Background (Cont.
2. Introduction to Multihoming
Multihoming is the abil
ity of a host or site to
access remote destin
ation via more than o
ne upstream connecti
on, usually from differ
ent providers.
A multihomed host
has more than one IP
address that can be
used to reach it.
Background (Cont.)
3. Multihoming Objectives and Functionalities
Fault-Recovery/Redundancy
physical failure
logical failure
routing protocol failure
human errors
Background (Cont.)
Host A Network Host B
Interface_1 gateway gateway Interface_1
1.2 1.1 3.1 3.2
Interface_2 gateway gateway Interface_1
2.2 2.1 4.1 4.2
Routing table host A Routing table host B
Destination Gateway Destination Gateway
---------------------------- ----------------------------
3.2 1.1 1.2 3.1
4.2 2.1 2.2 4.1
Network level fault tolerance of Multihoming
Every IP address will have a different, separate path towards the remote
endpoint, if the transport to one of the IP addresses, fails then the traffic
can migrate to the other remaining IP address within the association.
Background (Cont.)
3. Multihoming Objectives and Functionalities (Cont.)
Load Sharing
spread network traffic load among several
routes
traffic load is distributed among different
connections between the node and the
Internet.
High-Transfer Rate and Network Performance
host is able to distribute its data over multiple
paths concurrently leads to high data transfe
r rates
Background (Cont.)
3. Multihoming Objectives and Functionalities (Cont.)
Preference Setting
The ability to choose the preferred transmission
technology or access network. for matters of cost,
efficiency, bandwidth requirement, delay, etc.
Simplicity
Simple to deploy, does not require any cooperation
between the site and its providers
Independence
Independence between a multihomed site and its
providers.
A provider might even not be aware that its customer is
multihomed
Background (Cont.)
4. Related Work
Protocols Main Objectives Problem Description
Troel’s TCP TCP based multihoming solution this workaround is dependant
(Troels, 2000) on another layer’s function
(IPv6) and this is not preferable
TCP-MH uses multiple addresses, if one uses TCP multihome options
(Matsumoto, access-line goes down, it can for redundancy purpose only, not
2003) switch to other access-line for CMT
mTCP aggregates bandwidth across throughput degradation occurs
(Zhang, 2004) multiple end-to-end paths in mTCP due to rbuf blocking
and path failure (loss-based
algorithm)
pTCP provides an infrastructure for a significant issue with pTCP is
(Hsieh, 2002) data striping within the its complexity, Implementation
transport layer is also more complex
DCCP DCCP support for mobility is there is no support for
(Kohler, 2004) intended to solve only the simultaneous moves
simplest multihoming
problems
Background (Cont.)
4. Related Work
Protocols Main Objectives Problem Description
RMTP aggregate bandwidths on only support wireless links, no
(Kravets, 2001) multihomed mobile hosts, accuracy of the bandwidth
uses bandwidth estimation estimation
SCTP multihoming options in SCTP, uses multihoming for fault-
Multihoming survive any network outage tolerance, fault-recovery only,
(Stewart, 2000) not for parallel data transfer or
load-sharing
SCTP-CMT -concurrent multiple path data -during CMT Packet reordering
multihoming transfer, using end-to-end observed causing rbuf blocking,
(Iyengar, 04,06,07) multihoming, retransmission degrades overall end-to-end
M2 -SCTP-CMT schemes for rbuf blocking throughput
(Chung, 2007) -mobility Issues of Mobile -Issues related to path handover
Multipath SCTP problem
SCTP-CMT Failure-induces by rbuf blocking CMT using SCTP multihoming
Multihoming problem in CMT, uses ns-2, introducing the potentially-
(Preethi, Iyengar, proposed CMT-PF (potentially Failed Destination State
Jul 2008) failed) for future implementation
7. Performance Analysis
Scenario 1 : FAST TCP multihomed hosts with same path
characteristics (i.e., bandwidth and delay)
Scenario 2 : FAST TCP multihomed hosts with
different path bandwidth and delay
Scenario 3 : (FAST TCP vs SCTP) multihomed hosts with
background traffic over 1 Gigabits/s Link
Performance Analysis (Cont.)
Scenario 1 : FAST TCP multihomed hosts with same path
characteristics (i.e., bandwidth and delay)
Experimental Setup and Network Topology
Packet Size 1000 bytes
Simulation
30 sec
Time
Receiver
600 kb
buffer
Packet loss
0%
rate
Performance Analysis (Cont.)
Scenario 1: Experimental Results & Analysis
A close up look at first 3 sec of simulation
Performance Analysis (Cont.)
Scenario 1: Experimental Results & Analysis
Performance Analysis (Cont.)
Scenario 1: Experimental Results & Analysis
S im p le FAS T TCP
S CTP -C MT m u ltih om in g Throughput Comparison of the Protocols
4.5E+07 FAS T TCP m u ltih om in g
(Simulation Statistics For Scenario 1)
4.0E+07
Throughput (M bit/s)
3.5E+07
3.0E+07
Protocols Achieved Throughput
2.5E+07
2.0E+07
FAST TCP (single-path) 19.2 Mbps
1.5E+07
1.0E+07
5.0E+06
SCTP-CMT multihoming 31.1 Mbps
0.0E+00
0 5 10 15
Time (Seconds)
20 25 30
FAST TCP multihoming 38.3 Mbps
S im ple FAS T TCP
S CTP -C MT m ultih om ing
4.5E+07 FAS T TCP m ultihom in g
4.0E+07
Throughput (M bit/s)
3.5E+07
3.0E+07
2.5E+07
2.0E+07
1.5E+07
1.0E+07
5.0E+06
0.0E+00
0 1 2 3
Time (Seconds)
Performance Analysis (Cont.)
Scenario 2 : FAST TCP multihomed hosts with different path
bandwidth and delay
Experimental Setup and Network Topology
Packet Size 1000 bytes
Simulation
30 sec
Time
Receiver
600 kb
buffer
Packet loss
0%
rate
Performance Analysis (Cont.)
Scenario 2 : Simulation Results and Analysis
Performance Analysis (Cont.)
Scenario 2 : Simulation Results and Analysis
Achieve
Simple FAST TCP Simple FAST TCP d
SCTP-CMT multihoming SCTP-CMT multihoming Protocol
4.5E+07 FAST TCP multihoming 4.5E+07 FAST TCP multihoming Throug
hput
4.0E+07 4.0E+07
3.5E+07 3.5E+07
FAST TCP 29.2
(over path1) Mbps
Throughput (Mbit/s)
3.0E+07 3.0E+07
Throughput (Mbit/s)
2.5E+07 2.5E+07
2.0E+07 2.0E+07
SCTP-CMT 17.6
1.5E+07 1.5E+07
multihoming Mbps
1.0E+07 1.0E+07
5.0E+06 5.0E+06
0.0E+00 0.0E+00 FAST TCP 38.0
0 1 2 3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 multihoming Mbps
• as the bandwidth ratio between multiple paths increases, stability becomes worse for loss-based
Time (Seconds) Time (Seconds)
protocols
• produces more out-of-sequence packets at the receiver, causing lots of retransmissions, which impair the
whole association throughput
• FAST TCP multihoming under a single sequence space within a transport layer association did not
degrade in any significant way for any evaluation criterion, and its SEC algorithms for parallel data
transfer
through multiple paths using end-to-end multihoming remain quite stable and insensitive to the delay
and/or bandwidth changes
• when FAST TCP dual-homed sends packets through multiple paths (having different path characteristics
i.e., delay differences and/or traffic-load distributions) simultaneously to destination, packets are highly
likely to arrive in the order they were initially sent (preventing rbuf from blocking), and hence maximum
End End
User User
Application Application
Transport Transport
Internetworking Internetworking Internetworking
Datalink Datalink Datalink
Physical Physical Physical
H R R H
End The Internet End
System System
(Host) (Host)
Layering Structure of the Internet and “the END”
