What is a P2P system? A distributed system architecture: No centralized control Nodes are symmetric in function Large number of unreliable nodes Enabled.

What is a P2P system?

• A distributed system architecture:• No centralized control• Nodes are symmetric in function

• Large number of unreliable nodes• Enabled by technology improvements

Node

Node

Node Node

Node

Internet

How to build critical services?

• Many critical services use Internet• Hospitals, government agencies, etc.

• These services need to be robust• Node and communication failures• Load fluctuations (e.g., flash crowds)• Attacks (including DDoS)

The promise of P2P computing

• Reliability: no central point of failure• Many replicas• Geographic distribution

• High capacity through parallelism:• Many disks• Many network connections• Many CPUs

• Automatic configuration• Useful in public and proprietary settings

Traditional distributed computing:

client/server

• Successful architecture, and will continue to be so• Tremendous engineering necessary to make server farms scalable and

robust

Server

Client

Client Client

Client

Internet

The abstraction:Distributed hash table (DHT)

Distributed hash table

Distributed application

get (key) data

node node node….

put(key, data)

Lookup service

lookup(key) node IP address

• Application may be distributed over many nodes• DHT distributes data storage over many nodes

(File sharing)

(DHash)

(Chord)

A DHT has a good interface

• Put(key, value) and get(key) value• Simple interface!

• API supports a wide range of applications• DHT imposes no structure/meaning on keys

• Key/value pairs are persistent and global• Can store keys in other DHT values• And thus build complex data structures

A DHT makes a good shared infrastructure

• Many applications can share one DHT service• Much as applications share the Internet

• Eases deployment of new applications• Pools resources from many participants

• Efficient due to statistical multiplexing• Fault-tolerant due to geographic distribution

Recent DHT-based projects

• File sharing [CFS, OceanStore, PAST, Ivy, …]• Web cache [Squirrel, ..]• Archival/Backup store [HiveNet, Mojo,

Pastiche]• Censor-resistant stores [Eternity, FreeNet,..]• DB query and indexing [PIER, …]• Event notification [Scribe]• Naming systems [ChordDNS, Twine, ..]• Communication primitives [I3, …]

Common thread: data is location-independent

Roadmap

• One application: CFS/DHash• One structured overlay: Chord• Alternatives:

• Other solutions• Geometry and performance

• The interface• Applications

CFS: Cooperative file sharing

• DHT used as a robust block store• Client of DHT implements file system

• Read-only: CFS, PAST• Read-write: OceanStore, Ivy

Distributed hash tables

File system

get (key) block

node node node….

put (key, block)

CFS Design

File representation:self-authenticating data

Signed blocks:– Root blocks; Chord ID = H(publisher's public key)Unsigned blocks– Directory blocks, inode blocks, data blocks; – Chord ID = H(block contents)

995:key=901key=732Signature

File System key=995

……

“a.txt” ID=144

key=431key=795

…

…

(root block)

(directory blocks)

(i-node block)

(data)

901= SHA-1 144 = SHA-1431=SHA-1

DHT distributes blocks by hashing IDs

InternetNode ANode C

Node B

Node D

995:key=901key=732Signature

Block732

Block901

247:key=407key=992key=705Signature

Block992

Block407

Block705

• DHT replicates blocks for fault tolerance

• DHT caches popular blocks for load balance

DHT implementation challenges

1. Scalable lookup2. Balance load (flash crowds)3. Handling failures4. Coping with systems in flux5. Network-awareness for performance6. Robustness with untrusted participants7. Programming abstraction8. Heterogeneity9. Anonymity10. Indexing

Goal: simple, provably-good algorithms

1. The lookup problem

Internet

N1

N2 N3

N6N5

N4

Publisher

Put (Key=sha-1(data),Value=data…) Client

Get(key=sha-1(data))

?

• Get() is a lookup followed by check

• Put() is a lookup followed by a store

Centralized lookup (Napster)

Publisher@

Client

Lookup(“title”)

N6

N9 N7

DB

N8

N3

N2N1SetLoc(“title”, N4)

Simple, but O(N) state and a single point of failure

Key=“title”Value=file data…

N4

Flooded queries (Gnutella)

N4Publisher@

Client

N6

N9

N7N8

N3

N2N1

Robust, but worst case O(N) messages per lookup

Key=“title”Value=MP3 data…

Lookup(“title”)

Algorithms based on routing• Map keys to nodes in

a load-balanced way• Hash keys and nodes

into a string of digit• Assign key to “closest”

node

Examples: CAN, Chord, Kademlia, Pastry, Tapestry, Viceroy, ….

K20K5

K80

CircularID space N32

N90

N105

N60• Forward a lookup for a key to a closer node

• Join: insert node in ring

Chord’s routing table: fingers

N80

½¼

1/8

1/161/321/641/128

Lookups take O(log(N)) hops

N32

N10

N5

N20

N110

N99

N80

N60

Lookup(K19)

K19

• Lookup: route to closest predecessor

Can we do better?

• Caching• Exploit flexibility at the

geometry level• Iterative vs. recursive lookups

2. Balance load

N32

N10

N5

N20

N110

N99

N80

N60

Lookup(K19)

K19

• Hash function balances keys over nodes

• For popular keys, cache along the path

K19

Why Caching Works Well

N20

• Only O(log N) nodes have fingers pointing to N20• This limits the single-block load on N20

3. Handling failures: redundancy

N32

N10

N5

N20

N110

N99

N80

N60

• Each node knows IP addresses of next r nodes• Each key is replicated at next r nodes

N40

K19

K19

K19

Lookups find replicas

N40

N10

N5

N20

N110

N99

N80

N60

N50

Block17

N68

1.3.

2.

4.

Lookup(BlockID=17)

RPCs:1. Lookup step2. Get successor list3. Failed block fetch4. Block fetch

First Live Successor Manages Replicas

N40

N10

N5

N20

N110

N99

N80

N60

N50

Block17

N68

Copy of17

• Node can locally determine that it is the first live successor

4. Systems in flux

• Lookup takes log(N) hopsIf system is stableBut, system is never stable!

• What we desire are theorems of the type:

1. In the almost-ideal state, ….log(N)…2. System maintains almost-ideal state

as nodes join and fail

Half-life [Liben-Nowell 2002]

• Doubling time: time for N joins • Halfing time: time for N/2 old nodes to fail• Half life: MIN(doubling-time, halfing-time)

N nodes

N new nodes join

N/2 old nodes leave

Applying half life

• For any node u in any P2P network:If u wishes to stay connected with high

probability, then, on average, u must be notified

about (log N) new nodes per half life

• And so on, …

5. Optimize routing to reduce latency

• Nodes close on ring, but far away in Internet• Goal: put nodes in routing table that result in

few hops and low latency

CA-T1CCIArosUtah

CMU

To vu.nlLulea.se

MITMA-CableCisco

Cornell

NYU

OR-DSLN20

N41N80N40

“close” metric impacts choice of nearby nodes

• Chord’s numerical close and (original) routing table restrict choice• Should new nodes be able to choose their own ID

• Other allows for more choice (e.g., prefix based, XOR)

N32N103

N105

N60

N06 USA

Europe

USA

Far east

USA

K104

6. Malicious participants

• Attacker denies service• Flood DHT with data

• Attacker returns incorrect data [detectable]• Self-authenticating data

• Attacker denies data exists [liveness]• Bad node is responsible, but says no• Bad node supplies incorrect routing info• Bad nodes make a bad ring, and good node joins

it

Basic approach: use redundancy

Sybil attack [Douceur 02]

• Attacker creates multiple identities

• Attacker controls enough nodes to foil the redundancy

N32

N10

N5

N20

N110

N99

N80

N60

N40

Need a way to control creation of node IDs

One solution: secure node IDs

• Every node has a public key• Certificate authority signs public

key of good nodes• Every node signs and verifies

messages• Quotas per publisher

Another solution:exploit practical byzantine

protocols

• A core set of servers is pre-configured with keys and perform admission control [OceanStore]

• The servers achieve consensus with a practical byzantine recovery protocol [Castro and Liskov ’99 and ’00]

• The servers serialize updates [OceanStore] or assign secure node Ids [Configuration service]

N32N103

N105

N60

N06N

N

N

N

A more decentralized solution:

weak secure node IDs

• ID = SHA-1 (IP-address node)• Assumption: attacker controls limited IP

addresses

• Before using a node, challenge it to verify its ID

Using weak secure node IDS

• Detect malicious nodes• Define verifiable system properties

• Each node has a successor• Data is stored at its successor

• Allow querier to observe lookup progress• Each hop should bring the query closer

• Cross check routing tables with random queries

• Recovery: assume limited number of bad nodes

• Quota per node ID

Summary

http://project-iris.net