1 / 52

15-441 Computer Networking

15-441 Computer Networking. Intserv, Diffserv, RSVP. Motivation. Internet currently provides only single class of “best-effort” service. No admission control and no assurances about delivery Existing applications are elastic. Tolerate delays and losses Can adapt to congestion

denise
Download Presentation

15-441 Computer Networking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 15-441 Computer Networking Intserv, Diffserv, RSVP

  2. Motivation • Internet currently provides only single class of “best-effort” service. • No admission control and no assurances about delivery • Existing applications are elastic. • Tolerate delays and losses • Can adapt to congestion • Future “real-time” applications may be inelastic. • Should we modify these applications to be more adaptive or should we modify the Internet to support inelastic behavior?

  3. Application Types • Elastic applications. • Wide range of acceptable rates, although faster is better • E.g., data transfers such as FTP • Continuous media applications. • Lower and upper limit on acceptable performance • Sometimes called “tolerant real-time” since they can adapt to the performance of the network • E.g., changing frame rate of video stream • “Network-aware” applications • Hard real-time applications. • Require hard limits on performance – “intolerant real-time” • E.g., control applications

  4. Improving QOS in IP Networks • IETF groups are working on proposals to provide better QOS control in IP networks, i.e., going beyond best effort to provide some assurance for QOS. • Work in Progress includes RSVP, Differentiated Services, and Integrated Services.

  5. Overview • Principles for QoS • Integrated Services (Intserv) • Differentiated Services (Diffserv) • Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)

  6. Principles for QOS Guarantees • Simple model for sharing and congestion studies (“dumbell topology”):

  7. Principles for QOS Guarantees (more) • Consider a phone application at 1Mbps and an FTP application sharing a 1.5 Mbps link. • Bursts of FTP can congest the router and cause audio packets to be dropped. • Want to give priority to audio over FTP. • PRINCIPLE 1: Marking of packets is needed for router to distinguish between different classes; and new router policy to treat packets accordingly.

  8. Principles for QOS Guarantees (more) • Applications misbehave (audio sends packets at a rate higher than 1Mbps assumed above). • PRINCIPLE 2: provide protection (isolation) for one class from other classes. • Require Policing Mechanisms to ensure sources adhere to bandwidth requirements; Marking and Policing need to be done at the edges:

  9. Principles for QOS Guarantees (more) • Alternative to Marking and Policing: allocate a set portion of bandwidth to each application flow; can lead to inefficient use of bandwidth if one of the flows does not use its allocation. • PRINCIPLE 3: While providing isolation, it is desirable to use resources as efficiently as possible.

  10. Principles for QOS Guarantees (more) • Cannot support traffic beyond link capacity. • PRINCIPLE 4: Need a Call Admission Process; application flow declares its needs, network may block call if it cannot satisfy the needs .

  11. Summary

  12. Overview • Motivation for QoS • Integrated Services (Intserv) • Differentiated Services (Diffserv) • Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)

  13. IETF Intserv • Focus on per-flow QoS. • Support specific applications such as video streaming. • Based on mathematical guarantees. • Many concerns: • Complexity • Scalability • Business model • Charging

  14. Components of Integrated Services • Type of service model • What does the network promise? • Service interface • How does the application describe what it wants? • Packet scheduling • How does the network meet promises? • Establishing the guarantee • How is the promise communicated to/from the network? • How is admission of new applications controlled?

  15. Service Models • Network can support traffic streams with different “quality of service”. • Best effort • Predictive or differentiated services • Strong guarantees on the level of service (real-time) • The set of services that is supported on a specific network can be viewed as a service model. • Model that can be used to select a service • E.g., cost versus performance tradeoffs • Network architecture that supports the set of services • Considers interactions between services

  16. Service Models • Guaranteed service • Targets hard real-time applications. • User specifies traffic characteristics and a service requirement. • Requires admission control at each of the routers. • Can mathematically guarantee bandwidth, delay, and jitter. • Controlled load. • Targets applications that can adapt to network conditions within a certain performance window. • User specifies traffic characteristics and bandwidth. • Requires admission control at each of the routers. • Guarantee not as strong as with the guaranteed service. • e.g., measurement-based admission control. • Best effort

  17. Service Interface • Session must first declare its QoS requirement and characterize the traffic it will send through the network • R-spec: defines the QoS being requested by receiver (e.g., rate r) • T-spec: defines the traffic characteristics of sender (e.g., leaky bucket with rate r and buffer size b). • A signaling protocol is needed to carry the R-spec and T-spec to the routers where reservation is required; RSVP is a leading candidate for such signaling protocol.

  18. Packet scheduling • Guaranteed service • Use token bucket filter to characterize traffic • Described by rate r and bucket depth b • Use WFQ at the routers • Parekh’s bound for worst case queuing delay = b/r

  19. Call Admission • Call Admission: routers will admit calls based on their R-spec and T-spec and base on the current resource allocated at the routers to other calls.

  20. Overview • Motivation for QoS • Integrated Services (Intserv) • Differentiated Services (Diffserv) • Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)

  21. Differentiated Services • Intended to address the following difficulties with Intserv and RSVP; • Scalability: maintaining states by routers in high speed networks is difficult due to the very large number of flows • Flexible Service Models: Intserv has only two classes, want to provide more qualitative service classes; want to provide ‘relative’ service distinction (Platinum, Gold, Silver, …) • Simpler signaling: (than RSVP) many applications and users may only want to specify a more qualitative notion of service

  22. Diffserv - Motivation • Do fine-grained enforcement only at the edge of the network. • Typically slower links at edges • E.g., mail sorting in post office • Label packets with a field. • E.g., a priority stamp • The core of the network uses only the type field for QoS management. • Small number of types with well defined forwarding behavior • Can be handled fast • Example: expedited service versus best effort • Evolution rather than revolution

  23. Diffserv - Discussion • Diffserv defines an architecture and a set of forwarding behaviors. • It is up to the service providers to define and implement end-to-end services on top of this architecture. • Offers a more flexible service model; different providers can offer different service. • One of the main motivations for Diffserv is scalability. • Keep the core of the network simple. • Focus of Diffserv is on supporting QoS for flow aggregates. • Although architecture does not preclude more fine-grained guarantees.

  24. Edge Router/Host Functions • Classification: marks packets according to classification rules to be specified. • Metering: checks whether the traffic falls within the negotiated profile. • Marking: marks traffic that falls within profile. • Conditioning: delays and then forwards, discards, or remarks other traffic.

  25. Classification and Conditioning • Packet is marked in the Type of Service (TOS) in IPv4, and Traffic Class in IPv6. • 6 bits used for Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP) and determine PHB that the packet will receive. • 2 bits are currently unused.

  26. Core Functions • Forwarding: according to “Per-Hop-Behavior” or PHB specified for the particular packet class; such PHB is strictly based on class marking (no other header fields can be used to influence PHB). • BIG ADVANTAGE: No state info to be maintained by routers!

  27. Forwarding (PHB) • PHB result in a different observable (measurable) forwarding performance behavior. • PHB does not specify what mechanisms to use to ensure required PHB performance behavior. • Examples: • Class A gets x% of outgoing link bandwidth over time intervals of a specified length. • Class A packets leave first before packets from class B.

  28. Forwarding (PHB) • Expedited Forwarding (EF): • Guarantees a certain minimum rate for the EF traffic. • Implies isolation: guarantee for the EF traffic should not be influenced by the other traffic classes. • Admitted based on peak rate. • Non-conformant traffic is dropped or shaped. • Possible service: providing a virtual wire.

  29. Forwarding (PHB) • Assured Forwarding (AF): • AF defines 4 classes with some bandwidth and buffers allocated to them. • The intent is that it will be used to implement services that differ relative to each other (e.g., gold, silver,…). • Within each class, there are three drop priorities, which affect which packets will get dropped first if there is congestion. • Lots of studies on how these classes and drop priorities interact with TCP flow control. • Non-conformant traffic is remarked.

  30. Role of RSVP • Rides on top of unicast/multicast routing protocols. • Must be present at sender(s), receiver(s), and routers. • Carries resource requests all the way through the network. • At each hop consults admission control and sets up reservation. Informs requester if failure.

  31. Reservation Protocol: RSVP Upper layer protocols and applications IP service interface IP ICMP IGMP RSVP Link layer service interface Link layer modules

  32. RSVP Goals • Used on connectionless networks. • Should not replicate routing functionality. • Should co-exist with route changes. • Support for multicast. • Different receivers have different capabilities and want different QOS. • Changes in group membership should not be expensive. • Reservations should be aggregate – I.e. each receiver in group should not have to reserve. • Should be able to switch allocated resource to different senders. • Limit control overhead. • Modular design – should be generic “signaling” protocol. • Result: • Receiver-oriented • Soft-state

  33. Receiver-Initiated Reservation • Receiver initiates reservation by sending a reservation over the sink tree. • Assumes multicast tree has been set up previously. • Also uses receiver-initiated mechanism. • Hooks up with the reserved part of the tree. • How far the request has to travel to the source depends on the level of service requested. • Uses existing routing protocol, but routers have to store the sink tree (reverse path from forwarding path). • Properties: • Scales well: can have parallel independent connect and disconnect actions – single shared resource required. • Supports receiver heterogeneity: reservation specifies receiver requirements and capabilities.

  34. Soft State • Routers keep state about reservation. • Periodic messages refresh state. • Non-refreshed state times out automatically. • Alternative: Hard state • No periodic refresh messages. • State is guaranteed to be there. • State is kept till explicit removal. • Why could there be a problem? • Properties of soft state: • Adapts to changes in routes, sources, and receivers. • Recovers from failures • Cleans up state after receivers drop outs • Philosophy: reservation is an optimization.

  35. RSVP Service Model • Make reservations for simplex data streams. • Receiver decides whether to make reservation • Control messages in IP datagrams (proto #46). • PATH/RESV messages sent periodically to refresh soft state. • One pass: • Failed requests return error messages - receiver must try again. • No end to end ack for success.

  36. Basic Message Types • PATH message • RESV message • CONFIRMATION message • Generated only upon request. • Unicast to receiver when RESV reaches node with established state. • TEARDOWN message • ERROR message (if PATH or RESV fails)

  37. PATH Messages • PATH messages carry sender’s T-spec. • Token bucket parameters • Routers note the direction PATH messages arrived and set up reverse path to sender. • Receivers send RESV messages that follow reverse path and setup reservations. • If reservation cannot be made, user gets an error.

  38. RESV Messages • RESV messages carry receiver’s R-spec. • Forwarded via reverse path of PATH. • Queuing delay and bandwidth requirements. • Source traffic characteristics (from PATH). • Filter specification • Which transmissions can use the reserved resources? • Reservation style. • Router performs admission control and reserves resources.

  39. Router Handling of RESV Messages • If new request rejected, send error message. • If admitted: • Install packet filter into forwarding dbase. • Pass flow parameters to scheduler. • Activate packet policing if needed. • Forward RESV message upstream.

  40. RSVP reservations • Reservations from multiple receivers for a single sender are merged together at branching points. • Reservations for multiple senders may be added up: • Video conference • Reservations for multiple senders may not be added up: • Audio conference, not many talk at same time. • Only subset of speakers (filters).

  41. Reservation Styles: 3 styles • Wildcard/No filter – does not specify a particular sender for group. • Creates a single reservation shared by flows from all upstream senders belonging to the unicast (multicast) session. • The reservation propagates towards ALL sender hosts and automatically extend to new senders as they appear.

  42. Reservation Styles • Fixed filter – sender explicitly specified for a reservation. • Video conference • Creates distinct reservations for data packets from a particular sender, not sharing them with other sender’ packets for the same session. • Dynamic filter / Shared-Explicit– valid senders may be changed over time. • Audio conference • Creates a single reservation shared by selected upstream senders. • Allows a receiver to explicitly specify the set of senders to be included.

  43. RSVP Reservation Styles Reservations Sender Selection Shared Distinct Explicit Fixed Filter Shared Explicit Wildcard Filter Wildcard None • Shared reservations (WF and SE) are appropriate for multicast applications in which multiple sources are unlikely to transmit simultaneously (packetized audio for example). • FF style makes separate reservations for each sender, and is appropriate for video applications.

  44. A C S1 R1 B D R2 S2, S3 R3 Example • Senders S1, S1, S3 • Receivers R1, R2, R3 • Router interfaces A,B,C,D

  45. 4b 4b 4b 3b Wildcard Filter Reservation • R1, R2, and R3 want to reserve 4b, 3b, and 2b, respectively (b is given rate). A C S1 R1 B D R2 S2, S3 R3

  46. S1:4bS2:5b S1:4b S2:5bS3:b S1:3bS3:b Fixed Filter Reservation • R1 wants to reserve 4b for S1 and 5b for S2. • R2 wants to reserve 3b for S1 and b for S3. • R3 wants to reserve b for S1. A C S1 R1 B D R2 S2, S3 R3

  47. (S1,S2):b S1:3b (S2,S3):3b (S1,S2,S3):3b Dynamic Filter Reservation • R1 wants to reserve b for S1 and S2 (shared). • R2 wants to reserve 3b for S1 and S3 (shared). • R3 wants to reserve 2b for S2. A C S1 R1 B D R2 S2, S3 R3

  48. Reservations in action - FF

  49. Reservations in action – WF

  50. Reservations in action - SE

More Related