1 / 15

Exploring Active Networking and End-to-End Argument for Improved Performance Models

This paper investigates the relationship between Active Networking and the End-to-End (E2E) argument, focusing on performance models that quantify both approaches. It discusses the distinctions between End-System and Combined-System approaches, elaborating on service location optimization by integrating network and application data. The analysis includes two design options for service implementation, examining metrics such as expected transfer time and latency in reliable data transfer and multicast scenarios. The conclusion highlights how Active Networking aligns with the E2E argument, indicating its potential for enhanced solutions.

warren
Download Presentation

Exploring Active Networking and End-to-End Argument for Improved Performance Models

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. Active Networking and End-to-End Argument Samrat Bhattacharjee Kenneth L. Calvert Ellen W. Zegura

  2. Objective • End-to-End Argument • Active Networking – Extension of E2E argument • End System approach Vs Combined System approach • Performance Model to quantify the above approaches

  3. E2E and Active Networking • What is E2E? • Is Active Networking a natural consequence of E2E? • E2E and placement of functionality • All applications might not use the service • Trade-off between performance and cost • Combine network and application information to optimize performance

  4. Model for Service Location • Analyze performance under two design options – • Design X : Service implementation exclusive in the end-systems • Design C : Service achieved through combination of implementation at the end-system and in the network • Network is treated monolithically • Network support is boolean

  5. Model for Service Location • Parameters of performance model • Exclusively End-system (Design X) • Tx – Expected Performance • Combined End-system and Network (Design C) • Tc – Expected performance • Pn – Probability that the network support accomplishes the service • Te – Expected performance, end-system version • Tn – Expected performance, network version • Tc = (1-Pn) Te + Pn Tn

  6. Reliable Data Transfer • Performance Metric : Expected Transfer Time • Design X : • tx – time to request, receive and check the integrity • p – probability of error in each transmission • Tx – expected transfer time • Tx = i=1P(i transmissions) * i * tx = tx / (1-p)

  7. Reliable Data Transfer ... • Design C • tc – time to request, receive and check the integrity • p – probability of error in each transmission • q – probability that the network can correct the error • Pn Tn = (1 – p + pq) tc • Te = tc + i=1P(i transmissions) * i * tc = tc (1+1 / (1-p+pq) ) • Tc = (1 – p + pq) tc + p(1-q) * tc (1+1 / (1-p+pq) )

  8. Reliable Multicast • Performance metric : Latency (no of hops) • Design X • Buffering and Retransmission done only at the Receivers • Request message is directed to a “nearby” Receiver through the Loss node • Design C • Buffering and Retransmission done by the network nodes

  9. Reliable Multicast ...

  10. Reliable Multicast ... • Tx = tR+tL + tY + 2tR’ + tE + tR • TN = 2(tR+tL + 1) • TE = 2(tR+tL + tL’ + tS) • Tc = 2pn (tR+tL + 1) + 2 (1-pn) (tR+tL + tL’ + tS) • assume tR = tR’ = tS and tL = tL’ Tx = 4tR+tL + tY + tE Tc = 4tR+4tL - 2pn (tR+tL - 1) • If pn > (3tL-tE - tY ) / (2(tR+tL - 1)) then Tc < Tx ( combined system approach is better)

  11. Congestion Control • Application knows how to adapt • Network knows where and when to adapt • Flow packets contain advice about how to control congestion and may be stored at the network node

  12. Best Effort MPEG Delivery • Partial Packet Discard - discard packets on buffer overflow • Static Priority Discard - two level priority scheme • Frame Level Discard – queue a datagram iff its corresponding frame can be entirely queued • Group of Picture Level Discard – if I-frame is dropped, drop corresponding P & B frames.

  13. Performance Analysis • Performance metric : fraction of received data not discarded • Di,k – fraction of discarded data • Ti,k – performance of model i at a source rate of k Mbps • i = { P, S, F, G }

  14. Performance Analysis • Performance metric : signal-to-noise ratio

  15. Conclusion • Active networking is consistent with, and even suggested by the E2E argument • Active networks outperform the end-to-end solutions ?

More Related