PATHspider: A tool for active measurement of path transparency

ABSTRACT

In today’s Internet we see an increasing deployment of middleboxes. While middleboxes provide in-network functionality that is necessary to keep networks manageable and economically viable, any packet mangling – whether essential for the needed functionality or accidental as an unwanted side effect – makes it more and more difficult to deploy new protocols or extensions of existing protocols. For the evolution of the protocol stack, it is important to know which network impairments exist and potentially need to be worked around. While classical network measurement tools are often focused on absolute performance values, we present a new measurement tool, called PATHspider that performs A/B testing between two different protocols or different protocol extension to perform controlled experiments of protocol-dependent connectivity problems as well as differential treatment. PATHspider is a framework for performing and analyzing these measurements, while the actual A/B test can be easily customized. This paper describes the basic design approach and architecture of PATHspider and gives guidance how to use and customize it.

References

1. 1.S. Alcock, P. Lorier, and R. Nelson. Libtrace: A packet capture and analysis library. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 42(2):42–48, Mar. 2012.
2. 2.P. Biondi. Scapy: explore the net with new eyes. Technical report, EADS Corporate Research Center, http://www.secdev.org, 2005.
3. 3.Y. Cheng, J. Chu, S. Radhakrishnan, and A. Jain. TCP Fast Open. RFC 7413 (Experimental), Dec. 2014.
4. 4.G. Fairhurst and M. Westerlund. Applicability Statement for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums. RFC 6936 (Proposed Standard), Apr. 2013.
5. 5.A. Filasto and J. Appelbaum. Ooni: Open observatory of network interference. In FOCI, 2012.
6. 6.A. Ford, C. Raiciu, M. Handley, and O. Bonaventure. TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses. RFC 6824 (Experimental), Jan. 2013.
7. 7.E. Gubser. Explicit Congestion Negotiation (ECN) support based on P2P networks. ftp://ftp.tik.ee.ethz.ch/pub/students/2015-FS/SA-2015-05.pdf.
8. 8.M. Honda, Y. Nishida, C. Raiciu, A. Greenhalgh, M. Handley, and H. Tokuda. Is It Still Possible to Extend TCP? In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement Conference, IMC '11, pages 181–194, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM.
9. 9.C. Kreibich, N. Weaver, B. Nechaev, and V. Paxson. Netalyzr: Illuminating The Edge Network. In Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), 2010.
10. 10.K. Ramakrishnan, S. Floyd, and D. Black. The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP. RFC 3168 (Proposed Standard), Sept. 2001. Updated by RFCs 4301, 6040.
11. 11.R. N. Staff. RIPE Atlas: A Global Internet Measurement Network. Internet Protocol Journal, 18(3), September 2015.
12. 12.J. Touch. Transport options for udp. Internet-Draft draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-02, IETF Secretariat, January 2016. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-02.txt.
13. 13.B. Trammell, P. Casas, D. Rossi, A. Bar, Z. Houidi, I. Leontiadis, T. Szemethy, and M. Mellia. mPlane: an intelligent measurement plane for the Internet. Communications Magazine, IEEE, 52(5):148–156, 2014.
14. 14.B. Trammell, M. Kühlewind, D. Boppart, I. Learmonth, G. Fairhurst, and R. Scheffenegger. Enabling internet-wide deployment of explicit congestion notification. In Passive and Active Measurement Conference, pages 193–205, New York, USA, 2015.

Index Terms

• Networks

  • Network performance evaluation

    • Network experimentation

    • Network measurement

  • Network protocols

    • Transport protocols