR, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Abhinav Pathak, Ming Zhang, Y. Charlie Hu, Ratul Mahajan, and Dave Maltz. Latency inflation with MPLS-based traffic engineering. In IMC, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Chi-Yao Hong, Srikanth Kandula, Ratul Mahajan, Ming Zhang, Mohan Nanduri, and Roger Wattenhofer. Achieving high utilization with software-driven WAN. In SIGCOMM CCR, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Sushant Jain et al. B4: Experience with a globally-deployed software defined WAN. In SIGCOMM, pages 3--14, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Ramakrishnan Durairajan, Sathiya Kumaran Mani, Joel Sommers, and Paul Barford. Time's Forgotten: Using NTP to understand Internet latency. In HotNets, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Amazon AWS IoT. https://aws.amazon.com/iot/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Karyn Benson, Rafael Dowsley, and Hovav Shacham. Do you know where your cloud files are? In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on Cloud computing security workshop, pages 73--82, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Yang Xu, Chenguang Yu, Jingjiang Li, and Yong Liu. Video telephony for end-consumers: Measurement study of Google+, iChat, and Skype. In IMC, pages 371--384, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Osama Haq, Mamoon Raja, and Fahad R. Dogar. Measuring and improving the reliability of wide-area cloud paths. In WWW, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Venkata N. Padmanabhan and Lakshminarayanan Subramanian. An investigation of geographic mapping techniques for Internet hosts. In SIGCOMM, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Planetlab locations. https://www.planet-lab.org/db/pub/sites.php, April, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. iPlane project dataset. http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~harshavm/iplane/iplane_logs/data/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. G.107. The E-Model, a computational model for user in transmission planning, 2017. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Haiyong Xie and Yang Richard Yang. A measurement-based study of the skype peer-to-peer VoIP performance. In IPTPS, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Latency Imbalance Among Internet Load-Balanced Paths: A Cloud-Centric View

        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 Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems
          Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems  Volume 4, Issue 2
          SIGMETRICS
          June 2020
          623 pages
          EISSN:2476-1249
          DOI:10.1145/3405833
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2020 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: 12 June 2020
          Published in pomacs Volume 4, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader