An Integrated, Distributed Traffic Control Strategy for Future Internet

1. An Integrated, Distributed Traffic Control Strategy for Future Internet H. Che W. Su & C. Lagoa X. ke, C. Liu, & Y. Cui UTA Penn State Tsinghua

2. Outline • Problems • Strategy • Conclusions

3. Problems Limitations of the existing distributed traffic control solutions: • Solutions at different layers are developed independent of one another. As a result, they may adversely interact with one another, attempting to achieve conflicting design objectives [1][2] • They are largely empirical by design, without provable properties, such as stability and optimality • The existing theoretical results have limited scope (e.g., single-domain, single CoS, allowing limited number of design objectives). They cannot be used to guide the protocol development to enable rich service quality features, including Quality-of-Service (QoS), Traffic-Engineering (TE), and Fast-Failure-Recovery (FFR) Apparently, “patching” the Internet with add-on traffic control Features at different layers independently is problematic The aim of this work: to develop a strategy for integrated, multilayer protocol development to enable rich service quality features at global scale, including QoS, TE, and FFR [1] L. Qiu, Y. R. Yang, Y. Zhang, and S. Shenker, ``On Selfish Routing in Internet-Like Environments,“ ACM SIGCOMM'2003, Aug. 2003. [2] Y. Liu, H. Zhang, W. Gong, D. Towsley, ``On the Interaction Between Overlay Routing and Underlying Routing," IEEE INFOCOM'05

4. An Integrated Strategy Outline: • A theoretical foundation • An integrated control structure

5. Theoretical Foundation Idea: to make use of a distributed, QoS-aware, multipath forwarding paradigm This forwarding paradigm is enabled by two large families of optimal, distributed controllers (allowing unlimited number of design objectives, multipath, and multi-CoS): • end-to-end: require single-bit binary feedback, allowing pure end-to-end control at transport layer • edge-to-edge: allow multi-domain edge-to-edge “per-hop” control at IP layer • An Internet access point performs single-hop control to enable CoS features for CoS-based flow aggregates • A domain edge nodes performs CoS-agnostic control to enable TE and FFR features for destination-based flow aggregates: inter-domain per-hop control and intra-domain edge-to-edge control (with or without involvement of core nodes for feedback control) QoS-aware end-to-end control CoS-aware access control CoS-agnotic intra-domain control CoS-agnotic inter-domain control

6. Theoretical Foundation Why the two families of controllers help: • They make it possible to develop distributed traffic control protocols based on THEORY to enable rich QoS, TE, and FFR features at global scale • They are highly scalable and can deal with tussles and network diversities

7. Integrated Control Structure Outline: • IP layer and overlay integration • IP layer and transport layer integration

8. Integrated Control Structure IP layer and overlay integration Goal: to minimize adverse interactions between overlay traffic control and IP layer traffic control Our Solution: let a network-based overlay service network involves all the IP domain edge nodes under its coverage so that our multi-domain control mechanism can be simultaneously applied to both the IP layer and overlay in an integrated fashion

9. Integrated Control Structure IP layer and transport layer integration: Goals: • To minimize adverse interactions between IP rate adaptation for TE and transport layer adaptation • To minimize the effect of IP rate adaptation for TE on transport layer rate guaranteed flows Solution: • Implementing three CoSs at IP layer: BE, AF with a target rate, and an upper bounded rate service • All the adaptive end-to-end flows (e.g., TCP) are mapped to the upper bounded rate service without call admission control • All the rate guaranteed end-to-end flows are mapped to the AF CoS with call admission control • All the non-adaptive BE end-to-end flows (e.g., BE UDP) are mapped to the BE CoS

10. Conclusions Developed a strategy for traffic control protocol development at multiple layers, possessing the following expected features: • They are integrated, achieving non-conflicting design objectives • they provide rich service quality features, including QoS, TE, and FFR • They can deal with network diversities and tussles • They enjoy provable properties such as scalability, stability, and optimality Caveat: The above expected features are derived from a theoretical Framework based on a fluid-flow model. It is a work-in-progress. How closely the protocols developed based on this strategy will achieve the above expected features is subject to future investigation