* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download QoS Protocols & Architectures
SIP extensions for the IP Multimedia Subsystem wikipedia , lookup
Piggybacking (Internet access) wikipedia , lookup
IEEE 802.1aq wikipedia , lookup
Wake-on-LAN wikipedia , lookup
Distributed firewall wikipedia , lookup
Computer network wikipedia , lookup
List of wireless community networks by region wikipedia , lookup
Cracking of wireless networks wikipedia , lookup
Network tap wikipedia , lookup
Airborne Networking wikipedia , lookup
Internet protocol suite wikipedia , lookup
Asynchronous Transfer Mode wikipedia , lookup
Zero-configuration networking wikipedia , lookup
Deep packet inspection wikipedia , lookup
UniPro protocol stack wikipedia , lookup
Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) wikipedia , lookup
QoS Protocols & Architectures by Harizakis Costas Presentation Flow QoS defined QoS protocols : – RSVP, DiffServ, MPLS, SBM QoS architectures QoS and multicast environments Protocol comparison … … conclusions ! IP-based Networks - Internet Today 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.) Delivery delays cause problems to real-time applications 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 Vary according to Service Level Agreement (SLA) Service Level Agreements (SLA) QUALITY OF SERVICE PARAMETERS Service Level Application Priority Mapping 1 Non-critical data Similar to Internet today No minimum information rate guaranteed Best-effort delivery Unmanaged performance 2 Mission-critical data VPN outsourcing, ecommerce Similar to ATM VBR Low loss rate Controlled delay and delay variation 3 Real time applications Video streaming, voice, videoconferencing Low loss rate Low delay and delay variation QoS Protocol Classification QoS can be achieved by : – – Resource reservation (integrated services) Prioritization (differentiated services) QoS can be applied : – – Per flow (individual, uni-directional streams) Per aggregate (two or more flows having something in common) QoS Protocols ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Differentiated Services (DiffServ) Multi Protocol Labeling Switching (MPLS) Subnet Bandwidth Management (SBM) RSVP - Resource Reservation Attributes – – – The most complex of all QoS technologies Closest thing to circuit emulation on IP networks The biggest departure from “best-effort” IP service Provides the highest level of QoS in terms of : – – – Service guarantees Granularity of resource allocation Detail of feedback to QoS-enabled applications RSVP - Integrated Services Enables integrated services (IntServ) IntServ types – – Guaranteed : as close as possible to a dedicated virtual circuit Controlled Load : equivalent to best-effort service under unloaded conditions RSVP - Implementation f ic n Traf ificatio c Sp e H PAT Host A Qo S and Lev el F ilt er Sp eci f i ca tion RE SV Host B RSVP - Implementation Sender – PATH message containing traffic specification (bitrate, peak rate etc.) Receiver – RECV message containing 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 Reservations are “soft” – It is a network (control) protocol – Periodic refresh is necessary Works in parallel to TCP and UDP APIs are required to specify flow requirements Reservations are receiver-based Has to maintain a state for each flow Multicast reservations – Merged at replication points, difficult to understood algorithms have to be used though 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 DiffServ - Traffic Classes Two traffic classes are available : – Expeditied Forwarding (EF) - 1 codepoint – Minimizes delay and jitter Provides the highest QoS Traffic that exceeds the traffic profile is discarded Assured Forwarding (AF) - 12 codepoints 4 classes, 3 drop-precedences within each class Traffic that exceeds the traffic profile is not delivered with such high probability DiffServ - Implementation Classifier Maps DSCPs to PHBs Conditioner Marker Maintains DSCP mappings and associations with local policies Meter Accumulates statistics Applies the defined PHB (scheduling) 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 4 5 DSCP Class Selector Differenciated Services Codepoint (DSCP) 6 7 0 1 2 CU Precedence Unused RFC 1122 3 4 5 6 Type of Service RFC 1349 IP Type of Service (TOS) 7 MBZ Must Be Zero DiffServ - Conclusions Traffic classes are equivalent to IP precedence service descriptors – DiffServ unaware routers pass-through DiffServ traffic Easy to be implemented / integrated even into the network core. Proper classification can lead to efficient resource allocation and though improved QoS MPLS - Label Switching 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 8 Label Value Exp. S TTL 20-bits : Label value used for lookup 3-bits : Reserved 8-bits : Time-To-Live 1-bit : Bottom of Label Stack MPLS - Conclusions Labels can be “stacked” – Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) – – – 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 Implication : – Define a policy management that distributes labels SBM - Subnet Bandwidth Management A top-to-bottom QoS approach Applies to the Data Link Layer (OSI layer 2) Makes LAN topologies (e.g. Ethernet) QoSenabled Fundamental requirement – All traffic must pass through at least one SBMenabled switch SBM - Implementation SBM Modules – Bandwidth Allocator (BA) – Hosted on switches Performs admission control Requestor Module (RM) 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 Top-to-Bottom QoS QoS Architectures Host A Host B Application Application Presentation Presentation Session Session Transport Transport RSVP Netw ork Netw ork DiffServ Data Link Data Link SBM Physical Physical SBM RSVP DiffServ and MPLS End-to-End QoS RSVP QoS-enabled Application QoS API Protocol Comparison QoS most Net App Description x Provisioned resources end-to-end (leased lines) x x RSVP Guaranteed (provides feedback to application) x x RSVP Controlled Load (provides feedback to application) x least MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) x x DiffServ applied at network ingress appropriate to RSVP service level for that flow x x DiffServ or SBM applied on per-flow basis by source application x DiffServ applied at network core ingress x Fair queuing applied by network elements (e.g. WFQ, RED) Best effort service Multicast Environments RSVP – DiffServ – Its relative simplicity makes it a better fit for multicast support MPLS – Heterogeneous receivership makes reservation merging a difficult task Work is underway, no standards have emerged yet SBM – Explicit support for multicast Conclusions Complexity at the edges – simple network core – – Limit RSVP’s use on the backbone Instead use the DiffServ DiffServ is a perfect complement for RSVP ToDo : – – Performance attributes for each class still missing Interworking solution for mapping IP CoS to ATM QoS References http://www.nortelnetworks.com/solutions/collateral/qos_wp.pdf http://www.qosforum.com/white-papers/qosprot_v3.pdf http://www.qosforum.com/white-papers/Need_for_QoS-v4.pdf