skip to main content
research-article

Retroactive Packet Sampling for Traffic Receipts

Published:26 March 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Is it possible to design a packet-sampling algorithm that prevents the network node that performs the sampling from treating the sampled packets preferentially? We study this problem in the context of designing a "network transparency'' system. In this system, networks emit receipts for a small sample of the packets they observe, and a monitor collects these receipts to estimate each network's loss and delay performance. Sampling is a good building block for this system, because it enables a solution that is flexible and combines low resource cost with quantifiable accuracy. The challenge is cheating resistance: when a network's performance is assessed based on the conditions experienced by a small traffic sample, the network has a strong incentive to treat the sampled packets better than the rest. We contribute a sampling algorithm that is provably robust to such prioritization attacks, enables network performance estimation with quantifiable accuracy, and requires minimal resources. We confirm our analysis using real traffic traces.

References

  1. Katerina Argyraki, Petros Maniatis, David Cheriton, and Scott Shenker. 2004. Providing Packet Obituaries. In Proc. of the ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networking (HotNets).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Katerina Argyraki, Petros Maniatis, Olga Irzak, Subramanian Ashish, and Scott Shenker. 2007. Loss and Delay Accountability for the Internet. In Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Katerina Argyraki, Petros Maniatis, and Ankit Singla. 2010. Verifiable Network-performance Measurements. In Proc. of the International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Boaz Barak, Sharon Goldberg, and David Xiao. 2008. Protocols and Lower Bounds for Failure Localization in the Internet. In Proc. of the International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques (EUROCRYPT). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Jean-Yves Le Boudec. 2011. Performance Evaluation of Computer and Communication Systems. EFPL Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Cisco. 2019. IOS NetFlow. (2019). Retrieved January 2019 from http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/ios-nx-ossoftware/ ios-netflow/index.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Global Net Neutrality Coalition. 2019. Status of Net Neutrality Around the World. (2019). Retrieved January 2019 from https://www.thisisnetneutrality.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Cogent. 2016. Network Services SLA Global. (2016). Retrieved January 2019 from https://cogentco.com/files/docs/ network/performance/global_sla.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Comcast. 2009. Service Level Agreement for Wholesale Dedicated Internet. (2009). Retrieved January 2019 from https://portals.comcasttechnologysolutions.com/sites/default/files/service_level_agreement_for_wholesale_ dedicated_internet_sla07292014.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission. 2013. On-line public consultation on "specific aspects of transparency, traffic management and switching in an Open Internet". (2013). Retrieved January 2019 from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/ news/answers-public-consultation-specific-aspects-transparency-traffic-management-and-switching-openGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. David Cox and P A. W. Lewis. 1966. The statistical analysis of series of events. Springer. 59--60 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. DPDK. 2015. Data Plane Development Kit. (2015). Retrieved May 2015 from http://dpdk.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Nick Duffield and Matthias Grossglauser. 2001. Trajectory Sampling for Direct Traffic Observation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (June 2001). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Sharon Goldberg, David Xiao, Eran Tromer, Boaz Barak, and Jennifer Rexford. 2008. Path-quality Monitoring in the Presence of Adversaries. In Proc. of the ACM International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (SIGMETRICS). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Shay Gueron. 2010. Intel Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) New Instruction Set. (2010). Retrieved January 2019 from https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/article/165683/aes-wp-2012-09--22-v01.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerhard Hasslinger and Oliver Hohlfeld. 2008. The Gilbert-Elliott Model for Packet Loss in Real Time Services on the Internet. In Proc. of the GI/ITG Conference - Measurement, Modelling and Evalutation of Computer and Communication Systems (MMB).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Manish Joshi and Theyazn Hassn Hadi. 2015. A Review of Network Traffic Analysis and Prediction Techniques. (2015). arXiv:arXiv:1507.05722Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Myungjin Lee, Nick Duffield, and Ramana Rao Kompella. 2010. Two Samples Are Enough: Opportunistic Flowlevel Latency Estimation Using Netflow. In Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. William Lehr, Erin Kenneally, and Steven Bauer. 2015. The Road to an Open Internet is Paved with Pragmatic Disclosure and Transparency Policies. In Proc. of the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference (TPRC).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC). 2016. BoR (16) 127: Guidelines on the Implementation by National Regulators of European Net Neutrality Rules. (2016). Retrieved January 2019 from http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/download/0/6160-berec-guidelines-on-theimplementation- b_0.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Christos Pappas, Katerina Argyraki, Stefan Bechtold, and Adrian Perrig. 2015. Transparency Instead of Neutrality. In Proc. of the ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Joel Sommers, Paul Barford, Nick Duffield, and Amos Ron. 2007. Accurate and Efficient SLA Compliance Monitoring. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review (Oct 2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Verizon. 2019. Global Latency and Packet Delivery SLA. (2019). Retrieved January 2019 from http://www. verizonenterprise.com/terms/global_latency_sla.xmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Xin Zhang, Abhishek Jain, and Adrian Perrig. 2008. Packet-dropping Adversary Identification for Data Plane Security. In Proc. of the International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Xin Zhang, Chang Lan, and Adrian Perrig. 2012. Secure and Scalable Fault Localization Under Dynamic Traffic Patterns. In Proc. of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Xin Zhang, Zongwei Zhou, Hsu-Chun Hsiao, Adrian Perrig, and Patrick Tague. 2012. ShortMAC: Efficient Data Plane Fault Localization. In Proc. of the NDSS Symposium (NDSS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Tanja Zseby and Sebastian Zander. 2001. Evaluation of Building Blocks for Passive One-way-delay Measurements. In Proc. of the workshop on Passive and Active Measurement (PAM).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Retroactive Packet Sampling for Traffic Receipts

      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

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems
        Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems  Volume 3, Issue 1
        March 2019
        600 pages
        EISSN:2476-1249
        DOI:10.1145/3322205
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 26 March 2019
        Published in pomacs Volume 3, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!