Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 9
Network Capability in Localizing Node Failures via
End-to-End Path Measurements
ABSTRACT We investigate the capability of localizing node failures in communication networks from binary states (normal/failed) of end-to-end paths. Given a set of nodes of interest, uniquely localizing failures within this set requires that different observable path states associate with different node failure events. However, this condition is difficult to test on large networks due to the need to enumerate all possible node failures. Our first contribution is a set of sufficient/necessary conditions for identifying a bounded number of failures within an arbitrary node set that can be tested in polynomial time.
In addition to network topology and locations of monitors, our conditions
also incorporate constraints imposed by the probing mechanism used. We consider three probing mechanisms that differ according to whether measurement paths are: arbitrarily controllable; controllable but cycle-free; or uncontrollable (determined by the default routing protocol). Our second contribution is to quantify the capability of failure localization through: the maximum number of failures such that failures within a given node set can be uniquely localized and the largest node set within which failures can be uniquely localized under a given bound on the total number of failures. EXISTING SYSTEM Existing work can be broadly classified into single failure localization and multiple failure localization. Single failure localization assumes that multiple simultaneous failures happen with negligible probability. Under this assumption, propose efficient algorithms for monitor placement such that any single failure can be detected and localized. To improve the resolution in characterizing failures, range tomography in not only localizes the failure, but also estimates its severity (e.g., congestion level). These works, however, ignore the fact that multiple failures occur more frequently than one may imagine. In this paper, we consider the general case of localizing multiple failures. Multiple failure localization faces inherent uncertainty. Most existing works address this uncertainty by attempting to find the minimum set of network elements whose failures explain the observed path states. DISADVANTAGES OF EXISTING SYSTEM The straightforward approach of directly monitoring the health of individual elements (e.g., by collecting topology update reports) is not always feasible due to the lack of protocol interoperability, or limited access to network internal nodes (e.g., in multi-domain networks). Moreover, built-in monitoring mechanism running on network elements cannot detect problems caused by miss configured/unanticipated interactions between network layers, where end-to-end communication is disrupted but individual network elements along the path remain functional (i.e., silent failures). PROPOSED SYSTEM We propose two novel measures to quantify the capability of failure localization, maximum identify index of a given node set, which characterizes the maximum number of simultaneous failures such that failures within this set can be uniquely localized, and maximum identifiable set for a given upper bound on the number of simultaneous failures, which represents the largest node set within which failures can be uniquely localized if the failure event satisfies the bound. We show that both measures can be expressed as functions of per-node maximum identify index (i.e., maximum number of failures such that the failure of a given node can be uniquely determined).
We establish necessary/sufficient conditions for uniquely localizing failures
in a given set under a bound on the total number of failures, which are applicable to all probing mechanisms. We then convert these conditions into more concrete conditions in terms of network topology and placement of monitors, under the three different probing mechanisms (CAP, CSP, and UP), which can be tested in polynomial time.
ADVANTAGES OF PROPOSED SYSTEM
(i) Controllable Arbitrary-path Probing (CAP), where any measurement path
can be set up by monitors. (ii) Controllable Simple-path Probing (CSP), where any measurement path can be set up, provided it is cycle-free. (iii) Uncontrollable Probing (UP), where measurement paths are determined by the default routing protocol. These probing mechanisms assume different levels of control over routing of probing packets and are feasible in different network scenarios (see Section II-C). ARCHITECTURE
SOURCE
FILE ENCRYPTION UPLOAD FILE
CHOOSE GIVE 4 SECRET KEY DESTINATION NODE NETWORK
SEND FILE (Via IP Address)
ENTER SOURCE IP AND PORT NO.
ENTER 4 SECRET KEY
KEY MATCHED DESTINATION ALGORITHM
Distance vector algorithms
Distance vector algorithms use the Bellman–Ford algorithm. This approach assigns a cost number to each of the links between each node in the network. Nodes send information from point A to point B via the path that results in the lowest total cost (i.e. the sum of the costs of the links between the nodes used).
The algorithm operates in a very simple manner. When a node first starts, it only knows of its immediate neighbors, and the direct cost involved in reaching them. (This information — the list of destinations, the total cost to each, and the next hop to send data to get there — makes up the routing table, or distance table.) Each node, on a regular basis, sends to each neighbor node its own current assessment of the total cost to get to all the destinations it knows of. The neighboring nodes examine this information and compare it to what they already 'know'; anything that represents an improvement on what they already have, they insert in their own routing table(s). SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
Coding Language : JAVA/J2EE IDE : Net Beans Database : MYSQL FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS
We studied the fundamental capability of a network in localizing failed
nodes from binary measurements (normal/failed) of paths between monitors. We proposed two novel measures: maximum identify index that quantifies the scale of uniquely localizable failures a given node set, and maximum identifiable set that quantifies the scope of unique localization under a given scale of failures. We showed that both measures are functions of the maximum identify index per node. We studied these measures for three types of probing mechanisms that offer different controllability of probes and complexity of implementation. For each probing mechanism, we established necessary/sufficient conditions for unique failure localization based on network topology, placement of monitors, constraints on measurement paths, and scale of failures.
