next up previous
Next: Network-Integrated Content Routing Up: An Architecture for Content Previous: Introduction

The Content Routing Problem

 

The goal of content routing is to reduce the time needed to access content. This is accomplished by directing a client to one of many possible content servers; the particular server for each client is chosen to reduce round-trip latency, avoid congested points in the network, and prevent servers from becoming overloaded. These content servers may be complete replicas of a popular web site or web caches which retrieve content on demand.

Currently, a variety of ad hoc and, in some cases, proprietary mechanisms and protocols have been deployed for content routing. In the basic approach, the domain name of the desired web site or content volume is handled by a specialized name server. When the client initiates a name lookup on the DNS portion of the content URL, the request goes to this specialized name server which then returns the address of a server ``near'' the client, based on specialized routing, load monitoring and Internet ``mapping'' mechanisms. There may be multiple levels of redirection, so that the initial name lookup returns the address of a local name server which returns the actual server to be used, and the client must send out additional DNS requests.

   figure141
Figure 1: Conventional Content Routing

As shown in figure 1, a client which misses in the DNS cache first incurs the round-trip time to access the DNS root server, to obtain the address of the authoritative name server for a site, e.g. microsoft.com.. Next the client must query this name server to receive the address of a nearby content server, incurring another round-trip time. Finally, it incurs the round-trip time to access the content on the designated server. If in this example the client is located in Turkey, the first round-trip is likely to go to Norway or London. The second round-trip may have to travel as far as Redmond, Washington, and the final might be to a content distribution site in Germany.

Thus, the conventional content routing design does not scale well because it requires the world-wide clients of a site, on a cache miss, to incur the long round-trip time to a centralized name server as part of accessing that site, from wherever the client is located. This round-trip times are purely overhead, and are potentially far higher than the round-trip times to the content server itself; this long latency becomes the dominant performance issue for clients as Internet data rates move to multiple gigabits, reducing the transfer time for content to insignificance. These name requests may also use congested portions of the network that the content delivery system is otherwise designed to avoid.

DNS-based content routing systems typically use short time-to-lives on the address records they return to a client, in order to respond quickly to changes in network conditions. This places additional demands on the DNS system, since name requests must be sent more frequently, increasing load on DNS servers. This can lead to increased latency due to server loads, as well as increased probability of a dropped packet and costly DNS timeout. As shown in [5], DNS lookup can be a significant portion of web transaction latency.

Both of these problems can be ameliorated by introducing multiple levels of redirection. Higher-level names (e.g., m.contentdistribution.net) specify a particular network or group of networks and have a relatively long time-to-live (30 minutes to an hour). The records identifying individual servers (such as s12.m.contentdistribution.net) expire in just seconds. However, this increases the amount of work a client (or a client's name server) must perform on a ``higher-level'' cache miss, and requires additional infrastructure. Also, such a design conflicts with the desire for high availability, since alternate location choices are unavailable to a client with cached DNS records in the event of network failure.

Conventional content routing systems may also suffer from other availability problems. A system which uses only network-level metrics does not respond to application-level failure, so a client may be continually redirected to an unresponsive web server. Designs which rely upon measurements taken from server locations may also choose servers which are not suitable from the client's perspective, due to asymmetric routing. A smaller, related, problem is that DNS requests go through intermediate name servers, so that the actual location of the client may be hidden.

Finally, content routing systems may have difficulty scaling to support multiple content provider networks and large numbers of content providers. Some content providers (such as CNN.com) serve HTML pages from a central web site but provide graphics and other high-bandwidth objects from a content delivery network; the URLs of these objects are located under the content delivery network's domain name. This has the advantage of increasing the probability of DNS cache hits, since the same server location information (akamai.net, for example) can be used for other sites. However, it does not help increase availability of the site's HTML content or improve latency to access it. Performing content routing on a larger set of domain names in order to improve web latency may result in lower DNS hit ratios, in addition to the costs of a larger database at a content delivery network's name servers.

Obtaining access to the network routing information needed to perform content routing may also be problematic. Content provider networks must either obtain routing information from routers near to their servers (via BGP peering or a proprietary mechanism) or else make direct network measurements. Both these schemes require aggregating network information for scalability, duplicating the existing routing functions of the network. It may also be politically infeasible to obtain the necessary information from the ISPs hosting content servers.

There is also no clear path for integrating access to multiple content delivery networks. In order to do so, a content provider would have to include an additional level of indirection to decide which CDN to direct clients to. This may be infeasible in practice (for example, if a URL-rewriting scheme is used to indicate the CDN in use), or at the very best difficult due to conflicting mechanisms and metrics. The proprietary approaches to content routing violate the basic philosophy of the Internet of using open, community-based standard protocols, imposing a closed overlay on top of the current Internet that duplicates many of the existing functions in the Internet, particularly the routing mechanisms.


next up previous
Next: Network-Integrated Content Routing Up: An Architecture for Content Previous: Introduction

Mark Geoffrey Gritter
Fri Jan 19 09:19:43 PST 2001