Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Moving bits with a fleet of shared virtual routers

1.056 visualizaciones

Publicado el

This is my presentation at IFIP Networking 2018 in Zurich.

In this paper, we propose a cloud-assisted network as an alternative connectivity provider.

More details: https://kkpradeeban.blogspot.com/2018/05/moving-bits-with-fleet-of-shared.html

Publicado en: Educación
  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Moving bits with a fleet of shared virtual routers

  1. 1. Pradeeban Kathiravelu∗† Marco Chiesa‡ Pedro Marcos§ Marco Canini¶ Luís Veiga∗ ∗ INESC-ID Lisboa / Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa † Université catholique de Louvain ‡ KTH § UFRGS/FURG ¶ KAUST IFIP Networking 2018. Zurich, Switzerland. 15th May, 2018. 1 Moving Bits with a Fleet of Shared Virtual Routers
  2. 2. Introduction 2/20 ● Increasing demand for bandwidth. ● Decreasing bandwidth prices. ● Pricing Disparity. E.g. IP Transit Price, 2014 (per Mbps) ○ USA: 0.94 $ ○ Kazakhstan: 15 $ ○ Uzbekistan: 347 $ ● What about latency? ○ Online gaming. ○ High-frequency trading. ○ Remote surgery.
  3. 3. Motivation ● Cloud providers have a dedicated connectivity. ○ Well-provisioned and maintained network. ○ Increasing number of regions and points of presence. ● Can a network overlay over cloud instances be used as an alternative connectivity provider? ○ Cost-effectiveness. ○ High-performance. ○ Optional network services. 3/20
  4. 4. Cloud-Assisted Networks Virtual/overlay networks over cloud environments 4/20
  5. 5. Our Proposal: NetUber ● A third-party virtual connectivity provider with no fixed infrastructure. ○ An overlay network, leveraging multi-cloud infrastructures. 5/20
  6. 6. NetUber Application Scenarios 1. Cheaper transfers between two endpoints. 2. Higher throughput or reduced latency. 3. Better alternative to SaaS replication. 4. Network services (compression, encryption, ..). 6/20
  7. 7. ● Feasibility Study: Platform Cost of NetUber 7/20 A. Cost of Cloud Instances. ○ Charged per second. ○ Very high. B. Cost of Bandwidth. ○ Charged per data transferred. ○ Also very high. C. Cost to connect to the cloud provider. Scenario (1 of 4): Cheaper Transfers
  8. 8. A) Cost of Cloud Instances: Observations ● 10 Gbps R4 instance (r4.8xlarge) pairs offered only maximum of 1.2 Gbps of data transfer inter-region. ○ 10 Gbps only inside a placement group. ● We need more pairs of instances! 8/20 Scenario (1 of 4): Cheaper Transfers
  9. 9. Spot Instances! ● Cheaper (up to 90% savings), but volatile, instances. ● Price Fluctuations - Future price unpredictable (for EC2). ● Differing prices among availability zones of a region. ○ Buy from the cheapest availability zones at the moment. ○ Maintain instances in the cheap availability zones. 9/22 Scenario (1 of 4): Cheaper Transfers
  10. 10. B) Cost of Bandwidth: Price disparity is real! 10/20 ● Regions 1 - 9 (US, Canada, and EU) remain much cheaper than the others. Scenario (1 of 4): Cheaper Transfers
  11. 11. C) Cost to connect to the cloud provider 11/20 ● Connect the end-user to the cloud servers. ● Often provided by the cloud provider. ○ Example: Amazon Direct Connect. ○ Charged per port-hour (e.g. how many hours a 10 GbE port is used). Scenario (1 of 4): Cheaper Transfers
  12. 12. Cloud-Assisted Point-to-Point Connectivity 12/20 ● Also cheaper than MPLS networks or transit providers. ○ Thanks to spot instances. Scenario (2 of 4): Higher throughput or reduced latency ● Better control over the path, compared to the Internet paths.
  13. 13. 13/20 Scenario (3 of 4): Better Alternative to SaaS Replication ● Deploy Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) applications in just one region. ○ Use NetUber to access them from another region. ■ Instead of replicating them across multiple cloud regions. ● Access to more regions by leveraging multiple cloud providers.
  14. 14. 14/20 Scenario (4 of 4): Network Services ● NetUber uses memory-optimized R4 spot instances. ○ Each instance with 244 GB memory, 32 vCPU, and 10 GbE interface. ● Possibility to deploy network services at the instances. ● Network services. ○ Value-added services for the customer. ■ Encryption, WAN-Optimizer, load balancer, .. ○ Services for cost-efficiency. ■ Compression.
  15. 15. Evaluation ● Cheaper point-to-point connectivity. ○ AWS as the overlay cloud provider. ○ Compared against a transit provider and another connectivity provider with a large global backbone network. ● Improve latency with cloud routes. ○ Compared to ISPs. ○ Traffic sent from: RIPE Atlas Probes and distributed servers. ○ Destination: AWS distributed servers from the AWS regions. ○ ISPs vs. ISP to the nearest AWS region and then NetUber overlay. 15/20
  16. 16. 1) Cheaper point-to-point connectivity 16/20 ● Expense for 10 Gbps flat connectivity ○ Measured for transfers from EU and USA. ○ Cheaper for data transfers <50 TB.
  17. 17. 2) Improve latency with cloud routes 17/20 ● Instead of sending traffic A -> Z, can we send A -> B -> Z? ○ B is closer to A. B and Z are servers in cloud regions. ○ B and Z are connected by NetUber overlay.
  18. 18. Ping times: ISP vs. NetUber (via region, % improvement) 18/20 ● NetUber cuts Internet latencies up to a factor of 30%. ● The use of Direct Connect would make this even better.
  19. 19. Related Work ● Industrial efforts on infrastructure to offer connectivity. ○ Teridion - Internet fast lanes for SaaS providers. ○ Voxility - Large scale globally distributed infrastructure as an alternative to transit providers. ● Previous research focus on technical side. ○ Not economical aspects - More expensive. ○ NetUber as a cheaper alternative, with spot instances. 19/20
  20. 20. Conclusion ● A connectivity provider that does not own the infrastructure. ● “Internet Fast-routes” through cloud-assisted networks. ○ Better than ISPs (~50 - 75 Mbps, often with a cap) for end-users. ● Cheaper point-to-point connectivity. ○ Cheaper than transit providers and similar offerings (for < 50 TB/month). ● Future work: ○ Evaluate NetUber for more parameters (loss rate, jitter, ..) ○ Evaluate the cost with more cloud providers and pairs of regions. 20/20
  21. 21. Conclusion 21/21 Thank you! ● A connectivity provider that does not own the infrastructure. ● “Internet Fast-routes” through cloud-assisted networks. ○ Better than ISPs (~50 - 75 Mbps, often with a cap) for end-users. ● Cheaper point-to-point connectivity. ○ Cheaper than transit providers and similar offerings (for < 50 TB/month). ● Future work: ○ Evaluate NetUber for more parameters (loss rate, jitter, ..) ○ Evaluate the cost with more cloud providers and pairs of regions.

×