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
Quality of Service CSC/ECE 573, Section 001 Fall, 2012 Outline 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 Performance and QoS Performance – what we want out of our networks – – QoS – – Defined by metrics Usually “more the better” flavor 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 Challenges for the Internet Performance challenges – – – – QoS challenges – – – Delay, bandwidth, loss are problems Loss recovery is based on retransmission Routing is based on bandwidth conservation Traffic load on network is variable 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 QoS Elements QoS descriptor – Traffic descriptor (traffic profile) – describes behavior of user's traffic at the entrance of the network Conformance test – describes QoS requested by user 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 Traffic 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 Shaper shapes output traffic to specified profile (by buffering) at source, just before entrance to the network also, at switches/routers inside the network Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 6 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 LBAP Example Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 8 Leaky/Token Bucket Regulators Incoming Packets • Allows bursts • If no token when packet arrives – policer: drop packet – shaper: buffer packet • What does it enforce? Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 9 Other Required/Desired Functions Resource reservation – – Admission control – – – link bandwidth buffer space at switching nodes 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 Network 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 Router 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 Protection – How to Achieve? Main tradeoff: aggregation vs. service differentiation Complete aggregation: all flows share a single queue – No aggregation: each flow assigned its own queue – – no guarantees == best-effort 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 Protection (cont'd) Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 14 Buffer Sharing Strategies Given: N flows and B buffers – – Complete partitioning: each flow has access to single buffer pool of size B/N – – objective: to divide the B buffers among the N queues tradeoff: protection vs. probability of packet loss 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 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 Packet Dropping for Best-Effort Traffic Overloaded network – – Packet-drop strategy: which packet to drop upon overload? – losses from best-effort flows are inevitable losses from guaranteed-service applications should be rare 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 Random 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 RED Routers: Basic Operation Router maintains... – – If average queue length > threshold: drop incoming packet with probability p – an exponential average of queue length a threshold 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 Probability of dropping RED Gateways (cont'd) Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 20 Link 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 rate maximum delay guarantee maximum delay jitter guarantee Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 21 Scheduling: Fundamental Choices Work-conserving or non-work-conserving discipline 2. Number of priority levels 3. Service order within level 1. Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 22 Work-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 Logical View of Scheduler Subsystem Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 24 FIFO (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 FIFO Example Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 26 Static (Strict) Priority 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 Static Priority Example Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 28 Round-Robin Scheduling During each round of service... – – Benefits – – consider each queue in a predefined order transmit (serve) one packet from each non-empty queue simple little scheduling state Problems – can be unfair when packet size is variable Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 29 Round-Robin Example Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 30 Round-Robin Example With variable length packets… Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 31 Weighted 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 Weighted Round-Robin Example Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 33 Generalized Processor Scheduling Ideal algorithm Operation: bit-by-bit (possibly weighted) RoundRobin (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 Weighted 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 Earliest Deadline First At each router... – – – Benefits – – – – 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 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 Earliest Deadline First (cont'd) Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 37 Hierarchical 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 Hierarchical Schedulers (cont'd) Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 39 Hierarchical Schedulers (cont'd) Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 40 QoS Guarantees Deterministic (100%) guarantees – – – Statistical (< 100%) guarantees – – – based on peak traffic rate simple, predictable, conservative Guaranteed Service (RFC 2212) 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 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 RSVP (cont’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 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 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 Another Approach: Carpool Lanes! One lane reserved for exclusive use of HighOccupancy 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 DiffServ Goals 1. Ease of use and generality – 2. but, limited flexibility Simple processing in core routers – push complexity to network edge Access Networ k Access Networ k R1 R3 Core Network R2 Access Networ k Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 R4 Access Networ k 47 Architecture Neither… – – best-effort (connectionless) model guaranteed service (connection-oriented) model In-between: service guarantees for aggregations of flows – implemented in the core network only Architecture… IntServ DiffServ Focus is on… Users, applications Network owners / administrators Standardizes… End-to-end service Per-hop service (behavior) Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 48 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 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 Traffic 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 Border Router Input Interface Profile Meters Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 52 Issues Signaling for DiffServ: RSVP?? SNMP?? Greatest burden of flow matching and shaping will be at access routers – State maintained for aggregations of flows, not individual flows – – the speeds and buffering required should be less than those required deeper in the network 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 IP Address Lookup Every forwarding engine needs to perform rule matching Remember: structure of rule: <CIDR Prefix> <Next-hop i/f> Requirement: match longest prefix – Requirement: prefix can be any length – In reality: rarely see prefix of prefix 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 Forwarding Table Size Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 http://www.routeviews.org 55 Reducing Lookup Time Number of prefixes N can be very large – – Even when the number of interfaces is fairly small Maximum length W of prefix is fixed 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* Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 56 Trie 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 Trie as FIB Data Structure Left = ‘()’ Right = ‘1’ Prefix Label Prefix P1 0 P2 00001 P3 001 P4 1 P5 1000 P6 1001 P7 1010 P8 1011 P9 111 k-bit prefix matches at level k How to: Lookup? Insert? Delete? Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 58 Storing Lookup Information Prefix Label Prefix P1 P1 0 P2 00001 P3 001 P4 1 P5 1000 P6 1001 P7 1010 P8 1011 P9 111 Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 P2 P3 P9 P5 P6 P7 P8 P2 59 Path Compression Prefix Label Prefix 0* P1 0 P2 00001 P3 001 P4 1 P5 1000 P6 1001 P7 1010 P8 1011 P9 111 00001* 001* Eliminate all but “decision” nodes Requires labeling surviving nodes Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 60 More Sophisticated Tries Multibit tries – – 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 than two way branch More than one bit coded at each level More fanout, less depth Reduces constant lookup complexity Hardware – RAM, TCAM Tuple matching – hierarchical tries Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 61 Fixed-stride Multibit Trie Prefix Label Prefix P1 0 P2 00001 P3 001 P4 1 P5 1000 P6 1001 P7 1010 P8 1011 P9 111 Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 62 MPLS In QoS, we run up against the problem of introducing complexity inside network Routers have to forward each packet – Virtual circuits can help – – Serve to reduce router load, as well as QoS can be related to circuit/channel Flows/circuits can be labeled – Can only do so much Now switch labels, not packets Conceptual predecessors – cut-through switching, IP switching, tag switching, … Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 63 Conventional 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 Packet headers contain many fields for varying purposes – independently of any choices made for other packets 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 Forwarding 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 Limitations of IP Forwarding For forwarding purposes – – Current forwarding scheme has limitations – – different packets mapped to same FEC are indistinguishable all packets in the same FEC from the same router must follow the same path 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 Traffic Engineering “Fish Network” – example Destination based routing cannot engineer traffic R2 R1 R3 Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 67 Connection-Oriented Architectures Ex.: ATM, Frame Relay, X.25 A logical connection must be set up before data is exchanged – A flow is the sequence of datagrams exchanged over a TCP or UDP connection – the state of the connection is maintained at each network switch 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 What is “Label Substitution” ? One of the many ways of getting from A to B: • 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”. Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 69 Label Substitution 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 TURN RIGHT USE LANE#2 LANE#1 LANE#2 Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 70 Connection Oriented Forwarding A’s FIB C’s FIB E’s FIB 6 Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2011 6 3 3 11 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” 71 MPLS Networks A logical connection is established between two points in a pure datagram network – MPLS adds an additional header, containing a label – connection carries normal datagram traffic 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 Where it Fits Below the network layer – not an end-to-end protocol IPv4 IPv6 IPX Appletalk Network Layer MPLS ATM Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 Frame Relay Ethernet PPP FDDI… Link Layer 73 MPLS Labels and Encapsulation Insert in each packet a new header ("shim header") Link Layer Header MPLS “Shim” Header IP Header Payload…. • 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 Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 74 The 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 Forwarding Table Incoming Label Outgoing Interface Next Hop Address 6 eth0 192.0.168.100 12 … … … … … … Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 Outgoin Other g Label Requirements 75 Basic 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 -- 6 ------ -- 12 ------ Router incoming label Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 outgoing label 76 MPLS 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 Label-Switched Paths Ra Rd Rb Rc Rf Re Can start and terminate in the middle of the network Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 78 Notes Labels are an optimization – Assignment of a packet to an FEC is done only once, as the packet enters the MPLS network – packets can be routed even if labels aren't set up at all, or are set up on just parts of the path 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 Standardizing 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 Some Benefits / Applications of MPLS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Traffic engineering Route pinning Virtual circuit emulation Protection and fast rerouting Hierarchical forwarding Also: faster packet processing at routers (= greater throughput) Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 81 GMPLS 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 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 IP ATM SONET/SDH DWDM – – Transport/Protection Capacity Problems: – Carry applications and services Traffic Engineering 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 Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 83 Why GMPLS? (Cont.) Optical Architectures UNI UNI Overlay Model Peer Model A control protocol support both overlay model and peer model will bring big flexibility – The selection of architecture can be based on business decision Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 84 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 GMPLS 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 Control 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) – Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) – SONET/SDH ADM/Digital Crossconnects All Optical ADM or Optical Crossconnects (OXC) Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) LSPs of different interfaces can be nested inside another PSC TDMC LSC FSC TDMC LSC Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 87 Challenges 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 Suggested label Problem: it takes time for the optical switch to program switch – Solution: – Long setup time Each LSR selects a label (Suggested Label) and signals this label to downstream LSR, and start program its switch. reduce LSP setup overhead No suggested label Request Map Label = l1 Request Map Label = l2 Program Switch l1 X l2 Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 with suggested label Program Switch l1 X l2 Suggested Label = l1 Suggested Label = l2 Reserved Label = l4 Reserved Label = l3 Make sure the programming request has completed 89 Bi-Directional LSP setup Problem: How to set up bi-directional LSP? Solution: – Set up 2 uni-directional LSP – Signaling overhead End points coordination One single message exchange for one bi-directional LSP Upstream Label. Suggested Label = l1 Upstream Label = la Reserved Label = l4 Copyright Rudra Dutta, NCSU, Fall, 2012 Suggested Label = l2 Upstream Label = lb l4 l3 la lb Reserved Label = l3 90 Link 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 GMPLS 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