Internet DRAFT - draft-borgonovo-qos-ds
draft-borgonovo-qos-ds
Internet Engineering Task Force Flaminio Borgonovo
INTERNET-DRAFT Antonio Capone
Expires: February 1999 Luigi Fratta
Mario Marchese
Chiara Petrioli
Politecnico di Milano
29 July 1998
End-to-end QoS provisioning mechanism for Differentiated Services
<draft-borgonovo-qos-ds-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft
documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated,
replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is
inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite
them other than as ``work in progress.''
To view the entire list of current Internet-Draft, please check the
``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net (Northern
Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific
Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
This document presents an end-to-end mechanism to guarantee bandwidth
and delay into the Differentiated Services mechanism to constant rate
traffic such as voice and video. The mechanism requires network
routers to be able to serve packets according to three classes of
priority. The needed call admission control is performed by an end-
to-end signaling procedure that implicitly looks for the required
bandwidth and seizes it, if available. Short delays are guaranteed by
the regular structure of constant rate traffic. No entities other
than source and destination are involved and multicast operation
comes at no further cost, which makes the mechanism fully scalable
and integrable into the existing Internet.
1. Introduction
The transport mechanism capable of guaranteeing demanding Quality of
Service (QoS) requirements is under discussion in the INTERNET
community. The Differentiated Services architecture [1] is the
approach that has recently gained more credit. The goal is to offer
an alternative to carry voice, video and multimedia with respect to
classic Telephone/ISDN and ATM networks. The basic problem is how to
guarantee bandwidth, delay and packet dropping probability, in a
Borgonovo Expires:02/99 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft_borgonovo_qos_ds_00.txt> 29 July 1998
datagram network architecture where the only service is the Best
Effort packet transmission.
In this contribution we consider only approaches that can be
completely implemented at the IP level and do not assume any lower
level QoS guarantee capability. In this context, an existing approach
is represented by RSVP (Resource reSerVation Protocol) [2][3].
RSVP is a signaling mechanism among routers and hosts that includes
support to ``flows'' of packets with different QoS and the ability to
dedicate end-to-end capacity to real-time traffic by means of hop-by-
hop resource reservation protocols. In practice, this solution
changes the entire network architecture by relying on the virtual
circuit connection mechanism, the paradigm of the telephony world,
today extended to the B-ISDN. During the set-up phase, needed to
install a virtual circuit, the network nodes cooperate, using complex
protocols, to determine a path within the network and to reserve
network resources such as bandwidth and buffers. The implementation
of such a signaling and its related features over the layered
structure of a pure datagram network will require large investments
because of the heavy software and hardware modifications to be
introduced in the already worldwide installed networks.
A much simpler alternative is represented by the Differentiated
Services approach. The basic idea is to use the IPv4 header TOS bits
or the IPv6 Traffic Class octet, the "DS byte" to designate the
"per-hop behaviors" that packets are to receive. By carefully
aggregating a multitude of QoS-enabled flows into a reasonable number
of differentiated services offered by the network it is no longer
necessary to recognize and store information about each individual
flow in the core routers. Though some signaling mechanism is needed
to manage the service assignment to individual flows, the network
mechanism still remains purely datagram and scales well. However,
since the control on packets is performed hop-by-hop, it is not easy
to design a suitable call acceptance policy that is able to guarantee
end-to-end QoS.
As the result of our research work in this field we have gained the
belief that if one only wants to enforce QoS control over constant-
rate or almost-constant-rate streams, simple procedures based on non-
preemptive priority mechanisms and simple end-to-end signaling
procedures are effective. One such procedure has been investigated in
the framework of deflection networks, i.e., data networks with very
small or no queuing at nodes [4].
The Bandwidth Guaranteed Service (BGS) mechanism, presented in this
document, guarantees constant rate traffic bandwidth and delay
requirements in datagram networks such as the Internet. BGS is based
on three priority levels. It integrates and completes the DS approach
and allows a QoS control as in RSVP, without adding explicit
signaling protocols. No entities other than source and destination
are involved and multicast operation is obtained at no further cost,
Borgonovo Expires:02/99 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft_borgonovo_qos_ds_00.txt> 29 July 1998
which makes the mechanism fully scalable.
The document is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present BGS,
its call setup and call acceptance procedures, while Section 3
illustrates its behavior by means of some preliminary results
obtained by simulation.
2. The BGS mechanism
In the following we assume connections with constant rate packet
traffic. The jitter introduced by the network is eliminated at the
destination user by storing the packets in a play-out buffer which is
emptied at the constant nominal rate, starting with a delay D_b after
the reception of the first packet of the connection. With this
technique the total delivery delay experienced by packets is constant
and equal to
W = D_b+d_1 (1)
where d_1 is the network delay suffered by the first packet. If a
packet is delayed more than W, it is useless and is dropped.
Therefore the QoS guaranteed traffic requires, besides the bandwidth
B, also a maximum packet delay W and a maximum packet-dropping
percentage gamma.
The BGS mechanism requires that each packet in the network belongs to
one of the three following priority classes.
Class 0: (lowest priority) if the packet requests best effort
service;
Class 1: (intermediate priority) if the packet is a scout packet,
used in the set-up procedure as defined below;
Class 2: (highest priority) if the packet belongs to a constant ate
flow that has been granted guaranteed service.
The priority information is carried in the TOS field and is used by
the routers to serve all packets according to a non-preemptive head-
of-the-line priority scheme. Class 1 and 2 packets have the same
constant length.
The set-up procedure operates end-to-end and is activated when a new
connection, characterized by the bandwidth B and the maximum allowed
transfer delay W, is requested.
Upon reception of a connection request C_j addressed to NODE_B,
NODE_A immediately starts transmitting scout packets at the rate r_j
corresponding to the requested bandwidth.
The scout packets do not carry data traffic in the payload, since
they are used to perform "bandwidth scouting and seizing" within the
Borgonovo Expires:02/99 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft_borgonovo_qos_ds_00.txt> 29 July 1998
network. To this purpose they only include set-up information to
signal to the receiving NODE_B the request for an incoming call and
the related service quality parameters.
Upon receiving the first scout packet, NODE_B starts performing
bandwidth measures and delay evaluations to verify whether QoS
requirements are met. If the outcome is positive NODE_B sends a call
acceptance packet to NODE_A. Otherwise, either it rejects the
connection or starts a bandwidth negotiation procedure with NODE_A.
As far as NODE_A is concerned, it keeps on transmitting scout packets
until either a time-out occurs or a response from NODE_B is received.
If the time out expires or the response is negative the call is
aborted, meaning that the bandwidth has not been found. If a positive
response is received, the connection set-up phase ends and NODE_A
replaces scout packets with data packets. The bandwidth is
automatically released when packets transmission ends.
The priority scheme adopted guarantees that new connections can not
steal bandwidth to already established ones. In fact, if some
constant bandwidth connections have already been admitted, as soon as
new connections attempt to steal bandwidth on a link, old connections
are delayed, a queue builds up and the priority mechanism cuts out
the newly arrived scout packets.
2.1 Call acceptance procedure
The call acceptance procedure is directly performed by the
destination node and is very simple: a new guaranteed-bandwidth
connection is accepted only if the connection parameters measured on
the N scout packets satisfy the QoS constraints.
First, a test of significance on the Hypothesis H0 that the bandwidth
requirement is satisfied is performed on the sample X_1, X_2, ...,
X_(N-1), where X_i is the interarrival time between scout packet i
and i+1. Under the hypothesis H0 we have E[X]=T, being $1/T$ the
packet constant rate of each flow. So, the test can be exploited on
the sample average
M_X = (X_1+X_2+...+X_(N-1))/(N-1) (2)
which is assumed to be normally distributed with average T and
variance
S2_x =[(X_1-T)*(X_1-T)+...+(X_(N-1)-T)*(X_(N-1)-T)]/(N-1) (3)
So, for a given confidence level alpha, a threshold T_alpha exists
such that if M_X < T_alpha the hypothesis H_0 is accepted. The
threshold value can be obtained as
T_alpha = T + xi_alpha * sqrt(S2_x/(N-1)) (4)
Borgonovo Expires:02/99 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft_borgonovo_qos_ds_00.txt> 29 July 1998
where xi_alpha is the standard normal deviate that is exceeded with
probability 1 - alpha. The difference
Delta B = 1/T - 1/T_alfa (5)
represents the resolution power of the measure.
The precision of the estimate increases with the number of
statistically independent samples. In a network that carries periodic
packet streams, delay samples can be considered independent if taken
at a distance larger than the transmission period T_max of the
connection with the lowest admissible bandwidth. Thus, the set-up
period is determined in time rather than by the number of signaling
packets. By doing this we guarantee that the measure captures all the
existing traffics, including the slowest.
For example, if we assume that the lowest bandwidth corresponds to 32
Kb/s with 640 bit packets, the packet transmission time is 20 ms so
that a measure period of 1-2 seconds is needed to collect a
reasonable number (50-100) of samples.
The measure indicated above may be critical since, due to the error
(5), the connection could be accepted even if the required bandwidth
slightly exceeds the available one. In this case, more traffic than
the capacity is accepted and all connections would be affected. A
simple way to avoid this unwanted phenomenon is to scout for more
bandwidth than needed in the set-up phase, and to turn to the
required bandwidth once the call is accepted. With this modification
links can not be used up to their capacity, but the unused fraction
can be kept very small.
2.2 The delay issue
Since packets are dropped when their delay overcame the required
threshold, it is important, for the effectiveness of the scheme, to
derive some conservative peak delay estimate to be used at the set up
phase. To this purpose we use an nD/D/1 queuing model where the n
sources generate service requests at a constant inter-arrival time
equal to T [5][6].
To obtain a conservative estimate under any network load condition,
we evaluate the delay suffered when the utilization factor is close
to one.
Using the approach in [5], we have considered three cases in which
the channel capacity is M = 25,50,100 connections of the same rate.
The average waiting plus transmission delay suffered by the packets
of a connection when all connections are active is shown in Table I.
The delays are expressed in transmission time units (m), in
interarrival time units (m'), in milliseconds (m'') assuming T=30 ms
(which can model 32 Kb/s voice channels and 1000 bit packets), and in
milliseconds (m''') assuming T=1 ms (which can model 1 Mb/s channels
Borgonovo Expires:02/99 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft_borgonovo_qos_ds_00.txt> 29 July 1998
and 1000 bit packets).
Table I.
---------------------------------------------------------
| M | m(D) | s(D) | m'(T) | m"(ms) | m"'(ms) |
| | | | |(T=30 ms) | (T=1 ms) |
------------------------------------------------------- -
| 25 | 3.51 | 1.52 | 0.140 | 4.21 | 0.140 |
| 50 | 4.88 | 2.09 | 0.0977 | 2.93 | 0.0977 |
| 100 | 6.85 | 2.79 | 0.0685 | 2.05 | 0.0685 |
------------------------------------------------------- -
Column two shows that, for any link bandwidth, absolute delays
decrease when the size of connections increases. For the case in
which sources have different, though constant, rates no general
solution exists. However, it is expected that the replacing of some
lower rate connections with an equivalent high rate connection will
not impair performance since the high rate connection generates a
more regular arrival pattern than the slower connections replaced.
This conjecture is substantiated by our simulation results, therefore
we assume that in an environment with mixed rate sources a
conservative delay bound is attained by assuming that all connections
are of the smallest allowed rate.
Column four shows that if delay is measured in interarrival times,
the delay decreases as the number of connections increases. This
means that if a lower bound to the capacity of the path is used for
delay evaluations, an upper bound is guaranteed.
Finally, a conservative estimate on the connection end-to-end delay
can be attained by assuming that delays add hop-by-hop as independent
random variables. Also this assumption is conservative as the
pipeline effect along the connection path reduces the queuing delay
at nodes other than the first. Thus, the peak delay evaluation of a
connection with k hops can be attained assuming a normal distribution
for the total delay.
Table II shows three examples of peak delay evaluations using the
values in Table I. The first two are based on a minimum allowed rate
of 33 packet/sec (e.g. voice channels at 32 kb/s with 30 ms
interarrival time), and assuming that at least either 100 or 25
connections can be accommodated along an 8 hop path.
The third is based on a minimum allowed rate of 1 Mb/s with 1 ms
interarrival time, representing the case for voice trunk channels
within a provider domain, and assuming that at least 25 connections
can be accommodated along an 8 hop path.
The results shown refer only to class 2 traffic. Class 1 traffic
(scout packets) has very little influence on the delay since it can
delay class 2 packets for at most one transmission time, because of
Borgonovo Expires:02/99 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft_borgonovo_qos_ds_00.txt> 29 July 1998
the non-preemptive priority. Class 0 packets may alter the analysis
shown if they are allowed a size considerably larger than the
constant rate packets.
Table II.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
| rate | mean delay | Standard deviation | 0.999 percentile |
| capacity| (ms) | (ms) | (ms) |
- --------------------------------------------------------------
| 32 kb/s | | | |
| (100) | 16.4 | 1.58 | 21.2 |
| 32 kb/s | | | |
| (25) | 33.7 | 5.17 | 49.3 |
| 1 Mb/s | | | |
| (25) | 1.12 | 0.172 | 1.64 |
----------------------------------------------------------------
The set-up procedure uses the values indicated in Table I to evaluate
the 0.999 percentile, which depends on the number of hops traversed,
and to determine whether the delay QoS is met.
Note, however, that due to the strong correlation among packets of
the same connection, the fraction 0.001 does not represent the packet
dropping probability suffered by any connection, but it represents
the fraction of connections that suffer loss of packets.
3. Measures
Preliminary simulation results have been obtained by simulating an 8
node network, interconnected by a unidirectional and homogeneous ring
structure. Equal rate traffic is generated at any nodes, and
destination nodes are chosen either 1 or 8 hops apart in the ratio 12
to 1, so that at any node a consistent fraction of traffic (about
60%) is renewed. With this structure the complexity of the simulation
environment is kept low while observing sufficiently long paths with
limited pipeline effect, a most critical condition.
Table III.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| connection |pck.dropping| delay thresholds (ms) | average|
| rate | classes | | delay |
| 1 Mb/s | | 1 | 1.1| 1.2| 1.3| 1.4|1.5| 1.11 |
| 32 Kb/s | |30 | 33 | 36 | 39 | 42 | 45| 33.3 |
| -----------------------------------------------------------------
| | 0 - 0.001 | 0 |0.084|0.167|0.417|0.75| 1 | |
| |0.001-0.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| |0.01 - 0.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| | 0.1 - 1 | 1 |0.916|0.833|0.583|0.25| 0 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Borgonovo Expires:02/99 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft_borgonovo_qos_ds_00.txt> 29 July 1998
In our simulations the network has been loaded one connection at a
time, until saturation is reached, using the call set-up mechanism
described in the previous sections. In Table III we report, for a few
delay thresholds, the percentage of 8 hop connections that
experienced a packet dropping probability (i.e. a delay greater than
the threshold) within the class indicated in the first column. The
average delay is reported in the last column. The capacity of the
links is assumed 25 times the bandwidth required by each connection.
The bimodal behavior of the distribution in Table III confirms that a
connection is either good or bad. Furthermore, the delay threshold
with no packet dropping is within the bound given in Table II.
4. References
[1] K. Nichols, V. Jacobson, L. Zhang, ``A Two-bit Differentiated
Services Architecture for the Internet'', IETF Internet Draft, Nov,
1997.
[2] R. Braden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S. Jamin, ``Resource
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)-Version 1 Functional Specification''IETF
Request For Comments 2205, Sep. 1997.
[3] P.P White, ``RSVP and Integrated Services in the Internet: A
Tutorial'', IEEE Communication Magazine, vol. 35, no. 5, May
1997,pag. 100.
[4] F. Borgonovo and L. Fratta, `` Deflection Networks: Architectures
for Metropolitan and Wide Area Networks'', Computer Networks and ISDN
Systems, Vol. 24, No. 2, April 1992, pp.171-183.
[5] A. E. Eckberg, "The single server queue with periodic arrival
process and deterministic service time", IEEE Trans. on Comm., Vol.
COM-27, pp. 556-562, 1979.
[6] G. Ramamurthy, B. Sengupta, "Delay analysis of the packet voice
multiplexer by the SD_i/D/1 queue", IEEE Trans. on Comm., Vol. COM-
39, no. 7, July 1991.
Borgonovo Expires:02/99 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft_borgonovo_qos_ds_00.txt> 29 July 1998
5. Authors' Addresses
Flaminio Borgonovo
Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione
Politecnico di Milano
P.zza L. da Vinci 32,
20133 MILANO, Italy
Email: borgonov@elet.polimi.it
Fax: +39 02 2399 3413
http://www.elet.polimi.it/people/borgonov/
Luigi Fratta
Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione
Politecnico di Milano
P.zza L. da Vinci 32,
20133 MILANO, Italy
Email: fratta@elet.polimi.it
Fax: +39 02 2399 3413
http://www.elet.polimi.it/people/fratta/
Antonio Capone
Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione
Politecnico di Milano
P.zza L. da Vinci 32,
20133 MILANO, Italy
Email: capone@elet.polimi.it
Fax: +39 02 2399 3413
http://www.elet.polimi.it/people/capone/
Mario Marchese
Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione
Politecnico di Milano
P.zza L. da Vinci 32,
20133 MILANO, Italy
Email: mmarches@elet.polimi.it
Fax: +39 02 2399 3413
Chiara Petrioli
Dipartimento di Elettronica e Informazione
Politecnico di Milano
P.zza L. da Vinci 32,
20133 MILANO, Italy
Email: chiara@cerbero.elet.polimi.it
Fax: +39 02 2399 3413
