A Fast Connection-Time Redirection Mechanism for Internet Application Scalability

  • Michael Haungs
  • Raju Pandey
  • Earl Barr
  • J. Fritz Barnes
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2552)


Applications that are distributed, fault tolerant, or perform dynamic load balancing rely on redirection techniques, such as network address translation (NAT), DNS request routing, or middleware to handle Internet scale loads. In this paper, we describe a new connection redirection mechanism that allows applications to change end-points of communication channels. The mechanism supports redirections across LANs and WANs and is application-independent. Further, it does not introduce any central bottlenecks. We have implemented the redirection mechanism using a novel end-point control session layer. The performance results show that the overhead of the mechanism is minimal. Further, Internet applications built using this mechanism scale better than those built using HTTP redirection.


Transport Layer Server Cluster Stream Control Transmission Protocol Network Address Translation Dynamic Load Balance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    E. Anderson, D. Patterson, and E. Brewer. The MagicRouter: An application of fast packet interposing., October 1996. 217
  2. [2]
    D. Andresen, T. Yang, O. Ibarra, and O. Egecioglu. Adaptive partitioning and scheduling for enhancing WWW applications performance. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 49(1):57–85, February 1998. 217zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Aron, D. Sanders, P. Druschel, and W. Zwaenepoel. Scalable content-aware request distribution in cluster-based network servers. In Proc. USENIX 2000 Annual Technical Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 18–23 June 2000. 210Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    N. Bhatti, A. Bouch, and A. Kuchinsky. Integrating user-perceived quality into web server design. In Proceedings of the Ninth International World Wide Web Conference, volume 33(1–6) of Computer Networks, pages 1–16, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 15–19 May 2000. 210Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    T. Brisco. DNS support for load balancing. RFC 1794, Rutgers University, April 1995. 217Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    V. Cardellini, M. Colajanni, and P. Yu. Dynamic load balancing on web-server systems. In IEEE Internet Computing, pages 28–39. IEEE, May-June 1999. 210Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Cohen, S. Rangarajan, and H. Slye. On the performance of TCP splicing for URL-aware redirection. In Proc. 2nd USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems, pages 117–26, Boulder, CO, USA, 11-14 October1999. 217Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    O. P. Damani, P. E. Chung, Y. Huang, C. Kintala, and Y. Wang. ONE-IP: Techniques for hosting a service on a cluster of machines. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems; Sixth International WWW Conference, 29(8–13):1019–27, 7–11 April 1997. 210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Garland, S. Grassia, R. Monroe, and S. Puri. Implementing distributed server groups for the world wide web. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, January 1995. 217Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Michael Haungs, Raju Pandey, Earl Barr, and J. Fritz Barnes. A fast connectiontime redirection mechanism for internet application scalability. Technical Report CSE-2001-10, University of California, Davis, March 2001. 212, 213, 215, 217Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    G. Hunt, E. Nahum, and J. Tracey. Enabling content-based load distribution for scalable services. Technical report, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, May 1997. 217Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    V. Pai, M. Aron, G. Banga, M. Svendsen, P. Druschel, W. Zwaenepoel, and E. Nahum. Locality-aware request distribution in cluster-based network servers. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS-VIII), pages 205–216, San Jose, California, 1998. 210, 217Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    C. Perkins. IP mobility support. Internet Request for comments (RFC 2002), October 1996. 212Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Shaikh, R. Tewari, and M. Agrawal. On the effectiveness of DNS-based server selection. In the Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2001, pages 1801–10, Anchorage, AK, USA, April 2001. 210, 217Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Snoeren, D. Andersen, and H. Balakrishnan. Fine-grained failover using connection migration. In 3rd USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems (USITS’ 01), pages 221–232, San Francisco, CA, March 2001. 212Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    A. C. Snoeren and H. Balakrishnan. An end-to-end approach to host mobility. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pages 155–164, August 2000. 212Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Haungs
    • 1
  • Raju Pandey
    • 1
  • Earl Barr
    • 1
  • J. Fritz Barnes
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Software Systems Research, Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of California
  2. 2.Vanderbilt UniversityVanderbilt

Personalised recommendations