1. Flat Identifiers Jennifer Rexford Advanced Computer Networks http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall08/cos561/ Tuesdays/Thursdays 1:30pm-2:50pm

2. Outline Distributed Hash Tables (DHTs) –Mapping key to value Flat names –Semantic Free Referencing –DHT as replacement for DNS Flat addresses –Routing On Flat Labels –DHT as an aid in routing

3. Distributed Hash Tables http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/chord/

4. Hash Table Name-value pairs (or key-value pairs) –E.g,. “Jen” and jrex@cs.princeton.edu –E.g., “www.cnn.com/foo.html” and the Web page –E.g., “BritneyHitMe.mp3” and “12.78.183.2” Hash table –Data structure that associates keys with values lookup(key) valuekey value

5. Distributed Hash Table Hash table spread over many nodes –Distributed over a wide area Main design goals –Decentralization: no central coordinator –Scalability: efficient even with large # of nodes –Fault tolerance: tolerate nodes joining/leaving Two key design decisions –How do we map names on to nodes? –How do we route a request to that node?

6. Hash Functions Hashing –Transform the key into a number –And use the number to index an array Example hash function –Hash(x) = x mod 101, mapping to 0, 1, …, 100 Challenges –What if there are more than 101 nodes? Fewer? –Which nodes correspond to each hash value? –What if nodes come and go over time?

7. Consistent Hashing Large, sparse identifier space (e.g., 128 bits) –Hash a set of keys x uniformly to large id space –Hash nodes to the id space as well 01 Hash(name)  object_id Hash(IP_address)  node_id Id space represented as a ring. 2 128 -1

8. Where to Store (Key, Value) Pair? Mapping keys in a load-balanced way –Store the key at one or more nodes –Nodes with identifiers “close” to the key –Where distance is measured in the id space Advantages –Even distribution –Few changes as nodes come and go… Hash(name)  object_id Hash(IP_address)  node_id

9. Nodes Coming and Going Small changes when nodes come and go –Only affects mapping of keys mapped to the node that comes or goes Hash(name)  object_id Hash(IP_address)  node_id

10. Joins and Leaves of Nodes Maintain a circularly linked list around the ring –Every node has a predecessor and successor node pred succ

11. Joins and Leaves of Nodes When an existing node leaves –Node copies its pairs to its predecessor –Predecessor points to node’s successor in the ring When a node joins –Node does a lookup on its own id –And learns the node responsible for that id –This node becomes the new node’s successor –And the node can learn that node’s predecessor (which will become the new node’s predecessor)

12. How to Find the Nearest Node? Need to find the closest node –To determine who should store (key, value) pair –To direct a future lookup(key) query to the node Strawman solution: walk through linked list –Circular linked list of nodes in the ring –O(n) lookup time when n nodes in the ring Alternative solution: –Jump further around ring –“Finger” table of additional overlay links

13. Links in the Overlay Topology Trade-off # of hops vs. # of neighbors –E.g., log(n) for both, where n is number of nodes –E.g., overlay links 1/2, 1/4 1/8, … around the ring –Each hop traverses at least half of the remaining distance 1/2 1/4 1/8

14. Semantic-Free Referencing (DHT as a DNS Replacement) http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/projects/sfr/

15. Motivation for Flat Identifiers Stable references –Shouldn’t have to change when object moves Object replication –Store object at many different locations Avoid fighting over names –Avoid cyber squatting, typo squatting, … <A HREF= http://isp.com/dog.jpg >my friend’s dog <A HREF= http://isp.com/dog.jpg >my friend’s dog <A HREF= http://f0120123112/ >my friend’s dog <A HREF= http://f0120123112/ >my friend’s dog Current Proposed

16. Separate References and User-level Handles Let people fight over handles –Do not fight over references –Allow multiple handle-to-reference services Flat identifiers –Do not embed object or location semantics –Are intentionally human-unfriendly Object Location Human- unfriendly References User Handles (AOL Keywords, New Services, etc.)

17. <A HREF= http://f012c1d/ >Spot <A HREF= http://f012c1d/ >Spot Managed DHT-based Infrastructure GET(0xf012c1d) (10.1.2.3, 80, /pics/dog.gif) o-record HTTP GET: /pics/dog.gif 10.1.2.3 Web Server /pics/dog.gif orec API orec = get(tag); put(tag, orec); Anyone can put() or get() Semantic-Free Referencing

18. Resilient Linking Tag: abstracts object reachability information Object granularity: files, directories, hosts, … SFR <A HREF= http://f012012/pub.pdf >here is a paper <A HREF= http://f012012/pub.pdf >here is a paper HTTP GET: /docs/pub.pdf 10.1.2.3 /docs/ 20.2.4.6 HTTP GET: /~user/pubs/pub.pdf (10.1.2.3,80, /docs/) (20.2.4.6,80, /~user/pubs/) /~user/pubs/

19. (Doesn’t address massive replication) Flexible Object Replication (IP1, port1, path1), (IP2, port2, path2), (IP3, port3, path3),... 0xf012012 SFR o-record Grass-roots replication –People replicate each other’s content –Does not require control over Web servers

20. Reference Management Requirements –No collisions, even under network partition –References must be human-unfriendly –Only authorized updates to o-records Approach: randomness and self-certification –tag = hash(pubkey, salt) –o-record has pubkey, salt, signature –Anyone can check if tag and o-record match

21. Reducing Latency Look-ups must be fast Solution: extensive caching –Clients and DHT nodes cache o-records –DHT nodes cache each other’s locations

22. Routing On Flat Labels (DHT to Help in Routing)

23. How Flat Can You Get? Flat names –DHT as a replacement for DNS Stable references, simple replication, avoid fighting –Still route based on hierarchical addresses For scalability of the global routing system Flat addresses –Avoid translating name to an address –Route directly on flat labels –Questions Is it useful? Can it scale?

24. Topology-Based Addressing Disadvantages: complicates –Access control –Topology changes –Multi-homing –Mobility Advantage –Scalability –… Area 1 Area 2 Area 4 Area 3 B J S K Q F V X A 1.11.2 2.1 2.2 4.2 4.1 3.3 3.2 3.1

25. J KQ F V A S Network topology X Routing on Abstract Graph: Know Your Neighbors AFJKQSVX J K F 1. Write down sorted list of IDs 2. Build paths between neighbors in list Virtual topology F A J K Q V S X

26. J KQ F V A S Network topology X Routing on Abstract Graph: Forwarding Packets Virtual topology F A J K Q V S X Send(K,F) Q J K F

27. J KQ F V A S Network topology X Routing on Abstract Graph: Stretch Problem Virtual topology F A J K Q V S X Send(J,V) J F A X V Resulting path length: 10 hops Shortest path length: 3 hops

28. J KQ F V A S Network topology X Routing on Abstract Graph: Short-cutting Virtual topology F A J K Q V S X Send(J,V) Resulting path length: 4 hops Shortest path length: 3 hops J F X V A X

29. Identifiers Identity tied to public/private key pair –Everyone can know the public key –Only authorized parties know the private key Self-certifying identifier: hash of public key Host associates with a hosting router –Proves it knows private key, to prevent spoofing –Router joins the ring on the host’s behalf Anycast –Multiple nodes have the same identifier

30. Basic Mechanisms behind ROFL Goal #1: Scale to Internet topologies –Mechanism: DHT-style routing, maintain source- routes to successors (fingers) –Provides: Scalable network routing without aggregation Goal #2: Support for BGP policies –Mechanism: Intelligently choose successors (fingers) to conform to ISP relationships –Provides: Support for policies, operational model of BGP

31. How ROFL Works ISP 0xFA2910x3B57E (joining host) 0x3F6C0 0x3BAC8 0x3B57E 0x3F6C0 Successor list: 0x3F6C0 Pointer list: 0x3F6C0 0x3BAC8 Pointer cache: 0x3B57E 2. hosting routers participate in ROFL on behalf of hosts 3. hosting routers maintain pointers with source-routes to attached hosts’ successors/fingers 4. intermediate routers may cache pointers 5. external pointers provide reachability across domains 1. hosts are assigned topology-independent “flat” identifiers 0x3BAC8

32. Economic relationships: peer, provider/customer Isolation: routing contained within hierarchy hierarchy #1hierarchy #2hierarchy #3 customer link peer link Internet Policies Today Economic relationships: peer, provider/customer Isolation: routing contained within hierarchy prefer customer over peer routes provider routes must not be exported to peers Source Destination

33. Isolation in ROFL  Traffic between two hosts traverses no higher than their lowest common provider in the AS hierarchy Joining host Internal Successor External Successor External Successor Source Destination

34. Discussion How flat should the world be? –Flat names vs. flat addresses? What should be given a name? –Objects? –Hosts? –Networks? What separation to have? –Human-readable names –Machine-readable references –Network location