skip to main content
article

Drafting behind Akamai (travelocity-based detouring)

Published:11 August 2006Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

To enhance web browsing experiences, content distribution networks (CDNs) move web content "closer" to clients by caching copies of web objects on thousands of servers worldwide. Additionally, to minimize client download times, such systems perform extensive network and server measurements, and use them to redirect clients to different servers over short time scales. In this paper, we explore techniques for inferring and exploiting network measurements performed by the largest CDN, Akamai; our objective is to locate and utilize quality Internet paths without performing extensive path probing or monitoring.Our contributions are threefold. First, we conduct a broad measurement study of Akamai's CDN. We probe Akamai's network from 140 PlanetLab vantage points for two months. We find that Akamai redirection times, while slightly higher than advertised, are sufficiently low to be useful for network control. Second, we empirically show that Akamai redirections overwhelmingly correlate with network latencies on the paths between clients and the Akamai servers. Finally, we illustrate how large-scale overlay networks can exploit Akamai redirections to identify the best detouring nodes for one-hop source routing. Our research shows that in more than 50% of investigated scenarios, it is better to route through the nodes "recommended" by Akamai, than to use the direct paths. Because this is not the case for the rest of the scenarios, we develop lowoverhead pruning algorithms that avoid Akamai-driven paths when they are not beneficial.

References

  1. Akamai and loral cyberstar alliance. http://www.akamai.com/en/html/about/press/press123.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Kazaa. http://www.kazaa.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Planetlab. http://www.planet-lab.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Akamai. Akamai CDN. http://www.akamai.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Andersen, H. Balakrishnan, F. Kaashoek, and R. Morris. Resilient overlay networks. In ACM SOSP, Alberta, Canada, October 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. Andersen, H. Balakrishnan, F. Kaashoek, and R. Rao. Improving web availability for clients with MONET. In NSDI, Boston, MA, May 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Bornstein, T. Canfield, and G. Miller. Overlay routing networks (Akarouting), 2002. http://www-math.mit.edu/steng/18.996/lecture9.ps.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. C. Bornstein, T. Canfield, G. Miller, and S. Rao. Optimal route selection in a content delivery network. US Patent Application 20020163882.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Dilley, B. Maggs, J. Parikh, H. Prokop, and R. Sitaraman. Globally distributed content delivery. IEEE Internet Computing, 6(5):50--58, September 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. T. Fei, S. Tao, L. Gao, and R. Guerin. How to select a good alternate path in large peer-to-peer systems? In IEEE INFOCOM, Barcelona, Spain, April 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. S. Gadde, J. Chase, and M. Rabinovich. Web caching and content distribution: a view from the interior. In WCW, Boston, MA, June 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. P. Gilmore. OARtech, 2001. http://www.osc.edu/oarnet/oartech/presents/oarnet/11apr2001.ppt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. K. Gummadi, H. Madhyastha, S. Gribble, H. Levy, and D. Wetherall. Improving the reliability of Internet paths with one-hop source routing. In USENIX OSDI, San Francisco, CA, December 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. K. Gummadi, S. Saroiu, and S. Gribble. King: Estimating latency between arbitrary Internet end hosts. In ACM IMW, Marseille, France, November 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. Habib and J. Chuang. A measurement-based analysis of residential multihoming. In IEEE INFOCOM, poster session, Miami, FL, March 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. K. Johnson, J. Carr, M. Day, and M. Kaashoek. The measured performance of content distribution networks. In WCW, Lisbon, Portugal, May 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. Jung, E. Sit, H. Balakrishnan, and R. Morris. DNS performance and the effectiveness of caching. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 10(5):589--603, October 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. Kangasharju, K. Ross, and J. Roberts. Performance evaluation of redirection schemes in content distribution networks. Computer Communications, 24(2):207--214, February 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Koletsou and G. Voelker. The Medusa proxy: A tool for exploring user-perceived web performance. In WCW, Boston, MA, June 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. B. Krishnamurthy and C. Wills. Analyzing factors that influence end-to-end web performance. In WCW, Amsterdam, Netherlands, April 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. B. Krishnamurthy, C. Wills, and Y. Zhang. On the use and performance of content distribution networks. In ACM IMW, San Francisco, CA, November 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. F. Leighton and D. Lewin. Global hosting system. US Patent No. 6,108,703.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. LimeLight Networks. Limelight networks CDN. http://www.limelightnetworks.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. R. Mahajan. How Akamai works? http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/ratul/akamai.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Z. Mao, C. Cranor, F. Douglis, M. Rabinovich, O. Spatscheck, and J. Wang. A precise and efficient evaluation of the proximity between web clients and their local DNS servers. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, Monterrey, CA, June 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Medina, M. Allman, and S. Floyd. Measuring the evolution of transport protocols in the Internet. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 35 2):37--52, April 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Mirror Image. Mirror image CDN. http://www.mirror-image.net.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. A. Nakao, L. Peterson, and A. Bavier. A routing underlay for overlay networks. In ACM SIGCOMM, Karlsruhe, Germany, August 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. North American Network Operators' Group. NANOG mailing list. http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist.html, 1999, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. Padhye, V. Firoiu, D. Towsley, and J. Kurose. Modeling TCP Reno performance: A simple model and its empirical validation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 8(2):133--145, April 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. S. Saroiu, K. Gummadi, R. Dunn, S. Gribble, and H. Levy. An analysis of Internet content delivery systems. In USENIX OSDI, Boston, MA, December 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. S. Savage. Sting: a TCP-based measurement tool. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, Boulder, CO, October 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. S. Savage, A. Collins, E. Hoffman, J. Snell, and T. Anderson. The end-to-end effects of Internet path selection. In ACM SIGCOMM, Vancouver, British Columbia, September 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. SAVVIS. Digital island CDN. http://www.savvis.net.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. A. Shaikh, R. Tewari, and M. Agrawal. On the effectiveness of DNS-based server selection. In IEEE INFOCOM, Anchorage, AK, April 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. C. Tang and P. K. McKinley. A distributed multipath computation framework for overlay network applications. Technical Report MSU-CSE-04-18, Michigan State University, May 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Drafting behind Akamai (travelocity-based detouring)

        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 ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
          ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review  Volume 36, Issue 4
          Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications
          October 2006
          445 pages
          ISSN:0146-4833
          DOI:10.1145/1151659
          Issue’s Table of Contents
          • cover image ACM Conferences
            SIGCOMM '06: Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications
            September 2006
            458 pages
            ISBN:1595933085
            DOI:10.1145/1159913

          Copyright © 2006 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: 11 August 2006

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader