ccnxcon2012: session 5: interest rate control for content-centric networking
Post on 10-May-2015
702 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Joint Hop-by-hop and Receiver-Driven Interest Control Protocol for Content-Centric Networks
Massimo Gallo (Orange labs), joint work with:
Giovanna Carofiglio (Bell Labs), Luca Muscariello (Orange labs). CCNxCon 2012 - September 13th, 2012 - Sophia Antipolis
1. Transport issues in CCN
2. Receiver-driven Interest control
3. Hop-by-hop Interest control: design and analysis
4. Performance Evaluation
5. Hop-by-hop Interest control: benefits
6. Conclusions
AGENDA
CCN Transport - KEY ASPECTS UNIQUE ENDPOINT AT THE RECEIVER No connection instantiation, multiple senders for the same content retrieval, unknown a priori at the receiver
MULTIPLE SOURCES Data can be retrieved by multiple repositories, but also intermediate caches
PULL-BASED POINT TO MULTIPOINT RETRIEVAL Interests for the same content retrieval can be forwarded in a point-to-multipoint fashion: better throughput, better traffic load balancing if multiple sources in parallel
USER
CACHE
CACHE
CACHE
CACHE
CACHE
CACHE
CACHE
CACHE
REPO
Interests
Data
@ the receiver
CCN receiver is the unique flow endpoint:
• knows application requirements, end-to-end round trip delay per packet retrieval, receiver buffer (flow size)
• is the best place where to control content retrieval over multiple paths
@ network nodes
CCN nodes know Interest/Data rates of flows (identified by content name) per interface:
• Interest/Data traverse the same nodes in opposite directions
• provide hop-by-hop Interest control
• handle bursty traffic and react faster
CCN congestion control mechanisms
Receiver-driven Interest Control Protocol (ICP) DESIGN
• One Interest per Data packet, in the order decided by the application
• Window-based Additive Increase Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD):
! W is increased by !/W at each Data packet reception
! W is decreased by "W at each timer expiration (a timer is set at the receiver for each Interest sent out) and no more than once in a time interval equal to the timer duration
• Adaptive timer expiration value, ! , based on RTT estimates over a history of samples
! reflects the average virtual RTT and may be associated to a path
Hop-by-Hop Interest Control - OBJECTIVES
Interest control at network node: • anticipate congestion detection by monitoring Interest/Data rate
• trigger rate reduction via Interest shaping before timer expiration at the receiver.
• control PIT entries according to Upstream resources
Basic Idea If Interest rate> fair rate at a given interface, one can queue and delay Interests at output interface to reduce Data queuing at the bottleneck
Hop-by-Hop Interest Control - DESIGN
• One virtual queue per flow at each output interface, identified by the content name • One credit counter per virtual queue initialized to B Data bytes that the flow can transmit with no additional
delay • The counter is:
• incremented at the estimated fair rate • decremented by forwarded Interests
Hop-by-Hop Interest Control - DESIGN (cont’d)
bottlenecked ?
Yes No
send Interest (no additional delay)
queueInterest in a drop tail FIFO served
at !i(t)
@ interest arrival (after CS/PIT/FIB lookup)
• is the rate of non-bottlenecked flows (total rate of non shaped flows, counting the size of the corresponding Data packets)
• is the # of bottlenecked flows (# of non empty queues) "
Shaping rate:
Shaping algorithm:
Hop-by-Hop Interest Control - ANALYSIS
Main Result
We prove that HR-ICP is stable and converges to the max-min fair rate of ICP, where the shaping queue Qs
i (t) replaces Qi(t) in the ICP system
Interest Window
Delivery Time [s]
Throughput [Mbps]
Losses [%]
W [pkts] With HbH
W/o HbH
With HbH
W/o HbH
With HbH
W/o HbH
2 2.42 2.42 16.30 16.30 0 0
10 1.00 1.00 39.70 39.60 0 0
15 1.00 2.08 39.60 19.20 0 11.20
20 1.00 1.90 39.60 20.90 0 15.30
ICP 1.00 1.00 39.80 39.80 0 0
Performance Evaluation Impact of Interest Control on User Performance
• Hop-by-hop Interest Shaping is not enough • Interest shaping reduces Data packet losses
• Implementation oh Interest shaping mechanism in CCNPL-Sim (C++ event driven simulator for the CCN architecture)
• Two hops network, single content retrieval. ICP vs constant window, w or w/o Hop by Hop Interest control:
Results
• HR-ICP queues Interests before the bottleneck link (Q1s not Q2, Q2 is zero )
• ICP flows almost not affected w H2H, get the fair rate, W slightly reduced
• Greedy CBR flow looses (CBR rate - fair rate)
Performance Evaluation The benefits of HR-ICP over ICP
Results
Repository
C1= 100Mbps C2= 40 Mbps
Three flows: • 2 ICP (t1=0s, t1=0.5s) • CBR (t=1s - avg 40Mbps).
Performance Evaluation Prioritization of real-time and delay sensitive traffic
Three flows: • ICP 1 bottlenecked at 4 (t=0s), • ICP 2 bottlenecked at 2 (t=0.5s), • 4 Interests in batch every 10ms (t=0.5s, avg 5Mbps - peak 100
Mbps). Results: • HR-ICP queues Interests before
bottleneck, • ICP flows almost not affected, while
the new flow gets priority along the request path.
Repository
C1= 100Mbps C2= 40 Mbps C3= 100 Mbps
Repository
C4= 20 Mbps
HBH Interest shaping - benefits
" Interest not Data Control
" Early Congestion Detection
" Protection from misbehaving receivers
" Scalability/Feasibility
" Delay-sensitive flows protection
" No interest losses
" Additional traffic control opportunities
Conclusions
We show that # Hop-by-hop Interest shaping enhances rate and congestion control
performance # Compared to alternative solutions for CCN Interest control, our proposal brings additional benefits due to:
$ the coupling with a rate/fairness optimal receiver control, $ the positioning of Interest shaper at output interfaces, $ the shaping mechanism based on Data max-min fair rate.
Future works definition of traffic control mechanisms for the management of a multipath communication, coupled with an Interest forwarding policy.
Questions
CCN Simulator soon available at: http://perso.rd.francetelecom.fr/muscariello/sim
http://code.google.com/p/ccnpl-sim
top related