2. Adaptive Resource Control for QoS Using an IP-based Layered Architecture (IST-1999-10077) Adaptive Resource Control for QoS Using an IP-based Layered Architecture Bert F. Koch Stefano Salsano http://www-st.inf.tu-dresden.de/aquila/

3. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 2 Outline Project Introduction Project Introduction AQUILA QoS Architecture AQUILA QoS Architecture Traffic Engineering Aspects Traffic Engineering Aspects Further Project Activities Further Project Activities AQUILA Approach to SLS AQUILA Approach to SLS Future Plans Future Plans

4. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 3 Outline Project Introduction Project Introduction AQUILA QoS Architecture AQUILA QoS Architecture Traffic Engineering Aspects Traffic Engineering Aspects Further Project Activities Further Project Activities AQUILA Approach to SLS AQUILA Approach to SLS Future Plans Future Plans

5. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 4 Consortium SAGSiemens (Co-ordinator), Germany BAGBertelsmann mediaSystems, Germany DTAT-Nova Deutsche Telekom, Germany TAATelekom Austria, Austria ELIElisa Communications, Finland TPSPolish Telecom, Poland NTUNational Technical University of Athens, Greece WUTWarsaw University of Technology, Poland CORCoRiTel, Italy TUDDresden University of Technology, Germany SPUSalzburg Research, Austria QSYQ-Systems, Greece I&C manufacturer Internet Service Providers and Network Operators Universitiesand Research Institutes Research Institutes Web application provider

6. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 5 Work Break Down Structure Workpackage 0: Project Management Workpackage 0: Project Management Workpackage Group 1: System Architecture and Traffic Issues Workpackage Group 1: System Architecture and Traffic Issues WP 1.1: Requirement Analysis WP 1.2: Specification WP 1.3: Traffic Studies and Engineering Workpackage Group 2: Prototype Implementation Workpackage Group 2: Prototype Implementation WP 2.1: Service and Resource Control WP 2.2: QoS aware Applications and User Services WP 2.3: Distributed QoS Measurements Workpackage Group 3: Integration and Trial Workpackage Group 3: Integration and Trial WP 3.1: System and Network Integration WP 3.2: Trials and Measurements WP 3.3: Exploitation and Business Models

7. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 6 Main Objectives Investigate dynamic end-to-end QoS Provisioning in IP Networks Investigate dynamic end-to-end QoS Provisioning in IP Networks Implement Prototypes of a QoS Architecture for a Carrier Grade DiffServ Core Network Implement Prototypes of a QoS Architecture for a Carrier Grade DiffServ Core Network Support a wide Range of Applications by providing a QoS Toolkit / API Support a wide Range of Applications by providing a QoS Toolkit / API Continuously analyse Customer Requirements, Market Situations and Technological Trends and develop Business Models Continuously analyse Customer Requirements, Market Situations and Technological Trends and develop Business Models Contribute to Standardisation Bodies like IETF, ITU, ETSI, etc. Contribute to Standardisation Bodies like IETF, ITU, ETSI, etc.

8. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 7 Main Innovations Resource Control Layer DiffServ Domain ISP A ISP Internet Service Provider RCL Resource Control Layer DiffServ Domain ISP B ED Inter-Domain QoS RCL Scalable and flexible Admission Control and Resource Management End-user Application Toolkit to request QoS Host Edge Device Edge Device Core Router Core Router Core Router Edge Device Web- Server Distributed QoS Measurement Distributed QoS Measurement Evaluation of Admission and Traffic Control Algorithms  end-to-end Quality of Service

9. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 8 Design Goals Scalable Architecture Scalable Architecture Distributed building blocks Autonomous operation of elements Failure Proof Failure Proof Failure of an element should only degrade (if at all), not disable the operation of other elements Based on DiffServ Core Network Based on DiffServ Core Network Use of existing, commercial routers Enable migration path from current networks

10. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 9 Outline Project Introduction Project Introduction AQUILA QoS Architecture AQUILA QoS Architecture Traffic Engineering Aspects Traffic Engineering Aspects Further Project Activities Further Project Activities AQUILA Approach to SLS AQUILA Approach to SLS Future Plans Future Plans

11. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 10 Resource Control Layer (RCL) Tasks of the Resource Control Layer Tasks of the Resource Control Layer Admission Control to limit the amount of prioritised traffic Resource Management QoS Interface Design Goals Design Goals Simpler than ATM (no explicit reservation along the data path) Scalable approach for Admission Control (distributed Admission Control, separation of Admission Control and Resource Management)

12. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 11 Scalable Architecture for RCL ISP Domain Edge Router Core Router Access Network Edge Router Resource Control Layer Access Network Admission Control QoS Request Settings Admission Control Agent Settings Admission Control Agent QoS Request End-user Application Toolkit End-user Application Toolkit QoS Request settings (routing...) Used resources resources Resource Control Agent Resource Control Consideration of Network Load Monitoring Probing Results

13. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 12 Resource Control Layer (1) Basic Idea of DiffServ Network Basic Idea of DiffServ Network Provide some (fixed) prioritised traffic classes within the network Guarantee QoS by limiting amount of prioritised traffic at the network edge (limited resources) Additional Benefit of the Resource Control Layer Additional Benefit of the Resource Control Layer Dynamically shift resources between network edges (  resource pools) Take into account the actual resource usage of the network (2nd Trial)

14. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 13 Resource Control Layer (2) Admission Control Agent Admission Control Agent Authenticates user Authorises and checks request Locates ingress and/or egress edge router (  roles) Requests resources from the resource control agent Admits / rejects new flows Installs policies in ingress router Resource Control Agent Resource Control Agent Manages resources Checks availability of requested resources (Re-)distributes resources as needed

15. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 14 Resource Pools Resource Limits Resource Limits Limit amount of QoS traffic from each edge router Group neighboured Routers Group neighboured Routers Limit amount of QoS traffic from each group Dynamic Distribution Dynamic Distribution Dynamically shift resources within group Hierarchical Structure Hierarchical Structure “Groups of groups” Domain sub-area subordinated sub-area

16. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 15 Outline Project Introduction Project Introduction AQUILA QoS Architecture AQUILA QoS Architecture Traffic Engineering Aspects Traffic Engineering Aspects Further Project Activities Further Project Activities AQUILA Approach to SLS AQUILA Approach to SLS Future Plans Future Plans

17. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 16 Network Services Characterisation Characterisation Delivery of services to the customer Defined by the network operator Provides a specific QoS, expressed by statistical or deterministic statements about delay, loss,... Implementation Implementation A network service is implemented by a traffic class Usage Usage The End-user Application Toolkit maps application demands to network services Example: Premium CBR for IP Telephony and Voice Trunking Example: Premium CBR for IP Telephony and Voice Trunking  Goal: only a few Network Services to allow clear service Differentiation (wrt QoS objectives)

18. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 17 Overview of Traffic Handling Approach PROVISIONING Configuration of TRAFFIC CONTROL Limits for ADMISSION CONTROL

19. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 18 Traffic Classes (1) Network Services Customer Network operator Traffic Classes The network operator offers the NS to the customer Network services are mapped into traffic classes DSCP, scheduling and queuing algorithms (e.g. WFQ, RED), router configuration, admission control rules

20. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 19 Traffic Classes (2) Five Traffic Classes have been specified Five Traffic Classes have been specified … as well as the related Traffic Control Mechanisms in the Routers … as well as the related Traffic Control Mechanisms in the Routers PQ Packet arrives TCL 3 TCL 2 TCL 4 TCL 1 Classifier Packet departs WFQ TCL STD High priority Low priority

21. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 20 Admission Control Traffic Characterisation Traffic Characterisation based on token bucket parameters declaration Admission Control Algorithms take into account the traffic parameters specified in the reservation request and compare with the provisioned admission control rate limits and the already allocated resources. Admission Control Algorithms take into account the traffic parameters specified in the reservation request and compare with the provisioned admission control rate limits and the already allocated resources. Specific Admission Control Algorithms have been defined for the different traffic classes and different (high speed / low speed) access links. Specific Admission Control Algorithms have been defined for the different traffic classes and different (high speed / low speed) access links.

22. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 21 AC rate limits Provisioning Initial Provisioning Initial Provisioning Building Resource Pools Building Resource Pools Resource pools are built when it is useful to dynamically share a bottleneck link among a set of access links Initial provisioning algorithm Constraints on Traffic Class usage per Link Expected traffic matrix Topology and routing Provisioned rates per link

23. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 22 Outline Project Introduction Project Introduction AQUILA QoS Architecture AQUILA QoS Architecture Traffic Engineering Aspects Traffic Engineering Aspects Further Project Activities Further Project Activities AQUILA Approach to SLS AQUILA Approach to SLS Future Plans Future Plans

24. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 23 End-user Application Toolkit (EAT) Middleware between QoS Network and Application Middleware between QoS Network and Application Front end for access network QoS portal for application (legacy and QoS aware) Alternative, flexible approach for evaluating QoS reservations EAT is requester of QoS reservation EAT is requester of QoS reservation The requester may be the sender, receiver or a third party The requester initiates the reservation The requester is charged for the service

25. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 24 Objectives Enable Access to QoS to non QoS aware Legacy Applications Enable Access to QoS to non QoS aware Legacy Applications Support QoS aware Applications (RSVP, DiffServ) / Support various QoS Request Methods Support QoS aware Applications (RSVP, DiffServ) / Support various QoS Request Methods Provide a Methodology and a Programming Interface to support the Construction of new QoS aware Applications Provide a Methodology and a Programming Interface to support the Construction of new QoS aware Applications Provide an End-user friendly QoS Access Provide an End-user friendly QoS Access Proxies API Network Control plane Data plane End-user Application Toolkit QoS ACA

26. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 25 Distributed QoS Measurements Packet Level Measurement of end-to-end Parameters via Probes Measurement of end-to-end Parameters via Probes Examples: one-way delay, delay variation, packet loss Collection of Performance Monitoring and QoS Parameters from Routers Collection of Performance Monitoring and QoS Parameters from Routers Definition and Implementation of Synthetic Flow Load Generators for Measurements of end-to-end QoS Definition and Implementation of Synthetic Flow Load Generators for Measurements of end-to-end QoS Storage of all Measurement Data in Measurement Database Storage of all Measurement Data in Measurement Database

27. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 26 E2E Synthetic End- to-End Load Measurements Host Core Router measurement database test description Probe Probing Edge Device Edge Device Core Router Core Router Monitoring Results Reser- vation EAT Resource Control Traffic Control Admission Control

28. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 27 Tasks in the First Trial (Feb/Mar 2001) Use Real Life Applications to “get a feel” Use Real Life Applications to “get a feel” To supplement the Environment with generated Quality Traffic To supplement the Environment with generated Quality Traffic To measure the achieved Network Traffic Characteristics To measure the achieved Network Traffic Characteristics To complement the measured Data with subjective User Impressions of the Applications‘ Performance/Behaviour To complement the measured Data with subjective User Impressions of the Applications‘ Performance/Behaviour To evaluate the measured Data To evaluate the measured Data To process all Information and provide Feedback to the othre WPs for further Developments/Refinements To process all Information and provide Feedback to the othre WPs for further Developments/Refinements To support the Dissemination of the Results To support the Dissemination of the Results

29. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 28 Trial at Three Different Sites Warsaw (Polish Telecom) Warsaw (Polish Telecom) Reference Site Special Focus on Streaming Media / Video on Demand Helsinki (Elisa Communications) Helsinki (Elisa Communications) Site with various Access Technologies (ADSL, 10 Mbps Ethernet, WLAN) Special Focus on realistic customer/end-user environments and different environments and usage (home, office, public access zone) Vienna (Telekom Austria) Vienna (Telekom Austria) Site with homogenous Layer 2 (Ethernet) Special Focus on low bandwidth real-time applications, VoIP, Multi- user network games

30. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 29 Outline Project Introduction Project Introduction AQUILA QoS Architecture AQUILA QoS Architecture Traffic Engineering Aspects Traffic Engineering Aspects Further Project Activities Further Project Activities AQUILA Approach to SLS AQUILA Approach to SLS Future Plans Future Plans

31. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 30 Standardisation Issues IETF Activities IETF Activities Joint preparation with TEQUILA and CADENUS for a BoF session at the Dec 2000 IETF Meeting in San Diego Goal is to start a new Working Group on Service Level Specification (SLS) AQUILA EAT-ACA interface modelled in accordance to the TEQUILA draft (draft-tequila-sls-00.txt) AQUILA draft on Network Services submitted (draft-salsano-aquila-sls-00.txt) Contribution to SLS framework draft (draft-manyfolks-sls-framework-00.txt)

32. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 31 AQUILA Approach to SLS In the AQUILA architecture a “Reservation Request” is sent to the Admission Control Agent (ACA) by the “End-user Application Toolkit” (EAT) In the AQUILA architecture a “Reservation Request” is sent to the Admission Control Agent (ACA) by the “End-user Application Toolkit” (EAT) A Reservation Request specifies a Service Level Agreement A Reservation Request specifies a Service Level Agreement H – Host QMTool Application EAToolkit Core DiffServ Network ACA RCA Application EAToolkit H Access Network ED BR ED CR ISP Access Network H ED – Edge Device BR – Border Router CR – CoreRouter ACA Reservation Request

33. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 32 AQUILA SLS Draft to IETF Following input from TEQUILA (draft “Service Level Specification Semantics and Parameters”) we have described the semantic content of our SLS trying to align the terminology (see section 3 of our draft) Following input from TEQUILA (draft “Service Level Specification Semantics and Parameters”) we have described the semantic content of our SLS trying to align the terminology (see section 3 of our draft) Most of the concepts are very similar Most of the concepts are very similar The most interesting difference is the concept of “predefined SLS types” The most interesting difference is the concept of “predefined SLS types”

34. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 33 Semantic Content of SLS draft-aquiladraft-tequila SLS type SLS type Scope Scope Flow Identification Flow Identification Traffic description and conformance test Traffic description and conformance test - Performance Guarantees Performance Guarantees Service schedule Service schedule - - Scope Scope Flow Identification Flow Identification Traffic conformance test Traffic conformance test Excess Treatment Excess Treatment Performance Guarantees Performance Guarantees Service schedule Service schedule Reliabilty Reliabilty

35. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 34 Network Services There has been lot of discussion in the SLS mailing list on the issue of “Well Known Services” vs. “Custom Services” There has been lot of discussion in the SLS mailing list on the issue of “Well Known Services” vs. “Custom Services” “Well Known Services” restrict the definition of new services, but are very simple to handle “Well Known Services” restrict the definition of new services, but are very simple to handle “Custom” network services allow freedom in specifying the QoS parameters..., but may be very difficult to handle “Custom” network services allow freedom in specifying the QoS parameters..., but may be very difficult to handle

36. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 35 Predefined SLS Types (1) AQUILA Network Services are defined in terms of predefined values for the parameters (e.g. traffic descriptors, QoS requirements…) and of restrictions on the allowed combination of parameters AQUILA Network Services are defined in terms of predefined values for the parameters (e.g. traffic descriptors, QoS requirements…) and of restrictions on the allowed combination of parameters A “predefined SLS type” is defined in terms of the generic SLS description A “predefined SLS type” is defined in terms of the generic SLS description A "predefined SLS type" simplifies the generic SLS description as it fixes values (or range of values) for a subset of the parameters in the generic SLS. It may also fix some relationships or dependencies between some parameters A "predefined SLS type" simplifies the generic SLS description as it fixes values (or range of values) for a subset of the parameters in the generic SLS. It may also fix some relationships or dependencies between some parameters

37. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 36 Predefined SLS Types (2) This approach simplifies the SLS negotiation procedures and the SLS mapping into network internal mechanisms, yet it is more flexible than having “globally well known” services This approach simplifies the SLS negotiation procedures and the SLS mapping into network internal mechanisms, yet it is more flexible than having “globally well known” services The framework is flexible enough to support both Custom Services and Predefined Services The framework is flexible enough to support both Custom Services and Predefined Services Predefined Services may play a fundamental role in SLS negotiation Predefined Services may play a fundamental role in SLS negotiation The use of Predefined Services is an option to the network provider The use of Predefined Services is an option to the network provider

38. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 37 Outline Project Introduction Project Introduction AQUILA QoS Architecture AQUILA QoS Architecture Traffic Engineering Aspects Traffic Engineering Aspects Further Project Activities Further Project Activities AQUILA Approach to SLS AQUILA Approach to SLS Future Plans Future Plans

39. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 38 Future Project Plans (1) Architecture Architecture Inter-Domain scenarios –SIBBS –SLS between ISPs –Reservation aggregation MPLS –VPN –QoS traffic engineering –MPLS-DiffServ interworking Multicast reservations Resource control loop (feedback from measurement to resource control)

40. A QUILA (c) 2000 AQUILA consortium. TEQUILA Workshop, 25- 26.01.2001 39 Future Project Plans (2) Support of Applications Support of Applications RSVP as QoS signalling protocol Application Programming interface (API) Management Management Administration of network services Control of resource distribution parameters Measurement Measurement Improved load generators for service verification Provide measurements for RCL feedback

41. Adaptive Resource Control for QoS Using an IP-based Layered Architecture (IST-1999-10077) Adaptive Resource Control for QoS Using an IP-based Layered Architecture http://www-st.inf.tu-dresden.de/aquila/ Thank you for your attention !