Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
by Harizakis Costas
Presentation Flow
Internet today
Provides best effort data delivery Complexity stays in the end-hosts Network core remains simple As demands exceeds capacity, service degrades gracefully (increased jitter etc.)
QoS Defined
The goal :
Provide some level of predictability and control beyond the current IP best-effort service
Fundamental principle
Leave complexity at the edges and keep network core simple
QoS Metrics
Performance attributes
Service availability Delay Delay variation (jitter) Throughput Packet loss rate
Low loss rate Controlled delay and delay variation Low loss rate Low delay and delay variation
Per flow (individual, uni-directional streams) Per aggregate (two or more flows having something in common)
QoS Protocols
Attributes
The most complex of all QoS technologies Closest thing to circuit emulation on IP networks The biggest departure from best-effort IP service Service guarantees Granularity of resource allocation Detail of feedback to QoS-enabled applications
Guaranteed : as close as possible to a dedicated virtual circuit Controlled Load : equivalent to best-effort service under unloaded conditions
RSVP - Implementation
Host A
Host B
RSVP - Implementation
Sender
Receiver
the reservation specification (guaranteed or controlled) the filter specification (type of packets that the reservation is made for)
RSVP - Queuing
IntServ uses a token-bucket model to characterize I/O queuing Token bucket attributes
Token rate Token bucket depth Peak rate Minimum policed size Maximum packet size
RSVP - Conclusions
APIs are required to specify flow requirements Reservations are receiver-based Has to maintain a state for each flow Multicast reservations
DiffServ - Prioritization
Description
Applied on flow aggregates Services requirements are classified Classification is performed at network ingress points A predefined per-hop behavior (PHB) is applied to every service class Traffic is smoothed according to PHB applied
Minimizes delay and jitter Provides the highest QoS Traffic that exceeds the traffic profile is discarded
4 classes, 3 drop-precedences within each class Traffic that exceeds the traffic profile is not delivered with such high probability
DiffServ - Implementation
Classifie r
Maps DSCPs to PHBs
Conditione r
Applies the defined PHB (scheduling)
M arke r
Maintains DSCP mappings and associations w ith local policies
M eter
Accumulates statistics
DiffServ - Implementation
0
DiffServ codepoints (DSCPs) redefine the Type-of-Service (ToS) IPv4 field Precedence bits are preserved Type-of-Service bits are NOT
1 2 3 DSCP 4 5 6 7
CU
7
MBZ
Precedence
Type of Service
Class Selector
Unused
RFC 1122
RFC 1349
Must Be Zero
DiffServ - Conclusions
Easy to be implemented / integrated even into the network core. Proper classification can lead to efficient resource allocation and though improved QoS
Used to establish fixed bandwidth routes (similar to ATM virtual circuits) Resides only on routers and is protocol independent Traffic is marked at ingress and unmarked at egress boundaries Markings are used to determine next router hop (not priority) The aim is to simplify the routing process
MPLS - Implementation
The 1st hop router, using the header information (destination address etc.) attaches a label and forwards the packet Every MPLS-enabled router uses the label as an index to a table defining the next hop and label
20 3
1
Label Value
Exp.
TTL
3-bits : Reserved
8-bits : Time-To-Live
MPLS - Conclusions
This allows MPLS routes within routes Distributes labels across MPLS-enabled routers Ensures they agree on the meaning of labels Usually transparent to network managers Define a policy management that distributes labels
Implication :
A top-to-bottom QoS approach Applies to the Data Link Layer (OSI layer 2) Makes LAN topologies (e.g. Ethernet) QoSenabled Fundamental requirement
SBM - Implementation
SBM Modules
Hosted on switches Performs admission control Resides in every end-station Maps Layer 2 priority levels and the higher-layer QoS protocol parameters
SBM - Conclusions
Much like the RSVP protocol Makes the traditional Ethernet, QoS aware Introduces an additional indirection in the routing mechanism 8-level priority value
QoS Architectures
Host A
Application
Host B
Application Presentation Session Transport Network Data Link Phy sical RSVP Dif f Serv SBM QoS-enabled Application QoS API
Top-to-Bottom QoS
End-to-End QoS
Protocol Comparison
QoS
most
least
Multicast Environments
RSVP
Heterogeneous receivership makes reservation merging a difficult task Its relative simplicity makes it a better fit for multicast support Work is underway, no standards have emerged yet Explicit support for multicast
DiffServ
MPLS
SBM
Conclusions
Performance attributes for each class still missing Interworking solution for mapping IP CoS to ATM QoS
References