Introduction

Introduction

• present new measurement technique to infer high-quality ISP map while using as few measurements as possible
  • directed probing (pick important routes)
  • path reduction (suppress redundant routes)
  • alias resolution problem (clustering IP addresses to corresponding routers)
• 3 ISPs helped validate maps

Problem & Approach

• ISP network composed of POPs (points of presence)
  • POP is physical location with a number of routers
• ISP backbone connects the POPs
  • routers within the backbone are core routers
  • access routers sit at edge of ISP and neighboring networks
• discover ISP maps using traceroutes
• single map with tr/1.5 s would take 125 days to complete
• choose traceroutes that contribute the most information to a map and omit likely redundancies
  • expected routing paths provide a means to selection
• after collecting traceroutes, difficulties remain
  • TR has list of IPs representing router interfaces: IPs must be resolved to a particular alias
  • identify geographical location of a router and role in topology (use location hints embedded in DNS names to extract backbone/POPs)

Mapping Techniques

• Selecting measurements
  • directed probing using BGP tables
    • BGP tables not available directly, use “RouteViews” which gives BGP routing tables from ~60 vantage points
    • dependent prefixes: prefix originates within ISP
    • insiders: traceroute within dependent prefix insider
    • up/down trace: likely to transit ISP based on AS path
  • path reductions
    • ingress reduction, egress reduction, next-hop AS reduction
  • alias resolution
    • determine which IP addresses belong to the same router
    • basic: two aliases should respond with the same source address when sending a UDP packet to an unbound port
      • add TTL comparison to aid in check
    • also try ICMP rate limiting technique
    • in-order IP identifiers on split packets used to determine if a single router
  • router identification
    • rely on DNS names as accurate characterization of router owner
    • many routers operate on similar architecture

Evaluation

• validates with ISPs
  • of 3 ISPs, no POPs missed, one misplaced router due to missing city code
  • miss any links?
    • a few extra links
  • which fraction of routers missed?
    • one with no obvious misses
    • all backbones present, but some access routers missing, 3rd said all router in AS
  • what fraction of customer routers missed?
    • not verified/verifiable
  • ISP rates maps “good”, “v good”, “v good/excellent”
• generally not as many bgp neighbors identified in map vs routeviews
• beats skitter from caida by a large margin
• impact of reductions
  • directed probing only needs 1-8% of traceroutes requires by brute force (90-150M)
  • ingress reduction used only 12% or so of traces selected by directed probing
  • egress reduction not universally applicable
    • minimum customer allocation smaller than /24?
  • next-hop AS reduction picks only 5% from directed probing analysis
  • alias resolution
    • 70% of routers have just one IP
    • 10% w/ 2
    • max is 24 IPs on a single router