Computing Reviews
Today's Issue Hot Topics Search Browse Recommended My Account Log In
Review Help
Search
Resilient overlay networks
Andersen D., Balakrishnan H., Kaashoek F., Morris R. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review35 (5):131-145,2001.Type:Article
Date Reviewed: Jan 11 2005

In a world where peer-to-peer networks flourish, and where Internet path congestion and oscillations are daily events, the need for new efficient routing mechanisms is more and more pressing. Andersen, Balakrishnan, Kaashoek, and Morris present resilient overlay networks (RONs) as groups of nodes, distributed over large areas, whose users agree to engage in cooperative networking, and whose paths are formed over actual Internet routing paths.

The main characteristics of a RON are that the number of participating nodes is small (up to 50), and that communication between sites follows paths that circumvent temporary failures of the actual Internet paths. This is achieved by continuous probing of the direct links between sites, and by employing a new link-state routing protocol (different than open shortest path first (OSPF) and border gateway protocol (BGP)). Simply put, when the underlying segments of a direct path between two RON nodes fail (BGP failures are often cited), the overlay network redirects the entire path toward an intermediary RON node, apparently lengthening the entire path, but still offering connectivity. RON nodes have addresses different than Internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) or Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6). Actual experiments, performed by the authors, included a 16-node deployment in the USA and Europe.

As expected, another distinguishing trait of RON networking is the ability of applications at the uppermost layer to make routing decisions (traditionally, routing and application layers are separated, with the inconvenience of application interruption when routing fails).

The authors pay detailed attention to motivating the overlaying routing approach. Not only do they describe an actual implementation, including simulation, test deployment, and performance measurements, but they also address, in a separate discussion section, tough questions on potential violation of the deployed Internet policy routing (presumably due to tunneling), limited RON size and scalability, and network address translation (NAT) traversal.

Finally, one aspect whose treatment seems to be overlooked is one that lies at the very heart of a routing protocol: loop avoidance. While a description of path lookup and building by using link-state exchanges is given, proofs (at least conceptual) of loop avoidance are not mentioned at all.

The paper provides a comprehensive bibliographical list. Many of the references are correctly used as explanations of the current BGP routing instabilities, as well as of how these influence transmission control protocol (TCP) applications; thus, they offer perfect motivations for the need to overlay network routing.

Reviewer:  Alexandru Petrescu Review #: CR130641 (0506-0690)
Bookmark and Share
 
Network Communication (D.4.4 ... )
 
 
Routing And Layout (F.2.2 ... )
 
Would you recommend this review?
yes
no
Other reviews under "Network Communication": Date
Communication networks management
Terplan K., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1987. Type: Book (9780131530652)
Dec 1 1987
A communication system supporting large datagrams on a local area network
Linton A., Panzieri F. Software--Practice & Experience 16(3): 278-289, 1986. Type: Article
Oct 1 1986
Efficient implementation of rendezvous
Schiper A., Simon R., Desarzens P., Sengstag J. The Computer Journal 32(3): 267-272, 1989. Type: Article
Jun 1 1990
more...

E-Mail This Printer-Friendly
Send Your Comments
Contact Us
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.   Copyright 1999-2024 ThinkLoud®
Terms of Use
| Privacy Policy