1 / 32

Internet QOS: A Big Picture Xipeng Xiao and Lionel M. Ni, Michigan State University

Internet QOS: A Big Picture Xipeng Xiao and Lionel M. Ni, Michigan State University. Jinyoung You CS540, Network Architect. Motivation. Today’s Internet Best-effort service No guarantee as to timeliness or actual delivery No guarantee of low-delay and low-jitter services

mauli
Download Presentation

Internet QOS: A Big Picture Xipeng Xiao and Lionel M. Ni, Michigan State University

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. Internet QOS: A Big PictureXipeng Xiao and Lionel M. Ni, Michigan State University Jinyoung You CS540, Network Architect

  2. Motivation • Today’s Internet • Best-effort service • No guarantee as to timeliness or actual delivery • No guarantee of low-delay and low-jitter services • No service classes • No abundant and cheap bandwidth

  3. Motivation • What’s the QoS? • Guarantee a certain level of performance • e.g.) Packet dropping probability , Delay, Jitter, Out-of-order delivery, Error, Congestion • Why QoS? • The network capacity is insufficient • Real-time streaming multimedia applications • e.g.) VoIP, IPTV • Requires fixed bit rate and are delay sensitive

  4. Motivation • Misunderstanding of QoS • Cannot provide nonexistent bandwidth • Cannot make the network faster • Cannot cure poorly performing network • Contribution of QoS • Provide relative prioritization of traffic

  5. Motivation • Service Models and Mechanisms of IETF • Integrated Services/Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Model • Differentiated Services (DS) model • Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) • Traffic engineering • Constrained Based Protocol • How they differ from and relate to each other? • Which system they fit?

  6. Outline • IntServ/RSVP • DiffServ • MPLS • Traffic Engineering/CBR • Comparison of ATM Networks • Conclusion • Q&A

  7. IntServ/RSVP • Resource reservation • For real-time service, before data are transmitted, • Apps must first set up paths and reserve resources • Service classes • Guaranteed service: fixed delay bound • Controlled-load service: reliable and enhanced best-effort service

  8. IntServ/RSVP

  9. IntServ/RSVP • Components • Signaling protocol • Admission control routine • Classifier • Packet scheduler

  10. IntServ/RSVP • Limitations • Scalability • State information is proportional to amount of flow • Overhead on routers • Should have all components; RSVP, admission control, MF classification, packet scheduling • Ubiquitous deployment is required

  11. DiffServ • Motivation • The difficulty in implementing and deploying IntServ and RSVP • DS is essentially a relative-priority scheme • Using DS fields of packet header to indicate service classes • Process complexity • core network → edge network • More scalable

  12. DiffServ • Customer • Have a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with its ISP • Which service class to provide? • Mark the DS field according to the service class • Router • Classification, policing, shaping, scheduling occur at only ingress routers • Domain • DF field is remarked by SLA between the domains

  13. DiffServ • Possible services of DiffServ • Premium service • For low-delay and low-jitter service • Assured service • For better reliability than best-effort service • Olympic service • gold, silver, and bronze, with decreasing quality • Differences between DiffServandIntServ • State information is proportional to the number of classes • Process complexity is only at the edge router

  14. DiffServ • Assured Service • Provide reliable services even in times of network congestion • Be implemented as follows: • Classification and policing are done at the ingress routers • All packets, in and out, are put into an AQ • The queue is managed by a RED or RIO

  15. DiffServ • Premium Service • SLA specifies a peak bit-rate • Provide low delay and low jitter • e.g.) Internet Telephony, Video Conferencing, VPN • More expensive, But more prior than Assured Service • Be implemented as follows: • Use P-bit on DS field • If P-bit is on, the packet goes to Premium Queue • Uneven distribution of traffic may cause a problem

  16. DiffServ • Service Allocation in Customer Domains • How to decide services; Assured or Premium Service • Each host makes its own decision • Bandwidth Broker(BB) makes decision • Resource Allocations in ISP Domains • How boundary routers handle incoming traffic • Static SLAs, Manually configured. • Dynamic SLA, RSVP

  17. DiffServ

  18. DiffServ

  19. DiffServ • Requirements on Routers • Edge router: MF classifications, marking, and shaping • ISP ingress router: policing, re-marking • ISP egress routers: re-shaping • BA classification, Assured Queue, Premium Queue • For dynamic SLA, BB at the customer domain

  20. MPLS • MPLS: Multi Protocol Label Switching • Incoming packets are assigned a “label” by edge router • Packets are routed according to the label • Bya label switch router(LSR) • The path a packet traverses is called label switched path(LSP) • Network protocol independent

  21. MPLS

  22. MPLS • MPLS is strategically significant • Provides faster packet classification and forwarding • Provides an efficient tunneling mechanism • without encryption • Moves processing to edge routers • Core did forwarding only, Scalable

  23. Traffic Engineering/CBR • Motivation • IntServ/RSVPandDiffServ has degradation of performance when traffic load is heavy. • Major goal • Provide efficient and reliable network operation • Optimize network resource utilization • To efficiently manage bandwidth resources • Optimize traffic performance • To enhance QoS of traffic stream

  24. Traffic Engineering/CBR • The factor of Congestion • Lack of network resource • Upgrade infrastructure • Uneven distribution • Because of Shortest Path problem • Constraint Based Routing • Automatically Traffic Engineering

  25. Traffic Engineering/CBR • Shortest Path Problem

  26. Traffic Engineering/CBR • Constrained Based Routing • Compute QoSroute • May select longest lightly-loaded path rather than heavily shortest path • Improve network resource utilization

  27. Traffic Engineering/CBR • Distribution of Link State Information • Needs of link available bandwidth, buffer space information • Link state advertisement of OSPF, IS-IS • Route Computation • Various algorithm for distinct metrics; cost, hop-count, bandwidth, reliability, delay, jitter • Let d(i, j) be a metric for link (i, j). For any path P = (i, j, k, …,l, m), metric d is: • Additive if d(P) = d(i, j) + d(j, k) + … + d(l, m) • e.g.) delay, jitter, cost and hop-count • Multiplicative if d(P) = d(i, j) * d(j, k) * … * d(l, m) • e.g.) reliability (1-loss rate) • Concave if d(P) = min{d(i, j), d(j, k), …, d(l, m)} • e.g.) bandwidth

  28. Traffic Engineering/CBR • Pros • Meeting the needs for QoS requirement of flows • Improved network utilization • Cons • Increased communication and computation overhead • Increased routing table size • Longer path may consume more resources • Potential routing instability

  29. Traffic Engineering/CBR • The Position of CBR • DiffServ: Not for replacing, but helping DiffServ • RSVP: Independent with RSVP • CBR just determines the path of RSVP messages • MPLS • MPLS: forwarding scheme, CBR: routing scheme • Work together for traffic engineering

  30. Comparison of ATM Networks • ATM Network • Use Virtual Circuit Switching • Pros • Fast • Provide QoS • Cons • ATM cell header overhead • Switch can not work at the boundary of network • ATM Network with DiffServ orMPLS • Provide QoS on the router network • Reduce ATM cell header overhead

  31. Conclusion • QoS is hotly debated issue • Fibers and WDM will make bandwidth so abundant and cheap • QoSwill be automatically delivered • However, New application will be invented to consume it • Thus, Mechanism will be needed to provide QoS • Many mechanisms are provided but they not solve QoSproblem • There is little hope for success • But, Way to go

  32. Q&A

More Related