Congestion marking for low delay (& admission control) Bob Briscoe BT Research Mar 2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
QoS Strategy in DiffServ aware MPLS environment Teerapat Sanguankotchakorn, D.Eng. Telecommunications Program, School of Advanced Technologies Asian Institute.
Advertisements

Universidade do Minho A Framework for Multi-Class Based Multicast Routing TNC 2002 Maria João Nicolau, António Costa, Alexandre Santos {joao, costa,
Using Edge-To-Edge Feedback Control to Make Assured Service More Assured in DiffServ Networks K.R.R.Kumar, A.L.Ananda, Lillykutty Jacob Centre for Internet.
Quality of Service CS 457 Presentation Xue Gu Nov 15, 2001.
Philip Eardley, Bob Briscoe, Dave Songhurst - BT Research Francois Le Faucheur, Anna Charny – Cisco Kwok-Ho Chan, Joe Babiarz - Nortel IETF-64 tsvwg Nov.
Nicolas Simar – DANTE : Premium IP and LBE transparency on GEANT QoS on GÉANT Premium IP and Less than Best Effort.
Tiziana Ferrari Differentiated Services Test: Report1 Differentiated Service Test REPORT TF-TANT Tiziana Ferrari Frankfurt, 1 Oct.
RSVP/Diffserv Yoram Bernet - Microsoft Raj Yavatkar - Intel.
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) RFC 3168 Justin Yackoski DEGAS Networking Group CISC856 – TCP/IP Thanks to Namratha Hundigopal.
CPSC Topics in Multimedia Networking A Mechanism for Equitable Bandwidth Allocation under QoS and Budget Constraints D. Sivakumar IBM Almaden Research.
Differentiated Services. Service Differentiation in the Internet Different applications have varying bandwidth, delay, and reliability requirements How.
A Case for Relative Differentiated Services and the Proportional Differentiation Model Constantinos Dovrolis Parameswaran Ramanathan University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Networking Issues in LAN Telephony Brian Yang
ACN: IntServ and DiffServ1 Integrated Service (IntServ) versus Differentiated Service (Diffserv) Information taken from Kurose and Ross textbook “ Computer.
1 Internet Networking Spring 2003 Tutorial 11 Explicit Congestion Notification (RFC 3168) Limited Transmit (RFC 3042)
CS 268: Differentiated Services Ion Stoica February 25, 2003.
1 Internet Networking Spring 2003 Tutorial 11 Explicit Congestion Notification (RFC 3168)
DiffServ QoS in internet
1 Spring Semester 2007, Dept. of Computer Science, Technion Internet Networking recitation #8 Explicit Congestion Notification (RFC 3168) Limited Transmit.
Internet QoS Syed Faisal Hasan, PhD (Research Scholar Information Trust Institute) Visiting Lecturer ECE CS/ECE 438: Communication Networks.
An Architecture for Differentiated Services
CS 268: Lecture 11 (Differentiated Services) Ion Stoica March 6, 2001.
Tiziana FerrariQuality of Service for Remote Control in the High Energy Physics Experiments CHEP, 07 Feb Quality of Service for Remote Control in.
{vp, sra, Security in Differentiated Services Networks Venkatesh Prabhakar Srinivas R.
QoS in MPLS SMU CSE 8344.
CIS679: Scheduling, Resource Configuration and Admission Control r Review of Last lecture r Scheduling r Resource configuration r Admission control.
Integrated Services (RFC 1633) r Architecture for providing QoS guarantees to individual application sessions r Call setup: a session requiring QoS guarantees.
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). 2 MPLS Overview A forwarding scheme designed to speed up IP packet forwarding (RFC 3031) Idea: use a fixed length.
1 Integrated and Differentiated Services Multimedia Systems(Module 5 Lesson 4) Summary: r Intserv Architecture RSVP signaling protocol r Diffserv Architecture.
Tiziana Ferrari Quality of Service Support in Packet Networks1 Quality of Service Support in Packet Networks Tiziana Ferrari Italian.
Quality of Service (QoS)
Mobile Networking Challenges1 5.6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks  Ad hoc network does not have any preexisting centralized server nodes to perform packet routing,
Building Differentiated Services Using the Assured Forwarding PHB Group Juha Heinänen Telia Finland Inc.
Univ. of TehranAdv. topics in Computer Network1 Advanced topics in Computer Networks University of Tehran Dept. of EE and Computer Engineering By: Dr.
PCN WG (Pre-Congestion Notification) – a brief status update Philip Eardley, BT TSVAREA, IETF-73 Minneapolis 18 Nov 08
Controlling Internet Quality with Price Market Managed Multiservice Internet Bob Briscoe BT Research, Edge Lab, University College London & M3I Technical.
QoS on GÉANT - Aristote Seminar -- Nicolas Simar QoS on GÉANT Aristote Seminar, Paris (France), Nicolas Simar,
Applicazione del paradigma Diffserv per il controllo della QoS in reti IP: aspetti teorici e sperimentali Stefano Salsano Università di Roma “La Sapienza”
Congestion exposure BoF candidate protocol: re-ECN Bob Briscoe Chief Researcher, BT Nov 2009 This work is partly funded by Trilogy, a research project.
Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-03.txt draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-03.txt Bob Briscoe, BT IETF-75 saag.
Controlled Load (CL) Service using distributed measurement-based admission control (D-MBAC) Bob Briscoe, Gabriele Corliano, Phil Eardley, Peter Hovell,
Guaranteed QoS Synthesiser (GQS) Bob Briscoe, Peter Hovell BT Research Jan 2005.
Update on the IETF Diffserv Working Group NANOG 13 Detroit, MI June 8, 1998 Kathleen M. Nichols
ConEx Concepts and Abstract Mechanism draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-01.txt draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-01.txt Matt Mathis, Google Bob Briscoe, BT IETF-80.
An End-to-End Service Architecture r Provide assured service, premium service, and best effort service (RFC 2638) Assured service: provide reliable service.
Differentiated Services IntServ is too complex –More focus on services than deployment –Functionality similar to ATM, but at the IP layer –Per flow QoS.
Integrated Services & Differentiated Services
Support for ECN and PCN in MPLS networks draft-davie-ecn-mpls-00.txt Bruce Davie Cisco Systems Bob Briscoe June Tay BT Research.
Chapter 6 outline r 6.1 Multimedia Networking Applications r 6.2 Streaming stored audio and video m RTSP r 6.3 Real-time, Interactive Multimedia: Internet.
Data and Computer Communications Tenth Edition by William Stallings Data and Computer Communications, Tenth Edition by William Stallings, (c) Pearson Education.
An End-to-End Service Architecture r Provide assured service, premium service, and best effort service (RFC 2638) Assured service: provide reliable service.
Congestion Notification Process for Real-Time Traffic draft-babiarz-tsvwg-rtecn-04.txt Jozef Babiarz Kwok Ho Chan
Providing QoS in IP Networks
Philip Eardley, Bob Briscoe, Dave Songhurst - BT Francois Le Faucheur, Anna Charny, Vassilis Liatsos – Cisco Kwok-Ho Chan, Joe Babiarz, Stephen Dudley.
1 Lecture 15 Internet resource allocation and QoS Resource Reservation Protocol Integrated Services Differentiated Services.
QoS Experience on European Backbone - TNC Nicolas Simar QoS Experience on European Backbone TNC 2003, Zabgreb (Croatia),
Chapter 30 Quality of Service Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
Layered Encapsulation of Congestion Notification draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01.txt draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01.txt Bob Briscoe, BT IETF-72 tsvwg.
Support for ECN and PCN in MPLS networks
Internet Networking recitation #9
Queue Management Jennifer Rexford COS 461: Computer Networks
Bob Briscoe, BT IETF-72 tsvwg Jul 2008
MLEF Without Capacity Admission Does Not Satisfy MLPP Requirements
EE 122: Lecture 18 (Differentiated Services)
Internet Networking recitation #10
Congestion Control, Quality of Service, & Internetworking
Chapter 16. Internetwork Operation
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). 2 MPLS Overview A forwarding scheme designed to speed up IP packet forwarding (RFC 3031) Idea: use a fixed length.
EE 122: Differentiated Services
CIS679: Two Planes and Int-Serv Model
Presentation transcript:

congestion marking for low delay (& admission control) Bob Briscoe BT Research Mar 2005

RFC3168 (ECN in TCP/IP) For a router, the CE codepoint of an ECN-Capable packet SHOULD only be set if the router would otherwise have dropped the packet as an indication of congestion to the end nodes. When the router's buffer is not yet full and the router is prepared to drop a packet to inform end nodes of incipient congestion, the router should first check to see if the ECT codepoint is set in that packet's IP header. If so, then instead of dropping the packet, the router MAY instead set the CE codepoint in the IP header.[…] The above discussion of when CE may be set instead of dropping a packet applies by default to all Differentiated Services Per-Hop Behaviors (PHBs) [RFC 2475]. Specifications for PHBs MAY provide more specifics on how a compliant implementation is to choose between setting CE and dropping a packet, but this is NOT REQUIRED. A router MUST NOT set CE instead of dropping a packet when the drop that would occur is caused by reasons other than congestion or the desire to indicate incipient congestion to end nodes (…)

wider agenda I Meeting purpose: To find concensus combining the best parts of each proposal. Meeting approach: - Expose differences in requirements spaces between the main proposals - Elicit feedback on these differences in requirements from operators - Expose differences in technical approach between the main proposals - Identify which technical differences are essential for which requirements - Establish which technical differences need to be preserved (config options) and which can be discarded in favour of features of the other approaches - Decide which standards this will require and agree who will do what By the end, we will have succeeded if we are no longer talking about each approach as an integrated whole, but instead extracting the separate functional parts from each. Proposed agenda items 1. Reminder of proposals - Session admission control (Nortel) - Guaranteed QoS Synthesis (BT) - Flow-state aware (BT/Angram) - [Resource Management for DiffServ (RMD) (Ericsson)?] [I could also give an informal overview of the research literature on this field (Distributed Measurement-based Admission Control) if that is of general interest]

wider agenda II 2. Differences in emphasis of requirements - CAC: how strong? pre or post data? - pre-emption (emergency services etc) - Partitioned bandwidth or not? - interconnect: only bulk data, flow-aware? - applications: CBR, VBR? more specific (telephony, video)? - trust, proxies, authentication etc. - end-to-end? edge-edge? - business models (e.g. co-ordination of CAC response across domains, to synch charging triggers) simplex/duplex, etc? 3. Wire protocols - 'signalling' from network elements to CAC decision points - remaining capacity, congestion? - marking algorithm(s) - 'signalling' from end-points (or their proxies) to network elements - bandwidth requests? nothing? 4. Probing - at flow-start, at aggregate start, after idle/silence - passive (as data) or active (router alert) 5. Deployment/interworking routemaps - differences in emphasis on what a good deployment strategy is - target architecture (not just constrained by incremental deployment, but where are we trying to get to) 6. Standards requirements - agree necessary standards actions - other claims on the protocol fields we're wanting to use

congestion of a class or a resource? operator should be able to configure either if traffic can borrow from other classes –‘congestion’ should mean of the resource the traffic could use if traffic is confined to the resources of one class –‘congestion’ should mean of the class

congestion marking for admission ctrl on/off vs. gradual rise on/off disadvantage: requires smoothing, delaying response –could smooth at queue, or at admission controller advantage: when (delayed) response triggered, one probe sufficient gradual rise: use virtual queue (cf. bulk reverse token bucket) disadvantage: requires multiple probes to discover level advantages: –can keep buffers empty – low delay –less sensitive to –can find congestion due to multiple bottlenecks –direct economic interpretation to be explored: on/off based on virtual queue might have all the advantages 1 probability drop mark ave queue length 1 probability drop mark ave queue length

re-ECN ECT(1) 0 …j… n 0 1 ECT(0), z j 0 …j… n 0 1 mechanism (approx) ‘coding’ (approx) goals backward compatibility packets should carry downstream path congestion metric, ρ j 0 …j… n 0 classic router behaviour up down ρ j = z j - u j code- point rate resource index TCP ECE feedback CE, u j

partitioning capacity (scheduler config) Diffserv SLA provisioning v differential congestion marking if sharing capacity between classes higher priority traffic should be marked to reflect congestion it causes to any other traffic: –its own class and lower classes, but not higher –e.g. priority queue marked on length of itself plus lower priority queue don’t have to do this cross-class marking –but should not standardise anything that precludes it –lose ability to optimise network’s economics

definition The congestion caused by a packet at single resource is the probability that the event X i will occur if the packet in question is added to the load, given any pre-existing differential treatment of packets. Where X i is the event that another selected packet will not be served to its requirements by the resource during its current busy period. This definition maps directly to economic cost –also usefully approximated by algorithms like RED

spare slides

identifier-free differential treatment congestion status of network element signalled irrespective of identifiers (bulk) identifier in packet merely carries signal to dest (& source) no policing, authorisation or authentication on network elements policing can be done only at first ingress border policing can be emulated by passive metering  available capacity of network element must be allocated per identifier open to abuse: –split identity –arbitrage requires policing  poor scaling at trust boundaries