quality of service csc/ece 573, section 001 fall, 2012
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Quality of ServiceQuality of Service
CSC/ECE 573, Section 001
Fall, 2012
![Page 2: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OutlineOutline Expectations from the Internet changing Network mechanisms must change to meet Network architectural issues Approaches – Integrated Services,
Differentiated Services
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 2
![Page 3: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Performance and QoSPerformance and QoS
Performance – what we want out of our networks– Defined by metrics– Usually “more the better” flavor
QoS– Defined level of some performance metric or combination of
metrics– Some form of guarantee, expressed as a contract
Metrics– Delay– Throughput– Loss– Variability
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 3
![Page 4: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Challenges for the InternetChallenges for the Internet Performance challenges
– Delay, bandwidth, loss are problems– Loss recovery is based on retransmission– Routing is based on bandwidth conservation– Traffic load on network is variable
QoS challenges– All of the above– Traffic streams cannot be identified inside the
network– Metrics are not integrated inside or outside network
Check network traffic loads at CAIDA site
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 4
![Page 5: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
QoS ElementsQoS Elements QoS descriptor
– describes QoS requested by user
Traffic descriptor (traffic profile)– describes behavior of user's traffic at the entrance of
the network
Conformance test– specifies criteria to be applied to determine whether
traffic submitted by user complies with traffic descriptor
Traffic contract– user agrees not to violate traffic descriptor, network
promises to deliver QoS
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 5
![Page 6: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Traffic DescriptorTraffic Descriptor A set of parameters that describes the behavior
of a source– typically describes the source’s worst behavior, not
average behavior
Traffic descriptor is used by traffic regulators– Policer
rejects out-of-profile traffic, at network entrance only
– Shapershapes output traffic to specified profile (by buffering)at source, just before entrance to the networkalso, at switches/routers inside the network
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 6
![Page 7: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Traffic Descriptors (cont'd)Traffic Descriptors (cont'd) Peak rate = highest rate at which source can
ever generate data– trivial bound: speed of access link
Average rate = rate at which traffic will be generated over a long interval
Linear bounded arrival process (LBAP)– bound on the # of bits transmitted in any interval of
length t is a linear function of t
B(t) * t + : the long-term average rate allocated by network
to source : longest “burst” that a source may send
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 7
![Page 8: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
LBAP ExampleLBAP Example
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 8
![Page 9: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Leaky/Token Bucket Leaky/Token Bucket RegulatorsRegulators
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 9
IncomingPackets
Tokens
• Allows bursts• If no token when packet arrives
– policer: drop packet– shaper: buffer packet
• What does it enforce?
![Page 10: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Other Required/Desired FunctionsOther Required/Desired Functions Resource reservation
– link bandwidth– buffer space at switching nodes
Admission control– determine which service requests to grant and which to
deny– based on traffic descriptor and QoS requirements– admitting new users must not unduly degrade quality of
existing users Other signaling
– feedback about network quality– application synchronization– “device” control
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 10
![Page 11: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Network MechanismsNetwork Mechanisms• QoS routing: unicast/multicast paths based on QoS
• Need some form of flow switching
• Policing: hold users to committed resources• Buffer management: allocate buffers to user flows• Packet scheduling: determine which packet to
transmit next (Performance and fault management): monitor for
defects that affect performance (Protection switching): protect traffic from failures by
switching to alternate path – fault tolerance
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 11
![Page 12: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Router Buffer Management StrategiesRouter Buffer Management Strategies Objectives
– Protection: traffic behavior of one user should not affect the service experienced by other users
Isolation
– minimization of packet loss
Achieved by...– Buffer sharing– Active Queue Management (RED etc)
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 12
![Page 13: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Protection – How to Achieve?Protection – How to Achieve? Main tradeoff: aggregation vs. service differentiation Complete aggregation: all flows share a single queue
– no guarantees == best-effort
No aggregation: each flow assigned its own queue– per-flow state information, expensive for backbone routers– per-flow guarantees == maximum QoS
Per-class aggregation: one queue per class of flows– class-based queueing, per-class state info, manageable– per-class guarantees == QoS classes
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 13
![Page 14: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Protection (cont'd)Protection (cont'd)
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 14
![Page 15: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Buffer Sharing StrategiesBuffer Sharing Strategies Given: N flows and B buffers
– objective: to divide the B buffers among the N queues– tradeoff: protection vs. probability of packet loss
Complete partitioning: each flow has access to single buffer pool of size B/N– full protection– high loss probability
Complete sharing: each flow has access to total pool, of size B– no protection– low loss probability
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 15
![Page 16: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Buffer Sharing Strategies (cont'd)Buffer Sharing Strategies (cont'd) Sharing with minimum allocation
– flow i given exclusive access to ai buffers
– sum of the ai’s < B
– remaining buffers shared among flows– effective in terms of protection, loss minimization
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 16
![Page 17: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Packet Dropping for Best-Effort TrafficPacket Dropping for Best-Effort Traffic
Overloaded network– losses from best-effort flows are inevitable– losses from guaranteed-service applications should be rare
Packet-drop strategy: which packet to drop upon overload?
– should protect “well-behaved” flows from misbehaving ones
Drop-tail strategy: drop incoming packet if queue full – simple, but no protection– packet dropping of different users is synchronized– penalizes bursty flows
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 17
![Page 18: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Random Early Detection StrategyRandom Early Detection Strategy Provides congestion avoidance by controlling
the average queue length– average queue size should be kept low– fluctuations in queue size should be allowed to
accommodate bursty traffic and transient congestion
– Prevents router synchronization
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 18
![Page 19: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
RED Routers: Basic OperationRED Routers: Basic Operation Router maintains...
– an exponential average of queue length– a threshold
If average queue length > threshold: drop incoming packet with probability p– prevents severe reaction to a moderate overload
condition
Probability that flow loses packets is proportional to its sending rate – misbehaving sources more likely to lose packets– does not penalize bursty flows
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 19
![Page 20: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
RED Gateways (cont'd)RED Gateways (cont'd)
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 20
Probability of dropping
![Page 21: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Link Scheduling DisciplinesLink Scheduling Disciplines Function: determine the order in which packets
are transmitted on a link Objectives
– “fair” sharing of bandwidth among best-effort applications
– performance bounds for guaranteed-service applications
minimum bandwidth or ratemaximum delay guaranteemaximum delay jitter guarantee
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 21
![Page 22: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Scheduling: Fundamental ChoicesScheduling: Fundamental Choices1. Work-conserving or non-work-conserving
discipline
2. Number of priority levels
3. Service order within level
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 22
![Page 23: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Work-conserving vs. Non-work-conservingWork-conserving vs. Non-work-conserving Work-conserving: link is never idle when there
are packets waiting for service – no bound on delay-jitter
Non-work-conserving: link may be idle even if it has packets to serve (i.e., packets are delayed) – reason for delaying traffic: to reduce jitter– To enforce “share”
Or, can pre-empt
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 23
![Page 24: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Logical View of Scheduler SubsystemLogical View of Scheduler Subsystem
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 24
![Page 25: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
FIFOFIFO (First-in, First-out) Scheduling (First-in, First-out) Scheduling Serve packets in the order in which they arrive Most widely-implemented scheduler; benefits…
– simple– minimal scheduling state
Problems– packets requiring low delay cannot skip to head of
queue– rewards “greediness”: flows receive service
(bandwidth) roughly in proportion to the rate at which they send data
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 25
![Page 26: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
FIFO ExampleFIFO Example
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 26
![Page 27: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
StaticStatic (Strict) Priority(Strict) Priority Scheduler Scheduler Each flow is associated with one of K priority
levels A packet from priority level k is served only if
there are no packets in levels k+1 and higher Benefits
– simple to implement– small amount of scheduling state for each priority
level
Problems– may result in “starvation” for lower-priority flows
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 27
![Page 28: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Static Priority ExampleStatic Priority Example
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 28
![Page 29: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Round-RobinRound-Robin Scheduling Scheduling During each round of service...
– consider each queue in a predefined order– transmit (serve) one packet from each non-empty
queue
Benefits– simple– little scheduling state
Problems– can be unfair when packet size is variable
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 29
![Page 30: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Round-Robin ExampleRound-Robin Example
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 30
![Page 31: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Round-Robin ExampleRound-Robin Example With variable length packets…
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 31
![Page 32: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Weighted Round-RobinWeighted Round-Robin Variant of round-robin which...
– allocates different amount of bandwidth to different classes
– overcomes the unfairness problems of round-robin
Weight wk assigned to queue k
Whenever queue k is backlogged, it receives a fraction k of the link bandwidth such that k wk / (sum of the wi’s)
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 32
![Page 33: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Weighted Round-Robin ExampleWeighted Round-Robin Example
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 33
![Page 34: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Generalized Processor SchedulingGeneralized Processor Scheduling Ideal algorithm Operation: bit-by-bit (possibly weighted) Round-
Robin (ideally fluid) Benefits
– end-to-end delay bound for guaranteed-service applications
– fair allocation of bandwidth among best-effort flows
Problem: not implementable!
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 34
![Page 35: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Weighted Fair QueueingWeighted Fair Queueing Designed to approximate GPS
– simulates GPS "on the side", uses results to determine the service order of packets
– finish number: a packet's finishing time under GPS
WFQ serves packets in order of increasing finish number
Benefits– similar properties to GPS
Problems– complex, finish number computation expensive– difficult to implement in hardware
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 35
![Page 36: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Earliest Deadline FirstEarliest Deadline First At each router...
– traffic stream i associated with a local delay bound di
– packet arriving at time t is stamped with deadline t+di
– packets served in order of increasing deadlines Benefits
– relatively simple to implement in hardware– can provide rate guarantees– end-to-end delay bound similar to that of WFQ– optimal for a single router
Problems – requires shaping at each router for end-to-end delay bound
rate-controlled EDF (RC-EDF)
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 36
![Page 37: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Earliest Deadline First (cont'd)Earliest Deadline First (cont'd)
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 37
![Page 38: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Hierarchical SchedulersHierarchical Schedulers Link sharing among traffic streams grouped
according to...– administration affiliation– traffic type– protocol type– etc…
Link share may also need to be further subdivided based on application types
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 38
![Page 39: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Hierarchical Schedulers (cont'd)Hierarchical Schedulers (cont'd)
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 39
![Page 40: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Hierarchical Schedulers (cont'd)Hierarchical Schedulers (cont'd)
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 40
![Page 41: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
QoS GuaranteesQoS Guarantees Deterministic (100%) guarantees
– based on peak traffic rate– simple, predictable, conservative– Guaranteed Service (RFC 2212)
Statistical (< 100%) guarantees– based on peak and mean traffic rates– complex, less predictable, higher utilization– Controlled Load Service
No guarantees– the network performance is what it is– Best Effort Service
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 41
![Page 42: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
The RSVP Protocol (RFC2205)The RSVP Protocol (RFC2205) Purpose: announce / signal...
– the sending application requirements to receivers – the receivers' resource requirements to the network
Senders announce their traffic characteristics and requirements: PATH messages
Receivers initiate request for resources along the path: RESV messages
Calculation of resource requirements or QoS is not within RSVP scope!
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 42
![Page 43: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
RSVP (contRSVP (cont’’d)d) RSVP is unidirectional
– reservations are established from sender to receiver
Runs directly over IP (unreliable) RSVP is a hop-by-hop protocol
– routers have to process the messages and possibly modify their contents
– requires the IP "router alert" option to be specified
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 43
![Page 44: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Is that the Only Approach?Is that the Only Approach? QoS: some levels of network service are better
than others Intserv: QoS managed on a per-flow basis
– per-flow state stored in all routers in the path– per-flow scheduling, policing, shaping– hop-by-hop reservations signaling overhead,
complexity
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 44
![Page 45: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Another Approach: Airline Seating!Another Approach: Airline Seating! First-class, business-class, and coach-class
– Coach class (best-effort) carries bulk of traffic– business/first-class: small amount of traffic, but quite
profitable Differentiated services
– not expected to comprise all traffic in the Internet– goal: healthy service offerings and profit opportunities
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 45
![Page 46: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Another Approach: Carpool Lanes!Another Approach: Carpool Lanes! One lane reserved for exclusive use of High-
Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) during rush hour– outside rush hour, other vehicles may also use the
HOV lane
HOVs experience little congestion, less delay Work Conservation law: total queueing delay
remains constant over all cars improved service for HOVs means worse service for
everyone else
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 46
![Page 47: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
DiffServ GoalsDiffServ Goals1. Ease of use and generality
– but, limited flexibility
2. Simple processing in core routers– push complexity to network edge
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 47
Core Network
Core Network
Access
Network
Access
Network
Access Networ
k
Access Networ
k
Access Networ
k
Access Networ
k
Access Networ
k
Access Networ
k
R1
R2 R4
R3
![Page 48: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
ArchitectureArchitecture Neither…
– best-effort (connectionless) model– guaranteed service (connection-oriented) model
In-between: service guarantees for aggregations of flows– implemented in the core network only
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 48
Architecture… IntServ DiffServ
Focus is on… Users, applications Network owners / administrators
Standardizes… End-to-end service Per-hop service (behavior)
![Page 49: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Diffserv Codepoint (DSCP)Diffserv Codepoint (DSCP) Field in the IP header specifying the class of
service the packet is to receive– replaces the previous (8-bit) TOS field
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 49
![Page 50: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Per-Hop Behavior (PHB)Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) Behavior aggregate (BA) = a collection of flows
with the same Diffserv codepoint (DSCP) , and sharing a link
Per-hop behavior (PHB) = the QoS (absolute or relative) given to a BA
DSCP maps to a PHB Protocol defined in terms of various PHBs
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 50
![Page 51: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Traffic ConditioningTraffic Conditioning Edge routers
– Classifies/remarks traffic (i.e., sets the DSCP)– Meters traffic in a BA
measures performance and arrival statistics
– Polices (shapes, drops) traffic in a BA Implements PHBs
– Best Effort (none) and Class Selector (compatibility)
– Expedited Forwarding – absolute rate, other qualitative
– Virtual Wire – apparent channel– Assured Forwarding – high probability, not firm
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 51
![Page 52: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Border Router Input Interface Profile MetersBorder Router Input Interface Profile Meters
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 52
![Page 53: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
IssuesIssues Signaling for DiffServ: RSVP?? SNMP?? Greatest burden of flow matching and shaping will be
at access routers– the speeds and buffering required should be less than those
required deeper in the network
State maintained for aggregations of flows, not individual flows
– proper provisioning for DiffServ BAs is key to acceptable performance
– resource provisioning, admission control: difficult? unknown?!
Organizational control – “Policy Decision Points”– Security
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 53
![Page 54: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
IP Address LookupIP Address Lookup Every forwarding engine needs to perform rule
matching Remember: structure of rule:
<CIDR Prefix> <Next-hop i/f>
Requirement: match longest prefix– In reality: rarely see prefix of prefix
Requirement: prefix can be any length– In reality: rarely more than /24, many are /24
Requirement: complete matching at wire-speed– At 1 Gbps, 40 byte TCP ACK ?– Memory access takes, say, 10 ns– ???
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 54
![Page 55: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Forwarding Table SizeForwarding Table Size
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 55http://www.routeviews.org
![Page 56: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Reducing Lookup TimeReducing Lookup Time
Prefix Label
Prefix Prefix Meaning
P1 0 0*******************************
P2 00001 00001*
P3 001 001*
P4 1 1*
P5 1000 1000*
P6 1001 1001*
P7 1010 1010*
P8 1011 1011*
P9 111 111*
Number of prefixes N can be very large– Even when the number of interfaces is fairly small– Maximum length W of prefix is fixed
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 56
![Page 57: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Trie as FIB Data StructureTrie as FIB Data Structure Originally used for file searching or retrieval Binary tries can be used for prefix lookup More sophisticated tries possible
– Requires adaptation for prefix lookup
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 57
![Page 58: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Trie as FIB Data StructureTrie as FIB Data Structure
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 58
Prefix Label
Prefix
P1 0
P2 00001
P3 001
P4 1
P5 1000
P6 1001
P7 1010
P8 1011
P9 111
Left = ‘()’ Right = ‘1’
k-bit prefix matches at level k How to: Lookup? Insert? Delete?
![Page 59: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Storing Lookup InformationStoring Lookup Information
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 59
Prefix Label
Prefix
P1 0
P2 00001
P3 001
P4 1
P5 1000
P6 1001
P7 1010
P8 1011
P9 111
P1 P2
P3
P2
P5 P6 P7 P8
P9
![Page 60: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Path CompressionPath Compression
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 60
Eliminate all but “decision” nodes Requires labeling surviving nodes
Prefix Label
Prefix
P1 0
P2 00001
P3 001
P4 1
P5 1000
P6 1001
P7 1010
P8 1011
P9 111
0*
00001* 001*
![Page 61: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
More Sophisticated TriesMore Sophisticated Tries Multibit tries
– More than two way branch– More than one bit coded at each level
Prefix transformation– Transform prefixes so that only leaves match– No longer precisely corresponding to addresses– Content of node stores actual address
Fixed stride multibit trie– More fanout, less depth– Reduces constant lookup complexity
Hardware – RAM, TCAM Tuple matching – hierarchical tries
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 61
![Page 62: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Fixed-stride Multibit TrieFixed-stride Multibit Trie
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 62
Prefix Label
Prefix
P1 0
P2 00001
P3 001
P4 1
P5 1000
P6 1001
P7 1010
P8 1011
P9 111
000
001111
![Page 63: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
MPLSMPLS In QoS, we run up against the problem of introducing
complexity inside network Routers have to forward each packet
– Can only do so much
Virtual circuits can help– Serve to reduce router load, as well as– QoS can be related to circuit/channel
Flows/circuits can be labeled– Now switch labels, not packets
Conceptual predecessors – cut-through switching, IP switching, tag switching, …
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 63
![Page 64: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Conventional Packet ForwardingConventional Packet Forwarding As a packet travels in an IP network, each router...
– analyzes the packet's header– consults the routing, or forwarding, table– chooses a next hop router for the packet
independently of any choices made for other packets
Packet headers contain many fields for varying purposes
– only some of them are used for routing purposes
Choosing the next hop involves two steps– partition the entire set of possible packets into forwarding
equivalence classes (FECs) Corresponding to router rules, roughly
– map each FEC to a next hop Execute forwarding algorithm for each datagram
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 64
![Page 65: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Forwarding Equivalence ClassesForwarding Equivalence Classes
Example: two packets arrive at a router– packet with destination D1 and longest prefix
match X1– packet with destination D2 and longest prefix
match X2
If X1 = X2, the two packets are “in the same FEC”
Each hop in turn reexamines packet and assigns it to a FEC
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 65
![Page 66: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Limitations of IP ForwardingLimitations of IP Forwarding For forwarding purposes
– different packets mapped to same FEC are indistinguishable– all packets in the same FEC from the same router must
follow the same path
Current forwarding scheme has limitations– uses only destination IP address from packet– doesn’t support QoS, traffic engineering, fast recovery from
failures, …
Hop-by-hop forwarding architecture has remained unchanged since the very early days of the Internet
– even though routing architecture has undergone many changes
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 66
![Page 67: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Traffic EngineeringTraffic Engineering “Fish Network” – example Destination based routing cannot engineer
traffic
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 67
R1
R2
R3
![Page 68: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Connection-Oriented ArchitecturesConnection-Oriented Architectures Ex.: ATM, Frame Relay, X.25 A logical connection must be set up before data is
exchanged– the state of the connection is maintained at each network
switch
A flow is the sequence of datagrams exchanged over a TCP or UDP connection
– multiple flows may be multiplexed into a single logical connection
Connection-oriented architectures enable the type of services that are not well-supported by conventional IP datagram routing
![Page 69: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
What is What is ““Label SubstitutionLabel Substitution”” ? ?
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 69
• BROADCAST: Go everywhere, stop when you get to B, never ask for directions.
• HOP BY HOP ROUTING: Continually ask who’s closer to B go there, repeat … stop when you get to B.
“Going to B? You’d better go to X, its on the way”.
• SOURCE ROUTING: Ask for a list (that you carry with you) of places to go that eventually lead you to B.
“Going to B? Go straight 5 blocks, take the next left, 6 more blocks and take a right at the lights”.
One of the many ways of getting from A to B:
![Page 70: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Label SubstitutionLabel Substitution
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 70
Have a friend go to B ahead of you using one of the previous two techniques. At every road they reserve a lane just for you. At every intersection they post a big sign that says for a given lane which way to turn and what new lane to take.
LANE#1
LANE#2
LANE#1 TURN RIGHT USE LANE#2
![Page 71: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2011 71
Connection Oriented ForwardingConnection Oriented Forwarding
A’s FIB C’s FIB E’s FIB
H1 sends request to A A assigns label “1”, forwards
request to C C assigns label “6”, forwards
request to E E assigns label “3”, forwards
request to F F accepts request, replies to
E with label “11” E notes label, replies to C
with assigned label C notes label, replies to A
with assigned label A notes label, replies to H1
with assigned label H1 sends packets with label
“1” to A on “virtual circuit”6 6 3 3 11
![Page 72: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
MPLS NetworksMPLS Networks A logical connection is established between two points in a pure
datagram network– connection carries normal datagram traffic
MPLS adds an additional header, containing a label– identifies the connection
A hybrid architecture (advantages of both?)– logical connections can be used for connection-oriented services– normal datagram processing (forwarding) still available for
datagram services
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 72
![Page 73: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Where it FitsWhere it Fits Below the network layer
– not an end-to-end protocol
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 73
IPv4 IPv6 IPX Appletalk
MPLS
ATMFrame Relay
Ether-net
PPP FDDI…
Network Layer
Link Layer
![Page 74: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
MPLS Labels and EncapsulationMPLS Labels and Encapsulation Insert in each packet a new header ("shim
header")
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 74
• A label = short, fixed length value
• used to identify the FEC
• Labels have local significance only
• adjacent routers must agree on the binding of label FEC
• does not have to be globally unique
• no meaning to the label; just an identifier
Link Layer Header
MPLS “Shim” Header
IP Header
Payload….
![Page 75: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
The MPLS Forwarding TableThe MPLS Forwarding Table Add a new table to router: the Label Switching
Forwarding Table– may be other info in this table, as well (e.g., quality of
service)– trivial to match a label in the table
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 75
Forwarding Table
Incoming Label
Outgoing Interface
Next Hop Address
Outgoing Label
Other Requirements
6 eth0 192.0.168.100 12 …
… … … … …
![Page 76: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Basic MPLS IdeaBasic MPLS Idea Look at the label to pick an outgoing interface Then replace the incoming label with the
appropriate outgoing label Routers that don’t support MPLS do normal
packet forwarding
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 76
-- 6 ------ -- 12 ------Router
incoming label
outgoing label
![Page 77: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
MPLS TerminologyMPLS Terminology A label-switched router (LSR) can perform MPLS
label-switching A label-switched path (LSP) is a consecutive
sequence of LSRs that forward a packet using MPLS An ingress LSR is the first LSR on a LSP
– determines FEC for packet from routing table– inserts a label (shim header) in front of the packet– at this point, the label is bound to the FEC at this router
An egress LSR is the last LSR on a LSP– responsible for removing the label from in front of the packet
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 77
![Page 78: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Label-Switched PathsLabel-Switched Paths
Can start and terminate in the middle of the network
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 78
Rc
Ra
Rb
Rd
Re
Rf
![Page 79: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
NotesNotes Labels are an optimization
– packets can be routed even if labels aren't set up at all, or are set up on just parts of the path
Assignment of a packet to an FEC is done only once, as the packet enters the MPLS network
– subsequent hops do not need to examine the network layer header
Important questions– on what basis are LSPs set up?– how are they set up, and how long do they last?– RSVP can be reused to request label setup: -TE extension
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 79
![Page 80: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
StandardizingStandardizing MPLS Working Group (within Sub-IP area) Some RFCs
– Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (RFC 3031) – Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS (RFC
2702)– LDP Specification (RFC 3036) (274855 bytes)– MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism (RFC 3063) – Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 (RFC 3107)
Reinventing ATM (minus small packets)???– label-switched path = VC, label = VCI
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 80
![Page 81: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Some Benefits / Applications of MPLSSome Benefits / Applications of MPLS1. Traffic engineering
2. Route pinning
3. Virtual circuit emulation
4. Protection and fast rerouting
5. Hierarchical forwarding
Also: faster packet processing at routers (= greater throughput)
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 81
![Page 82: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
GMPLSGMPLS GMPLS stands for “Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching” A previous version is “Multi-Protocol Lambda
Switching” Developed from MPLS A suite of protocols that provides common
control to packet, TDM, and wavelength services.
Currently, in development by the IETF
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 82
![Page 83: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Why GMPLS?Why GMPLS? GMPLS is proposed as the signaling protocol for optical networks What do service providers want?
Carry a large volume of traffic in a cost-effective way Turns out to be a challenge within current data network architecture
Problems:– Complexity in management of multiple layers – Inefficient bandwidth usage– Not scalable
Solutions: eliminate middle layers IP/WDM Need a protocol to perform functions of middle layers
IP
ATM
SONET/SDH
DWDM
Carry applications and services
Traffic Engineering
Transport/Protection
Capacity
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 83
![Page 84: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Why GMPLS? (Cont.)Why GMPLS? (Cont.) Optical Architectures
A control protocol support both overlay model and peer model will bring big flexibility
– The selection of architecture can be based on business decision
Peer ModelOverlay Model
UNI UNI
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 84
![Page 85: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Why GMPLS? (Cont.)Why GMPLS? (Cont.) What we need? A common control plane
– Support multiple types of traffic (ATM, IP, SONET and etc.)
– Support both peer and overlay models– Support multi-vendors– Perform fast provisioning
Why MPLS is selected? – Provisioning and traffic engineering capability
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 85
![Page 86: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
GMPLS and MPLSGMPLS and MPLS
GMPLS is deployed from MPLS
– Apply MPLS control plane techniques to optical switches and IP routing algorithms to manage lightpaths in an optical network
GMPLS made some modifications on MPLS
– Separation of signaling and data channel– Support more types of control interface– Other enhancement
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 86
![Page 87: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
Control interfacesControl interfaces Extend the MPLS to support more interfaces other than packet
switch– Packet Switch Capable (PSC)
Router/ATM Switch/Frame Reply Switch
– Time Division Multiplexing Capable (TDMC) SONET/SDH ADM/Digital Crossconnects
– Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) All Optical ADM or Optical Crossconnects (OXC)
– Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) LSPs of different interfaces can be nested inside another
FSCLSC
LSC
TDMC
TDMC
PSC
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 87
![Page 88: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
ChallengesChallenges Routing challenges
– Limited number of labels– Very large number of links
Link identification will be a big problem Scalability of the Link state protocol Port connection detection
Signaling challenges– Long label setup time– Bi-directional LSPs setup
Management challenges– Failure detection– Failure protection and restoration
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 88
![Page 89: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Suggested labelSuggested label Problem: it takes time for the optical switch to program switch
– Long setup time Solution:
– Each LSR selects a label (Suggested Label) and signals this label to downstream LSR, and start program its switch.
reduce LSP setup overhead
Suggested Label = Program Switch X
Suggested Label =
Reserved Label = Reserved Label =
Make sure the programming request has completed
Request
Program Switch X
Request
Map Label = Map Label =
No suggested label with suggested label
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 89
![Page 90: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
Bi-Directional LSP setupBi-Directional LSP setup Problem: How to set up bi-directional LSP? Solution:
– Set up 2 uni-directional LSPSignaling overheadEnd points coordination
– One single message exchange for one bi-directional LSP
Upstream Label. Suggested Label = Upstream Label = a
Suggested Label = Upstream Label = b
Reserved Label = Reserved Label =
a b
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 90
![Page 91: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
Link Management ProtocolLink Management Protocol
Problem:– How to localize the precise location of a fault? – How to validate the connectivity between adjacent nodes?
Solution: link management protocol– Control Channel Management– Link Connectivity Verification – Link Property Correlation – Fault Management – Authentication
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 91
![Page 92: Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5697c01f1a28abf838cd167a/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
GMPLS SummaryGMPLS Summary Provides a new way of managing network
resources and provisioning Provide a common control plane for multiple
layers and multi-vendors Fast and automatic service provisioning Greater service intelligence and efficiency
Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 92