skip to main content
10.1145/3544216.3544222acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections

Continuous in-network round-trip time monitoring

Published:22 August 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Round-trip time (RTT) is a central metric that influences end-user QoE and can expose traffic-interception attacks. Many popular RTT monitoring techniques either send active probes (that do not capture application-level RTTs) or passively monitor only the TCP handshake (which can be inaccurate, especially for long-lived flows). High-speed programmable switches present a unique opportunity to monitor the RTTs continuously and react in real time to improve performance and security. In this paper, we present Dart, an inline, real-time, and continuous RTT measurement system that can enable automated detection of network events and adapt (e.g., routing, scheduling, marking, or dropping traffic) inside the network. However, designing Dart is fraught with challenges, due to the idiosyncrasies of the TCP protocol and the resource constraints in high-speed switches. Dart overcomes these challenges by strategically limiting the tracking of packets to only those that can generate useful RTT samples, and by identifying the synergy between per-flow state and per-packet state for efficient memory use. We present a P4 prototype of Dart for the Tofino switch, as well our experiments on a campus testbed and simulations using anonymized campus traces. Dart, running in real time and with limited data-plane memory, is able to collect 99% of the RTT samples of an offline, software baseline---a variant of the popular tcptrace tool that has access to unlimited memory.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. 2021. NVIDIA Mellanox NIC's Performance Report with DPDK 21.05. http://fast.dpdk.org/doc/perf/DPDK_21_05_Mellanox_NIC_performance_report.pdf (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Anurag Agrawal and Changhoon Kim. 2020. Intel Tofino2: A 12.9 Tbps P4-Programmable Ethernet Switch. In IEEE Hot Chips Symposium (HCS). IEEE Computer Society, 1--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Aditya Akella, Jeffrey Pang, Bruce Maggs, Srinivasan Seshan, and Anees Shaikh. 2004. A comparison of overlay routing and multihoming route control. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 34, 4 (2004), 93--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Maria Apostolaki, Ankit Singla, and Laurent Vanbever. 2021. Performance-Driven Internet Path Selection. In ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on SDN Research (SOSR). 41--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Axel Arnbak and Sharon Goldberg. 2014. Loopholes for circumventing the constitution: Unrestricted bulk surveillance on americans by collecting network traffic abroad. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 21 (2014), 317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Debopam Bhattacherjee, Muhammad Tirmazi, and Ankit Singla. 2017. A cloud-based content gathering network. In USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Henry Birge-Lee, Liang Wang, Jennifer Rexford, and Prateek Mittal. 2019. Sico: Surgical interception attacks by manipulating BGP communities. In ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 431--448.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. Borman, B. Braden, V. Jacobson, and R. Scheffenegger. 2014. TCP Extensions for High Performance. RFC 7323. RFC Editor.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Pat Bosshart, Dan Daly, Glen Gibb, Martin Izzard, Nick McKeown, Jennifer Rexford, Cole Schlesinger, Dan Talayco, Amin Vahdat, George Varghese, and David Walker. 2014. P4: Programming protocol-independent packet processors. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 44, 3 (2014), 87--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Francesco Bronzino, Paul Schmitt, Sara Ayoubi, Guilherme Martins, Renata Teixeira, and Nick Feamster. 2019. Inferring streaming video quality from encrypted traffic: Practical models and deployment experience. In ACM SIGMETRICS. 1--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuan-Ta Chen, Yu-Chun Chang, Po-Han Tseng, Chun-Ying Huang, and Chin-Laung Lei. 2011. Measuring the latency of cloud gaming systems. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 1269--1272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Xiaoqi Chen, Hyojoon Kim, Javed M Aman, Willie Chang, Mack Lee, and Jennifer Rexford. 2020. Measuring TCP round-trip time in the data plane. In ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Secure Programmable Network Infrastructure. 35--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Yunhua Deng, Yusen Li, Xueyan Tang, and Wentong Cai. 2016. Server allocation for multiplayer cloud gaming. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 918--927.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Hao Ding and Michael Rabinovich. 2015. TCP stretch acknowledgements and timestamps: Findings and implications for passive RTT measurement. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 45, 3 (2015), 20--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jon Dugan, Seth Elliott, Bruce A Mah, Jeff Poskanzer, and Kaustubh Prabhu. 2014. iperf3, tool for active measurements of the maximum achievable bandwidth on IP networks. (2014). https://github.com/esnet/iperf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Mojgan Ghasemi, Theophilus Benson, and Jennifer Rexford. 2017. Dapper: Data plane performance diagnosis of TCP. In ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on SDN Research (SOSR). ACM, 61--74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Nicholas Hopper, Eugene Y Vasserman, and Eric Chan-Tin. 2010. How much anonymity does network latency leak? ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) 13, 2 (2010), 1--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Hao Jiang and Constantinos Dovrolis. 2002. Passive estimation of TCP round-trip times. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 32, 3 (2002), 75--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Daehyeok Kim, Zaoxing Liu, Yibo Zhu, Changhoon Kim, Jeongkeun Lee, Vyas Sekar, and Srinivasan Seshan. 2020. TEA: Enabling state-intensive network functions on programmable switches. In ACM SIGCOMM. 90--106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Adam Langley, Alistair Riddoch, Alyssa Wilk, Antonio Vicente, Charles Krasic, Dan Zhang, Fan Yang, Fedor Kouranov, Ian Swett, Janardhan Iyengar, et al. 2017. The QUIC transport protocol: Design and internet-scale deployment. In ACM SIGCOMM. 183--196.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Changhyun Lee, Chunjong Park, Keon Jang, Sue Moon, and Dongsu Han. 2015. Accurate latency-based congestion feedback for datacenters. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC). 403--415.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanghwan Lee, Zhi-Li Zhang, and Srihari Nelakuditi. 2004. Exploiting as hierarchy for scalable route selection in multi-homed stub networks. In ACM Internet Measurement Conference. 294--299.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Zaoxing Liu, Samson Zhou, Ori Rottenstreich, Vladimir Braverman, and Jennifer Rexford. 2020. Memory-efficient performance monitoring on programmable switches with lean algorithms. In Symposium on Algorithmic Principles of Computer Systems (APoCS). SIAM, 31--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Giovane CM Moura, John Heidemann, Wes Hardaker, Pithayuth Charnsethikul, Jeroen Bulten, Joao Ceron, and Cristian Hesselman. 2022. Old but Gold: Prospecting TCP to Engineer and Real-time Monitor DNS Anycast. In Passive and Active Measurement Conference.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. RIPE NCC. 2021. RIPE Atlas. https://atlas.ripe.net/. (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Kathleen Nichols. 2017. pping (Pollere passive ping). https://github.com/pollere/pping. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Shawn Ostermann. 2007. tcptrace Homepage. http://www.tcptrace.org/ (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Stefan Savage, Neal Cardwell, David Wetherall, and Tom Anderson. 1999. TCP congestion control with a misbehaving receiver. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 29, 5 (1999), 71--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Brandon Schlinker, Todd Arnold, Italo Cunha, and Ethan Katz-Bassett. 2019. PEERING: Virtualizing BGP at the Edge for Research. In ACM SIGCOMM International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments And Technologies. 51--67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Satadal Sengupta, Hyojoon Kim, and Jennifer Rexford. 2021. Fine-Grained RTT Monitoring Inside the Network. Measuring Network Quality for End-Users (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Yixin Sun, Anne Edmundson, Laurent Vanbever, Oscar Li, Jennifer Rexford, Mung Chiang, and Prateek Mittal. 2015. RAPTOR: Routing attacks on privacy in Tor. In USENIX Security Symposium. 271--286.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Yufei Zheng, Xiaoqi Chen, Mark Braverman, and Jennifer Rexford. 2022. Unbiased Delay Measurement in the Data Plane. In Symposium on Algorithmic Principles of Computer Systems (APoCS). SIAM, 15--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Continuous in-network round-trip time monitoring

              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
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                SIGCOMM '22: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2022 Conference
                August 2022
                858 pages
                ISBN:9781450394208
                DOI:10.1145/3544216

                Copyright © 2022 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: 22 August 2022

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

                Acceptance Rates

                Overall Acceptance Rate554of3,547submissions,16%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader