* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Network-Coding Multicast Networks With QoS Guarantees
Deep packet inspection wikipedia , lookup
IEEE 802.1aq wikipedia , lookup
Piggybacking (Internet access) wikipedia , lookup
Distributed firewall wikipedia , lookup
Cracking of wireless networks wikipedia , lookup
Recursive InterNetwork Architecture (RINA) wikipedia , lookup
Computer network wikipedia , lookup
Zero-configuration networking wikipedia , lookup
Network tap wikipedia , lookup
Routing in delay-tolerant networking wikipedia , lookup
Peer-to-peer wikipedia , lookup
Network-Coding Multicast Networks With QoS Guarantees Yuanzhe Xuan and Chin-Tau Lea, Senior Member, IEEE IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, VOL. 19, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2011 Speaker: Lin-You Wu Outline I. INTRODUCTION II. OPTIMAL ROUTING FORMULATION III. SOLVING THE OPTIMAL ROUTING PROBLEM IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS V. CONCLUSION I. Introduction • It is well known that without admission control, network congestion is bound to occur. • However, to implement admission control is difficult in IP-based networks, which are constructed out of the end-to-end principle. • Even if routers can perform admission control internally, the path computation and the state updating activities required for setting up and tearing down each flow will overwhelm the network. • A new QoS architecture, called a nonblocking network, has been proposed recently, and it requires no internal admission control and can still offer hard QoS guarantees. • In this architecture, as long as each edge node admits not more than a specified amount of traffic, the network will never experience link congestion. • For multicast networks, the main problem with this approach is low throughput. • Multicast architectures with hard QoS intentions can be divided into two types. • One performs multicast at the network layer [Fig. 1(a)], and multicast is done by the routers (IP or MPLS type). • The other, like a content distribution network (CDN), performs multicast at the application layer [Fig. 1(b)], and multicast is done by the servers. • Data transmission in both architectures consists of two parts: • Transmission in the backbone network – covers a long distance – bandwidth is more expensive • Transmission between a client and its local server – handle by LANs – bandwidth is relatively ample • Local data transmissions can also be tackled with the P2P technology as in a hybrid P2P network. • The focus of this paper will be on the QoS guarantees in the backbone network. • It is well known that without admission control, congestion inside a network is bound to occur, but to implement admission control in a highspeed IP-based network is difficult. • One reason is that IP-based networks are constructed out of the end-to-end principle and major signaling protocols. – meaning that a signaling message’s semantics can only be interpreted by the signaling servers located at the edge of the network [see Fig. 1(a)]. • Another reason is that even if every node understands the semantics of a signaling message, as it is the case in Fig. 1(b) • where each node is a server, the activities of checking bandwidth availability and setting up the paths for each flow can overwhelm the network. • A new QoS architecture has been proposed recently that requires no admission control inside the network and can still guarantee the congestion-free property. • It applies to both shortest-path-routing (IP-like) and explicit-routing (MPLS-like) networks. • The most salient property of the network is the following: • As long as the traffic of the ingress and egress directions admitted by edge node I is less than ai and bi respectively, the network will be congestion-free and none of its links will experience overflow. • Suppose that the network in Fig. 1(a) is a nonblocking network with ai= bi =900 Mb/s for all edge routers. • Suppose also that each edge router connects to three video servers, and each server is allocated 300 Mb/s (even allocations are not a requirement). • Routing in a conventional network is based on the assumption that the traffic matrix T = {tij} is given, where tij represents the traffic rate from edge node I to edge node J . • However, ai and bi are given in a nonblocking network (this pattern is called a hose-model pattern.) • For a unicast network, this means that only the row and column sums of T are known (ai =Σj tij and bi= Σj tji) ,but not its tij. • For a multicast network, the relationship between the traffic matrix T and(ai, bi) is more complicated (see Section II-A). • Finding an efficient routing algorithm for a nonblocking network is not a simple task because there are infinite traffic matrices that can satisfy the constraint (ai, bi) , and a feasible routing scheme must guarantee the congestionfree property for all of them. • The task becomes even harder if the network needs to support multicast traffic. • As far as a nonblocking network is concerned, the most significant benefit of network coding is that it allows us to treat a multicast connection with q destinations as q unicast connections in formulating the flow optimization problem. • we are able to prove two important results in this paper. Both results apply to explicit-routing and shortest-path routing networks. 1.The optimal paths between a source–destination pair in a nonblocking unicast network are also the optimal paths for the pair in a nonblocking multicast network with network coding. 2.An immediate consequence of the result of 1) is that a nonblocking multicast network can admit the same amount of traffic as in a nonblocking unicast network. II. OPTIMAL ROUTING FORMULATION • The formulation of the optimal routing problem of a nonblocking multicast network with network coding is given in this section. • The discussion applies to both explicit routing (MPLS-like) and shortest-path routing (IP-like) networks. A. Traffic Unevenness • A network can be described as a directed G(V,E) where V is the set of vertices and E is the set of links.