Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Piggybacking (Internet access) wikipedia , lookup
Computer network wikipedia , lookup
Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) wikipedia , lookup
Distributed firewall wikipedia , lookup
Deep packet inspection wikipedia , lookup
Cracking of wireless networks wikipedia , lookup
Zero-configuration networking wikipedia , lookup
Airborne Networking wikipedia , lookup
JANET QoS Development Project: IP Premium and LBE Trials across JANET Victor Olifer UKERNA Network Development Project Manager 8 June 2005 TNC2005 Agenda • • • • • • JANET QoS Project history Test plan Test results Phase 1 recommendations Phase 2 objectives and structure QoS models to be explored 8 June 2005 TNC2005 QoS on JANET • JANET is a multi-domain, hierarchical network – Backbone (SuperJANET) – Regional Networks (RBCs, RNOs) – Site Networks (LEAs, Universities, Colleges, Schools etc) • Increasing volume of traffic leads to an increased probability of congestion – This could impact real-time services such as VoIP, Videoconferencing and Content Delivery over JANET • The JANET QoS Development Project was established to address these challenges 8 June 2005 TNC2005 JANET QoS Development Project • Work in the QoS area commenced in 2001, with the formation of the QoS Think Tank – QoS Think Tank Report produced (stress on DiffServ) • JANET QoS Development Project commenced in 2002 – Define the prototype framework and QoS services – Call for project partners – Configure backbone and partner networks with QoS (2003) – Conduct testing on the production network with real applications (the first half of 2004) 8 June 2005 TNC2005 Partners and QoS classes SSDN All ingress interfaces of BARs have 5% limit for IP Premium (DSCP 46) Lancaster IP Premium (VC, VoIP) Manches ter UKERNA dev.net Imperial Swansea 8 June 2005 TNC2005 Soton LBE (Elastic bulky GRID) Test Highlights • Aim of testing – To compare the behaviour of applications when they are served as BE and non-BE (Premium or LBE) • Comparison criteria – Subjective (observed quality of VC and VoIP sessions during periods of congestion) – Objective (RTT, jitter and loss measured by the monitoring infrastructure deployed) 8 June 2005 TNC2005 Monitoring infrastructure Manchester SAA probe/responder Applicati on / Site Edge Router SAA probe/responder Collection Agent SAA-probe Imperial College SAAresponder SAA probe/responder Key Probes and responses between SAA probes and responders UKERNA Application / Site Edge Router Applicatio n / Site Edge Router Southampton SAAresponder Results from SAA probes going to SQL database 8 June 2005 Applicatio n / Site Edge Router Reading Swansea SQL Databa se Lancaster Application / Site Edge Router TNC2005 SAAresponder Applicatio n / Site Edge Router An example of a test scheme Load1 Loaddestination Load2 Interface to be congested SAAresponder Router under test SAA-probe (measures reflected traffic) 23455 IPERF-client IPERF-server Applicationgenerator CISCO IP PHONE 7940 1 2 ABC 3 messages 5 JKL directories i DEF services 4 GHI settings 6 MNO 7 8 9 PQRS TUV WXYZ * 0 # OPER CISCO IP PHONE 7940 QoS MIB objects Hub/switch/router 1 2 ABC 3 messages 5 JKL directories i DEF services 4 GHI settings 6 MNO 7 8 9 PQRS TUV WXYZ * 0 # OPER Applicationreceiver (every 1 min) Database 8 June 2005 Hub/switch/router TNC2005 Test Results • In most cases both VC and VoIP traffic benefited from IP Premium service • LBE unicast traffic received allocated percent of bandwidth during BE bursts • Observed peculiarities: – POS OC3 interfaces of Cisco 6500: Premium traffic had increased delays and loss during BE congestion – LBE + BE multicast traffic (Access GRID) behaviour was unpredictable – LBE behaved like something better than BE, audio and video sessions failed 8 June 2005 TNC2005 IP Premium UKERNA – Manchester test, 16th March 2004 Preliminary trial of RUDE without VC session 8 June 2005 VC is served as BE, VoIP as EF, VC got frozen TNC2005 VC is served as EF, VoIP as EF, no degradation of both. LBE Southampton – Imperial test, 9th March 2004 BE traffic LBE traffic 8 June 2005 TNC2005 Explored window of QoS benefits Average transmission delay Almost regular traffic Overpovisioned area Very bursty traffic Voice & video tolerance Fixed delay (signal propagation etc) Utilisation 10%-20% 50% 8 June 2005 TNC2005 80%-90% 100% JANET QoS Development Project Phase 2 • Recommendations of Phase 1 participants: – – – – QoS benefits were noticeable, it works! Establish Phase 2 Define production QoS Service Model for JANET Conduct large scale piloting activities • Some technical areas need to be further investigated • Guidance documentation requirements • We should keep pace with GEANT2 8 June 2005 TNC2005 JANET QoS Development Project Phase 2 (2005- 2007) QoS Architecture Group Interworking with other technologies: IPv6, Multicast, Firewalls 8 June 2005 Low Bandwidth Connections: new partners among FE Policy & Management TNC2005 Monitoring and Management Applications requirements Types of DiffServ models, to be explored in Phase 2 Factors: – Destination awareness – Static vs. dynamic reservations – Trust relationships between domains 8 June 2005 TNC2005 Static destination-unaware DifferServ model No reservation for flows! Each domain is responsible for proper processing of QoS classes (aggregates) Domain G ISP Domain J (SuperJANET, National Backbone (GEANT, Pan-European Backbone Network) Network) Domain B (Regional R2 Network) R1 Domain A (Campus Network) User A1 8 June 2005 - Neighbouring domains conclude SLA to Domain E (Regional process traffic classes in similar manner Network) and according common marking, so called DSCP values (e.g. 46 for Premium) Domain C - Only(Campus edge routers of domain do network) admission control and traffic policing: to protect domain formUser excess of C1 privileged traffic TNC2005 Domain F (Campus Network) User F1 Pros and cons of static destinationunaware DiffServ model • • • • Scalability – excellent! Flexibility – excellent! Maintainability - excellent! Guarantees – poor – Clash of flows in some output interface is allowed (flows’ routes are not under control) – Reasonable hierarchical design of a network decreases the clash probability 8 June 2005 TNC2005 Applications of static DiffServ model • A few well-known sources of IP Premium traffic (e.g. VC studios) which are allowed to communicate only with each other • Restriction of a number of egress flows from origin domain at application level: – E.g. by VoIP gatekeepers 8 June 2005 TNC2005 Dynamic destination-aware DiffServ with Bandwidth Brokering BA-G BA-J Domain G ISP Domain J (GEANT, Pan-European Backbone (SuperJANET, National Backbone Network) Network) -Admission control -- Traffic policing BA-B Domain B (Regional Network) R2 1. Check of total throughput BA-E Domain E (Regional Network) -Admission control -- Traffic policing 2. Configure admission control to pass a flow routers BA-A •Relieve BA-C from counting and storing state information Domain A C •BandwidthDomain Brokers (BBs) do this job for routers (Campus Network) (Campus network) •Hybrid of IntServ and pure DiffServ Domain F (Campus Network) -Admission control -- Traffic policing •Very new – GEANT2 is going to deploy it in next 4 years 8 June 2005 •Needs re-configuring ofTNC2005 policers for every flow – not scalable for high-level domains The same + trust relationships between domains BA-G BA-J Domain G ISP Domain J (SuperJANET, National Backbone (GEANT, Pan-European Backbone Network) Network) BA-B BA-E Domain B (Regional Domain E Network) (Regional Network) BA-C BA-A Domain A •Reconfiguring Domain C of policers and admission control tools happen Domain F only in(Campus originnetwork) domain – good scalability (Campus Network) (Campus Network) •Additional risk of misconfiguring devices within low-level domains - Admission control - Traffic policing 8 June 2005 TNC2005 Applications of dynamic destinationaware DiffServ model • Effective for long-lived flows, e.g. VC • Non-effective for short-lived flows, e.g. VoIP conversations 8 June 2005 TNC2005 A combination of static and dynamic DiffServ models is possible… • However it needs different DSCP for marking static and dynamic flows 8 June 2005 TNC2005 Further Information: JANET QoS Development www.ja.net/development/qos Project Manager: Victor Olifer, [email protected] Any questions? 8 June 2005 TNC2005